n . 4. .. _. . r
.3... .43.. .AL .
.r. .3 . 1.4%.

. A 1 a)...

 
 

 

 

 

 

l

u'Jmu.‘

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THESIS
.3)

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

An Assessment of Michigan's Stream and River
Stewardship Citizen Action Organizations:
Their Status and Perceived Organizational

and Technical Needs

presented‘by

Melissa Lynne Middleton

has been accepted towards fulfillment
oftherequnenunnsfor

Master of Science degree inFish. & Wildl.

 

 

Major professor

Date 517[47

07639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

ffi-qfi

-‘ 4‘ 4

 

 

1' TE WERSITY Ll RAR

iiiiiiiiiiii

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
. University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO A ID FINES mum on or before date duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

i

fiCfl

_i:iL_J
-

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU I. An Affirmative Midi/Equal Opportunity intuition
Wyn-9.1

 

 

AN ASSESSMENT OF MICHIGAN’S STREAM AND RIVER STEWARDSHIP
CITIZEN ACTION ORGANIZATIONS: THEIR STATUS
AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL AND TECHNICAL NEEDS
By

Melissa Lynne Middleton

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

1 997

ABSTRACT
AN ASSESSMENT OF MICHIGAN’S STREAM AND RIVER STEWARDSHIP
CITIZEN ACTION ORGANIZATIONS: THEIR STATUS
AND PERCEIVED ORGANIZATIONAL AND TECHNICAL NEEDS
By

Melissa Lynne Middleton

In Michigan, many not-for-profit, non-govemmental organizations implement
programs to conserve and protect Michigan’s rivers and streams. Little information has
been gathered on these organizations’ characteristics, activities, and programming needs.
This research and outreach project assessed the status and needs of these organizations
and provided a conference and resource guide to meet identified needs. A mail survey
was used to assess the characteristics, activities, perceived needs, and programming
preferences of the study population. Responses were received from 120 organizations
(78.4%). Organizations reported involvement in watershed education activities,
influencing decision makers, clean-ups, monitoring, and resource assessments.
Governmental agencies and other non-profit organizations were reported as common
sources of non-material non-financial assistance. Perceived needs included taking a
watershed approach, educationing the general public, consistent fimding, improved
networking, and resource materials. Preferred strategies to meet needs included
improved coordination with regulatory agencies, data collection/ standardization

procedures, publications and a central office to serve as a clearinghouse.

Copyright by
Melissa Lynne Middleton
1 997

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Michigan State University All-University Outreach Program provided funding for
this project. Dr. Shari Dann provided guidance and support throughout the project as my
major professor. I would like to acknowledge Dr. Thomas Burton, of the Zoology and
Fisheries and Wildlife Departments, and Dr. Frank Fear, of the Resource Development
Department for serving on my committee. Drs. Thomas Coon and Glenn Dudderar of the
Department of Fisheries and Wildlife provided guidance at various phases of this project.
Many organizations assisted with the outreach component of this project including the
Michigan Departments of Natural Resources and Environmental Quality, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, Michigan Lakes and Streams Association, Saginaw Bay
Watershed Initiative, Tipp of the Mt Watershed Council, Clinton River Watershed
Council, West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Huron River Watershed Council,
Northwest Michigan Resource Conservation and Development Council, Michigan State
University Institute for Water Research, Michigan State University Agriculture and
Natural Resources Week Program, and Michigan State University Extension.

I wish to thank my parents, Alan and Tallara Mddleton, for their support and
guidance which have made my accomplishments possible. Finally, I am most gratefiil for

the ceaseless support, patience, and encouragement of my life’s mate Wayne Morse.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... xiii
INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1
Problem Statement .................................................................................................. 2
Project Goals and Objectives .................................................................................. 3
CHAPTER 1
BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 5
The Importance of Public Involvement .................................................................... 5
Understanding the Influences on Individuals’ Action-taking Behavior ..................... 8
Individuals’ Action-taking within a Social System .................................................. 13
Organizations as Avenues for Individual Actions ................................................... 16
Actions Taken by Stream and River Stewardship Citizen Action Organizations ...... 18
A Systems Approach to Understanding Stream and River Stewardship Citizen
Action Organizations ......................................................................................... 19
CHAPTER 2
METHODS .................................................................................................................. 23
Target Population for the Project ...................................................................... 23
Outreach Phase ................................................................................................. 24
Research Phase ................................................................................................. 26
Inputs: Resources of these Organizations ................................................... 26
Processes: What Organizations Do with their “Inputs” to Create a
Product or Conduct an Activity ............................................................ 27
Tangible Outputs: Products of the Organizations ........................................ 27
Action Outputs: Activities that do not Produce a Tangible Product ............. 27
System Needs ............................................................................................. 28
Survey Design .................................................................................................. 28
Survey Mailing List .......................................................................................... 29
Survey Implementation ..................................................................................... 29
Data Analysis ................................................................................................... 31

CHAPTER 3

RESULTS ................................................................................................................... 32
Study Population ................................................................................................... 32
Survey Response Rate and Characteristics of Non-Responding Organizations ....... 32
Characteristics of Respondents to Telephone Follow-Up Survey ........................... 34
Characteristics of Responding Study Organizations ............................................... 35
Inputs to Michigan’s Stream and River Stewardship Citizen Action

Organizations .................................................................................................... 38
Inputs in General ............................................................................................ 3 8
Regional Variations in Inputs .......................................................................... 41
Input Variations between Organization Types ............................................... 43
Input Variations Compared to Staffing Characteristics .................................... 44

Processes of Michigan’s Stream and River Stewardship Citizen Action

Organizations ................................................................................................... 44
Process Variations between Organization Types ............................................. 47
Process Variations Compared to Staffing Characteristics ................................ 48

Tangible Outputs Resulting from Organizations’ Processes .................................... 48
Tangible Outputs in General ........................................................................... 48
Tangible Output Variations between Organization Types ................................ 55
Tangible Output Variations Compared to Stafling Characteristics ................... 56
Action Outputs Resulting from Organizations’ Processes ....................................... 57
Action Outputs in General .............................................................................. 57
Action Output Variations between Organization Types ................................... 57
Action Output Variations Compared to Staffing Characteristics ..................... 58
Organizational and Technical Needs ...................................................................... 58
Needs in General ............................................................................................ 58
Regional Variations of Needs ......................................................................... 58
Variations between Organization Types in Organizational and Technical
Needs ......................................................................................................... 6O
Needs and Stafling Variations ....................................................................... 60
Statewide Programming Needs .............................................................................. 6O
Statewide Needs in General ............................................................................ 60
Regional Variations in Statewide Needs ......................................................... 60
Variations between Organization Types in Statewide Needs ........................... 61
Statewide Needs and Stafling Variations ........................................................ 61
Preferences for Statewide Strategies to Meet Identified Needs ............................... 63
Strategies in General ...................................................................................... 63
Regional Variations in Strategies .................................................................... 64
Strategy Preference Variations between Organization Types ...................... 65
Strategies and Stafing Variations ................................................................... 65
Michigan Organizations as Compared with National Volunteer Water
Monitoring Organizations ................................................................................... 65
Characteristics of Responding National and Michigan Organizations ............... 66
Comparison of the Activities of Responding Study Organizations ................... 67

Comparison of the Inputs of Responding Study Organizations ........................ 67

Comparison of the Outputs of Responding Study Organizations ..................... 69
CHAPTER 4
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ 71
Summary and Discussion ..................................................................................... 7]
Inputs to Michigan’s Stream and River Stewardship Citizen Action
Organizations .............................................................................................. 71
Processes and Outputs of Michigan’s Stream and River Stewardship
Citizen Action Organizations ...................................................................... 74
Organizational and Technical Needs ................................................................ 75
Statewide Needs ............................................................................................ 76
Strategies to Meet Organizational, Technical and Statewide Needs ................. 77
Limitations of the Project ............................................................................... 78
Limitations of the Survey ......................................................................... 79
Recommendations ................................................................................................. 80
Programming Recommendations .................................................................... 80
Recommendations for Further Research ......................................................... 84
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Project Approval by the University Committee on Research
Involving Human Subjects (U CRIHS) ............................................................ 86
Appendix B: Focus Group Session Methodology and Results ............................... 87
Facilitator Guide for Round Table Discussions ............................................... 87
Methodology and Results of Focus Group Sessions at
March 6, 1995 Conference ........................................................................ 91
Appendix C: Conference Evaluation Survey Results ........................................... 110
Responses to Open-Ended Questions ............................................................ 114
Appendix D: Mail Survey Instrument .................................................................. 124
Appendix E: Survey Cover Letters ..................................................................... 135
Appendix F: Script for Non-Respondent Telephone Follow-Up Survey .............. 139
Appendix G: Mail Survey Results ....................................................................... 141
Appendix H: Final Study Population ................................................................... 174
LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................. 189

vii

Table 1 -

Table 2 -

Table 3 -

Table 4 -

Table 5 -

Table 6 -

Table 7 -

Table 8 -

Table 9 -

Table 10 -
Table 11 -

Table 12 -

Table 13 -

LIST OF TABLES

Seven Categories of Environmental Action, with Examples from
Michigan’s Stream and River Stewardship Citizen Action Organizations .. 19

Survey Implementation -- Sequence and Dates of Study Population
Contacts .................................................................................................. 30

Activities Conducted by Respondents to Telephone Follow-Up Survey 36

Geographic Location of Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River

Organizations .......................................................................................... 36
Organization Types as Reported by Respondents ..................................... 37

How Citizen Action Stream and River Stewardship Organizations are
Stafi‘ed .................................................................................................... 39

Reported Sources of Funding for Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and
River Stewardship Organizations ............................................................ 41

Organizations Which Provide Non-Financial Technical or Organizational
Assistance, Such as Consultation Time or Other Non-Material
Assistance ............................................................................................... 42

Activities Conducted by Citizen Action Stream and River Stewardship
Organizations in Michigan ....................................................................... 45

Activities Conducted in or for Rivers, Streams and Other Environments .. 46
Activities Conducted as Part of a River or Stream Clean-Up .................... 49

Types of Fish or Wildlife Habitat Assessments Conducted on Rivers and
Streams ................................................................................................... 50

Types of Restoration and Enhancement Activities Conducted by
Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River Stewardship Organizations .. 50

Table 14 -

Table 15 -

Table 16 -

Table 17 -

Table 18 -

Table 19 -

Table 20 -

Table 21 -

Table 22 -

Table 23 -

Table G1 -

Table G2-

Table G3-

Physical and Chemical Data Collected by Michigan’s Citizen Action
Stream and River Stewardship Organizations ........................................... 52

Biological Data Collected by Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River
Stewardship Organizations ...................................................................... 53

Handling and Analysis of Data Collected by Michigan’s Citizen Action
Stream and River Stewardship Organizations ........................................... 53

Uses of Data Collected by Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River
Stewardship Organizations ...................................................................... 54

Organizations with Which Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River
Stewardship Organizations Share Data .................................................... 55

Educational Activities Conducted for Rivers and Streams ........................ 57

Organizational and Technical Needs, Which When Met, may Result in
Improved Organizational Functioning and may Allow Organizations to
Better Meet Goals ................................................................................... 59

Needs for Improving Stream and River Stewardship Programming
Statewide in Michigan ............................................................................. 62

Importance Ratings of Strategies to Best Begin to Meet Needs for
Improving Stream and River Stewardship on a Statewide Level .............. 63

Number of Active Volunteers per Organization as Reported in the National
and Michigan Studies ................................................................................ 69

Difl'erences between Organizations in Stream and River Activities between
Organizations Which Allocate 100% of their Budget to Stream and River
Activities and Those Which Allocate a Smaller Percentage .................... 141

Difi’erences between Organizations in Difi‘erent Regions of the Lower
Peninsula in Sources of Non-Financial Technical or Organizational
Assistance, Such as Consultation Time or Other

Non-Material Assistance ........................................................................ 143

Difl‘erences between Organizations in the Northern and Southern Portions of
the Lower Peninsula in Sources of Non-Financial Technical or
Organizational Assistance, Such as Consultation Time or Other Non-
Material Assistance ................................................................................ 144

Table G4-

Table G5-

Table G6-

Table G7-
Table G8-
Table G9-

Table Gl 0-

Table G11-
Table 612-
Table 613-

Table G14-

Table G15-

Difl‘erences between Organizations in the Eastern and Western Portions of
the Lower Peninsula in Sources ofNon-Financial Technical or
Organizational Assistance, Such as Consultation Time or Other Non-
Material Assistance ................................................................................ 145

Differences in Sources of Non-Financial Technical or Organizational
Assistance, Such as Consultation Time or Other Non-Material Assistance
between Different Organization Types ................................................... 146

Difi‘erences between Organizations with and with No Paid Staff in the
Lower Peninsula in Sources of Non-Financial Technical or Organizational
Assistance, Such as Consultation Time or Other Non-

Material Assistance ................................................................................ 147

Difi‘erences in Stream and River Activities between the Three Organization
Types .................................................................................................... 148

Differences between Organizations with Paid Stafi‘ and Those with No
Paid Stafi‘ in Stream and River Activities ................................................ 150

Difl’erences in Types of Restoration and Enhancement Activities Conducted
between the Three Organization Types .................................................. 152

Differences in the Types of Fish or Wildlife Habitat Assessments
Conducted on Rivers and Streams between the Three Organization
Types .................................................................................................... 152

Differences in Activities Conducted as Part of a River or Stream Clean-Up
between the Three Organization Types .................................................. 153

Differences in Physical, Chemical and Biological Data Collected from
Rivers and Streams between the Three Organization Types .................... 154

Differences between Organizations with Paid Stafi‘ and Those with No Paid
Staff in Types of Restoration and Enhancement Activities Conducted 155

Differences between Organizations with Paid Stafi‘ and Those with No Paid
Staff in Types of Fish or Wildlife Habitat Assessments Conducted on
Rivers And Streams ............................................................................... 155

Difl‘erences between Organizations with Paid Staff and Those with No Paid
Stafl’ in Activities Conducted as Part of a River or Stream Clean-Up ..... 156

Table G16-

Table G17-

Table G18-

Table G19-

Table G20-

Table G2 1 -

Table G22-

Tabie G23-

Table G24-

Table G25-

Differences between Organizations with Paid Stafi‘ and Those with No Paid
Staff in Physical, Chemical and Biological Data Collected from Rivers and
Streams ................................................................................................. 157

Differences in Educational Activities Conducted for Rivers and Streams
between the Three Organization Types .................................................. 158

Differences between Organizations with Paid Staff and Those with No Paid
Staff in Educational Activities Conducted for Rivers and Streams ......... 158

Differences between Organizations in Different Regions of the Lower
Peninsula in Organizational and Technical Needs, Which When Met, may
Result in Improved Organizational Functioning and may Allow
Organizations to Better Meet Goals ....................................................... 159

Differences between Organizations in the Eastern and Western Portions of
the Lower Peninsula in Organizational and Technical Needs, Which When
Met, may Result in Improved Organizational Functioning and may Allow
Organizations to Better Meet Goals ....................................................... 160

Difi’erences between Organizations in the Northern and Southern Portions of
the Lower Peninsula in Organizational and Technical Needs, Which When
Met, may Result in Improved Organizational Functioning and may Allow
Organizations to Better Meet Goals ....................................................... 161

Differences in Organizational and Technical Needs, Which When Met, may
Result in Improved Organizational Functioning and may Allow
Organizations to Better Meet Goals between the Three

Organization Types ............................................................................... 162

Difl‘erences between Organizations with and with No Paid Staff in the
Lower Peninsula in Organizational and Technical Needs, Which When Met,
may Result in Improved Organizational Functioning and may Allow
Organizations to Better Meet Goals ....................................................... 163

Difi‘erences between Organizations in Difl‘erent Regions of the Lower
Peninsula in Needs for Improving Stream and River Stewardship
Programming Statewide in Michigan ....................................................... 164

Differences between Organizations in the Eastern and Western Portions of
the Lower Peninsula in Needs for Improving Stream and River Stewardship
Programming Statewide in Michigan ....................................................... 165

Table G26-

Table G27-

Table G28-

Table G29-

Table G3 0-

Table GB 1-

Table G32-

Table G33-

Difl‘erences between Organizations in the Northern and Southern Portions
of the Lower Peninsula in Needs for Improving Stream and River
Stewardship Programming Statewide in Michigan .................................. 166

Differences in Needs for Improving Stream and River Stewardship
Programming Statewide in Michigan between Difl‘erent Organization
Types .................................................................................................... 167

Difi‘erences between Organizations with and with No Paid Stafl‘ in the Lower
Peninsula in Needs for Improving Stream and River Stewardship
Programming Statewide in Michigan ...................................................... 168

Difi‘erences between Organizations in Different Regions of the Lower
Peninsula in Strategies to Best Begin to Meet Needs for Improving Stream
and River Stewardship on a Statewide Level .......................................... 169

Difi‘erences between Organizations in the Northern and Southern Portions of
the Lower Peninsula in Strategies to Best Begin to Meet Needs for
Improving Stream and River Stewardship on a Statewide Level ............. 170

Difi‘erences between Organizations in the Eastern and Western Portions of
the Lower Peninsula in Strategies to Best Begin to Meet Needs for
Improving Stream and River Stewardship on a Statewide Level ............. 171

Difi‘erences in Strategies to Best Begin to Meet Needs for Improving Stream
and River Stewardship on a Statewide Level between the Three
Organization Types ............................................................................... 172

Differences between Organizations with and with No Paid Staff in the Lower
Peninsula in Strategies to Best Begin to Meet Needs for Improving Stream
and River Stewardship on a Statewide Level ......................................... 173

Figure 1 -

Figure 2 -

Figure 3 -
Figure 4 -

Figure 5 -

LIST OF FIGURES

A simplified model of an organization as a system .................................... 20

A systems model of stream and river stewardship citizen action

organizations ........................................................................................... 21
Initial and final study populations ............................................................. 34

Characterization of non-respondents and adjusted final study population .. 35

Number of years in existence for Michigan’s stream and river stewardship
citizen action organizations (n = 109) ...................................................... 38

INTRODUCTION

Citizen organizations have been contributing to stream and river stewardship for
many years, either through independent actions or by influencing decision making
agencies. In Michigan, over 200 non-profit citizen organizations implement stream and
river stewardship programs as one of their main objectives. These groups include
watershed councils, recreation organizations, and local adopt-a-river groups.

Several major citizen organizations have sustained themselves for the purpose of
protecting rivers and streams nationwide. The Izaak Walton League conducts educational
programs and is at the forefront of volunteer monitoring efforts through its Save Our
Streams (SOS) program, which trains citizens and students to collect data from rivers and
streams, among other activities (F irehock, 1994). The Clean Water Network promotes
river protection efforts through lobbying and advocacy programs (personal
communication, June 1995). The River Network serves as a facilitator of information
transfer and assistance to river and stream organizations nationwide, in addition to

fostering the development of river networking organizations at the state level (River

 

Network, 1995). A national water quality monitoring newsletter for volunteers, River
film is produced by the Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership at the University of
Massachusetts. National volunteer monitoring conferences have been hosted by the
Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with other organizations, and these

1

2
meetings are attended by members of many steam and river organizations. Several

national directories have been published which provide contact information for many

organizations. The most recent of these is the National Directory of Volunteer

 

Monitoring Programs. Fourth Edition (Kerr, Ely, Lee and Desbonnet, 1994). A mail
survey was implemented to compile information for this directory of volunteer monitoring
programs. The survey included sections on stafling, membership, sources of funding, and

characteristics of the monitoring programs.

Maw

Little or no research has been applied to describe or explain stream and river
stewardship citizen action organizations. Yet, a broad literature base exists in the areas of
public involvement in natural resource management, theories of motivation of citizens for
environmental stewardship, and the characteristics and actions of involved individuals and
organizations.

In particular, Michigan stream and river stewardship organizations are fragmented
and uncoordinated at the statewide level. Communication among these groups is not
facilitated. As a result, new groups struggle to become effective. More established
organizations could save time and effort spent in program design by incorporating lessons
learned from others’ experiences. Cooperative efl‘orts between organizations and
agencies have proven effective in some watersheds, however, many organizations work

primarily independent from others. Therefore, a needs assessment of these programs must

3
be conducted to make recommendations for better programming by these and other

supporting organizations.

Project Goals and Objectives

The objectives of this project were: 1) to describe Michigan’s stream stewardship
citizen action programs (i.e. list and describe the organizations and their activities); and 2)
to assess the perceived organizational and technical needs of these organizations. In
addition, another important goal of this project was to provide an outreach component
designed to enhance the investigator’s understanding of stream and river stewardship in
Michigan, as well as to meet some of these organizations’ needs. This was accomplished
by hosting a conference and preparing a reference guide to Michigan’s organizations,
governments, resources and legislation. As a result of this integrated research-outreach
project, recommendations are made for providing assistance to Michigan’s stream and
river stewardship citizen action organizations and for specific research within the realm of
citizen action-taking in stream stewardship programs.

The focus of this project was organizations rather than individuals; this was not
because individuals do not accomplish activities, conduct programs or enhance
stewardship, but because more often than not, individual actions are implemented through
an organization. For the purpose of this study, stream and river stewardship citizen action
organizations are defined as organizations which are managed by volunteer citizens
through not-for-profit non-governmental organizations (N 608), or are fostered by other

organizations such as universities, schools, or federal, state, county, and local

4
governments in conjunction with volunteer citizens. Volunteer citizens are responsible for

implementation of much of the organizations’ stream and river programming. The goals
of these organizations include implementing programs for the purposes of conserving and

protecting Michigan’s riverine ecosystems by promoting stewardship ethics and actions.

Chapter 1

BACKGROUND AND LITERATURE REVIEW

The Impomnce of Public Involvement

Citizen involvement is critical to effective natural resource management and is
important for the direct positive effects it can have on resources. Involving citizens in
resource management and protection programs often results in a more environmentally
responsible citizenry. In this manner, public involvement can enhance public stewardship
actions and ethics. Hungerford and Peyton (1980, p.146) suggest that encouraging an
environmental stewardship ethic “should result in citizenry which is capable of taking
ecologically sound environmental action focusing on the remediation of environmental
issues”. The word “stewar ” is taken fi'om an Old English word which literally meant
“hall keeper”, or one who was in charge of managing an estate (American Heritage
Dictionary, 1992, p.1196). In discussing natural resource, or river and stream
stewardship, I am referring to those behaviors, values and attitudes which focus on
taking care of our resources and accepting responsibility for one’s actions in light of their
impact on the earth.

The focus of this project was on citizen stewardship actions related to rivers and
streams. These aquatic features are part of larger systems, or watersheds. Programs and
actions initiated by citizens on behalf of rivers and streams ofien encompass a geographic

5

6
area (such as a watershed) which is not directly aligned with any political or economic

border. Similarly, bioregionalists look at an entire system, rather than isolated issues.
They focus on local issues rather than global ones, and they try to adapt their communities
to the particulars of their bioregion (Zuckerman, 1987). A bioregion is an area defined by
its life forms, biota, and topography rather than artificial human constructs (Alexander,
1990)

Riparian and watershed stewardship actions as a form of public involvement,
which are the focus of this study, are very similar to those actions taken by
“bioregionalists.” Bioregionalists believe that social organization and environmental
policies should be based on the bioregion rather than on a region determined by political
or economic boundaries (Alexander, 1990; Zuckerman, 1987).

Involvement of citizens in resource management is critical for other reasons, such
as diflirsing or resolving issues before they become disruptive to resource management
efforts or the community involved. Issues, if unresolved, can be described as evolving
over time until they become dismptive, at which time stakeholders typically take firm
positions on the issue, and resolutions are difficult to achieve. This evolution can be
described as occurring in four phases (Peyton et al., 1992).

During the latent phase, conditions are such that issues could arise and
stakeholders could then take positions. Successful and smooth implementation of new
education or conflict reduction programs is likely to be most successful at this stage.
During the second phase, an existing issue is one that some individuals have identified and

begun to discuss, but the formation of efl‘orts to address it have not yet taken place. In the

7
third phase, when issues are emerging, stakeholders have identified their positions and

have begun to make their voices heard.

If issues are not resolved at any of the earlier stages, they become disruptive.
When issues are disruptive, stakeholders have taken strong positions on the issue and
communications among stakeholder groups are often emotionally charged. Legal or
political means are sought to resolve differences, and stakeholders may avoid working
with the appropriate management agencies. Resolution of issues at this point is often
based on short term values or political pressure by a few interest groups rather than on
sound ecology or collaboration (Peyton et al., 1992). Therefore, involving citizens in
taking an active role in resource management programming has the advantage of seeking
solutions before problems are to complex and controversial to resolvable, thereby avoiding
situations where strong positions are taken and stakeholder behaviors actually disrupt the
problem-solving process.

Public involvement in decision making processes enhances the acceptance of
outcomes and subsequent participation in implementing solutions. Individuals’ satisfaction
with a collective innovation or decision is positively related to the degree of participation
in the decision making process (Rogers, 1983). When individuals participate in the
decision making process, they learn that most others in the social system are also willing
to work toward and accept a decision; thus public involvement is a means of revealing
group consensus to the individual. In this sense, positive “peer pressure” may increase the
number of individuals willing to take ownership of the solution and implement the

outcomes of decisions. Further, through this consensus building process, the outcome, or

8
decision is more likely to fit the needs of the social system if its members are included in

the process. Typically, members of a social system are most familiar with the
characteristics of their community’s needs (Rogers, 1983).

Stream and river stewardship organizations in Michigan are diverse and can offer a
richness of perspectives and expertise to resource management processes. Organizations’
contributions range from daily monitoring of aquatic systems, to providing a reflection of
the local political climate. Subsequently, public involvement in decision making processes
and programs can lead to watershed management strategies which are socially acceptable

and easy to implement through partnerships prior to the emergence of conflict.

Understanding the Influgnces on Individuals’ Action-taking Behavior

Individuals are typically involved in stream and river stewardship activities as
members of organizations. To understand the role of these organizations in resource
protection and management, it is important to first understand what motivates the

individual to take stewardship actions. As Arbuthnot states

"the success of public policy decisions, educational programs, and other efforts
dependent upon specific individual action in the realm of environmental issues may
well hinge upon our understanding of the relationships among personality
characteristics, attitudes, and environmental values, knowledge, and behaviors"
(1977,p.217)

A significant amount of research has been conducted to better understand such

relationships.
Hines et al. (1986/87) published a meta-analysis of environmental behavior
research reported since 1971. In this analysis, they proposed a model of factors leading to

responsible environmental behavior. These factors are personality factors (composed of

9
attitudes, locus of control, and personal responsibility), knowledge of issues, knowledge

of action strategies, and action skills, all of which determine an individual’s intention to
take action. This intention to act, combined with situational factors, affect whether
individuals display responsible environmental behaviors.

Personality factors play an important role when an individual takes environmental
action (Arbuthnot, 1977; Charns, 1973; Craik, 1970; DeYoung 1986; Hopper and
Neilson, 1991; McKechnie, 1977; Sewell, 1977; Syme et al., 1993). Environmentally
responsible citizens have a positive environmental disposition which Syme defines as a
"series of general attitudes or feelings toward environments and the person’s enjoyment
with interacting with them on an everyday basis" (Syme et al., 1993). Environmental
disposition will affect arousal, which will influence activism. Those who are more
favorable in their views of the natural environment will be more emotively aroused when
viewing degradation.

An environmental disposition is the way an individual habitually interacts with the
environment (McKechnie, 1977) and influences decision making (Craik, 1970).
Environmental dispositions are a summation of what people attend to in the environment,
the total information available to them, the meanings attributed to information received,
what strategies are used to organize information, and how successfully information is used
(McKechnie, 1977).

Not every one perceives and responds to their environments with similar
dispositions. A study by Sewell (1971) found that different professionals with joint

jurisdiction over a given problem promoted solutions which reflected values implicit in

10
their professional orientation. The study compared responses of sanitation engineers (who

promoted building of treatment systems) to public health officials (who promoted
implementing standards and fining violators) in response to water quality problems. One
can conclude that professionals with differing areas of expertise may clash in their
acceptance of various solutions as a result of differing dispositions. Similarly, Charns
(1973) found that difl’erent interest groups may have distinct dispositions and thus
different goals, when the political positions of professional planners were compared to
those of planning students.

Locus of control is another important factor in influencing individuals’ stewardship
behavior (Arbuthnot, 1977; Syme et al., 1993; Wandersman et al., 1987). A person with
an “internal locus of control” expects success as a result of taking action. Conversely, an
individual with an “external locus of control” tends to believe that he/she is powerless to
make changes in society, because the factors which contribute to success are believed to
be beyond his/her control (Hungerford and Volk, 1990). Ecologically concerned people
do not necessarily seek economic gain fi'om environmental actions, but continued actions
are encouraged if they know that they are doing something worthwhile and beneficial
(DeYoung, 1986). Locus of control can play a powerful role; for example, as the degree
of threat from a situation increases, so do subjective feelings regarding the severity of a
problem. However, these feelings do not necessarily increase intentions to act, if
individuals do not perceive their personal behavior would have an impact on the problem

(Syme et al., 1993).

11
Arbuthnot (1977) showed that individuals take action, namely recycle, when they

perceive that their actions have potential impact. Recycling may be categorized as an
altruistic behavior, resulting from intrinsic motivation (Hopper, 1991). Altruistic acts are
ones committed without the goal of economic or other gain. By this definition, watershed
stewardship is also an altnristic behavior. When issues are very local, people feel confident
about the possible effects of their individual involvement. Political eflicacy, or the degree
to which an individual believes they can impact the political system, directly impacts
motivation to take environmental stewardship actions. (W andersman et al., 1987).
Feelings of control or perception that personal involvement will have a positive influence
on a problem are determinants of intentions to become involved.

Knowledge plays an important role in determining environmental behaviors.
Knowledge about issues must be paired with knowledge of action strategies, to result in
increased activism (Hungerford and Volk, 1990). A study conducted by Asch and Shore
showed that education about environmental problems increased conservation behavior in
fifth grade boys (1975). Furthermore, Syme et al. (1993) suggested a positive correlation
between knowledge and environmental disposition.

Intentions to take action are impacted by emotive and cognitive responses, as well
(Syme et al., 1993; Rochford and Blocker, 1991). For environmental issues or problems
of non-individual and non-life threatening consequence, Syme et al. hypothesize that
emotive arousal is positively correlated to activism (1993). However, in more threatening
circumstances (e.g., natural disasters) this may not be the case. For example, Rochford

and Blocker, in a study of Oklahoma flood disaster victims (1991), concluded that an

12
individual’s appraisal that floods can be controlled correlates negatively with emotively

based coping and in turn negatively correlates with activism. Energy and time was spent
coping with fear of future floods rather than actively trying to deal with the problem.
Thus, the emotive component did not positively affect activism (Syme et al., 1993).
Cognitive appraisal of less hazardous problems, however, will positively correlate to
increased activism. I

Many external factors influence individuals’ stewardship behavior. Tapping into
the process through which norms are shaped (e. g., deveIOping organizations such as a
block leader or community river watch program), will have a greater success in motivating
individuals to change behavior than providing only information and reminders (Arbuthnot,
1977; Buttel and Flinn, 1976; Dunlap, 1975; Dunlap and VanLiere, 1984; Samdahl and
Robertson, 1989; VanLiere and Dunlap, 1980). Hopper (1991) showed that recycling
behavior is influenced by social norms, personal norms, and awareness of consequences.
When a "block leader" system was implemented in a neighborhood recycling program,
environmental behavior (recycling) was increased. Prompting (reminders) and information
increased behavior as well, but not as much as the block-leader program. These other
methods did not affect attitudes or norms.

Early research evaluated individuals’ situational factors (sociodemographic
variables such as age, education, income, residential location, political ideology) as
determinants of environmental behaviors and the adoption of environmental innovations.
Researchers in the 1970’s and 1980’s concluded that environmentalists tend to be young,

educated, urban, and liberal in politics and social and religious beliefs (Arbuthnot, 1977).

1 3
Correlational analysis found that as an individual’s level of education, literacy, and social

status increase, the likelihood increases that these people will adopt new ideas or
innovations (Rogers, 1983). However, causal modeling showed demographics and
behavioral commitment unrelated to environmental concern variables ("perception of
problems", "support for regulations", and "ecological behavior") (Samdahl and Robertson,
1989; VanLiere and Dunlap, 1981). The relationships are unclear, and there may be an
interaction between environmental concem, education and social class. Thus,
correlational analyses is inconclusive and difficult to interpret. In short, the predictive
ability of demographics is low. Therefore, researchers have recently examined broader
underlying belief systems and their link to environmental concern rather than looking for
correlations between demographics and environmental attitudes (Samdahl and Robertson,
1989)

Because citizen action organizations are composed of individuals and strive to
implement programs in communities made up of individuals, an understanding of the,
factors influencing individual action-taking is critical to understanding these organizations’
role in stream and river stewardship. Further, an assessment of the specific factors

influencing an organization and its community will lead to more appropriate programming

to assist Michigan’s stream and river citizen action organizations.

In ivi A ‘ n- kin within n' ’onal o i IS stems
The process of an organization taking stream and river stewardship actions, or

adopting environmental innovations, is a decision making process. Environmental

14
innovations are ideas, practices, or objects perceived as new by individuals and which

must be effectively communicated to the public (or group) for a collective decision to
adopt (Rogers, 1983). Collective innovation decisions are those made by a social system
to adopt or reject a particular innovation (Rogers, 1983). An example of this type of
innovation decision is enactment of a local zoning ordinance to restrict development along
a river corridor. Most decisions about river and stream issues are collective ones which
require collective action to be successful, due to the fact that rivers typically cross multiple
legal and economic boundaries.

Rogers (1993) proposes a simple paradigm for understanding these collective
decision making processes. He suggests that individuals, within the collective decision
making process, experience a series of five stages, or sub-processes in making decisions to
adopt new innovations. These five stages are: 1) stimulation of interest in the need for the
new idea, 2) initiation of the new idea in the social system, 3) legitirnation of the idea by
the power holders in the social system, 4) decision to act by the members of the social
system, and 5) action or execution of the new idea (1983).

In the first stage, the individual’s awareness that a need exists for an innovation is
stimulated within the social system. Up until this stage, neither the innovation, nor the
need that it could meet, are perceived by members of the social system. Stimulators are
ofien outsiders to the social system, or at least have outside contacts to other social
systems (e.g., extension workers, governmental agency stafl‘, or state level non-profit
organization stafl). Initiation is the stage of the process during which the new idea

receives increased attention by members of the social system. Initiators incorporate the

15
innovation into a specific plan of action that is adapted to the conditions of the social

system. Because this role requires intimate knowledge of how the social system firnctions,
initiators are often “insiders” (Rogers, 1983).

Legitirnation of an innovation is the process of granting approval of a collective
innovation by those who informally represent the system’s norms, and who possess social
power. These individuals usually have high social status and seldom actively promote a
collective idea once they give their approval. Legitimizers (or “opinion leaders”) are the
power sources of the community; power is defined as the degree to which an individual
has the capacity to influence the beliefs, decisions and actions of others. The rate of
adoption of a collective innovation is directly related to the degree to which the
legitirnizers of the social system are involved in the decision-making process. Often
legitinrizers can kill an idea if they are not consulted and included. Once a new idea or
innovation is legitimized by the leaders of a social system, decision to act by other
members of the community and execution of the innovation follows relatively predictably
(Rogers, 1983).

Several good examples of the processes which involve collective decision making
exist in stream and river stewardship programming, The standardization of water quality
data illustrates these processes. One session at the Fourth National Citizens’ Volunteer
Monitoring Conference addressed the need to standardize data through development of
quality assurance and quality control plans and procedures. Kathleen Ellet, of the Alliance
for the Chesapeake Bay, provided in her remarks a summary of the importance of

developing such plans (Ely, 1994). As one of the older and more successful organizations,

16
the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay is functioning as a legitimizer among other citizen

action organizations. Similarly, taking a watershed approach to programming is not a
new idea, however, when the Pacific Rivers Council published its popular book, Entering
the Watershed. A New Approach to Sm Amerfi’s River Ecog/stems. most
organizations addressing stream and river concerns began talking about taking a

watershed approach to planning and management (Doppelt et al., 1993).

Organizations as Avenues for Individual Actions

An organization may be defined as

“a system of consciously coordinated personal activities or forces of two or more
people. It is a problem-solving mechanism that depends on factoring general goals
into subgoals. An organization comes into being when there are persons able to
communicate with each other, who are willing to contribute action and to
accomplish a common purpose” (Anderson, 1993, p.43).

Citizen action stream and river stewardship organizations in Michigan certainly fit this
definition. For example, citizens in Michigan have formed several adopt-a-river
organizations with the goal Of protecting local rivers or streams. Sub-goals of these
organizations include conducting water monitoring programs, annual clean-up festivals, or
habitat restoration and enhancement activities.

When the achievement of a goal is limited in such a way that the energy of two or
more individuals can overcome such limitations, individuals cooperate to resolve issues
(Anderson, 1993). Working in groups allows individuals to maximize the influence of
their values on how natural resources are managed and used (Hungerford and Peyton,
1980). Issues that citizen action stream and river organizations wish to address, such as

restoration of aquatic systems or assessment of pollution sources, are often complex and

17
time consuming. Such issues often require more energy and time than one individual can

invest. Cooperation occurs when persons and organizations are able to communicate, and
are willing to contribute their own limited resources to accomplish specific goals.
Organizations are ofien working for change in the society; therefore, community action
necessitates multiperson/multiunit involvement and commitment for problem resolution to
be a success (Anderson, 1993).

For the same reasons that individuals active in stream and river projects join forces
and organizations, these organizations ofien form coalitions to collaborate in reaching
common goals and objectives. This is likely to occur when tasks are complex and
controversial and resources are limited. Coalitions tend to be linked to conflicts and
struggles, and focus on establishing consensus (Anderson, 1993). Issues may be
controversial or political and require acceptance and “buy-in” from all stakeholders to
achieve goals. Examples of such issues are agreements of landowners to use best
management practices along a river corridor or implementation of a zoning plan to address
land-use in a watershed. Goals can not be accomplished independently, so coalitions form
to facilitate achieving goals at multiple levels of society. Collaboration is a process by
which parties with a stake in an identified problem or issue seek a mutually determined
solution (Anderson, 1993). In this way, independent citizen action stream and river
organizations in Michigan often join forces, pool information, engage in discussion,
construct alternatives, and forge agreements to solve problems. The efforts of multiple
organizations are major factors in determining success, and therefore collaboration is a key

to successfirl problem resolution.

18

Actions Taken by Stream and River Stewardship Citizen Action Organizations

Hungerford and Peyton (1980) state that awareness (appreciation and
understanding of the environment) is not enough to motivate individuals within
organizations to take action. Individuals who have developed an environmental ethic may
be fi'ustrated and inactive because they are unaware of the possible actions that may be
taken either singly or as members of organizations. Citizens are more likely to become
involved in environmental issues if they are aware of how they can have some effect on
decision-making (Vandevisse and Stapp, 1975). Therefore, a paradigm of environmental
action strategies was proposed, to assist those developing environmental action training
programs (Hungerford and Peyton, 1980) (Table 1). In addition, Monroe (1990) has
firrther illustrated environmental action strategies by proposing a matrix of avenues for
action taking. This matrix provides a tool for analyzing environmental actions by
summarizing the various avenues which may be taken by motivators (as individuals,
groups, governments, or businesses) to influence environmental problem solvers, who may

also be individuals, groups, governments or businesses.

Table 1

19

Seven Categories of Environmental Action With Exmples from Michigan’ 5 Stream _a_nd
River Stewardship Citizen Action Organizations (adapted from Hungerford and Peyton.

1980; Champeau, 1982)

 

 

Category Type of Action Examples of Actions Taken by Michigan’s
Stream and River Stewardship Citizen
Action Organizations

Ecomanagement 0 Physical actions to directly Stream bank stabilization, habitat
maintain or improve the existing protection and restoration projects,
ecosystem. river clean-ups, and data collection and

project evaluation to support these
actions.

Economic 0 Changes in consumer behavior to Boycotts of businesses with practices
create a threat aimed at some form hazardous to rivers and streams,
of desired behavior modification, conservative consumption of products
or to limit potential harm to the which may harm stream and river
environment; monetary support ecosystems when produced or disposed
given to environmental of, or donations and membership fees
organizations. to stream and river organizations.

Education a Efl’orts to educate the general Conferences, festivals, publications,
public to encourage behavior radio and television spots, and
changes, and decision makers to providing data and position statements
encourage sound decision making. to local, county and state decision

making processes.

Legal Action 0 Any judiciary or legal action Lawsuits, obtaining injunctions, and
which is aimed at an aspect of supporting regulatory agencies with
environmental law enforcement or information.
legal behavior restraint

Persuasion 0 Actions which include efforts to Providing position statements,
motivate others to take debating, writing speeches and letters,
environmentally positive actions. and otherwise taking part in decision

making.

Political Action 0 Efforts made to persuade an Lobbying, voting and supporting
electorate, legislator or executive specific candidates which support
governmental agency to conform protecting streams and rivers.
to certain values.

Interaction 0 Actions which are a combination Collection of data for a lawsuit or to

A temsA roa ht nde

of two or more of the other five
action categories

ndin

Am'gn Organizatigng

Organizations may be viewed as a factory, with inputs into the system, being

persuade decision makers among many
other examples.

tream ndRiver tw hi i’ n

processed in some way by the organization to produce outputs, or products (Schoderbek

et al., 1975) (Figure 1). The organizations targeted by this study, when viewed as

20
systems, process inputs by way of organizational activities; for example, technical

assistance from other organizations (input) may be used to implement stream restoration
and enhancement projects. In stream and river stewardship organizations, inputs are

typically processed by volunteer members with support fi'om a few staff.

 
 

PROCESSES
(Production)

 
 

OUTPUTS

INPUTS
—‘> (Product)

(Materials) —>

  

Ejgu_rg_1_. A simplified model of an organization as a system (adapted fiom Schoderbek, et
al., 197 5).

Inputs to the study organizations are different than those to a traditional factory,
and consist of technical assistance and in-kind donations from government and university
stafi', firnding fi'om foundations or local businesses, and volunteer time. For example, Kerr
et al. (1994) report that governments and universities account for many of the
contributions to national aquatic citizen action organizations. Most of these contributions
are serial inputs, or inputs which are a result of another system (Schoderbek et al., 1975).

Outputs of the study organizations can be divided into two categories, which will
be referred to as “tangible outputs” and “action outputs” (Figure 2). Tangible outputs of
the study organizations are products which include water or watershed data, brochures
and other materials, bank stabilization, or habitat restoration. Tangible outputs are usually
the result of ecomanagement actions, but may stem from persuasion, education, or legal
processes. Action outputs are service-related and are those outputs that do not produce a

product, but are rather projects such as river corridor clean-ups, educational programs,

21
input to decision-making processes and lobbying efforts. Typical action outputs are the

result of educational, economic or political action processes, but may be a part of legal or
persuasion programs. The action outputs, in these cases, could not have been
accomplished without the use of organizational effort (Anderson, 1993). In this way,

organizations can extend individuals’ capacities.

  

 

     
   
   
 

 

 

 

 

 

FEEDBACK
TANGIBLE OUTPUTS
Outputs become Resources materials
Wilts ‘0 another a Restoration projects
Data
INPUTS PROCESSES

Human resormces

Technical support —> Production of materials
Funding Implementation of programs \

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FEEDBACK b Efforts to influence decision

    

makers
Wm become Education programs
inputs to another Legal “"0”

 

 

 

 

organizations

    

Figure 2. A systems model of stream and river stewardship citizen action organizations.

Feedback is incorporated into all components of these systems - inputs, outputs
and processes (Figure 2). Tangible outputs are often used as inputs by the organization or
other organizations in additional processes (see arrow “a”). For example, data may be
used to enhance persuasion activities or may be an input to another regulatory agency.

Action outputs are fed back to other organizations when they result in additional actions

22
(see arrow “b”); for example, persuasion efforts may result in an agency implementing a

new policy.
This research and outreach project was designed to assess the inputs, processes
and outputs of the study organizations and their perceived needs. Outreach programming

was implemented to initiate meeting the perceived needs of the study organizations.

Chapter 2

METHODS

This project was conducted in two phases, an Outreach Phase and a Research
Phase. Initial steps of the Outreach Phase were designed to formalize a list of

organizations constituting my target population for this project.

Target Population for the Project
The population identified for this project included all identifiable citizen-based

stream and river stewardship organizations in Michigan. These are organizations that are
managed by volunteer citizens through not-for-profit non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) or are fostered by other organizations such as universities, schools, or federal,
state, county, and local governments in conjunction with volunteers. The programs of
these organizations are implemented and maintained for the purpose of conserving and
protecting Michigan’s riverine ecosystems through promoting stewardship ethics and
actions. Activities conducted by these organizations include, but are not limited to, water
quality and watershed monitoring, habitat enhancement, youth and community education,

efi‘orts to influence decision making processes, and production of resource materials.

23

24

Outreach Phase

The goal of the Outreach Phase was to gain a preliminary understanding of the
organizational and technical needs of Michigan’s stream and river stewardship citizen
action organizations. Analysis of information gathered during the Outreach Phase allowed
me to conclude that in-depth research was necessary to assess the needs of Michigan’s
citizen action stream stewardship programs.

To develop an initial list of Michigan’s stream stewardship citizen action
organizations, I administered contact sheets at the following conferences: Michigan
Chapter North American Lake Management Conference (August 1994), the 33rd Annual
Michigan Lake and Stream Associations Conference (September 1994), the Michigan
State University Extension Annual Fall Conference (September 1994), and at this project’s
conference, “Coordinating Watershed Stewardship in Michigan: Citizen Monitoring,
Enhancement and Problem Solving for Streams and Rivers” (March, 1995). I compiled
the contact sheets into a draft list of organizations and distributed it for review at the
March 1995 conference. A comment sheet was included in the conference packet for
participants to offer corrections or additions to the list.

During March of 1995, I planned and facilitated the “Coordinating Watershed
Stewardship in Michigan Conference: Citizen Monitoring, Enhancement and Problem
Solving for Streams and Rivers.” A committee was formed (which held a series of
consultations and conference calls) to assist in planning the event. The committee was

comprised of representatives of prominent stream and river stewardship citizen action

25
organizations, county and state government personnel, Michigan State University and

Extension staff. This process allowed for important stakeholder participation and resulted
in some committee members serving on the panel and offering workshops at the
conference. The specific purpose of this conference was twofold: 1) to facilitate
networking and information sharing among these organizations and to provide informative
workshops, and 2) to expand my understanding of the needs of these organizations as
perceived by members and by the agencies and educators who work with them.
Participants reported that the conference was usefiil and that there is a need for similar
events in the future. Michigan Public Radio covered the event as part of their evening and
morning Michigan news broadcast. The conference was attended by 150 individuals, 65
of whom completed conference evaluation surveys, and 100 of whom participated in the 6
focus group sessions. Data from conference focus groups and evaluation surveys were
used to design portions of the survey instrument implemented in the research phase.
Focus groups at the conference provided preliminary information regarding what
organizational and technical needs exist, and which needs were perceived as most critical
to address (Appendix B). Identified as important to stream and river stewardship in
Michigan included the needs:
0 for partnerships, to strengthen liaisons, and to work cooperatively, and the

education opportunities to learn how to do so,

to take a watershed approach to planning and management,

for networking, with better communication and sharing of information, and the

mechanism to do so,

for focus to groups’ activities,

for more technical and organizational assistance,

to increase inclusive stakeholder participation in management decisions and

discussions,

for consistent funding and information on how to access funding,
for public education to increase awareness and responsibility,

26

for increased advocacy and necessary. information to do so,

for citizen-collected data to be used and standardized,

for collection and organization of baseline data, with access to it, and
for improved resource materials.

Conference evaluation surveys provided additional information regarding
Michigan’s stream and river stewardship citizen action organizations and their activities
(Appendix C). Conference evaluation respondents reported involvement in the following
activities: watershed mapping and planning, stormwater management, non-point source
pollution management, coordinating volunteers, networking, school monitoring programs,
storm drain inlet protection, community education, wildlife enhancement, wildlife or

habitat inventories, research, river monitoring, and information and education programs.

Rgearch Phase

The goal of the Research Phase of this project was to conduct a comprehensive
inventory of Michigan’s stream stewardship citizen action organizations and their
activities, and to conduct an assessment of their organizational and technical needs. I
developed research questions in the format of the systems model of organizations,

presented in Chapter Two (Figure 2).

Rgrerrch ngtions

Inputs: Resources of these organizations
0 What resources support activities of these organizations?

0 How are these organizations funded?

27
How are these organizations staffed, and how many members and

volunteers do they manage?

Processes: What organizations do with their “inputs” to create a product or
conduct an activity

In which watersheds do the study organizations work?

What types of organizations (e.g., not-for-profit, fostered by
government) exist?

What are organizations’ financial resources, or budgets?

In what types of projects or activities are the study organizations
involved?

If stream and river clean-ups are conducted, how are they done?
Ifdata are collected, who conducts the analysis, who uses the data, and

for what purpose?

Tangible Outputs: Products of the organizations

Ifmonitoring is conducted, what parameters are measured?

What types of watershed restoration and habitat enhancement activities
are conducted?

What types of habitat assessments are conducted?

Are watershed mapping or resource inventories completed by these

organizations?

Action Outputs: Activities that do not produce a tangible product

What forms of education programs are implemented?

28
0 Do organizations lobby or otherwise try to influence local, county,

state, or federal decision making?

0 How many groups conduct construction site inspections?

0 Are program priorities set with a watershed approach to stream and
river management?

0 Do these organizations evaluate their programs?

System Needs:

0 What organizational needs do these opinion leaders perceive as critical
to their programs?

0 What technical needs do these groups perceive as critical to their
programs?

0 What are perceived needs for statewide programming?

0 What are preferred strategies to address perceived needs?

mgr—Data!

I designed a mail survey to obtain answers to my research questions using the
Total Design Method (Dillman, 1978). The survey was piloted with faculty and staff from
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Surface Water Quality Division and
Michigan State University Department of Fisheries and Wildlife. The goal of the survey
was to learn about the activities and needs of organizations, as opposed to learning about
the motivations or background of individuals involved in stream and river activities in

general. Therefore, I mailed the survey to a group leader within each organization who

29
could represent the organization’s programs and views. I designed the first 2 questions of

the survey to verify whether the individual responding to the survey was indeed a leader
within the organization and therefore in a position to represent the organization with
respect to the survey questions (Appendix D). Completed surveys were evaluated to
confirm that they were completed by an individual in a position to represent the

organization.

Surve M ilin List

I confirmed the completeness of the list by calling the larger and more active
organizations including the Huron River Watershed Council, the Clinton River Watershed
Council, the West Michigan Environmental Action Council, the Kalamazoo River
Protection Association, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Surface Water
Quality Division, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Natural Rivers Program,
Trout Unlimited, and several Resource Conservation and Development Councils. An
assistant and I verified the mailing list by contacting all those organizations with a
published or previously received telephone number to confirm mailing addresses and
appropriate contact person (group leader). In addition to verifying the accuracy of the

listings, the assistant and I inquired whether other organizations should be included.

Survgy Implgmentatign

The survey was implemented with a series of follow-up mailings in accordance

with the Total Design Method (Dillman, 1978) (Table 2). The first contact consisted of a

30
nine page survey, a cover letter explaining the study, and a self addressed and stamped

envelope for returning the completed survey. The initial contact was followed by a
reminder. A third contact consisted of a cover letter with a response deadline date, as well
as another copy of the survey and a return envelope. In the fourth contact, I sent a final
note to remind recipients that a response would still be appreciated if they had not yet
responded (Appendix E) Two weeks after the response deadline, a research assistant
made follow-up phone calls to all non-respondents to characterize non-respondents and to

collect basic information from those who did not wish to participate in the mail survey

 

 

 

(Appendix F )-
Table 2
Survg Implementation - Smuence and Dates of Study Population Contacts
Contacts Content of Contact First Second Third
1 Mailing Mailin' ' g' Mailing”

First Contact 0 Cover letter,

survey, self

addressed and

stamped envelop 3/7/96 4/10/96 4/30/96
Second Contact 0 Cover letter

reminder 3/27/96 4/23/96 5/14/96
Third Contact 0 Cover letter

reminder,

additional copy

of survey, and

self addressed

and stamped 4/10/96 5/7/96 5/29/96

envelop
Fourth Contact 0 One page

reminder 4/23/96 5/20/96 not necessary
Telephone 0 Questionnaire to
Follow-up characterize non-

respondents 5/17/96- 5/17/96- not necessary

6/12/96 6/12/96

 

' The names of additional organizations were obtained from the Michigan Salmon and Steelheaders
Fishermen’s Association, and several organizations requested the survey be sent to a different individual.
" Two organizations requested an additional survey be sent to a different individual.

3 1
Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, version
6.1 for Windows (SPS S). Statistical analyses of data from the mail survey included
summary analysis of means, standard deviations, cross tabulations and frequencies, and the

Kruskal Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U tests of significance.

Chapter 3

RESULTS

Study Pppulagion

A total of 234 organizations were on the initial study population list. A total of
45 organizations did not meet the definition of my study organizations. These 45
organizations were removed fiom the study population list: I determined that 11 were lake
associations, 14 indicated they would not participate because they did not believe their
organization was within the study population, 9 reported that the organization was no
longer in existence or had ceased to be active, 2 were private sector organizations, and I
determined that 9 responding organizations did not belong in the study population. These
9 responses came fi'om 2 recreation organizations, 3 fishing groups, one property owners
association which does no stream and river work, and from 3 governmental agencies. As

a result, the final study population contained 189 organizations (Figure 3) (Appendix H).

Sprvey Resppnse Rate and Characteristics of Non-Resppnding Organizations

Responses were received fiom 120 organizational opinion leaders (63.5% of the
final study population, it = 189). Completed mail surveys were received from 114
organizations, and 6 organization opinion leaders provided information during the

telephone follow-up survey.

32

33
A telephone follow-up survey was conducted to characterize non-respondents and

to collect basic information from those who did not wish to participate in the mail survey.
Of the 69 non-respondents, 54 were contacted. The remaining 15 were not contacted due
to invalid telephone numbers. Of those contacted, 15 stated they intended to complete
and mail in the survey, 6 completed the telephone survey and the remaining 33 did not
wish to participate for various reasons (Appendix F).

Through general knowledge of specific organizations, comparison to responses
received from similar organizations and responses to the telephone follow-up survey, it
was determined that of the 69 non-respondents, 15 represented stream and river
stewardship citizen action organizations, and met the definition of the study organizations.
36 of the non-responding organizations likely did not meet the definition of the target
study population. These 36 organizations were fishing groups (24), property owners’
associations (4), lake associations (3), and recreation-oriented organizations (5). It could
not be determined whether the remaining 18 non-responding organizations matched the
characteristics of the target study organizations: 3 were education organizations, 4 were
advocacy organizations, 2 were watershed protection organizations, and 9 were
unclassifiable due to lack of information (Figure 4).

When the 36 non-respondents determined to be outside the scope of this study
were removed from the final study population, an adjusted study population of 153 was
obtained. Therefore, the adjusted response rate was 78.4% (of the adjusted study

population) (Figure 4).

 

 

 

 

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
     
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figpg 3. Initial and final study populations.

Qprrrctgrisp'g of Resppndents go Telephpne Follpw-Up

The 6 responses received during the telephone follow-up survey were very similar

 

 

 

 

Final study
population
’ n=189
Ad' st d f *
waned). mal Non-respondents
population not in the study
it = 153 population
_ n = 36
Reg]: 1:31:18 / Non-respondents Recreation Fishing
n = 33 organizations organizations
/ \ n s 5 n = 24
. . Unknown
Within Study whether within Property
population study population owners’
11 = 15 n = 18 associations Lake
n = 4 associations
/ \ n = 3
Advocacy Watershed
organizations protection
it = 4 organizations
n = 2
Education
organizations Unclassifiable
n = 3 organizations

n = 9

to the mail survey responses. All 6 responding groups were non-profit and non-

governmental organizations. The average percentage of organizations’ time allocated to

stream and river programming was 32% (of 5 respondents). Stream and river activities

included conducting education projects; providing information to the general public;

mapping watersheds, planning and setting priorities; conducting restoration or

enhancement projects; doing water quality monitoring; and implementing clean-ups (Table

3).

 

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

       
 

 

 

 

 

 

 
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Final study
population
n=189
Adjusitijfinal / Non-respondents
population not in the study
it = 153 population
it = 36
Resp: 1‘23“” / N°“' "”9““!th Recreation Fishing
:1 " 33 organizations organizations
/ \ n g 5 n = 24
Unknown
Within study whether within Property \
pOPUIItiOII study population owners’
n - 15 n g 13 associations Lake
n = 4 associations
/ \ " = 3
Advocacy Watershed
organizations protection
it = 4 organizations
n - 2
Education
organizations Unclassifiable
n x 3 organizations

n = 9

 

 

 

 

 

 

F ig_ure 4. Characterization of non-respondents and adjusted final study population.

h ' ' fRes on in d an’ ion
The majority of the responding study organizations were located in the northeast
(21.1%), northwest (29.8%)and southwest (27.0%) portions of Michigan’s lower
peninsula. The rest were divided among the southeast lower peninsula (11.4%) and the
upper peninsula (6.2%); and 7.9% of the responding study organizations conduct stream

and river programming on a statewide level (Table 4).

 

36
Table 3
Activities Conducted By Respondents to Telephone Follow-Up Survey

 

 

Frequency Valid
(of phone Percent
respondents (% of phone
Activities‘ n = 6) respondents)
Educational projects (workshops, displays, festivals,
schools) 5 83 .3
Provide information to the general public, youth, riparian
owners and government officials 4 66.7
Watershed mapping, planning, priority setting 3 '50.0
Efforts to influence decision makers 2 33.3
Restoration and enhancement activities 2 33 .3
Water monitoring (biological, chemical or physical) 2 33.3
Fish or other vertebrate population assessments 1 16.7
River or stream clean-ups 1 16.7
Other (access to wetlands) 1 16.7

 

' Other response categories for activities in which none of the six responding organizations were involved:
habitat assessments or surveys, bank and road crossing assessments, photographic surveys, pipe surveys,
assessment of floodplain characteristic (vegetation, size), sediment assessments, ninofl‘ surveys (sediment
and pollution source), bank and road crossing assessments, construction site inspections, and watercourse
configuration assessment (depth, shape, composition).

Table 4
Geographic Location of Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River Organizations

 

 

Frequency Valid Percent

Location (of study sample) (% of study sample)
Upper Peninsula, Lake Michigan Watershed 1 0.9

Upper Peninsula, Lake Superior Watershed 6 5.3
Northeast Lower Peninsula‘ 24 21.1
Northwest Lower Peninsula" 34 29.8
Southeast Lower Peninsulac 13 11.4
Southwest Lower Peninsula‘l 27 23 .7
Statewide° 9 7.9

 

' Includes Saginaw Bay watershed, and those watersheds north to Cheboygon county.

b Includes Upper Muskegon River watershed and those watersheds north to Emmet county.

° Includes watersheds which drain to the St. Clair River between the Belle River and the River Raisin.

“ Includes watersheds from the lower portions of the White and Muskegon Rivers south to the St Joseph
River.

° These organizations conduct the majority of their activities on a statewide level.

37
When categorized by financial status and organizational structure, responding

organizations could be divided into three general categories: non-profit, non-
governmental, stream and river stewardship citizen action organizations (Primary NGOs)
(58.8%); other non-profit citizen action organizations which were indirectly or marginally
involved in stream and river stewardship (Secondary NGOs) (25.4%); and citizen non-
profit stream and river stewardship organizations which are fostered by, or work closely

with governmental agencies (F ostered NGOs) (15.8%) (Table 5).

Table 5
Organization Types as Reported by Respondents

 

Frequency Valid Percent
(of study (% of study

 

 

 

Organization Type sample) samplg
Primary NGOS ‘ 67 58.8
Secondary NGOST
Advocacy groups whose work indirectly impacts river and stream

stewardship 4 3 .5
Resource protection groups whose work indirectly impacts river and

stream stewardship 5 4.4
Primarily educational groups whose work indirectly impacts river

and stream stewardship 4 3.5
Parent organizations whose chapters implement river and stream

stewardship programs 3 2.6
Lake associations whose work indirectly impact river and stream

stewardship 6 5.3
Other organizations marginally involved in stream and river

stewardship (e.g. recreation groupsL 7 6.1
Fostered NGOs °
Non-profit organizations fostered by a governmental agency;

volunteers implement stream and river stewardship programming 10 8.8
Organizations which are a partnership of governmental units;

volunteers implement stream and river stewardship programming 3 2.6

Committees representing various groups for purpose of stream and
river stewardship; volunteers implement stream and river
stewardship programming 5 4.4
' Not for profit, non-governmental organimtions whose primary goals are directly related to stream and
river stewardship.
" Non-profit citizen action organizations which are indirectly or marginally involved in stream and river
stewardship.
° Non-profit citizen action organimtions fostered by, or work closely with governmental agencies.

38
The mean number of years in existence for the responding study organizations was

20.4 years (median 16.0 years, standard deviation 20.3 years) (Figure 5). Many
organizations were relatively young; 45 of 109 responding study organizations (41.3%)

were founded in the past ten years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

W01

 

 

 

25 to 29 731;:g5g;3333525353235333255gigigigigégégfgigigigi33357?gig?§§};§?§.i.;_‘§ , .
30 to 34 I?:;;:-‘::-::g.=.s;:;z;2;3;s;s;sgs:agsx-z Tiff
38 to 3. 7i}; ;,, f

2. to 2‘ 7.2F}:g:g:g;§:§:5:5:g:g:g:g

1 to 4

I to 9
10 to 14 :‘i§i_:;:zz.;;::.
16 to 19

 

 

3 3 3 8 8 8

2 2 2 8 8 g

3 3 3 3 8 o
Wotyoarsinexiatance

 

Figpre 5. Number of years in existence for Michigan’s stream and river stewardship
citizen action organizations (n = 109).

 

Inputs in General: The study organizations rely heavily upon volunteers to

implement programming. The number of active volunteers per organization ranges from
zero to 2,500, with a mean number of active volunteers of 97.1 (Table 6). The total
number of members per responding study organization ranged from 7 to 70,000 (mean

number of total members was 1561.1). Approximately half of the 98 responding study

39
organizations reported having paid staff (58 Primary NGOs, 24 Secondary NGOs and 16

Fostered NGOs)48 out of 98). The mean number of paid staff was 3.5, however, 28.5%
of the study population reported having 1 to 3 paid staff members. The mean percentage
of staff time allocated to stream and river activities was 38.7%, indicating that on the

average the study organizations spend much of their time on other programs or activities

(Table 6).

Table 6
How Citizen Action Stream and River Stewardship Organizations are Staffed

 

Mean Median
(of study (of study Standard

 

Type of staffing _fi sample) sample) Deviation n

Number of paid staff 3.5 na 13.6 98

Percent of staff time allocated 38.6% 17.5% 39,0 71
to streams and rivers

Number of active volunteers 97,1 20,0 303 .7 97

Total number of members 1561.1 150.0 7951.9 87

 

The median annual budget for the study organizations was $15,500, with a mean
of $186,475.56 (for 98 responding organizations). The mean was skewed by a small
number of organizations which reported a large annual budget. Both of the two
organizations which reported an annual budget greater than $650,000 were not Primary
NGOs. One of these was an organization that works to protect habitat on the statewide
level by purchasing property, and thus was classified as a Secondary NGO. The other, a

Fostered NGO, was an organization fostered by a governmental agency, and it is

40
suspected that the reported annual budget ($8,000,000) includes all of the agency’s

budget, rather than solely that of the stream and river stewardship organization fostered by
that agency. The mean percent of the total annual budget allocated to stream and river
work was 48.0% (median 35.0%, standard deviation 40.1%). When the two
organizations with a reported annual budget greater than $650,000 are removed from the
calculation, this mean changes only slightly (to 48.1%) and the median and standard
deviation remains virtually the same. However, 20 of the study organizations allocate
100% of their total budget to stream and river stewardship programs.

The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant difi‘erences in
activities between the 20 organizations which allocate 100% of their total budget to
stream and river stewardship programs and the rest of the responding organizations. A
significant difference was found in responses to one activity response category. The
organizations which allocate 100% of their budget more commonly implement general
education activities (p= 0.01) than do groups with a lower percentage of their budget
allocated to stream and river programming (Appendix G, Table G-l).

Sources of fiinding of the study organizations include various governmental,
private and non-profit organizations. The sources of most fiinding, however, were
membership dues (accounts for 30.5% of firnding for stream and river programs),
firndraising (12.7%), foundations (10.1%), and federal and state government (8.6% and
8.4% respectively) (Table 7).

The study organizations receive non-financial and non-material technical or

organizational support from a diversity of organizations. Opinion leaders were asked to

41
rate how significant or important were the contributions of assisting organizations to

stream and river stewardship programming. Contributions from the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) and other non-profit organizations were rated the most

significant sources of assistance (Table 8).

Table 7
Reported Sources of Funding for Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River

Stewardship Organizations

 

 

Frequency Mean Standard

Source of fiinding (of study sample) (% of funding) Deviation n

Membership dues 51 30.53 41.14 101
Fundraising 20 12.72 30.91 1 14
Foundation(s) 30 10.15 24.73 103
Other ' 18 8.70 23 .42 102
Federal government 22 8.57 22.54 103
State government 23 8.39 21.22 103
Corporate donation 20 5.60 18.20 104
Local business 20 3.71 12.01 104
Local government 16 2.62 11.17 104
County government 10 1.23 5.31 104
Individual donations 9 0.53 2.77 114

 

‘ Seven respondents listed sources not included in response eategories: non profit groups (5 respondents),
and local schools (2). Two respondents listed multiple sources: Association members, contributions,

special grants (1 respondent), Special programs, grants, donations (1). Sources of funding for three
respondents cannot be interpreted: Club budget (1), Lakes support (1), Private organizations (1). Six
respondents did not provide a description of “other funding source”.

Regional variations in inputs: The Kruskal Wallis one-way analysis of
Variance was utilized to test for significant differences in sources of assistance between
organizations fiom different regions of the lower peninsula. Several statistically significant

regional difi’erences were found (Appendix G, Table G-2):

42

o the southeast lower peninsula organizations rated the contributions of

I(rniversit)y staff more significant than did organizations from all other regions
p=0.01 ,

o the southeast lower peninsula organizations rated the contributions of
university and college students more significant than did organizations fi'om all
other regions (p=0.02),

o the southeast and southwest organizations rated the contributions of local
government staff more significant than organizations in the northern half of the
lower peninsula. Organizations from the northeast lower peninsula rated the
significance of these contributions lower than did all other regions (p=0.05).

Table 8
Organizations Which Provide Non-Financial Technical or Organizational Assistance, Such
as Cpnsultation Time or Other Non-Material Assistance

 

 

 

Mean Median
rating of rating of Standard
_Sources of Assistance contribution‘ contribution‘ Deviation n

Depart. of Natural Resources 3.90 4.0 1.02 101
Other non-profit organizations 3.87 4.0 1.06 90
Dept. of Transportation 3 .39 2.0 0.73 71
Natural Resources Conservation

Service 3.37 3.0 1.13 86
Depart. of Environmental Quality 3.28 3.0 1.04 85
University staff 3.12 3.0 1.08 84
Local government stafl’ 3.11 3.0 1.04 83
Extension personnel 3.06 3.0 0.95 82
For-profit (consultants/businesses) 3.05 3.0 1.00 79
University/college students 2.98 3.0 1.03 82
County Drain Commissioner/staff 2.90 2.0 1.08 87
Environmental Protection Agency 2.80 3.0 0.93 84
US Forest Service 2.79 2.0 1.06 80
US Fish and Wildlife Service 2.78 2.5 0.93 80
Other County government staff 2.74 2.5 0.89 78
Dept. of Agriculture 2.72 2.0 0.90 78
Other" 2.48 2.0 1.73 25
Other State government staff 2.40 2.0 0.69 63
Junior/Community College stafl' 2.38 2.0 0.70 74
Other Federal government staff 2.34 2.0 0.72 56

 

‘ Calculated on a seale of 2 to 5, where: 2 = does not contribute to our organimtion, 3 = provides small
contribution (is helpful, but not necessary to organization’s activities), 4 = provides moderate contribution
to our organization, and 5 = provides significant contribution (some activities would not occur without
this support). 1 = unsure if a contribution is made, and therefore was not included in the analysis.

" Public schools (1 respondent), a governmental of non profit organization was listed but a rating was not
provided (3), no source specified (20).

43

The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant differences between

organizations in the northern and southern portions of the lower peninsula in ratings of the

relative significance of sources of assistance. Several statistically significant regional

differences were found (Appendix G, Table G—3):

organizations in the southern half of the lower peninsula rated the contributions
of university staff more significant than did organizations in the north
(p=0.008),

organizations in the southern half of the lower peninsula rated the contributions
of university and college students more significant than organizations in the
north (p=0.01),

organizations in the southern half of the lower peninsula rated the contributions
of county drain commissioners more significant than organizations in the north

(p=0.03).

The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant difl’erences between

organizations in the eastern and western portions of the lower peninsula in ratings of the

relative significance of sources of assistance. No statistically significant regional

differences were found between eastern and western organizations (Appendix G, Table G-

4).

Input variations between organization types: The Kruskal Wallis one-way ‘

analysis of variance was utilized to test for significant differences in sources of assistance

between difl'erent types of organizations (primary NGOs, secondary NGOs, fostered

NGOs). Several statistically significant regional differences were found (Appendix G,

Table G-5):

fostered NGOs rated the contributions from Natural Resources Conservation
Service staff more significant than primary and secondary NGOs. Secondary
NGOs rated the significance of these contribution the lowest (p< 0.001),
fostered NGOS rated the contributions of other state government staff more
significant than primary and secondary NGOs. Secondary NGOs rated the
significance of these contributions the lowest (p= 0.005),

fostered NGOs rated the contributions of other county government staff more
significant than primary and secondary NGOs. Secondary NGOs rated these
contributions the lowest (p=0.007),

44

o fostered NGOs rated the contributions of Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality staff more significant than primary and secondary
NGOs. Secondary NGOs rated these contributions the lowest (p=0.008),

o fostered NGOs rated the contributions of Michigan Department of Natural
Resources staff more significant than primary and secondary NGOs.
Secondary NGOs rated these contributions the lowest (p= 0.01),

o fostered NGOs rated the contributions of Environmental Protection Agency
staff more significant than primary and secondary NGOs. Primary NGOs rated
these contributions the lowest (p= 0.02),

o secondary NGOs rated the significance of contributions from local government
staff lower than primary and fostered NGOs (p= 0.01).

Inputs variations compared to staffing characteristics: The Mann-Whitney U
test was utilized to test for significant difl‘erences in sources of assistance between
organizations with or without paid staff. Several statistically significant difi’erences were
found. Those organizations with paid staff rated the contributions of the following
organizations more significant than did organizations with no paid staff: Michigan
Department of Transportation (p= 0.05), Michigan Department Environmental Quality
(p= 0.003), county drain commissioner (p= 0.02), and other county government staff (p=
0.01). Organizations with no paid staff rated the contributions of the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources more significant than did organizations with paid staff

(p= 0.02) (Appendix G, Table G—6).

Proc of Michi n’ tre m n River Stew rd hi i ' n Action
mm

The most commonly conducted activities of Michigan’s citizen action stream and
river stewardship organizations were efi‘orts to influence decision makers, distributing
information or conducting educational activities. These commonly conducted activities

include providing information to the general public (92.0% of responding study

45
organizations), conducting general educational activities (80.7%), making efforts to

influence decision makers at the local level (77.5%), providing information to local or
county government officials (72.3%), providing information to riparian owners (71.4%),
making efforts to influence county level decision makers (67.9%), making efforts to
influence federal level decision makers (67.0%), conducting restoration or enhancement

projects (66.1%), and providing information to youth (65.2%) (Table 9).

Table 9
Activities Conducted by Citizen Action Stream and River Stewardship Organizations in
Michigan

 

 

Frequency Valid
(of study Percent
sample) (% of study

 

Activities sample) n
Provide information to the general public 103 92.0 112
Educational activities, in general 92 80.7 114
Provide information to riparian owners 80 71.4 112
Environmental cleanups 75 66.4 113
Provide information to youth 73 65.2 112
Collect data or information from rivers or streams 57 51.4 111
Wildlife habitat assessments (fish or wildlife), in general 45 39.8 113
Planning; i.e. watershed level land-use planning 43 38.4 112
Watershed level problem/activity priority setting 43 38.4 112
Bank and road crossing assessments 41 36.6 112
Program or project evaluation 36 32.1 112
Watershed mapping 31 27.7 112
Water resource inventories at the watershed level 24 21.4 112
Other‘ 21 18.8 1 12
Construction site inspections 15 13 .4 112
Efforts to influence local (municipthownship) decision

makers to support organization’s position 86 77.5 111
Provide information to local or county government

oficials 81 72.3 1 12
Efi‘orts to influence county decision makers to support

organization’s position 76 67.9 112

Efi‘orts to influence state or federal decision makers to
support organization’s position 75 67.0 112

46

 

Table 9 @ont’d).
Restoration and enhancement activities for rivers and

streams, in general 74 66.1 112
Lobbying efforts for legislative support of

organization’s position 33 29.5 112

 

' Eleven (11) respondents provided responses unrelated to response categories: Fish rearing and planting
(2 respondents), Work on gas and oil pipeline flow issues (1), trailway planning and conservation (1),
Lake shore surveys (1), Funding eight projects on streams and rivers (1), Survey of access sites for
recreational use (1), Efforts to get the DNR to clean up the Platte River State Fish Hatchery (1), Special
grants projects (1), Land trust activities (1), Scientific board (1).

Seven (7) reported activities which were addressed in other parts of the survey: Stream bank erosion
control (1),Habitat restoration and improvement (2), Research to best mange natural resources (1), Clean-
up (over 32 tons removed, 90% recycled) (1), Legal action (1), Survey and monitor natural areas which
may or may not be directly associated with rivers and streams (1).

When asked to specify which activities take place in or for streams and rivers, as
opposed to other environments, most respondents report conducting activities mainly in

rivers or streams (Table 10).

Table 10
Activities Conducted in or for Rivers Streams and Other Environments

 

 

Conducted in Rivers Conducted Only in
and Streams Other Environments‘
(as well as other
environments) '
Frequency Valid Frequency Valid
(of study Percent (of study Percent
sample) (% of sample) (% of

 

study study
Activity n sample) sample)

Environmental clean-ups 106 58 54.7 5 4.7
Habitat assessment/ surveys 107 57 53.3 4 3.7
Water monitoring, physical (depth,

flow etc.) 109 43 39.4 7 6.4
Fish or other vertebrate population

assessment/survey 108 42 3 8.9 2 1 .9
Water monitoring, biological 109 41 37.6 9 8.3
Sediment assessment 109 41 37.6 3 2.8

 

Table 10 (cont’d).

47

 

Runoff surveys, sediment and

pollution source survey 109 41 37.6 3 2.8
Water monitoring, chemical 109 37 33.9 7 6.4
Research 109 3 1 28.4 3 2.8
Watercourse configuration

assessment (depth, shape,

composition etc.) 109 26 23.9 1 0.9
Photographic surveys 109 24 22.0 3 2.8
Assessment of floodplain

characteristics (vegetation, size

etc.) 109 22 20.2 4 3.7
Pipe surveys 107 8 7.5 2 1.9

 

' Other environments include Great Lakes, wetlands, inland lakes and ponds, and wells.

Process variations between organization types: The Kruskal Wallis one way

analysis of variance was utilized to test for significant differences in stream and river

stewardship activities conducted between organization types (Primary, Secondary and

Fostered NGOs). Several significant difl’erences were found (Appendix G, Table G7):

0 activities more commonly reported by fostered NGOs than other organization

types:

00.0.00

0

watershed level problem or activity priority setting (p= 0.03 ),
wildlife habitat assessments (p= 0.02),

runofl‘ control activities (p= 0.05),

tree and shrub plantings for restoration and enhancement (p= 0.003 ),
program or project evaluations (p= 0.01),

bank and road crossing assessments (p< 0.001),

construction site inspections (p= 0.005),

sediment assessment (p< 0.001).

0 activities least commonly reported by secondary NGOs as compared to all
other groups:

0

0
0
O
0

bank and road crossing assessments (p< 0.001),

program or project evaluations (p= 0.01),

providing information to youth (p= 0.02),

water resource inventories at the watershed level (p= 0.002),
stream and river clean-ups (p= 0.008).

48
Process variations compared to staffing characteristics: The Mann-Whitney U

test was utilized to test for significant differences in activities between organizations with
or without paid staff. Several statistically significant differences were found. Those
organizations Mm paid staff were more commonly involved in the following stream and
river stewardship activities than were organizations with no paid staff (Appendix G, Table
G-8):

habitat assessments or surveys (p= 0.02),

construction site inspections (p= 0.003),

watercourse configuration assessments (depth, shape, composition) (p= 0.04),
assessment of floodplain characteristics (vegetation, size) (p= 0.04),
watershed mapping (p=0.02),

watershed land-use planning (p= 0.008),

watershed level priority setting (p= 0.04),

program or project evaluation (p= 0.01),

biological water monitoring (p= 0.04),

chemical water monitoring (p= 0.002),

Tangible Outputs Resglting from Ogganizations’ Processes

Tangible outputs in general: Conducting environmental cleanups was
reported by 66.4% of the responding study organizations. Collecting human created trash
from the river or stream (88.2% of organizations conducting clean-ups) and from the
banks or riparian zone (88.2%) were the primary activities conducted as part of a river or
stream clean-up. Providing educational awareness activities or events concurrent with the

clean-up, ranks third as the most common clean-up activity (67.1%) (Table 11).

49

Table 11
Activitiei Conducted as Part of a River or Stream Clean—Up

 

 

Frequency Valid percent
(of study organizations (% of study
which conduct clean-ups, organizations which

Activities n = 11g conduct clean-ups) n
Collection of human created

trash from the stream or

river 67 88.2 76
Collection of human created

trash from the banks or

riparian zone 67 88.2 76
Provide educational/awareness

activities or events

concurrent with clean-ups 51 67.1 76
Planting of trees, shrubs, .

grasses for aesthetics 32 42.1 76
Removal of brush and logs

from the stream/river 31 40.8 76
Removal of brush and logs

from the banks or riparian

zones 18 23 .7 76
Other‘ 8 10.5 76

 

' Four (4) respondents specified their response as follows: Cleanup of path near river (1 respondent),
Conduct Beaver Island Lake Days for every 6th grade student from three school communities (1),
Restoration of natural habitat (1), Road side Adapt-a Highway (1).

Two (2)respondents reported activities which facilitate clean-ups conducted by other organizations:
Provide clearinghouse for clean-up efforts and information and facilities communication between local
clean-up and water monitoring groups (1), Provide “how to” and where to obtain assistance to served
groups wishing to conduct river trash clean-ups (1).

Fish or wildlife habitat assessments are conducted for rivers and streams by 38.9%
(45) of responding organizations. The three most common assessments reported were
investigations of aquatic invertebrates, fishes, and habitat along the banks (Table 12).

Restoration and enhancement activities were conducted on streams and rivers by
66.1% (74) of the responding study organizations. The three most frequently conducted

enhancement activities were tree and shrub planting (73.0% of responding organizations

50
which conduct restoration and enhancement projects), vegetative stabilization (67.6%),

and non-vegetation bank stabilization (64.9%) (Table 13).

Table 12
Types of Fish or Wildlife Habitat Assessments Conducted on Rivers and Strem

 

 

Valid frequency Valid percent
(out of the 45 of those who (out of the 39.8% of those who

Habitat assessment type do assessments) do assessments)
Aquatic invertebrate 28 63 .6

Fish 25 56.8

Habitat along banks 22 50.0

Habitat in floodplain 11 25.0

Access to habitat 9 20.5

Other‘ 2 4.5

 

' The two (2) respondents specified their assessment outputs: Habitat improvement by adding large woody
debris, Camper programs.

Table 13

Types of Restoration and Enhancement Activities Conducted by Michigan’s Citizen
Am’ on Stream and River Stewardship Organizations

 

 

Valid frequency Valid percent
(out of the 74 who do (out of the 66.1% of those
restoration and who do restoration and
Activity enhancement) enhancement)
Tree and shrub planting 54 73.0
Vegetative stabilization (grass or
ground cover plantings and
bioengineering) 50 67.6
Non vegetation bank stabilization 48 64.9
Runoff control 40 54.1
Construction and/or placement of
in—stream structures 39 52.7

Habitat improvement such as
sediment removal 3 5 47.3

51
Table 13 (cont’d).

 

Pavement of gravel or rock in the

channel 30 40.5
Vegetation protection 26 35.1
Pollution and/or eutrophication

control 18 24.3
Vegetation removal 14 18.9
Other' 5 6.8

 

' Three (3 respondents) were not appropriate responses to the question: Education, Will be conducting
these activities in the future, Raise fish for river stocking.

Two (2) responses may have fit in the response eategories, but cannot be interpreted: Restoration of
natural habitat, Recreational access.

Physical, chemical or biological data were collected by 47.7% of the responding
study organizations. The top eight parameters measured were temperature (74.1% of
responding study organizations), invertebrates (51.9%), pH (51.9%), dissolved oxygen
(50.0%), aquatic vegetation (44.4%), phosphorus (44.4%), fish (42.6%), and
flow/velocity regimes (40.7%) (Tables 14 and 15). Data were analyzed in laboratories
(46.0%), with test kits (42.0%), and by other means (32.0%). Many of the responses for
“analyzed by other means” indicated that the question was not interpreted correctly: nine
of these 16 responses were not relevant to the question, and seven listed another
organization but did not indicate if analysis was completed with a test kit or if data were
sent to a professional laboratory. (Table 16).

The two most popular uses for data collected by the study organizations were for
educational purposes (by 64.3% of respondents), and watchdogging (57.1%). Other
common uses included for local decision making (39.3%), non-point source pollution
assessments (37.5%), watershed planning (35.7%), habitat restoration (35.7%), and

research (33.9%) (Table 17).

Table 14

 

52

Physicund Chemical Data Collected by Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River

Stewardship Organizations

 

 

Frequency Valid percent
(of study organizations (% of study organizations which
Parameter which collect data n = 54) collect data)
Water temperature 40 74.1
pH 28 5 1.9
DO 27 50.0
BOD 25 46.3
Phosphorus 24 44.4
Flow/velocity regimes 22 40.7
Turbididty 18 33.3
Nitrogen 18 33.3
Secchi transparency 18 33.3
Rainfall 17 3 1.5
TSS/TDS 14 25.9
Alkalinity 12 22.2
Chlorides 11 20.4
Pesticides 8 14.9
COD 8 14.8
Metals 8 14.8
Hardness 8 14.8
Oil and grease 7 13.0
Hydrocarbons 6 1 l. 1
Other‘ 6 1 1.1

 

' Two of the five respondents specified: Physical visual problems, Provide some financial support for

students doing it.

53

Table 15

Biological Data Collected by Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River Stumdsfip
Organizations

 

 

 

Frequency Valid percent
(of study organizations (% of study organizations which

Parameter which collect data n = 54) collect data)
Invertebrates 28 5 l .9
Aquatic vegetation 24 44.4
Fish 23 42.6
Riparian vegetation 20 37
Coliform bacteria 18 33.3
Algae 14 25.9
Amphibians and reptiles 12 22.2
Birds/wildlife 1 1 20.4
Chlorophyll 7 13.0
Other bacteria 5 9.3
Other‘ 3 5.6

 

‘ One respondent specified response as : Visual problems.

Table 16

Handling and Analysis of Data Collected by Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River
Stewardshi Or anizations

 

 

 

Frequency Valid percent
(of study organizations (% of study
which reported collecting organizations which

Handling and analysis method data, n = 57) reported collecting data)
Send to a laboratory for analysis 23 46.0
Collected with a test kit and

analyzed by organization’s staff 21 42.0
Other‘ 16 32.0

 

' Nine (9) responses were not relevant to the question: File it (1 respondent), Dye tests (1), Organized into
reports and letters (1), Observed physical alterations, pollution at outfalls, fish kills, etc. (3), Working
with GREEN and high schools (1), Survey (1), Analyze with volunteers and experts (1).

Seven (7) respondents send data to another organimtions such as a private laboratory, Michigan State
University, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Global Rivers Environmental Education
Network.

54

Table 17
Uses of Data Collected by Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River Stewardship
Organizations

 

 

Frequency Valid percent
(of study organizations (% of study
which reported collecting organizations which

Uses of data data,n = 57) reported collecting data)
Education 36 64.3
Watchdogging 32 57 . 1
Local decision making 22 39.3
Non-point pollution assessment 21 37.5
Watershed planning 20 35.7
Habitat restoration 20 35.7
Research 19 33.9
Point source pollution

assessments 12 21 .4
Other‘ 12 21.4
Water classification/standards 8 14.3
Enforcement 5 8.9
Legislation 4 7.1
Don’t know what is done 1 0.9
Nothing is done with it 0 O
305(b) report 0 0

 

‘ Twelve (12) responses were specified: Posted on web site, Kept on file and compared to past data, Used
to show if Best Management Practices are working, Hopefully will be used in watershed planning,
Provided to MDEQ to use to identify locations for their own sampling, Dedication to natural areas, Call
Pollution Emergency Alerting System or Fisheries Division of MDNR, Put in MDNR database, Watershed
budget, inclusion or exclusion of site for use based on potential degradation, Working on an action plan,
Used in fish planting programs.

Most organizations share their data with others (96.4% of responding study
organizations). The other organizations with which data were commonly shared were
other non-profit, advocacy or lobbying organizations. Data were reported shared with
local governments (by 58.9% of responding study organizations) and state governments

(57.1%). Educators were the fourth most common recipients of data (46.4%) (Table 18).

55

Table 18
Organizations with Which Michigan’s Citizen Action Stream and River Stewardship
Organizations Share Daga

 

 

Frequency Valid percent
(of study organizations (% of study
which reported collecting organizations which

Organization sharing data data, n = 57) reported collecting data)
Local government 33 58.9

State government 32 57.1
Educators 26 46.4
Advocacy groups 23 41.1
University scientists 20 3 5.7
County government 19 33 .9
Federal government 16 28.6

Other‘ 14 25.0

Lobby organizations 4 7 .1

Data are not shared 2 3 .6

 

‘ Three (3) responses were not relevant to the question: Shared on web site, baseline, as needed Seven (7
respondents) listed an organization: Michigan Environmental Council, Chamber of Commerce, Lake
associations, Tipp of the Mitt Watershed Council, Michigan Lakes and Streams Association, Huron river
Watershed Council, North East Michigan Council of Governments. Five (5) listed projects, or
individuals: Rouge River Wet Weather Demonstration Project, Michigan Natural Features inventory,
Students, Local riparian owners, and Interested citizens.

Tangible output variations between organization types: The Kruskal Wallis
one way analysis of variance was utilized to test for significant differences in tangible
outputs between organization types (Primary, Secondary and Fostered NGOs). Several
significant differences were found (Appendix G, Tables G-9, G-10, G-l 1, G-12):

0 activities more commonly reported by fostered NGOs than other organizations:
0 planting of trees, shrubs or grasses for aesthetics as part of a stream or
river clean-up (p= 0.05),
O non-vegetation bank stabilization (p< 0.001),
0 tree and shrub plantings for restoration and enhancement (p= 0.003 ),
0 activities more commonly reported by secondary NGOs than other
organizations:
0 other types of restoration and enhancement activities (p= 0.02).
0 activities least commonly reported by secondary NGOs as compared to other
organizations:

O...

O

0.6...

56

bank and road crossing assessments (p< 0.001),

program or project evaluations (p= 0.01),

restoration and enhancement activities (p= 0.004),

removal of brush and logs from the stream or river as part of a river
clean-up (p= 0.04),

placement of gravel or rock in the river channel as part of a restoration
or enhancement project (p= 0.05),

working with youth or schools (p= 0.03),

providing information to youth (p= 0.02),

water resource inventories at the watershed level (p= 0.002),
production of displays for other organizations’ events (p= 0.006),
non-vegetation bank stabilization (p< 0.001),

vegetative stabilization (grass or ground cover planting and
bioengineering (p< 0.001),

stream and river clean-ups (p= 0.008).

Tangible output variations compared to staffing characteristics: The Mann-

Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant differences in tangible outputs between

organizations with or without paid staff. Several statistically significant differences were

found. Those organizations _wit_h paid staff were more commonly involved in the

following stream and river stewardship activities than were organizations with no paid

stafl‘ (Appendix G, Tables G-13, G-14, G-15, G-l6):

collection of data or information (p= 0.006),

collection of biological oxygen demand data (p= 0.04),

collection of phosphorus data (p= 0.04),

collection of total suspended solids and/or total dissolved solids (p= 0.01),
collection of nitrogen data (p= 0.04).

The following stream and river stewardship activities were more commonly

conducted by organizations with pp paid staff:

collection of fish data (p= 0.003),
construction and/or placement of instream structures (p< 0.001),
provide educational activities concurrent with clean-ups (p<0.01).

57
Action Outputs Resulting from Ogganizations’ Processes

Action outputs in general: Educational activities were commonly reported as a
part of stream and river programming (80.7% of respondents). The most common of
these are: working with youth or schools, production of printed materials, and holding or

hosting workshops, conference or public awareness days (Table 19).

Table 19
Educatignal Activities Conducted for Rivers gd Streams

 

 

Frequency Valid Percent
(out of 92 who do (% of those who do

Educational Activity educational activities) educational activities)
Production of printed materials 61 66.3
Working with youth or schools 59 64.1
Holding or hosting workshops of

conferences or public awareness days 56 60.9
Production of displays for other

organizations’ events 41 44.6
Other education activities‘ 28 30.4
Production of radio or television spots or

programs 14 15.2

 

' Eight (8 respondents) report using other types of media: Loeal news articles, Developed groundwater
curriculum materials, Education videos, Press releases, Signage for access sites, Developing a slide show
and video, Developed a movie with local TV station, Travel panel for learning how to fish. Two (2)
provide support to others who do educational activities: Source for IWLA Save-Our-Streams material,
Provide funds to youth camps and college students with environmental interests.

Ten (10) respondents report activities which can not be categorized: Meet with service organizations, Boy
Scout P.M. clean-up yearly, Lakeside demonstration, student research, Directed to land managers and
decision makers, One of the nation’s largest school monitoring programs with forty schools participating,
Fund research done by WSCC students, Educate canoeists on river use, Nature hikes, Boat tours and
canoe trips.

Action Output variations between organization types: The Kruskal Wallis one
way analysis of variance was utilized to test for significant difl'erences in stream and river

stewardship action outputs between organization types (Primary, Secondary and F ostered

58
NGOs). Working with youth or schools was least commonly reported by Secondary

NGOs as compared to other organizations (p= 0.03) (Appendix G, Table G-17).

Action output variations compared to staffing characteristics: The Mann-
Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant differences in action outputs between
organizations with or without paid stafl‘. No statistically significant differences were found

(Appendix G, Table G-18).

Organizational and Technical Needs

Needs in general: Two needs were rated highly as most important to
organizations’ functioning: consistent funding and networking among groups (Table 20).

Regional variations of' needs: The Kruskal Wallis one-way analysis of
variance was utilized to test for significant differences between organizations in difl‘erent
regions of the lower peninsula in perceived organizational and technical needs. The
southwest and northeast rated the need for improved resource materials and access to
them higher than did organizations from the other regions (p= 0.02) (Appendix G, Table
G- l 9).

The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant differences in
perceived organizational and technical needs between responding study organizations in
the east and west halves of the lower peninsula. No statistically significant differences
were found (Appendix G, Table G-20). In addition, no statistically significant difl'erences

were found when the Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant differences

59
in perceived organizational and technical needs between responding study organizations in

north and south halves of the lower peninsula (Appendix G, Table G-21).

Table 20
Organizational and Technicfleepg. Which When Met. May Result in Improved
Organizational Functioning and my Allow Organizations to Better Meet Goalg

 

 

Mean‘ Median‘
rating of rating of Standard

Organizational and technical needs importance importance Deviation n
Consistent firnding and information on how

to access funding sources 3.74 4.0 1.36 102
Networking among groups; better

communication and sharing of

information 3 .47 4.0 1 .06 102
Improved resource materials and access 3.36 3.0 1.06 99
Other” 3.13 4.0 1.85 15
Opportunities to learn how to develop

partnerships and liaisons 3.12 3.0 1.17 99
Focus to our group’s activities, assistance

with group organization and leadership 3.02 3.0 1.20 99
More opportunity for inclusive stakeholder

participation in decisions and discussions 2.94 3.0 1.23 94
Access to baseline data 2.90 3.0 1.21 98
Information necessary to do

increased advocacy (e. g., lobbying) 2.81 3.0 1.29 99
Standardization of data collection

procedures 2.69 2.0 1.3 1 93

 

‘ Where 1 = not at all important to functioning of our organization, 2 = somewhat important to
functioning of our organization, 3 = important to functioning of our organization, 4 = very important to
functioning of our organization, and 5 = extremely critical to functioning of our organization.

" Ten (10) of the fifteen (15) respondents specified their responses: better computer system, access to the
intemet and improved opportunities for electronic communication (3 respondents), DNR floodplain
permit information (1), viable association of Lake associations (1), free legal help (1), legislative
development ( 1), analysis of agency procedures and responsibilities (1), more state goverrunent support
(1), resource lists (1), continuation of what was started at the Watershed Conference (1), ways to increase
membership and volunteers to implement (2), public relations (1), outreach and development (1),
increased and new membership (1), acknowledgment of organization’s role and leadership in watershed
planning and management (1).

60
Variations between organization types in organizational and technical needs:

The Kruskal Wallis one-way analysis of variance was utilized to test for significant
differences in perceived organizational and technical needs between different types of
organizations (primary NGOs, secondary NGOs, fostered NGOs). No statistically
significant differences were found (Appendix G, Table G-22).

Needs and staffing variations: The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to
test for significant differences in perceived organizational and technical needs between
responding study organizations in the lower peninsula with or without paid staff. Those
with no paid stafl‘ rated the need for information necessary to do increased lobbying as
more important than did organizations with paid staff (p= 0.05) (Appendix G, Table G-

23).

Statewide Proggmming Needs
Statewide needs in general: Two needs for improved statewide programming

were rated the most important by responding study organizations. These were the need to
take a watershed approach to planning and management, and the need for public education
to increase awareness and responsibility (Table 21).

Regional variations in statewide needs: The Kruskal Wallis one—way analysis
of variance was utilized to test for significant differences between organizations in
different regions of the lower peninsula in their rating of statewide programming needs.
Responding study organizations fi'om the southeast lower peninsula rated the need to take

a watershed approach to planning and management lower than the other regions (p=

61
0.05). No significant differences were found between regions with respect to their rating

of other statewide programming needs (Appendix G, Table G-24).

The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant differences between
organizations in the east and west portions of the lower peninsula in their rating of
statewide programming needs. Organizations from the eastern half of the state rated the
need for education to increase public awareness (p= 0.01), the need to take a watershed
approach to planning and management (p= 0.02), and other needs (p= 0.05) more
important than did organizations fi'om the west side of the lower peninsula (Appendix G,
Table G-25).

The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant differences between
organizations in the northern and southern portions of the lower peninsula in their rating
of statewide programming needs. No significant difl‘erences were found (Appendix G,
Table G—26).

Variations between organization types in statewide needs: The Kruskal
Wallis one-way analysis of variance was utilized to test for significant difi‘erences in
perceived statewide needs between difi’erent types of organizations (primary NGOs,
secondary NGOs, fostered NGOs). No statistically significant differences were found
(Appendix G, Table G-27).

Statewide needs and staffing variations: The Mann-Whitney U test was
utilized to test for significant differences in ratings of the importance of statewide
programming needs between responding study organizations in the lower peninsula with

and without paid staff. A statistically significant difference was found in responses for one

62
need. Organizations with no paid staff rated the need for networking among groups with

better communication and sharing of information more important than did organizations

with paid staff (p= 0.03) (Appendix G, Table G-28).

Table 21
Needs for Improving Stream and River Stewardship Proggamming Statewide in Michigan

 

 

Mean‘ Median‘
rating of rating of Standard

 

Statewide needs importance importance Deviation n
Watershed approach to planning and

management 4.41 5.0 0.76 102
Public education; to increase awareness and

res onsibility 4.33 4.0 0.76 103
Other? 4.08 5.0 1.51 12

Networking among groups; better

communication and sharing of

information 3.91 4.0 0.86 103
Development of partnerships and

strengthening of current liaisons, to

increase working cooperatively 3.87 4.0 0.94 103
Information on river stewardship options

such as management techniques,

strategies and selecting among options 3.87 4.0 0.87 101
More inclusion of citizen groups in

management decisions and discussions 3.80 4.0 1.01 99
Mechanisms to facilitate networking 3.63 4.0 0.95 95
Standardization of data collection

procedures 3.51 4.0 0.95 97
More use of citizen collected data 3.40 3.0 1.02 97
More citizen collection of baseline data 3.35 3.0 1.07 98

 

‘ Where: 1 = not at all important to stream stewardship in Michigan, 2 = somewhat important to stream
stewardship in Michigan, 3 = important to stream stewardship in Michigan, 4 = very important to stream
stewardship in Michigan, and 5 = extremely critical to stream stewardship in Michigan.

‘ Nine (9) of the twelve (12) respondents specified their responses: funding (2 respondents), state
government funding (1), water resource technical data to planning commissions for proper land use
decisions (2), more technical data to back up protection (1), more data collection by paid professional of
government agencies (i.e. unbiased data) (1), funding for restoration and enhancement activities (1),
government commitment to qualitative protection of all watersheds (1), standardization and public
awareness of protection measures (1), better understanding of land use impacts on water resources (1),
recognition and matching funds for local stewardship efforts (1).

63
Preferences for Statewide Strategies to Meet Identified Needs

Strategies in general: Respondents were asked to rate the importance of
strategies to best begin to meet the needs listed in the survey for improving stream and
river stewardship on a statewide level. The two strategies which received the highest
rating were the need for improved coordination with state and federal regulatory agencies

and needs reported in the “other strategies” response category (Table 22).

Table 22

Importance Ratings of Strategies to Best Begrp' to Meet Needs for Improving Stream and River
Stewardship on a Statewide Level

 

 

Mean‘ Median‘
rating of rating of Standard

 

Strategies for statewide programming importance importance Deviation n
Other” 4.17 4.5 0.98 6
Improved coordination with state and

federal regulatory agencies 3.79 4.0 1.14 101
Procedures for standardization (Quality

Assurance/Quality Control) of data 3.55 3 .5 1.07 100
Procedures for data collection 3.41 3.0 1.03 99
Bulletins, fact sheets, other publications 3.37 3.0 0.88 101
A centralized office to serve as a

clearinghouse 3 .25 3 .0 1 .07 98
Directory of organizations like yours 3.22 3.0 1.19 98
Advisory team to address these issues 3.21 3.0 1.18 97
Newsletters, on the state level 3 11 3.0 1.00 101
A place to communicate with other groups

on the Internet or World Wide Web 3.11 3.0 1.19 99
Site tours and demonstration areas 3.11 3.0 0.95 99
Annual conferences or meetings in

conjunction with existing conferences 3 .01 3 .0 0.96 98
Annual conferences or meeting separate

from other meetings 2.73 3.0 0.95 97
A new organization to facilitate networking '

among stream and river organizations 2.69 3.0 1.53 98

 

' Where: 1= not at all important to stream stewardship in Michigan, 2 = somewhat important to stream
stewardship in Michigan, 3 = important to stream stewardship in Michigan, 4 = very important to stream
stewardship in Michigan, and 5 = extremely critical stream stewardship in Michigan.

" Four (4) of the six (6) respondents specified their responses: Improved coordination among state
supported universities (1 respondent), DNR policy to work on funding and permitting (1), watershed
management commission (1), funding sources (1).

64
Regional variations in strategies: The Kruskal Wallis one way analysis of

variance was utilized to test for significant differences between responding study
organizations in different regions of the lower peninsula in their rating of the importance
of statewide strategies. Organizations in the southeast rated newsletters more important
than did organizations from other regions. Organizations in the northeast rated
newsletters less important than did organizations in the other regions (p= 0.02) (Appendix
G, Table G-29).

The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant differences in the
ratings of the importance of strategies to meet identified needs between the organizations
in the north vs. south halves of the lower peninsula. Organizations in the southern halfof
the lower peninsula rated newsletters more important than did organizations in the north
(p= 0.02). No significant difl’erences were found between organizations in the north and
south with respect to their rating of the importance of other statewide programming needs
(Appendix G, Table G3 0).

The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to test for significant differences in the
ratings of the importance of strategies to meet identified needs between the organizations
in the east vs. west halves of the lower peninsula. Organizations in the eastern halfof the
lower peninsula rated an annual conference or meeting in conjunction with existing
conferences more important than did organizations in the west (p= 0.03). Eastern
Michigan organizations rated a directory of similar organizations more important than did

western organizations (p= 0.05) (Appendix G, Table G-31).

65
Strategy preference variations between organization types: The Kruskal

Wallis one-way analysis of variance was utilized to test for significant differences between
different types of responding study organizations (primary NGOs, secondary NGOs,
fostered NGOs) in their ratings of the importance of statewide strategies to meet needs.

The following statistically significant differences were found (Appendix G, Table G-32):

0 Primary NGOs rated annual conferences which are separate from other events
more important than did secondary and fostered NGOs (p= 0.003),

0 Secondary NGOs rated improved coordination with state and federal
regulatory agencies less important than did primary and fostered NGOs (p=
0.001 ),

o Fostered NGOs rated newsletters much less important than did primary and
secondary NGOs. Primary NGOs rated newsletters more important than did
fostered and secondary NGOs (p= 0.03).

Strategies and staffing variations: The Mann-Whitney U test was utilized to
test for significant differences between responding study organizations with and with out
paid stafi‘ in the lower peninsula in their rating of the importance of strategies for statewide
programming to meet identified needs. Organizations with no paid staff rated two
strategies more important than did organizations with paid staff: newsletters (p=
0.004),and an annual conference or meeting which is separate from other events (p= 0.05)

(Appendix G, Table G-33).

Mi h' nO niza'ns om red ' NationalVln rWat rM rr‘ rin
W

A mail survey, similar to the one used for this study, was implemented on the national
level by the University of Rhode Island and the United States Environmental Protection

Agencyin 1993 (Kerretal, 1994). Adrafisurveywaspilotedinamailingto 10coordimtors

66
of monitoring programs. The final survey was mailed to all individuals on the mailing list for

T_he Vohrnteer Monitor Newsletter (a national newsletter for which publishing is rotated
quarterly among member organizations). The mailing list contained nearly 8,000 individuals.
Over 700 surveys were returned. Duplicate surveys were eliminated, as were those responses
from groups not engaged in monitoring or from individuals rather than organized groups. The
remaining responding organizations were telephoned to clarify any incomplete responses,
resulting in 517 usable responses. The low response rate (approximately 6.5%) was likely the
result of two factors. Individuals who were not afiliated with a citizen action organization, and
duplicate names representing the same organization, were not purged from the initial mailing
list. No follow-up contacts were made to non-respondents to encourage participation.

Organizations similar to those Michigan groups I studied, were arrveyed, although the
national survey instrument was designed to obtain information primarily about water
monitoring groups and their activities. Therefore, comparison of responses to questions
regarding other activities, sources of assistance, and needs and preferences for strategies to
meet programming needs was not possible.

Characteristics of responding national and Michigan organizations: The
mean number of years in existence was 20.4 for organizations responding to the Michigan
survey (median 16.0, standard deviation 20.3). Over halfof the organizations responding to
the national survey (65%) were created in the four years prior to survey implementation (1988
to 1992), and 23% were created before 1988. Compared to these data, a greater proportion

of the Michigan organintions surveyed were older, with 22.8% created between the years

67
1988 and 1992; 20.5% were created more recently than 1992, and 60.5% were created before

1988.

Comparison of the activities of responding study organizations: Of the
organizations responding to the national study, close to 75% conduct river monitoring
programs. Fewer respondents to the Michigan study were involved in water monitoring
activities (biological monitoring, 54.1%; chemical, 59.6%; physical, 54.1%). This difference
may be the result of a response bias in the national study and a difi‘erent initial sample
population. The national survey targeted volunteer monitoring organizations, while I was
interested in all types of stream and river activities, and thus my study population included a
broader diversity of organizations.

Working with youth was popular among the organizations surveyed in the national
study, 67% reported working with middle and high schools, and 41% stated they work with
elementary students. The Michigan responding organizations reported similar involvement;
65.2% reported they provide information to youth, and 64.1% of those who stated they
implement educational activities (n = 92) reported working with youth or schools.

Comparison of the inputs of responding study organizations: Annual budgets
for monitoring activities of national citizen stream and river citizen action organizations range
from $0 to $500,000, with a median of $4,000. This cannot be compared directly to the
Michigan data because the national survey asked for the organizations' monitoring budget,
while my survey asked respondents to report total organizational budget. The mean annual
budget for the organizations responding to the Michigan survey was $186,475 (median

$15,500). However, the mean percent of the Michigan organimtions’ budgets allocated to

 

68
stream and river activities was 48% (approximately $89,508). This was much higher than that

reported in the national survey. It was not known whether such a large difference would have
been reported had my survey asked for only the percent of the budget dedicated to monitoring
activities as opposed to stream and river activities in general. ’

Some comparisons of sources of fimding can be made between the national and
Michigan studies. However, it is important to note that the national survey requested
respondents to report sources of firnding for their programs in general, while the Mchigan
survey asked respondents to report funding for stream and river programs. Respondents to
both surveys report local businesses, local governments, donations fi'om foundations, and
membership dues and donations as contributing a high percentage of the budget. One notable
difference between the results of the two studies was in the reported percentage of
contributions fiom state government. State government ranked as the second highest
contributor to programs in the national survey, while in the Michigan survey, state government
contributions were ranked much lower (as the eighth highest contributor).

Although volunteers are an important part of the implementation of organizations'
prograrrrs, the number of active volunteers reported by respondents to both studies was low.
The median number of active volunteers reported in the national survey was 25.0, and this
number was 20.0 in the Michigan survey (mean of 97. 1). Results from the Michigan study
show 22.7% of the organizations have 10 or fewer volunteers, and 88.6% of the responding
organizations have 100 or fewer active vohrnteers. Respondents to the national survey report

25% have 10 or fewer and 70% have 100 or fewer active vohrnteers (Table 23).

69

Table 23
Number of Active Volunteers per Organization as Rgported in the National and Michigan
am

 

 

 

Respondents to Michigan study Respondents to national study
Number of Number. of Percentage of Number. of Percentage of
active orgamzatrons orgamzatrons orgamzatrons orgamzatrons
volunteers (n=97) (n=47 8)
0 - 5 6 5.2 47 10
6 - 10 17 17.5 73 15
11-20 27 27.8 111 23
21 - 50 23 23.6 95 20
51 - 100 14 14.5 54 11
101 - 250 5 5.1 43 9
251 - 500 3 3.1 19 4
501 - 1,000 1 1.0 11 2
>1,000 2 2.0 25 5

 

Compar'non of the outputs of the study organizations: Survey questions
regarding monitoring activities in the Michigan survey were designed to provide a direct
comparison to the results of the national study. The same response categories for chemical,
physical and biological parameters were used in both studies. Respondents to both studies
reported undertaking similar monitoring activities, with parameter rankings revealing that a
large percentage of the organizations surveyed use biological assessment techniques. In order
of most commonly monitored first, the top four most commonly monitored parameters
reported in both surveys were temperature, macroinvertebrates, pH, and dissolved oxygen.

The next most commonly monitored parameters by respondents to the national survey, were

70
flow regimes and nitrogen. Michigan responding organizations reported aquatic vegetation

and phosphorus as the next most commonly monitored parameter.

Similarities between the two surveys were also found in reported use of volunteer
collected data. The results of both studies show education as the number one type of use for
citizen - collected monitoring data.

The results of both studies report local and state government decision makers as the
primary users of data. The results of the national survey place advocacy groups a close third as
common users of data. The organizations responding to the Michigan survey report educators
as the third most common users of data, and non-profits or advocacy organizations as "other"
users of data When the frequency of responses for the categories non-profits and advocacy
organizations as users of data were combined, advocacy/non-profit organizations were ranked
as the number one users of volunteer collected data in Michigan. The national survey did not

ask respondents to report whether educators or non-profit organimtions were users of data.

Chapter 4

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summagy and Discussion

Much effort was required to implement this research and outreach project, the
survey and the multiple follow-up contacts. However, the thoroughness of the
identification of study organizations (in part through outreach programming) and the mail
survey response rate provided a fairly representative sample of Michigan’s stream and
river stewardship citizen action organizations from which to draw conclusions.

The classification of organizations into the three categories (Primary NGOs,
Secondary NGOs, and Fostered NGOs), provided a useful conceptual framework.
Consequently, I was able to observe subtle difi‘erences between organization types that
otherwise would not have been detected. Differences were found between the three
organization types in their reported processes, organization inputs, and outputs (tangible
and action). As a result, more specific recommendations for further research and outreach
programming to meet the needs of the study organizations can be made.

Inputs to Michigan’s stream and river stewardship citizen action
organizations: Assistance from university staff, university and college students,
and county drain commissioners was rated more important to programming by
organizations in southern Michigan than by those in northern Michigan. This is likely due
to the close proximity of more colleges and universities in the southern half of the state.

71

72
Although every county has a drain commissioner, several drain commissioners in the

‘ southern half of the state implement programs to develop and foster stream and river
stewardship action-taking. For example, in addition to providing many educational
opportunities, the Washtenaw County drain commissioner implemented an adopt-a-river
program in partnership with the Huron River Watershed Council. The efforts of such
drain commissioners are likely a reflection of their constituencies. In addition, the
increased complexity and severity of drainage issues in the southern part of the state due
to urbanization, require that the drain offices in the south make strong efforts to involve
the public and to conduct educational programs. Drain offices in the southern part of the
state have more staff than those in the north, and as a result would likely have more stafi‘
time available to assist citizen action stream and river organizations.

The southern Michigan organizations rated the assistance of local government staff
more significant to their programs than did the northern organizations. Organizations
from the northeast lower peninsula rated the significance of assistance from local
governments lower than did all other regions. This is likely due to the fact that
municipalities and townships in the southern half of the lower peninsula employ more stafl‘
and implement more ordinances related to watershed protection than those in the north.
Thus opportunities for involvement with citizens may be greater. Similarly, local
governments in the northeast likely employ fewer stafl‘ than the other regions of the lower
peninsula due to a lower population.

Secondary NGOs rated the significance of assistance from local government staff

less important than did primary and fostered NGOs. This may be because the main goal of

73
the secondary NGOs is not stream and river stewardship, and accomplishing their main

goal may not require the assistance or cooperation of government staff. F ostered NGOs
rated the assistance from government agencies (Natural Resources Conservation Service
stafi, Environmental Protection Agency staff, other county government stafi‘, Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality staff, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
stafi‘, and other state government staff) more significant than did primary and secondary
NGOs.

Those organizations with paid stafi‘ rated the assistance of the following agencies
more significant than did groups with no paid stafi’: Michigan Department of
Transportation, Michigan Department Environmental Quality (MDEQ), county drain
commissioner stafi‘, and other county government stafi‘. Perhaps organizations with paid
stafi‘ implement more technically complex programs which involve, or require assistance,
fi'om governments, or the paid stafi‘ have the time and skills to seek out assistance fiom
these governments.

Organizations with no paid stafi‘ rated the assistance of the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources (MDNR) more significant than did organizations with paid staff. It
may be that the particular organizations with no paid staff (e. g., Trout Unlimited
Chapters) tend to be involved in activities similar to MDNR programs, such as fisheries
programming. It is not known if lack of public awareness of the 1995 split of the MDNR
into two separate agencies (MDNR and MDEQ) resulted in unreliable responses to this

question.

74
Processes and outputs of Michigan’s stream and river stewardship citizen

action organizations: Fostered NGOs more commonly than other organizations
reported involvement in activities which required greater technical expertise, including:
watershed level problem or activity priority setting, habitat assessments, planting of trees,
planting shrubs or grasses for aesthetics as part of a stream or river clean-up, non-
vegetation bank stabilization, runoff control activities, tree and shrub plantings for
restoration and enhancement, program or project evaluations, bank and road crossing
assessments, construction site inspections, and sediment assessments.

Organizations with paid stafi‘ also reported involvement in many of the above
activities which require technical expertise. In addition, these organizations reported the
most involvement in the more labor intensive and long-term activities such as watercourse
configuration assessments, assessment of floodplain characteristics, watershed mapping,
watershed land-use planning, program or project evaluation, and collection of data or
information.

Secondary NGOs reported the least involvement in activities most directly targeted
at rivers and streams such as: bank and road crossing assessments, restoration and
enhancement activities, river or stream clean-ups, placement of gravel or rock in the river
channel as part of a restoration or enhancement project, water resource inventories at the
watershed level, and bank stabilization projects.

The collection of fish data and construction and/or placement of instream
structures were more commonly conducted by organizations with pa paid staff. This may

be a reflection of the characteristics of these organizations and unrelated to stamng

75
characteristics. For example, the fishing oriented organizations are more likely than the

other study organizations to be involved in fish collection and placement of instream
structures for fish habitat enhancement, and these organizations oflen do not have paid
staff.

Interpretation of the results of questions regarding water quality data collected,
analysis methods and uses of data was limited. The validity of information collected from
responses to these questions may have been compromised by the way in which questions
were worded. These questions asked respondents to report on analysis and uses of “data
and information.” This wording may have resulted in some respondents reporting on
analysis of information such as photographs or personal observations, rather than on the
water monitoring parameters mentioned in the survey. Some respondents may not have
reported responses solely for stream and river work. For example, of the 54 organizations
who reported collecting data fi'om rivers and streams 33.3% reported measuring Secchi
transparency. This measurement is typically done only in lakes.

Organizational and technical needs: None of the organizational and
technical needs listed in the survey were rated unimportant. This is not suprising
considering that the list of needs was created from information gathered during the focus
group session at the conference in the outreach phase of this project. In this sense, the
mail survey confirmed the importance of needs identified at the conference.

Responding study organizations in the southwest and northeast portions of the
lower peninsula rated the need for improved resource materials and access to them as

more important organizational needs than did organizations fiom other regions.

76
Northwest Michigan has the greatest number of similar organizations with which to share

resources, and organizations in the southeast reported relying heavily upon governments
and universities for assistance.

Those with no paid staff rated the need for information necessary to do increased
lobbying as more important than did organizations with paid staff. Either these
organizations are more involved in lobbying activities, or, due to a lack of staffing, do not
have time to seek out the appropriate information.

Statewide needs: As was the case with organizational and technical needs, the
results of the mail survey confirmed the importance of the statewide needs identified
during the focus groups held in the outreach phase of this project. The need to take a
watershed approach to planning and management was rated more important by
organizations in the eastern side of the lower peninsula than by organizations in western
Michigan. However, responding study organizations from the southeast lower peninsula
rated the need to take a watershed approach to planning and management lower than all
other regions. Perhaps the ratings of the organizations in the northeast skewed the high
rating of this need by organizations in the eastern part of the state overall. The
southeastern organizations likely rated this need less important either because a watershed
approach is already incorporated into planning in the southeast, or because the
urbanization of the southeast makes recognition of watershed boundaries difficult.

Providing information to the general public and implementing educational
programs were the most common activities reported by all responding organizations.

However, organizations from the eastern half of the state rated the need for education to

77
increase public awareness more important than did organizations from the western side of

the lower peninsula. There are fewer active organizations in the eastern side of the lower
peninsula than in the western portion of the state. Either the organizations in the eastern
half of the state perceive a greater need for education of the general public, or due to their
lower numbers are unable to implement as many educational programs as they would like.

Other needs were also rated higher by organizations in the east than in the west.
These were funding, data, and increased government involvement. This makes sense
when considering the fact that fewer organizations in the east reported collecting data, and
they rated assistance from universities and governments less important.

Organizations with no paid staff rated the statewide need for networking among
groups, with better communication and sharing of information, more important than did
organizations with paid stafi‘. There was no significant difi‘erence between organizations
with and without paid staff in the rating of the importance of the need for networking.

Strategies to meet organizational, technical and statewide needs:

Improved coordination with state and federal regulatory agencies was rated
important to stream and river programming by all organization types. However, secondary
NGOs rated the importance of improved coordination with state and federal regulatory
agencies less important than did primary and fostered NGOs. It is not clear, however, if
respondents interpreted this response category consistently; for example, some
respondents may have thought the question was referring to coordination among

governmental agencies rather than coordination with stream and river organizations. This

78
could have been clarified by adding an additional response category for “Improved

coordination between state and federal regulatory agencies.”

 

Organizations with no paid stafi‘ rated the importance of newsletters and a
directory of similar organizations as strategies to meet needs significantly higher than did
organizations with paid stafi‘. They also rated the need for improved networking among
groups higher than did organizations with paid staff, and newsletters and directories are
methods to facilitate networking.

Newsletters were rated much less important by fostered NGOs than by primary
and secondary NGOs. Fostered NGOs have a close relationship to an agency, and
therefore they may be obtaining information through the fostering agency.

Limitations pf the Project

Identification of the study population during the outreach phase of the project and
implementation of the survey instnrment in accordance with the Total Design Method
(Dillman, 1978) yielded a response rate sufficient to draw conclusions about the total
population of stream and river stewardship citizen action organizations. However, as with
most studies, some analysis limitations were encountered due to the characteristics of the
study population. For, example, it was not possible to include the Upper Peninsula
responding organizations in analysis of difi’erences between geographical regions due to a
low number of respondents fiom this area. This is simply a reflection of the fewer total
number of organizations active in stream and river programming in the Upper Peninsula,

rather than a poor response rate fiom this area.

79
Limitations of the survey: Comparisons between organizations based on the

percent of staff time allocated to stream and river programming were not possible because
it was not clear if respondents reported just paid staff time or included non-paid/volunteer
time. Further, it is unclear whether the reported percent of staff time was adjusted for
seasonal stream and river activities (for example, an organization may have reported that
100% of staff time is spent on stream and river activities, but if they only conduct
activities in the summer months, this is actually 50% of staff time prorated annually).
Further, it is unclear whether reported activities are conducted regularly or if they are
occasional events. Similarly, tests to determine how the annual budget is related to
programming and needs were not possible because it is unclear whether respondents
reported total annual organizations’ budget or total stream and river programming budget.
Specific procedures and methods for activities such as monitoring, assessments,
and restoration and enhancement projects were not included as survey questions. As a
result, it is unclear what decision making processes result in organizations becoming
involved in a specific activity and how these activities are actually implemented. For
example, brush and log removal fi'om the stream or river was reported by 40.8% of the
113 organizations who reported conducting stream and river clean-ups. Aquatic
ecologists know that this is not always the most beneficial activity for the health of a river
or stream, and if done improperly can be destructive to aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate
habitat. One survey question did ask respondents to list references used. Some
respondents listed procedure manuals, however, because the question was open-ended, a

small number of responses was obtained, many of which were incomplete.

80

Recommendations

Programming recommendations: Overall, the outreach and research phases of
this project provided sufficient information to make recommendations for effective
programs to meet the needs of Michigan’s citizen action stream and river stewardship
organizations and to encourage the general public to take stream and river stewardship
actions. Five recommendations are made for those agencies and organizations in a
position to provide such programming: 1) facilitate consistent firnding of Michigan’s
stream and river stewardship citizen action organizations, 2) provide a long-term
mechanism for facilitating networking among organizations, 3) develop improved resource
materials and distribution of existing materials, 4) take a watershed approach to
management and planning, and 5) increase education opportunities for the general public.

Consistent firnding is an historic and continuous problem for non-profit volunteer
based organizations. However, responding organizations to the national survey reported a
larger percentage of firnding coming from state government (second highest contributor)
than did Michigan organizations. Michigan organizations report the largest percentage of
funding coming fiom membership dues and fundraising efforts. This funding problem
might be addressed in two ways. First, a concerted efi’ort could be made to determine
what avenues for firnding are currently not used by Michigan organizations. For example,
funding agencies should determine what funding is currently available to support stream
and river stewardship programming, and then implement programs to better advertise

these opportunities. Second, an assessment of other states’ funding mechanisms should be

81
conducted by a state level committee and proposals made for incorporation into Michigan

agencies’ budget allocation. For example, an investigation to determine how Ohio’s state
resource protection agency supports its Stream Team program, may provide insights into
how to allocate dollars to such programs in Michigan.

Consistent with the identification of needs during the focus group sessions in the
outreach phase of this projects, improved networking among groups was rated an
important organizational, technical and statewide need. Stream and river stewardship
organizations in Michigan benefit greatly by sharing information and resources among
themselves. Evidence of this appears in the rating of the importance of assistance from
other non-profit organizations. Assistance from other non-profits was rated the second
most important source of assistance (assistance from MDNR was rated slightly higher).
Implementing and fostering a mechanism to facilitate such sharing is perhaps the most
important recommendation for programming.

Some states have addressed this need for facilitated networking through the
establishment of a state level non-profit river networking organization. These states
include, among others, Idaho, Connecticut, Wisconsin, Colorado, Illinois, Kentucky,
Montana, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Washington, and West Virginia.
Establishing a new organization in Michigan received the lowest rating of importance of
all strategies listed in the survey. Other strategies which received higher ratings should be
implemented to meet this need for improved networking, including a centralized clearing-
house for information within an existing organization or agency, a directory of

organizations, an advisory team, newsletters, annual conferences, and a site on the internet

82
for communication among groups. Many of these could be met through cooperative

efforts of the stream and river stewardship organizations themselves. Efforts to address
this need should be targeted at organizations with no paid staff, since they rated this need
more important than did organizations with paid staff. A directory of organizations was
rated most important by organizations in the eastern lower peninsula, however, it would
be usefiil to all organizations. A review of the methods used by organizations with paid
staff to obtain resources may prove useful in developing strategies for facilitating such
networking among those organizations with no paid staff.

Improved coordination with state and federal regulatory agencies received the
highest mean rating of importance as a programming strategy, indicating that Michigan’s
organizations would be receptive to implementation of programs to meet identified needs
by these agencies. A commitment fi'om state agencies, such as the Departments of
Environmental Quality and Natural Resources, to implement and maintain programs to
meet the needs identified in this survey would go a long way towards increasing and
fostering stewardship actions on the part of Michigan’s citizens and consequently local
and county governments.

The need for improved resource materials was rated important. However, these
need categories were rated higher by organizations with no paid staff (which have a
smaller amount of time to allocate to research), and by organizations in the northeast and
southwest portions on the lower peninsula (where there are fewer organizations with
which to network.) Further, many excellent resources already exist, such as those

published by the Save Our Streams program of the Izaak Walton League of America,

83
How to Save A River: A Handbogk for Citizen Action (Bolling, 1994), and A Field

 

Mfor Water Quality Monitoring (Mitchell and Stapp, 1994) in addition to many
others. Therefore, it is recommended that rather than develop new materials, facilitating
the distribution of existing references to these types of organizations would be most
productive. In this way, this need could be met simultaneously with the need for
facilitated networking.

One exception to this need for resources is the need for standardization of data
collection procedures, which was rated equally important by all organization types and
geographic regions. Michigan-specific procedures which would be accepted by state and
federal governments, should be developed and approved at the statewide level. To ensure
consistency and acceptability, this would best be done by a state level committee with
representation from citizen organizations, technical research experts and agency
representatives.

The need to take a watershed approach to planning and management was rated
highly important as a statewide need. This need may best be met through the efforts of
existing state level committees, for example the Watershed Management Committee of the
Michigan Water Environment Association, which is made up of representatives of public,
private and non-profit sector organizations. Addressing this need should first be done in
the southeast portion of the lower peninsulas, since these organizations listed the need to
take a watershed approach as a higher priority than did organizations in the rest of the
state. Continued representation of all stakeholders on such committees is imperative. As

summarized in Chapter Two, involvement of target audiences (in this case local and

84
county governments and stream and river stewardship organizations) in program

development is critical for successfirl implementation.

Implementation of educational programs would meet the identified need for
education of the general public of the importance of stream and river stewardship, and
would educate the stream and river stewardship organizations themselves.
Implementation of education programs by state level government agencies, committees
and universities would be most successful if local stream and river stewardship citizen
action organizations are involved in design and implementation. Interactive educational
programs which provide learning opportunities for sampling procedures, partnership
development and funding opportunities would be much more efi’ective than unidirectional
programs such as the distribution of information.

Recommendations for further research: As a result of the collection of
baseline information on Michigan’s stream and river citizen action organizations, further
research may now be conducted. Three general areas of research are recommended: an
evaluation of the effectiveness of organizations’ programming in protecting or improving
the condition of streams and rivers, an evaluation of the effectiveness of organizations’
programming in improving and increasing public stream and river stewardship action-
taking, and an evaluation of the efi’ectiveness of current and recommended outreach
efl’orts in meeting needs of Michigan’s stream and river stewardship citizen action
organizations identified in this study. Evaluation in these three general areas would

provide an understanding of the success of current programming techniques. Additional

85
programs to increase the effectiveness of Michigan’s stream and river stewardship citizen

action organizations could then be designed and implemented.

APPENDICES

 

APPENDIX A: Project Approval by the University Committee on Reseach
Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS)

MICHIGAN STATE

UNIVERSITY

February 7. 1996

 

1‘0: Shari L. Darin
113 Natural Resources Bldg.

RE: IRS“: 96- 02.
TITLE: IDENTIFYING NEEDS FOR STREAM AND HATERSKED
STEWARDSHIP PROGRAMS IN MICHIGAN

REVISION REQUESTED: “/3
QTEGOR Y:
APPROVAL DATE: 02/07/96

The university Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'IUCRIflS)
review of this project is complete. I am pleased to stise that the
rights and welfare of the hm subject s appear to be adequately
rotected and methods to obtain mformed consent are appropriate.
Therefore. the UCRIHS approved this project end any reVisions listed

lllllhbx UCRIHS approvalt is valid for one calender year, beginning with
the approvslu shown above. Investigators plsnni ngt
continue a project the year mt use the green renewal
form (enclosed with t original e rovel letter or when a
project is renewed) to seek u te certification. There is a
maximum of four such expedite renewals sible. Investigators
wishi to continue a roject beyond the time need to submit it
again or complete rev ew.

IlVIIIOII: UCRIRS must reviewm changes rocedures involving hm
subjects. rior to i tietion of intge change. If this is done at
the time o renewal please use moireen renewal form
revise an approved protocol at an her time during them

send your written request to the websir requesting revised

approval and referencing the project's Ian I and title. Include

in r request a desc ption ofw we change and any revised
rument s. forms or advertisements that are applicable.

 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  

Should either of the follow arise duringt he course of the
work investigators must noti “I “pm mtly: (1) problems
(unexpected side effectsin eints. e c.11involving

subjects or (2) changes av ironment or new
information indicating greater risk to Chthe human sub' ects then
existed when the protocol was previously reviewed and approved.

beo feny future help lease do not hesitate to contact us
5- 2180 or FAX (51714 2-171.

517/3541" cc: Melissa L. Middleton
MSW/494171

UWSM
”Ow”
We“

all.“

86

APPENDIX B: Focus Group Session Methodology and Results

 

FACILITATOR GUIDE FOR ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS

FOR USE DURING DISCUSSION SESSIONS A T:
C OORDINA TING WA TERSHED STEWARDSHIP IN All CHI GAN:
CITIZEN MONITORING, ENHANCEMENT & PROBLEM SOL VING
FOR STREAMS AND RIVERS

March 6, 1995

Key research questions for focus group session on Michigan’s stream stewardship citizen
action programs:
1) What needs are experienced by these programs? For example, what services,
tecnnologies or resources are needed to initiate and maintain stream stewardship
projects?
2) Which needs are most critical to address?

Reasons for these discussions:
We understand that there is limited networking and coordinating among
organizations, that information and technology transfer are ofien inefficient, and
that some groups progress in isolation of others when shared resources could
make their programs more effective.

We will be making recommendations and initiate ways to address those needs, thus
it is not only important to gain an accurate understanding of what needs exist, but
also which needs are most critical to address

87

88
Outline:

I. INTRODUCTIONS:
A. Intro. to moderator and recorder
B. Orientation - purpose and procedures
C. Appreciation for time

D. Participants intro. themselves

II. LISTING OF CURRENT NEEDS

Ill. CLARIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF THOSE NEEDS
A. Clarification
8. Additional to description

IV. IDENTIFICATION OF MOST CRITICAL NEEDS
A. Have participants identify which ones are most important and why

B. Have participants rank using stickers

V. CLOSURE

89

FACILITATOR GUIDE FOR ROUND TABLE DISCUSSIONS

[TURN ON TAPE RECORDER]

I. Introductions

A. Moderator introduces self

1. name

2. name of organization you are from, serving as facilitator at request of MSU Dept.
Fisheries & Wildlife
3. Role in this process is as discussion leader
B. Moderator introduces recorder(s), or has recorder introduce self

l.name

2. from MSU Dept Fisheries & Wildlife
3. role in this process is to record content of discussion

C. Orientation

1. We haveinvitedyoutotakepartinthesediscussionstogetanunderstandingofthe

needs of the organizations you represent with regard to Michigan’s stream stewardship

citizen action programs
Let me define what we mean by “stream stewardship citizen action programs”.
These programs are managed by volunteer citizens, not-for-profit
organizations, or by other organizations (such as universities, schools, state,
county, and local governments) in cooperation with citizens. These programs
are implemented and maintained for the purposes of conserving and protecting
Michigan 's riverine ecosystems through promoting stewardship ethics and
actions. Activities of these organizations include water quality and watershed
monitoring. habitat enhancement, youth and community education, production
of resource materials etc.

Reasons for these discussions:

We understand that there is limited networking and coordinating among organizations,
that information and technology transfer are often ineflicient, and that some groups
pmgressinisolafionofotherswhensharedrecourcescmddmaketheirpmgrams more

effective.

Wewillmakerecommendationsanthiatewaystoaddressthoseneedthusitisnot
only important to gain an accurate understanding of what needs exist, but also which
needs are most critical to address.

2.'I‘hereareonlyafewguidelinesforourdiscussiontodaythatlwouldliketogoover:

therearenorightorwronganswers!
Imayaskyoutobebriefinyourcomments
statewhatisonycurmind
Imayinterruptsothatwecanmovealonginourdiscussion
tapingofthissession ismainlysowedon’tncedtotakedetailednotes

_rightnow
.‘Thrstapewillherevrewedonlybythccoordrnatorsofthtsprqectlwam ,
' gtoremmdyoutlntyournamewdlremainconfidenualandwrllnotappw
inanyreportsofthisprqject '

trytospwkoutoneatatime, sothatwecanunderstandyourcomments
asinanygroup, peoplearedifl‘erentsolexpectwemayhavesome
differencesof opinion today. Don’t hesitateto shareyour thoughts,
everyone’scommentsareimportantl

90

3. We appreciate your willingness to participate in this discussion. Your input will
help us determine what are the greatest needs of stream stewardship programs and begin
determining what would be the best way to meet those nwds

4 With that said, let us begin our discussion by introducing ourselves, if each of you
could share your first name, and tell us where you are from and your occupation and
briefly, you involvement to stream stewardship programs ' ~ .

II. Listing of needs:

i’Regardless of the extent of your involvement, I would like to start by creating a list of current needs

We will go aroundthe room andlwould like each person to list a nwd Which theybelieve Impacts the
.efl'ectivenejSS of stream stewardship citizen action programs PleaSe include why this is a need, in other ;

swordshowdoesrtrmpactprogrameifecuveness {namejwrllrecordaswego
A Probe: what services, technologies or resources, rf any would rmprovetheefi‘ectrveness of

these programs

B. Probe: as a member of a citizen action group, or organization that works with such groups,
what would make it easier to conduct the stream stewardship activities you are involved in.
Fam'lrtatormakesuremdsarehstednotprohlemsorsolutrons - * . ‘ ' ' ' '

C. Are there any other needs not listed

III. Clarification:

IV. Identification of most critical needs

”Ifwearesatrsfiedwrththrsrnmalhst, Iwouldhketogetyomrnputonneedsaremostrmponant I
wouldlikeyoutotakcafewnunutesto jotdownwhrchonesareofmostconoerntoyouandwhy

Facilitator: Allow time to reflect until participants look ready to move on.

Probe: Ifyou hadtochooseone need to address, which one would itbe

." 0K. whyaretheonesyouchosemostrmportant?
Probe: Are there any that are not important?

"' Weareabmhmnofumebutbeforeweend,Iwmfldhkeeachofyoutomformallyrankthencodswe

haveidentrfiedtodaymtermsofhowcntrcaltheyaretotheprogmmswehavebeendrscussmg Iwiil _
grveeachofyoufistrckerstorankmth. Placethemnexttothoseneedsyoubelrevearemostrmportantto

address Youcsnputasmanystrckersnmma f‘jf medsasyouwrsh ,X ' g' _ _ , _ A,

 

V. Closure

Beforeyou go,wewanttothankallofyouforsharingyourideaswithus. Lunchwillbeserved
inthelowerlobbynexttotheKiva.

[Tumochoordcr]

METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS OF FOCUS GROUP SESSIONS AT
MARCH 6, 1995 CONFERENCE

FOCUS GROUP METHODOLOGY:

Facilitator Training:

Facilitators and recorders attended a four and a half hour training session held one
evening one week before the conference. Melissa Middleton provided an overview of the
project and the role of the focus groups in the project. This was followed by a two hour
session lead by Donna Minnis, a Ph.D. student in Fisheries & Wildlife. Ms.Minnis
covered facilitation skills, how to deal with various personalities, and methodology for
focus group facilitation. The last two hours of the evening were spent reviewing the
prepared script and discussing specific focus group techniques in light of the types of
people with whom we would be working.

Facilitators and recorders were assigned such that at least one person was familiar
with the whole project before the training and had an understanding of the process from
personal communication with myself or by working directly on the project. Three
individuals were prepared to substitute if facilitators or recorders could not attend.

During the day of the conference, folders were given to either the facilitator or
recorder for each session; these contained, sign-in sheets, a list of responsibilities, and
paper for use by participants.

Assignment of Focus Groups:

Conference registrants were placed in particular focus group sessions based on the
organization they said they represented when they pre-registered. They were then
assigned a room, and the room number was written on the back of their name tag. Focus
group sessions included:

Conservation District Stafl‘

State Government Stafl’

Educators

Regional Non-Profit Organizations

Local Non-Profit Organizations

0 County and Local Governments

Participants were dismissed from the panel discussion to go to the focus group rooms.
They were given a brief introduction on the intent of the facilitated discussions and told to
go the room number on their name tag. Sessions took place for one hour, including sign-
in time. Some groups went over the alloted time by up to 15 minutes. The sessions were
followed by lunch. About 15-20 participant remained in the exhibit hall rather than
attending the sessions. Walk-ins were instructed to join Group 4, Regional Non-profit
Organizations, or Group 1, Conservation District stafl'. Most of these people represented
Natural Resource Conservation Service Districts or large non-profit organizations, and
thus those would be appropriate groups. It was known that the facilitators of those two
groups could accommodate more individuals.

91

92

Session Process:

Recorders were instructed to meet participants at the door and give them a sign-in
sheet to complete. Tape recorders were to be started immediately at the beginning of the
session. The facilitators progressed through the outline provided at the training (see
“Facilitator Guide for Round Table Discussions” for more detail). Participants were asked
the question “as a member of a citizen action group, or organization that works with such
groups, what would help you initiate and maintain your programs?” Responses were
recorded on newsprint. Participants were then asked to “informally cast votes as a way to
informally prioritize the needs we have identified today in terms of how critical they are to
the programs we have been discussing”, The session closed with each participant placing
4 stickers, as votes indicating priority needs, on the newsprint.

Composition of Focus Groups:

Group 1) Conservation District staff
17 individuals were pre-assigned to room 228; 11 signed in.
Facilitator: Mark Zweifler, MSU Forestry Department,
Recorder: Krista Nichols, MSU Department Fisheries & Wildlife

Conservation district staff represented various parts of the state and the majority of
the participants (7 of the 11). Other stafi‘ came mostly from Michigan Department of
Agriculture. Two private sector organizations participated, as well as one drain
commissioner and one county government employee.

Group 2) State Government staff
20 individuals were pre-assigned to room 250; 13 signed in.
Facilitator: Nanette Kelly, Lake & Stream Diagnostics and MSU Department Fisheries &
Wildlife
Recorder: Kimberly Harke, MSU Department Fisheries & Wildlife

Staff from Michigan Department of Natural Resources composed this group, most
representing Surface Water Quality Division, with some participants from Land and Water
Management Division and one individual representing the Environmental Response
Division. It was correctly anticipated that they would complain that they should have been
with other organizations for discussion purposes. However, assignments were made
consistent with our process for several reasons. Individuals within the Department do not
always know what is happening in different divisions and there is a wide range of opinion
and perception regarding the issues we were to discuss.

 

93

Group 3) Educators
21 individuals were pre-assigned to room 222; 19 signed in.
Facilitator: Jeffery Rupert, MSU Department Fisheries & Wildlife
Recorder: Christine Coulon, MSU Resource Development Department

Participants in this session represented University staff, elementary and high school
teachers, nature and science centers, and MSU Extension. One individual represented a
township board.

Group 4) Regional N on—prol'it Organizations
20 individuals were pre-assigned; 24 signed-in, more were in attendance.
Facilitator: Melissa Middleton, Project Coordinator, MSU Department Fisheries &
Wildlife
Recorder: Anne Vaara, MSU Department Fisheries & Wildlife

Participants in this session represented non-profit organizations with a statewide or
regional membership, or organizations such as watershed councils which had a large stafl‘
and thus a broad program. Other participants included one individual representing
Michigan Farm Bureau, two from RC&D Councils, two county or local government stafi‘,
one from NCAA-National Weather Service, two MDNR-SWQD staff, one from Michigan
Farm Bureau, two from Michigan Department of Agriculture, and one representing MSU
Extension.

Group 5) Local Non-profit Organizations
20 individuals were pre-assigned to room 224; 17 signed in.
Facilitator: Megan McMahon, MDNR Surface Water Quality Division
Recorder: Mary Jamieson, MSU Department Fisheries & Wildlife
Participants in this session represented watershed councils, adopt-a-river grass
roots organizations, and conservation clubs.

Group 6) County and Local governments
17 individuals were pre-assigned to room 226; 8 signed in.
Facilitator: Jennifer Wylie, Michigan Recycling Coalition
Recorder: Mike Klepinger, MSU Extension Sea Grant

Participants in this session represented drain commission ofices, county
environmental departments, health departments, township planning and zoning
commissions, and several private sector organizations.

RESULTS:

Focus group participant responses were recorded on newsprint sheets. Groups
2,3,4, and 5 were given an opportunity to group similar responses before they voted on
priority needs. Needs were later categorized for comparison purposes. Those needs which
were grouped together by participants were kept as such. Since votes were placed for the
grouping of two or three needs it could not be determined which votes were for a single
need.

 

94

Votes were counted, and percentages of votes cast were calculated for each
category, for each focus group. Percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number.

Researchers listened to the tape recording of focus groups 1, 2, 3, and 5 to clearly
interpret responses; any additions to the newsprint text are shown in italics. A video tape
of group 4 was used for this purpose because the tape recorder for that session was not
functional. The tape recorder for group 6 was not functional and the session was not
recorded by video. Clarification for this group was achieved by discussing the newsprint
notes with the recorder and facilitator of that group. Responses on the newsprint as well
as respective number of votes, and percentage of votes in each category are provided in
the following section.

Response Categories:

0 Consistent Funding and Information on How to Access Funding
Includes needs for difi‘erent types of funding fi'om various sources and needs for
information on how to secure funding for a group’s activities.

0 Need for Inclusive Stakeholder Participation in Management Decisions and

Discussions
Includes needs which list a particular group to be involved in watershed decision
making, as well as needs which list all stakeholders, both from the perspective of
agencies and citizen organizations.

0 Collection and Organization of Baseline Data and Information, With Access
Includes responses that list a need for more data or information, such as water
quality data or land use information, regarding a specific system. Includes the need
to compile information in such a way that individuals and organizations can have
ready access.

0 Networking, Better Communication and Sharing of Information, and

Mechanisms To Do So
Responses include needs to share information and experiences as well as needs to
provide avenues for this type of networking such as mailing lists, conferences, or a
central contact.

0 Partnership Development, Strengthening Liaisons, Working Cooperatively, and

Educational Opportunities to Learn How to Do So
Responses include needs to work cooperatively on projects among all types of
organizations as well as needs for learning how to develop and foster such
partnerships.

0 Public Education to Increase Awareness and Responsibility
Responses call for general education of the public to draw attention to the
importance of stream stewardship programs or issues.

0 Watershed Approach to Planning and Management
Responses express a need for groups and agencies to approach planning and
management from a watershed perspective.

0 Improved Resource Materials and Access
Responses list needs for specific resource materials and/or easier access to
resource materials.

 

95

Focus To Groups’ Activities
Responses list needs for groups to focus their activities through goal setting and
other methods. Responses also suggest specific activities on which groups should
focus.

Technical and/or Organizational Assistance
Responses express a need for direct assistance, rather than resource materials, at a
local level on either technical or organizational issues.

Data Used and Standardized
Responses list needs to have citizen-collected data used and/or collection
procedures standardized.

Increased Advocacy and Necessary Information
Responses list needs for increased citizen advocacy for streams and rivers through
lobbying or other means as well and improved access to current information on
opportunities to do so.

1) Conservation District staff; a total of 48 votes were placed

Consistent Funding and Information on How to Access Funding; 25% of
votes

Money - and sustainable funding source, longevity. With local support and spreading
and sharing finding; 10 votes .

A need for consistent funding of effective programs (government starts a program like
filter strips and then changes the rules of the game or cuts off funding); 2 votes

access to financial resources (especially non-profit), how to attack a successful fiind-
raiser ($3). Also: Ideas on how to fund a program; 0 votes

Watershed Approach to Planning and Management; 25% of
votes

development of planning strategies at watershed level involving all participants and
areas of expertise. Need for watershed master plans and “planningfimds ” set aside
by communities; 9 votes

determining how to deal with political boundaries in dealing with watershed
management 1 vote

Need a concerted eflort for watershed management; for example, ramifications must
be considered before a dam removal.

96

o planning regulations at state level, incentive for communities to participate in planning
and regulation at a finer level. Respondent expressed a need for state level regulations
to be planned at the watershed level as an incentive to work together across political
boundaries; 2 votes

0 Attention and funding to headwater areas that don ’t have the “need ” like cities and
urbanizing areas.

Collection and Organization of Baseline Data and Information, With Access; 17% of
votes

0 better organization and collection of watershed data - establishing watershed
boundaries. Needs to be standardized and stored on a watershed level.; 8 votes

Networking, Better Communication and Sharing of Information, and Mechanisms
To Do So;
15% of votes

0 more/better communication and exchange of information between small local groups
and decision makers - before decisions are made that impact the stream; 4 votes

0 better connection to soil water conservation districts and information available. Need
to advertise and use federal government programs, for example the Natural Resource
Service Conservation Districts are a source of information and assistance; 2 votes

0 local access number/computer network(especially in rural areas). Respondent
suggested this as a way to “network” rural areas, bringing them into the information
’Iink ’ as the headwaters of our watersheds; 1 vote

0 awareness for local, regional, and state organizations of federal programs, aid, and
opportunity - BETTER PUBLICITY; 0 votes
better direct links to federal government; 0 votes

0 More opportunities to network (to share information and strategies), such as
conferences.

Need for Inclusive Stakeholder Participation in Management Decisions and
Discussions;
8% of votes
0 inclusion of municipal planners in management plans and decision making; 4 votes
0 inclusion of engineers in discussion and decisions and information at watershed level; 0
votes

Partnership Development, Strengthening Liaisons, Working Cooperatively, and

Educational Opportunities to Learn How to Do So; 6% of

votes

0 strengthening liaisons between federal, state, regional, local levels - requires funding; 2
votes

0 regional workshops in establishing partnerships and networks. How-to workshops; 1
vote.

97

Public Education to Increase Awareness and Responsibility; 4% of
votes

0 public awareness - identifying areas of need and initiation of watershed clubs; 2 votes

Improved Resource Materials and Access; 0% of
votes

0 Access to case studies of restoration.

2) State government staff; a total of 64 votes were placed

Improved Resource Materials and Access; 17% of votes

0 compilation of environmental laws(local, state, federal) as relates to the watershed.
Laws and regulations in a booklet and how citizens can use them, with zoning
regulations and ordinances added at the local level; 6 votes

0 provide maps(difl‘erent types) to be able to coordinate efl‘orts between agencies and
groups. Respondent said there is a need to coordinate efforts between agencies and
other groups to create maps of watersheds including rivers, lakes, wetlands, and land
uses and to provide those maps to interested organizations; 2 votes

0 update MIRIS (GIS program); 3 votes

Networking, Better Communication and Sharing of Information, and Mechanisms
To Do So;
16% of votes

central contact. One person serving as central contact; 10 votes
volunteer, or paid, monitoring coordinator liaison between groups/councils/agencies; 0
votes

0 better coordination/mformation exchange between groups and agencies, especially
with regard to citizen groups’ long range planning, since the DNR often is dealing
with short-term, single issues; 0 votes

0 define resources and what it can provide. Need to list human resources in a given
watershed to help utilize local experts; 0 votes
expert volunteers - resources in community; 0 votes
report successes; 0 votes

Need for Inclusive Stakeholder Participation in Management Decisions and
Discussions;
14% of votes
get politicians (local, state) involved; 7 votes
need more volunteers and a way to accumulate. Need to know how to get more
volunteers”, 1 vote
define special interest groups within a watershed. Including political units; 1 vote
Get police departments involved (comment may have been facetious)
educate interest groups to what they are doing to the watershed (negative) i.e.
infrastructure. Respondent said there is a need to get primary interest groups

98

involved so they know the ramifications of their actions, such as Departments of
Public Works, Road Commissions, forestry units, developers, and local and state
politicians; 0 votes

Consistent Funding and Information on How to Access Funding; 13% of
votes

0 minimum stable/consistent funding. Rather than short-term grants; 8 votes.

Public Education to Increase Awareness and Responsibility; 12% of
votes

get schools involved - kids educate parents; 4 votes
education on what drain commissioner does; 2 votes
education of what watershed a given public is in. Education on how to determine what
watershed you are in; 1 vote

0 know geography of watershed. Need to educate the general public, for instance
Rotary Clubs, on basic geography to learn what watershed they are in and how it is
connected to other watersheds up stream and down stream; 1 vote

0 public relations program to convince public. To convince the public of the importance
of stream stewardship; 0 votes

0 brochure/handout - promotion technique in layman's terms. Need a brochure or one
page hcmdout which explains in layman ’s terms what a citizen can do to help a river,
i. e. “ten things you can do in your watershe ”; 0 votes

0 general education about agencies and their abilities/limits, i. e. who to go to for what
types of assistance and the extent of their capabilities; 0 votes

Focus To Groups’ Activities; 11% of
votes

0 process to prioritize activities - continual updating. A procedure is needed to help
groups prioritize watershed tasks in a manner which is dynamic and ongoing so it can
be continually adjusted and up-dated rather than a one time report; 1 vote

0 define activities; organization, education. Need to define activities that need to be
coordinated; 3 votes

0 groups need clear goal/objective and a way to get it out to general public in watershed;
3 votes

Technical and/or Organizational Assistance; 9% of

votes

0 expert contact for groups(i.e. scientific, policy). Need a policy and technical expert
available to meet with groups on their sites to advise and inform them of other issues
and laws that may be impacting their watershed; 2 votes

0 land use planning(tools). Need to educate groups on land use planning, i. e. tools on
how to solve problems; 2 votes

99

o define/identify problems in watershed - contact appropriate agencies. Agency 's role is
to provide assistance in defining and assessing problems in a watershed and helping
to identify possible sources; 2 votes

0 develop marketing strategies for the groups; 0 votes

Watershed Approach to Planning and Management; 5% of

votes

0 long term management plan/ stream stewardship program. Need to develop long-range
plans for a given watershed including all stakeholders; 3 votes

0 Need to take a holistic approach to protecting a watershed not just water quality
testing in the river.

Data Used and Standardized; 3% of
votes

0 quality assurance/quality control; 2 votes

Collection and Organization of Baseline Data and Information, With Access;0% of
votes

0 know what watershed contains industry. Groups need to inventory their given
watershed with regards to extent of agriculture, industry, urban uses etc...; 0 votes

0 Need access to data..

Partnership Development, Strengthening Liaisons, Working Cooperatively, and
Education Opportunities to Learn How to Do So;
0% of votes

0 agency needs preliminary information from groups. Groups need to pass data on to
the DNR to help the agency focus on the watershed level; 0 votes
groups should act as watershed officers to help DNR; 0 votes

0 Need to train groups on how to collect data which are useful to the department,
especially baseline data.

3) Educators; a total of 72 votes were placed

Networking, Better Communication and Sharing of Information, and Mechanisms

To Do So;
26% of votes

0 use of telecommunications and other media for dialogue and information sharing
(internet). Respondent listed data as one form of information which could be shared
and perhaps collection methods could be standardized; 14 votes

0 information sharing between districts and between kids and community groups.
Respondent perceives a need to develop ways to ease community groups and high
school groups into working together; 3 votes

0 yearly student conference, forum. Respondent perceives a need to hold a yearly
regional student forum to present collected data; 2 votes

100

one place to get information through the web; 0 votes

Improved Resource Materials and Access; 24% of votes

customizable, user-fiiendly resource materials. Respondent has a need for materials
such as generic lesson plans on disk which can be customized; 6 votes

directory of resources. Respondent wants easier access to local resources, i. e. wants
to know where to go for different types of information; 5 votes

information for classroom use - specifically for Saginaw Bay Watershed: e. g.
newsletter. Respondent wants information on the history of human use of the area,
perhaps in newsletter for; 5 votes

knowledge of how to relate information to the press (book). Respondent would like a
book to learn how to use the press without having to pay for it; 1 vote

lesson plan ideas; 0 votes

Partnership Development, Strengthening Liaisons, Working Cooperatively, and
Educational Opportunities to Learn How to Do So; 15 %
of votes

Increased Advocacy and Necessary Information;

partnership between Institute for Water Research and schools; 8 votes

partnerships with area businesses; 3 votes

individuals that can provide leadership, mentor. Respondent has a need for an
individual who can provide ‘one the ground’ guidance, like a scout coming to a
community to pull together individuals and assist in getting groups of the ground; 1
vote

Respondent expressed a need to have the Michigan Department of Natural Resource
involved (and assist) in local stewardship projects.

13% of

votes

Consistent Funding and Information on How to Access Funding;

political activism for funding: regulatory agencies. Respondent listed more letter
writing to congress as a need; 7 votes

politically active people to get information from regulatory agencies to public.
Respondent also expressed a need for grass-roots support of business regulation; 2
votes.

11% of

VOtCS

finding fimding sources; 8 votes

Collection and Organization of Baseline Data and Information, With Access;3% of
votes

data used by industry - build industry connections. Respondent wants citizen collected
data to be used by industry to improve processes as opposed to data used only by
government agencies; 2 votes

 

101

0 site-specific data Respondent listed scenarios and case studies as examples of useful
data; 2 votes
information regarding seasonal variations in a watershed; 0 votes
Need data regardless of whether or not it is used (not listed on newsprint)
year end report. Respondent perceives the need for a year end report of student
collected data; 0 votes

Need for Inclusive Stakeholder Participation in Management Decisions and
Discussions;
3% of votes
0 volunteerism. Respondent has a need to know how to maintain enthusiasm in
volunteers and how to maintain community volunteerism; 1 vote
0 diversity within groups. Respondent sees a need to include all stakeholders, including
churches, schools, and businesses; 1 vote

Data Used and Standardized; 3% of
votes

0 water quality test standardization; 0 vote
0 have data be used; 0 vote

Technical and/or Organizational Assistance; 1% of
votes

0 Information on how to analyze data.

Public Education to Increase Awareness and Responsibility; 1% of
votes

0 reaching non-traditional audiences; 1 vote

0 Need to “preach to the choir " less.

- positively focused "environmental report card" for businesses; 0 votes

Watershed Approach to Planning and Management; 0% of
votes

0 Need for management policy which includes restoration.

4) Regional non-profit organizations; a total of 87 votes were
placed

Partnership Development, Strengthening Liaisons, Working Cooperatively, and
Education Opportunities to Learn How to Do So;
22% of votes

0 develop a working relationship, partnership agreement, focus on common ground.
Personal relationships must be developed between citizen organizations and agency
staff who have decision making authority, tofoster working cooperatively. Focusing
on common ground can make this easier; 9 votes

102

better use of existing lobbying groups (use constituents). Non-profit organizations
need to make better use of existing lobby groups; 2 votes

consulting from group-group; 0 votes

work with regional group; 0 votes

unity - stewards and lobbying. Stewardship programs need to become more politically
active by working with lobby groups; 0 votes

person-to-person contact a must. Citizen groups must develop a personal relationship
with responsible parties in their local government; 0 votes

communication is lost as issue is filtered from commission to commission; 1 vote

get across main issues to "the" decision makers (even with change in decision makers);
8 votes

Watershed Approach to Planning and Management; 21% of
votes

refinement of site planning process (e.g. development on watershed basis): requires
1) management, 2) education of officials (zoning, planning); 7 votes

carrying capacity vs. use until it is gone, who decides, is it a public issue. This concept
needs to be considered in development issues; 6 votes

holistic approach to management - for making predictions of accumulating afi'ects; 3
votes

should it be a regional watershed issue and decision making process; 3 votes

Networking, Better communication and Sharing of Information, and mechanisms to

do so;
19% of votes
0 share what has been done and worked; 13 votes
0 current mailing list; 5 votes
0 citizen knowledge: what group is responsible for what issue (predefine); 0 votes
0 flexible network to address difi‘erent problems/issues; 0 votes
Focus To Group’s Activities; 12% of
votes

current solution is crisis management, better solution is responsible active
management; 0 votes
focus incentives for preservation - legislative, from local government. Need legislated
incentives at the local level; 3 votes
do we need to wait for a crisis (let history be the current crisis); 1 vote
technology use; 0 votes

tion for proactive rather than reactive prevention. Environmental non-profit
organizations have historically struggled with reacting to circumstances rather than
focusing programming in a proactive manner; 7 votes

103

Technical and/or Organizational Assistance; 7% of
votes

0 can GIS based information be useful - if so, how to use it. Need to know how to access
GIS information and how to apply it; 1 vote
0 how to develop integrative modeling approach - hydrologic model; 5 votes

Need for Inclusive Stakeholder Participation in Management Decisions and
Discussions;
5% of votes

0 where are the actual impacts (is it just a "my property", or should it be a community
decision making process). Groups need to focus on the watershed level rather than
fighting to protect a single stretch of river or a single lake. 5 votes

Consistent Funding and Information on How to Access Funding; 4% of
votes

0 secure firnding; 4 votes
0 emcient spending; 0 votes

Increased Advocacy and Necessary Information; 4% of
votes

a timely information on opportunities within legislation. Need to know what is currently
happening to make eflicient use of lobbying eflorts; 4 votes.

Public Education to Increase Awareness and Responsibility; 4% of
votes

0 publicity; 3 votes

0 publicize - how to get information out for people to know issues; 1 vote

Data Used and Standardized; 2% of
votes

0 data collection, utilization (what to do, how to make it USCfiJl), managing - who to
address it to; 2 votes
0 ignore citizen data collection. Need for citizen data to be given attention; 0 votes

5) Local Non-profit organizations; a total of 76 votes were placed

Networking, Better Communication and Sharing of Information, and Mechanisms

To Do 80;
29% of votes

0 DNR divisions to work together on particular watersheds - at state level. Lack of in-
house networking, 10 votes

0 need menu of programs of other organizations already started. In other words, “how
they did it ”, to avoid recreation; 6 votes

104

contact list of "big hitters" involved in watershed management. Respondent expressed
a need for a list of those with authority at the local level, i. e. who is responsible for
what; 4 votes

DNR needs list of organizations so they can inform groups about important issues -
Permits. Respondent complained about a lack of timely public notice; 3 votes

state, federal committee contacts for watershed topics. Respondent wants to know
which committee to contact; 1 vote

easier method to keep in touch with volunteers in organizations, more than
newsletters; 0 votes

better communication with watershed education programs (statewide). Need a
network of education programs; 8 votes

Partnership Development, Strengthening Liaisons, Working Cooperatively, and
Education Opportunities to Learn How to Do So;

14% of votes

0 utilize resources from non-profit and non-environmental arena. Need to make a

connection! ! i.e need to use resources from all of the non-profit sector including non-
environmental organizations; 1 vote

Collection and Organization of Baseline Data and Information, With Access; 13% of
votes

Teghnicfl Data with easy availability to groups for decision making (i.e. maps, GIS
System)FREE. It was suggested that individuals should pressure MGIN to make
database information available for free; 7 votes

central clearing house for information/research findings; 2 votes

105

o more timely approach to salvaging pre-history information. Need to protect
archaeology along rivers which are not protected, a more eflicient approach is
needed. If a site is registered, the ‘Department of History ’ will look at it; 1 vote

0 Need to know what research is being done at a given locale.

Need for Inclusive Stakeholder Participation in Management Decisions and
Discussions;

12% of votes
0 more help from legislators, fi'om governor. work with groups not against; 9 votes
0 how to get more volunteers involved/how to keep them; 0 votes

Consistent Funding and Information on How to Access Funding; 11% of

votes

0 more grant and firnds available. Need more grants for baseline studies; 5 votes

0 develop funding structures; 2 votes

0 more equitable fee structure for groups(Ex. permit fees for non-profit groups).
Respondent suggested WNR budget has been cut too far, and this is part of the
problem] vote

0 Need to set up a legal fund for non-profits.

Watershed Approach to Planning and Management; 8% of
votes

0 department of Agriculture more in line with DNR with watershed approach -
enlightened about watershed management. As opposed to following the traditional
drain commissioner ’s approach; 2 votes

0 establishment of a watershed authority (combine - no department separation). With a
watershed management pla;. 2 votes

0 DNR departments do not consider the "whole”, focus too much on separate issues.
Need to cooperatively look at the watershed when reviewing 0 RA. 203, 346 or 98
permit application, for example; 2 votes

 

Technical and/or Organizational Assistance; 8% of

votes

0 more stafi~ out in the field. Respondent wants DNR stafl out in the field more
frequently to look at and advise on sites prior to permit application; 2 votes.

0 information on prioritizing non-point source contributors. Respondent would like
assistance in determining what are the greatest non-point source contributors of for
instance, phosphorus (agriculture, road crossings etc. . ) in a particular watershed; 4
votes

 

106

Focus To Group’s Activities; 5% of

votes

0 groups to focus more on prevention. Take Action! DNR and River Organizations.
Need to focus more on action and enforcement rather than information gathering, 4
votes

6) County and Local governments; a total of 70 votes were placed

Collection and Organization of Baseline Data and Information, With Access;34% of

votes

0 need our local watershed's information in one spot, make various studies more
accessible - comparatives: water quality, fish populations, stream configurations,
changing land usage, habitat type, flood frequencies; 12 votes

0 better technical information, identify resources to protect, assess impacts of activities 4
votes
what specific problems are there; 4 votes
widely available GIS, including in-house technician; 4 votes

Networking, Better Communication and Sharing of Information, and Mechanisms
To Do So;
23% of votes
need a Michigan clearing house: physical library, newsletter, computer BBS; 10 votes
centralized, federally firnded, U.S. watershed information center(leam from
experience); 5 votes
0 who is involved and how do the groups get things done (government included); 1 vote

Consistent Funding and Information on How to Access Funding; 16% of
votes

0 how does this watershed approach get paid for;11 votes

Technical And/or Organizational Assistance; 11% of
votes

0 access to data interpretive services; 8 votes

Public Education to Increase Awareness and Responsibility; 11% of
votes

0 let public know what watershed problems are, importance of individual action, public
education and information needed; 8 votes

107

Watershed Approach to Planning and Management; 5% of
votes

how do CSO improvements figure into watershed management; 3 votes

DISCUSSION

Interpretation Dilemmas:

Comparative interpretation between groups is inappropriate for several reasons:

Some focus groups were heterogeneous in their organization representation and thus
conclusions drawn about one group are not representative of the organizations within
that focus group. Therefore, comparisons can not be made between focus group
responses relative to the organizations assigned to groups.

Some groups ordered no single category of needs higher than other groups. This may
or may not mean that this group perceives those needs as unimportant, relative to
other group’s perceptions. What can be inferred is that the votes were spread out
more evenly in some of the groups than in others. For example Group 2 (State
Government) had the greatest number of categories of need listed and no category
received more that 17 percent of the votes and half of the categories voted on were
ordered in the top 6 percentages. Categories in other groups received percentages up
to 34 percent of the votes.

The absence of a category of responses in a particular group does not mean that
category is unimportant to that group. Respondents may not have thought of those
needs or may not have listed them because they seemed obvious, such as funding
needs or the need to take a watershed approach.

Groups had various numbers of needs listed. For instance, group 6, County and Local
Government, had significantly fewer needs listed than the other groups. As a result,
votes were divided among fewer categories and thus the percentages were higher.
This may or may not indicate that this focus group placed a higher priority on a
specific category than another focus group who had a lower percentage for that
category.

Comparative interpretation within a group is dificult for the following reasons:

Participants were asked to list needs for their organization g for citizen stream
stewardship organizations state-wide. Therefore, it is unclear if a given need listed is a
need experienced by an individual or is a perceived need for some other organization
or stream stewardship programs in general.

Participants were asked to order needs listed by voting with dots. It can not be
concluded that these votes indicated priorities, or any other value statement, in terms
of addressing those needs or the extent of those needs among the organizations voting.
Facilitators asked participants to “informally rank the needs identified in terms of how
critical they are to programs”. Therefore, some individuals may have ordered highest
those needs which they personally would like to have met, while other participants
may have ordered highest those needs which they perceived as having the greatest
impact on stream stewardship programming state-wide.

108

0 Some needs listed could have been placed in more than one category. Placement was
made after careful interpretation of the session recordings. However, this judgment
has a significant impact on the ordering of categories in some situations. For example,

0 Some responses were a combination of two needs from different categories. These
were not separated, but left as is and placed in the most appropriate category based on
interpretation of the audio recordings.

0 It is possible that some individuals voted strictly on what was recorded on the
newsprint, while others voted on what their interpretation or additional thoughts were
regarding a specific need.

Summary Statements:

Although responses cannot be analyzed quantitatively in great depth, some
observations can be made. No one listed category of needs received a low frequency of
votes in all groups.

Observations regarding specific responses can be classified into three
classifications: 1. Categories of responses which received a high frequency of votes in all
groups; 2. Categories of responses listed in all (or almost all) groups but whose
frequencies of votes varied; and 3. Categories of responses listed in only 3-4 groups, with
frequencies of votes varying. See table x for a summary of observations.

Category 1. High frequency of votes in all groups:

It may be inferred that all groups perceive Networking as an important need
category relative to other categories listed. The frequency of votes of the Networking
category of needs was ordered in the top four by all groups and was ordered first or
second in four of the focus groups.

Funding was ordered in the top five in all groups except group 4 (Regional Non-
profits) where it was ordered seventh. Funding was ordered with the highest fi'equency of
votes in group 1 (Conservation Districts).

Category 2. Responses listed in all (or almost all) groups but with varied frequencies:

Data Collection ordered in the top three in three groups, Conservation Districts,
County and Local Governments, and Local Non Profits.

Participation received a moderate frequencies of votes in all groups except county
and Local Governments.

Partnerships was ordered high by Educators, Regional Non Profits and Local Non
Profits.

Watershed Approach was ordered second highest in groups Conservation Districts
and Regional Non Profits.

Public Education received a moderate frequency of votes in the State Government
group and was ordered low in the other groups in which it was mentioned.

Assistance received moderate frequencies of votes in groups County and Local
Governments, Local Non Profits, Regional Non Profits and State Government

109

It can be said that these categories of needs are perceived as very important to one
or two groups, relative to other categories listed by that particular group. These
categories of needs are somewhat important for almost all groups.

Category 3. Responses listed in only 3-4 groups, with fi'equencies of votes varying:

These categories of needs include, Resource Materials, Group’s Focus, Data Used,
and Advocacy. Because these needs were only listed in 4 or fewer groups and
percentages were variable, no inferences will be made other than to observe that these
needs were important to some groups.

Recommendations for Further Research:

In-depth research is necessary to assess the needs of Michigan’s citizen action
stream stewardship programs. To do this it is necessary to conduct a survey of opinion
leaders of Michigan’s stream stewardship citizen action organizations in order to identify
the types of activities these organizations are involved in and how these activities are
conducted. Research should include to following determinations:

A) What are these groups doing:

What types of projects or activities groups are involved in

If monitoring is conducted, what parameters are measured

What types of watershed restoration and habitat enhancement activities are conducted

What forms of education opportunities are implemented

In which rivers, streams and watersheds do these groups work

B) How and why are these activities conducted

0 What resources (materials, individuals, or organizations) are used to support these
activities
Ifwater monitoring is conducted, what procedures are used
If data are collected, what is done with it; who uses it, and how is it used
How are these organizations stafi‘ed, and how many members and volunteers do they
manage

o How are these organizations firnded

C) What organizational and technical needs do these organizations have;

0 What organizational needs do these groups perceived as critical to their programs

0 What technical needs do these groups perceived as critical to their programs

0 How are these perceived needs prioritized in terms of importance to address

Recommendations for Further Education Opportunities:
Present results of research to educators to incorporate into planning:
a) from focus group results

b) fi'om conference evaluation results

APPENDIX C: Conference Evaluation Survey Results

EVALUATION

COORDINA THVG WA TERSHED STEWARDSHIP IN MICHIGAN:
CITIZEN MONITORHVG. EVHANCEMENT & PROBLEM SOLVING
FOR STREAMS & RIVERS
TITLE OF CONFERENCE

Erickson Hall. Midigan State Universlty, East Lansing
March 6. 1995

Dear Conference Participant

lnorderflratwenuyieamhwtokrwemconmwchasthis.itisimportantthatwe
coledsomeimportantlnionnationfmmyou. PleasetakeafewminutestocompletetlisEvalrntlon
Form. Whenuwusuksofuismkmflmamconwed,yourmmeMLLNOTbemodatedwlur
parfiwhrmngive;hodnrwads,mmpamwflbewnfidwfiakwmndbemed
toyomnamehthefinalreportmmrizingtlisevakmfion. Staveyrespomeswllbetaledbyetaff
mmmsmoummommmdmmmo.uywmwb
strained. Remember.wevalueyourlnput.eopleeaebecanddl

PMMRhMWMMSfiObbWhIMQIWMWK
MSSODQWWW. mmmummmmmmsmu

approximately 4:00.

Ofeourse.yourpartldpetionhtflseuveylsvolmtary. Yunconpletionotthemeyindeateem
wilnoneatopertlcipatehthlsevakrationottheconm. Yumtethisenk-tionh
Wamwlhebalupemmmm
armmmmummummaoummarommum
addreesbeiow)

Thankyouforyoureesistaneel

mm
GraduateAesistantandContereneeOmarlzer
MSUDeuofFisheriesalMIdlie
13WResoureesBuldng
EastLamlna,Ml48824
(517)353-0308

ShedLDenn
WWOMWW
mama
(5173534375

110

111
Whattypeotagencyororganizationdoyourepresent?

23-116trrte government 30.81 Non-profitoonaervah’onlenvimnmntal organization
1.51. Fedenflgowmnnuuu 7.71 fhhnne£knhx(€bnswhuuseMaJ

ill-£1 Local and County government 4 . 61 Non-Formal Education «narration
15.51‘Mhmuahedrxxuui dflahmecnnhna.Exunmerehao
15‘51‘SdeflorLkmMIHMr ‘1‘L1_hkroqnmhmfion

(I‘m an krdvidual lnterededln watersheds)
.LJZ 0W-

 

Pbaaedesaibeyuxknmwparhdpaflonhwatuahedstewardsflpacfivifies:
0E.unuucknwdbethernaNMknryouswelmnflvedin)
(4.61) N.A.

(13.81) watershed management

(9.21) Regulatory

(9.21) Non-point aource/etormwater
(4.61) Volunteer Coordination

(1.51) Networking

(6.21) School monitoring
(13.81) Community education
(1.51) Wildlife enhancement
(3.11) Advocacy

(3.11) River Monitoring

(4.61) Information 8 Education
(24.61) Inappropriate response

HUOOOO
autumn-05

l
Areyouanrerrberoturyerwkumnerhloroomervaflonorgadzadorfla)?
76.11YES 23.8310

IF YES. m We)?

 

Pleaaedeacribethetypeofareawhereyoucurenttyreeide. (Pleaaecheckone)
ZILEZFhmfl-hunr
lSflRmal-nontann-areaotleeathanzsoomople
30.818nmltown-areaof2500-50.OOOP°°P|°
323Wmararyamuannmmsomom)
Invwmtoamuydoyuuredfle?

Howddyoutiathearabornttisconterencflmheckoneanswer.)

matedMinngdrmedtome 9-41 ANRWeekbooldet
www.mmmm [-31 Broclwrelflyertrumanotherorgarhtion
MWW 3-51 Brochurulflyerataorneotherotice
32.31 From MSU Extension office _25-71 Ohm:

 

HaveyoueverattardedaprognmheldhconiuncfionwlurMSUs'AodwlmandNaturalReaouroea
Week' beforeattendingthiaoonterence?

62.51 yes 37.51 NO
Which altemoon aesalon(s) did you attend? (Please write in the topicofeachaeasion.)
Time Block #1 (1:30)

 

'flhlr8h0k02(2fiKD

 

112‘

0. PleaeerateeachaspectotthisConterence. Circleonenurnberforeechaspectistedbelow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Poor Fair Good Very Excelent
ASPECTOFTHEWORKSHOP (Not (Somewhat Good (very

ueehrl) useful) useful)
WWW“ 11142) 5(8.2)13(21.31) 2(52.52* 10116.41)
Nominees-ml 10.65) 7(11.ry_§g_(;o_.8_2) 20(31.71‘3(4.81)
Mmflmbbm 31521 3L5.q2_)_ 27 41.52) 11(18.32‘12(2o;)_
mummiep'smlom 10431) 1.72 11(18.61) B3(ss.92‘13(222)
Woovmeotwblodm 10.0 (5.12) 19(32.22) iso<so.8217(11.92)
Paceoftheprograrn 3(4.92) l3(l..92) 9_(14.81) 16(26.2219<14.82)
mammal! . 20.12) 0 15.6' 20 31.32 Zl(32.81‘ 1197.22)
Ovailqmflvofhmdtmmm b-0 (8.52; 12 .4 1. ‘14(22.6§)
Qualiyotmaterial. hmdoutaprovided 11.0 (LED. 1115125.42)
Overalquaityotconterencelnrelationto
“mummhavomondod 4.0 (8.11) 18(29.02) 2(51.61}7(11.31)
10. Wratwoddyouiketoaeeaddedhhmm?
11. Wratwouldyoulketoaeedeletedinmeworbhopa?

 

113

12. TowhatexteMwemywaafisfiedmatmecontemnoehdpedyouheadrotmetolwflm areas? (Please

' circle one number for each area.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TO WHAT EXTENTARE YOU Not an Very Dissatisfied Neutral Satisfied Very
SATISFIED THAT THIS Important Dissatisfied Safiefied
CONFERENCEHELPED reason
YOU“... for

attending
Toiearnnewlnformation DJ 0.0 “6.551 (14.51) 36(58.11 13 211
Togainconlidenceina _
partiwtaracu'vity 12(19,7z) 0,0 3“,”) 26(42.61J15(24.61l5(8.21)
Todobetterlnmylob 518.32) 0.0 10.71) l9(31.71131(51.715(§,zn ‘
Tomeetpeoplewitheimilar
interests l(1.71) 0.0 0.0 4(6.71) 28(46.71,>27(45.01
Tocontributetodiacuesions
abouthowwaterahedgreups
canconanunicete 29,312 9,0 9(3-32) 12(19.7I)28(45.9‘ )
Tobeabletoteachorahare
nrysldlswlthothers “11.51) .0 “6.61) 27(44.3§16(26.21)7(11 51
Tolearnnewaldls,suclras
uaeotwaterahedrnonitoring
W 1803.31) 0.0 “8.31) 26(43.31pl$(25.01)6i10 01
13. Womeywbehtenstedhanmmommonwatuahedmflp?

52(85.21)YES swear-raps

14.
«pounce here today?

46(8LmYES “W "YES. could you describe:

.n..a.N0

naMotaWUismnm.bmmmmmmmdobuedmywr

 

15.

Anyothercornrnentsorauggeefione:

 

Conference Evaluation Results
Responses to Open-ended Questions

Number 2: Please describe your interests and participation in watershed

stewardship activities.

Responses:

Developing a watershed management plan.

Non-Point Source program, stormwater for non-regulated communities, Saginaw Bay
Watershed Initiative, Saginaw River-Saginaw Bay Remedial Action Plan.
Adopt-a-stream coordinator (concern for prioritization and networking).

Getting volunteer participation in sedimentation control, and developing a network of
erosion inspectors within the watershed.

Water quality technician, watershed management plan, Northern Tittabawassee Task
Force, well “closures”, shoreline erosion inventories, lake monitoring, factor mapping,
watershed delineation, surveys and questionnaires.

Interested in trying to mitigate near firture residential development pressure related to
runoff problems.

Saginaw Bay Watershed Council, East Central Michigan Planning and Development
Region, Saginaw Bay RC&D-Claire Co. Chapters, Claire County Planning
Commission, Lincoln Township Planning Commission.

To protest water quality throughout local watershed for quality of life, fishing,
recreation

Surface Water Quality Division of Department of Natural Resources.

Clean-up, school based water quality monitoring, adopt-a-stream, storm drain
“stewarding”, nesting boxes, community education.

Chair of watershed group which is trying to build support for a watershed study.
Saginaw Bay Watershed Council Project, school based monitoring.

As a citizen I want to see water quality improved for recreational purposes and
posterity and fisheries enhanced for recreation and industry. As a regulator I am
involved I clean-up of sites of environmental contamination, some of which impact
streams and rivers

Webbing information, collecting data.

Wetnet project director, data gathering.

Developing public educational programs and site planning to support them. Advise on
watershed programs, particularly using water quality analysis.

Involved in administering section 319 nonpoint source pollution control program
Administer the The Inland Lakes and Streams Act (1972, PA 346), and “The
Gaomaer-Anderson” Wetland protection Act (1979, PA 203).

Permits along rivers/program administration.

State coordinator of natural rivers program.

Groundwater contamination, habitat improvement, aquatic research.

114

 

115

Number 2 (cont)

Adopt-a-stream, storm drain stenciling, school river monitoring, macroinvertebrate
testing, amphibian monitoring, exotic species education and monitoring.

I am responsible for building and maintaining stormwater facilities.

Actively fighting wetlands and natural lands and natural river destruction with lawsuits
against drainage projects and wetlands permits.

I work in an educational role with many local groups addressing water quality issues.
Water quality standards and conservation easements of wetlands.

Coordinating lake and stream watershed projects.

I’m trying to organize a water quality coalition in Genessee County, bringing together
those interested in stream testing and clean-ups.

Quarterly water testing of the Galien River, weekly ground water level monitoring and
monthly water quality testing of The Nature Conservancy owned Grand Beach
reserve, local sponsor of semi-annual Beach Sweep, “host” educational programs
about the Galien Rover and its watershed (canoe trips with naturalist, hiking, tours,
speakers, archeology classes and hands on workshops, Native American studies), bird
watches.

Improve river—all aspects.

Development and implementation of watershed plans in partnership with local
governments.

Starting a 319 grant.

Enabling interested citizens/ groups to do a better job of “WS” protection.
Information dissenrination, educational materials production, watershed-wide data
access, integration and analysis.

Volunteer monitoring—macroinvertebrates and soil erosion, groundwater
protection/municipal drinking water protection legislation/lobbying, water quality and
quantity research, land use planning.

Green, Adopt-a-River.

Provide DNR staff resources to local initiatives. This would include participation of
policy and technical advisory groups.

Lake association looking a starting upstream watershed initiative to control
phosphorous.

Adopt-a-river (Lansing, MI), river clean-up section sponsor, planning to begin a water
quality monitoring program at a site on the Grand River near our business in Lansing,
work on projects with organizations below.

Chair of the Huron River Watershed Council.

Regulating discharges to waters of the state.

Facilitate and administrate several watershed management and protection programs in
15 counties.

Pesticide issues and I am a consultant.

My interest is predonrinately a concern for elementary and high school education
programs and a recognized urgency for schools to include environmental education in
their curriculum (“bay” and earth day celebration).

Coordinate multiple school districts in stream/groundwater - watershed projects.

 

116

Number 2 (cont)

Adopt-a-river, water resource education (k-12), groundwater protection education.
Watershed planning.

Consulting engineer - planning and design.

Currently working for the Surface Water Quality Division. Stafl‘ is heading toward a
watershed management approach. Am also involved in training members of industry
and construction companies and am encouraging them to take a watershed
management approach.

Wetland protection, groundwater protection within local government, watershed
awareness activities through non-profit organization.

Adopt-a-river, river and water education, recreational river trailway, non-point source
pollution.

Newly developing interest in: water quality, watersheds, stream bank erosion, Water
Watchers Training, water table-well logs, lake testing.

Citizen advisory board - environmental matters.

319 watershed project.

Monitoring land use activities, public education of water quality issues, public
education of stewardship issues.

Watershed wide educational program.

Water Air Woods (W AW) pilot/model program for water quality, air quality and land
restoration in regards to wildlife habitat. In each high school special needs classes in
environmental science classes. Our program involved Adopt-a-stream East Br. Au
Gres Nature Center on campus, in class instruction of a variety of class subjects etc.
Setting up a state “naturate” for watershed management.

Co-coordinator of Kent County teacher truing project: streams are monitored
quarterly results compiled, provide semi-annual teachers training, newsletters.

Number 3: Are you a member of any environmental or conservation
organization(s)? Ifyes, what organization(s)?

Responses:

Kawkawlin River Watershed Property Owners Association

West Michigan Environmental Action Council

MALD, Soil and Water Conservation Service, GAWA, PF

Michigan United Conservation Clubs (Montrnorency Co. Conservation Club)
Defenders of erdlife, Earth Island Institute

Michigan Environmental Council

Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council, Sierra, Audubon, Nature Conservancy,
Environmental Defense Fund

Nature Conservancy

Upper Peninsula Environmental Council, Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council
American Water Resource Association, West Michigan Environmental Action
Council, Audubon

117

Number 3 (cont)

Michigan United Conservation Clubs, ACA, River Network, Environmental Defense
Fund, Nature Conservancy

PMWC

Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Friends of the Everglades

American Water Resources Association, Michigan Soil and Water Conservation
Society

dozens

Society of American Foresters, Michigan Forestry Association

American Rivers, American Whitewater Affiliation, American Canoe Association
North American Lake Management Society

Board of the Thomapple River Watershed Group

Galien River Watershed Council, Wetlands Conservation Association

West Michigan Environmental Action Council, Audubon, National Wildlife Federation
Huron River Watershed Council, West Michigan Environmental Action Council,
Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Michigan Land Conservancy, Nature
Conservancy, Leelanau Land Conservancy, “Superior Land Conservancy” Potawatomi
Land Trust, League of Conservation Voters

Association of State Wetland Managers, Soil and Water Conservation Society
Michigan North American Lake Management Society, Michigan American Water
Resources Association

Michigan Environmental Council, Global River and Env. Educ, River Network,
American Rivers, Nature Conservancy, erdemess Society

several

Platte Lake Imp. Association, G.T. Regional Land Conservancy

Friends of the Looking Glass, Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council

World Wildlife, Watershed Council

Rouge River Watershed Project, BSA, GSA

erdlife Society

Northwest Environmental Action Council, Citizens for a Better Environment
Michigan United Conservation Clubs, Michigan Association of Environmental and
Outdoor Educators

Nature Conservancy, Arbor Day Foundation, Michigan Association of Environmental
and Outdoor Educators

Soil & Water Conservation Society of America

Many: Friends of Red Cedar Watershed Society of America, Mid-Michigan
Environmental Action Council, LIWC, NAA, Audubon, Sierra Club, National erdlife
Federation, Michigan United Conservation Clubs, etc.

Northern Tittabawassee Task Force, Michigan Lake and Streams Associations,
Walleye “as Gledown”

World Wildlife Fund, erdemess Society

Mid-Michigan Environmental Action Council

West Michigan Environmental Action Council

Audubon Society, Nature Conservancy, Natural Resources Defense Council;

 

118

Number 3 (cont)

Friends of the Rouge, Environmental Defense Fund

Michigan Association of Environmental and Outdoor Educators, Michigan United
Conservation Clubs, Saginaw Bay Watershed Council, Project Wild/Aquatics,
Professional Walleye Trail--in fisherman

“LAWC/MSS”, American Water Resources Association

West Michigan Environmental Action Council

Number 10: What would you like to see added in future workshops?

Responses:

More emphasis of mechanisms for coordination between state and local levels, and
more emphasis on mechanisms for sharing information (Internet, GIS, etc.).

More aggressive moderation of speakers and questions, and more focus on stimulation
ideas.

Maybe decision makers from local and state levels (federal, too) to present what they
feel are effective means of watershed proaction. It might be useful to hear from the
private sector too (what things do they respond positively to besides financial
incentives, and afl‘ecting soliciting means to get their support.

Theory(s) on carrying capacity (recreational activities)/planning for reasonable control
and limitation of use/exploitation of resources with regard to recreational activities.
More time spent on selected topic’s question and answer, time too short.

More demonstrations/exhibits such as the sediment one of the Drain Commission.
That was an excellent example of stream flows. It really proved a point-we need
more like that.

Sharing solutions, or experiences , that address “needs”.

More seminars.

More time for workshop facilitators to make longer and more detailed presentations.
Lesson plan idea to use in one math/science class.

Expanded descriptions of workshops. Longer workshops with more detail and
content.

More time for workshop sessions-wanted to attend more than two. Needed more
time for the morning panel--discussion was just getting going and it was time to quit.
More time for sessions.

More time in group discussion regarding central topic.

More discussion of on-the-ground activities (workshops, sampling trips, etc.) that the
citizen groups are doing.

Field trips may not be good logistics, but people need to see good works in action and
also to prove they can be done.

More “nuts & bolts” practical information. Hasn’t anyone accomplished something?
More tools to use in implementing programs.

More time in sessions to ask questions and cover material.

119

Number 10 (cont)

Specific techniques used in land use planning for watershed protection (PDR, TDR,
Concurrence, Regional detention, etc.) Ways that might facilitate attendees to get to
know each other better, facilitating networking.

More networking opportunities, a fewer number of sessions, but with more time to
interact.

Inclusion of wetlands considerations-—more concentration on importance.

Provide a mini testing workshop and provide testing kits to those interested, more
time to focus on state initiatives that are being worked on.

How much of MI river watersheds are covered.

Longer workshops.

List of participants could include some information of what they are doingufor future
networking.

Public health personnel.

Local focus (i.e. planning commissions, township supervisors) state focus (i.e.
“LWMD, SWQD, etc), federal focus (i.e. EPA water).

More specific details of how to do things.

Request that organization participants bring one (1) display copy of each of their
groups publications for others to examine during the day in the lobby and put a request
sign up sheet out for interested parties who would like copies. Some of that here
today--would like to see more.

Better map.

Follow-p—-looking forward to directory, etc.

Longer afiemoon sessions.

Funding possibilities for watershed management programs.

Do better job of partnering at conference levelnfor instance, where were feds (like
USGS & NRCS) and locals (like Soil & Water Conservation Districts, County
Commissioners).

The interactive display was a useful teaching tool. More displays that encourage
participation and visuals similar is encouraged. The choice of hot chocolate during the
morning break.

Coffee available upon arrival in morning, more time to talk to others, more displays.
Afiemoon session too short-mot enough depth.

Specific times set aside for networking purposes, more aggressive moderation to
control networking during other times.

Have a brief description of afiemoon workshops. I had to guess the topics (i.e. I
thought the “drawing water quality conclusions” workshop would discuss something
other than what was discussed). I t wasn’t clear on the program.

DNR involved fisheries department.

120

NUMBER 11: What would you like to see deleted in future workshops?

Responses:

The base information regarding or resulting in lengthy talks about speakers of
departments such as the 10:00 am introductions.

The keynote speaker and the morning panel were of no interest, didn’t really
accomplish anything. Need Governor involved and key legislatures to discuss
monetary concerns, and DNR problems on watershed questions, at least a possible one
to two hour session.

I can’t think of anything-4t all went well.

Don’t build these events around the special agenda of one organization, or to help one
or more individuals complete the requirements of an advanced degree program.
Round table discussion.

Panel discussion.

The panel--all panelists speak for such a long timenthere is hardly time to ask
questions or discuss.

Panels without purpose.

I think we are beyond recognition of need to work on a watershed basis, we need to
spend more time on techniques.

Panels and round tables either need to be lengthened or deleted. It seems like you just
start to get into the discussion and its time to break.

Panel: more specific, current issues of Michigan rivers rather than “what I’ve done or
Who I am”.

Less slack time-Jess time for lunch-especially if a box lunch, more emphasis on
specific how to’s.

Morning sessions was too long.

Sessions like the 11:00 am round table session in room 222. I would have rather filled
out a written survey for the first ten minutes and then moved on to a more productive
discussion.

There was nothing I found that should be deleted. It was all interesting/helpfirl.
Round table.

I would hesitate to delete anything.

Divide state employees for round table session.

More concurrent workshops.

Long, long lunch hour.

Number 14: As a result of attending this conference, is there anything new you

intend to do based on your experience here today? Ifyes, could you describe?

Responses:

Establish better lines of communication coordination with local governments and
general public through locally driven partnerships.

Evaluate watershed priorities, work more with other watershed groups, develop more
concrete goals.

121

Number 14 (cont)

Test for dissolved oxygen at 4:00 am.

Volunteer for stream clean ups or take pictures of streams.

Develop close relationships with local planning commissions.

“SSS” for my classroom lesson plan, gather data.

Macroinvertebrates studies, newsletter activities.

Alter use of water quality data, more Internet activity.

Get on the Internet.

Try to include local watershed.

Follow-up contact with individuals met today.

Possibly start a small group on the Bear River, in Emmet to work on some small “do-
able” activities.

Consider stream crossing signs.

Better networking.

Not enough time to learn new material.

Investigate methods to manage landuse to protect watersheds.

W111 use different techniques in organizing group and facilitating meetings.
Helping with communication.

More ways to communicate basic ideas to nontechnical people (i.e. management plan
must be like an investment strategy - must diversify).

Coordinate water quality coalition to do a stream clean-up using the information from
break-out sessions.

Get in tough with several people who have useful information or are involved in
relevant projects.

Many ideas. Mostly related to networking.

Correspond with some new contacts.

Met some people, heard of some projects that I’ll touch base on with, will begin to tap
into electronic networks more.

Obtain a list of names to contact on a watershed initiative.

Have to digest what I learned first.

Better communication on what is happening with the project I am working on.
Encourage, support school personnel to develop and implement environmental
curriculum.

Share information with others today in my organization.

Continue to network with watershed planners, managers, interest groups.

There is some information gained today that can be used in my on-going training
sessions.

Begin consistent contact with other groups.

I’d like to be more involved on a citizen basis, not just government.

Consider stewardship activities.

Be more aware of my own presentation skills/habits.

Network my problem.

Incorporate information in grant proposal.

122

NUMBER 15: Any other comments or suggestions?

Responses:

Would like to have attended four concurrent sessions, instead of two. Not enough
time.

I’m disappointed the keynote speaker, in closing remarks, veered off the subject to
give his own personal political diatribe to criticize a system “in-absentia” and without
having had a chance to work. I feel he lost the sense of the conference title’s very first
work (i.e. coordinating). I find this offensive and out of line.

We need strong input to the govemor’s ofice to better firnd our programs of our
natural resources. These natural resources in MI are the major drawing card for
tourism which is considered either #1 or #2 in commerce for our state’s livelihood.

I enjoyed the conference. The meal was bigger than necessary though. I liked the
discussion format of the morning “Problems” section as well as the question section of
the programs. I think I learned quite a bit about volunteering, interests, nonprofit
organization stewardship problems, and nonprofit source pollution.

Good job Melissall

Narrow focus for the start. “We are here to initiate a network of Michigan’s grass
roots stream protection efl’orts’ then spend a day brainstorming on how to create the
network.

Congratulations Melissa - it was a great conference. You did a great job and should
feel good about it!

More visual aid materials to enhance learning in seminars.

Much better format and coverage than last year! Good speakers (well versed) in
programs.

Good job Melissa! It’s very obvious you spent lots of time on this! Extremely
thorough and professional!

Good afiemoon sessions. Would be nice to be able to attend more than one/given
time (i.e. repeat them).
Very nice job.

Good conference.
Better map to facility.
Good job, early on—have a little more information available on registration.

The roundtable session at 11:00 am in Room 222 was very poor. It was run as an
information gathering session for the facilitators and any “round-table” discussion
between participants was completely stifled. Avery fruitfirl give and take discussion by
very enthusiastic people was not allowed until the last two minutes. Opportunity Lost!
Spend more time on concurrent sessions—they were the most valuable part of the
conference.

Much more interesting and helpful information this year. Seems to have been better
directed at pointing people in the direction of protecting watersheds.

Janis Bobrin did a great job in her session. Panel session could’ve been longer

Could have been longer.

123

Number 15 (cont)

0 There needs to be some sort of follow up after this workshop. The workshop created
an optimistic vision of networking, but now something hands-on needs to be done. It
is one thing to discuss networking and it’s something else to actually put into action. I
would like to get involved if you need people for this sort of project: Stacey Hofi‘e,
Friends of the Rouge, (313) 961-4099.

0 Contact me next year to speak on grass roots involvement! WAW Program! Hope to
get with (TV) TNN and ESPN as well as Steck Vaughn (text) on pilot program.
(Saginaw Bay Watershed Council—Whittamore-Prescott High School).

0 Telecommunications, site specific issues to be addresses.

APPENDIX D: Mail Survey Instrument

We Want to Know .........

..... .. What Do You Do,

And What Are Your Needs?

A Survey of Leaders of
Michigan’s Stream and River Organizations

Michigan State University

Department of Fisheries and Wildlife

124

125

Michigan Stream Steward Survey
A Survey of Leaders of Michigan’s River and Stream Organizations

 

mu]. Please tell us-a..bit about yourself ‘ - ” 1 l I
1. ereceivedthismneybeameywareassodatedadthadfizenorflzafionwhichisinvolvedinstrcarnand
riverstewardshipactivitiesinMichigan. IngeneraLwhatisyorurolewithinthisorganinuon? Pleasecheck

all thatapply.

Volunteer _ Committee Chair _ Board Chair _ Program director/coordinator
_Paidstafl‘ _Committeemember _Boardmernber _Executivedirector
_Elecrerlemcer _W
_Other

 

2. Wemammmmmmmmwimmmuon’smmmmm
pregrams(suchasthecontactperaonfortheseactivities). Areyouinvolvedwithpregrammingrelatedto
streamsandrivers?

__ N0 = Whoshouldreceivethissurveyinstead?
Name
Address
City Zip Phone
Pieaaereturnthia-neylatheeecleaedeavelepe.
Doaotcoetiaeeflllingeattkisnrvey.

 

 

 

_YES: Whatisthenanueofyourinvolvement? Pleasecheckone:

 

_ lparticiparein =8 Inadditionroyornaelfiwhoelaeinyour
streamandriveractivities organizationshouldreceivethisarrvey?
butdonotprovidelcadership Name

OR

_lprovideaomelcadershiptostreamandriveractivities
l!

Pleasecheckallofthefollowingthatapply.
_ laminchargeofooordinatingsueamandriverprogramsand
_ lfacilitateorleadacommitteeormrbgrouptocoordinateatreamand
riveractivitics
_ lorganizeeventsoractivities
_ lmakedecisionsaboutriverandstreampregrams
_ lhaveanother leadership role(s)

 

 

[Part II. New we’d like to know more about your organization ’ ' i I

3. lndicatewhich of the followingbestdcscribesyoruorganintion’s slams:
_Governmennlorganintion _Not-for-profitnon-governmenralorganizatien
_Privateaectororganintioe(forprofit) _Other.pleaseqrecify:

 

 

126

4. lsyourorganintionachapterotlamemberotorafiliatedwithalargerorganizauon?
_ NO(Gotonerrtquestion)
_YES: 4aP1easelistthenameoftheParentorganintion(s).Includeaddressifpossible.1fadditional
spaceisneededattachaseparatepage.

 

 

 

5. In which watershed“) does your organintion’s work take place?

6. Wchapedflcnvaammmrmtydraimammhawbwu(mmepafl3yan).mgaedbyymu
activities?
dial“)

7. Howlenghasyourorganiutionerdsted?
8. Whatareyourorganintion’srcsomces? Pleasecompleteallofthefollowing.

W: W:

S Totalapproxinmteannualbudgct _Numherofactivevolunteers
%ofannualburlgctallortedtoactivitiesorpregrams (donatetimeoraervices)
whichtargctstreamsandrivers Numberofpaidstafl'

Totalnumberofmembers
%stafitimededicatedtosueamand
riverpregrams

 

9. lnl995,whflwaetheamncaoffimdhgfmmwganinfion’smumandfivuprognms? Indicatewhat
pereentageofyourfundingoemesfromeachofthecategoriesbelow. Placeazerobythoseaectoranot
mnuibudng.1fymunvaandmnmpmyamsannafimndaflympponed.placembdow.

_%localgovernment _‘loiocalbusiness _%formdation(s)
_%countygovernment _%oorporatedonation _%membershipdues
_%stategovernmeut _%federalgovemment _%other

 

 

 

[Part 111. What Do You Do?

10.Whatrypcsofpmjectsoractiviticsdocsyourgmupconduct?lndicatewhichactivitiesyoudoincachtypeof
aqmticenvironmentalusingthecodesbelow. Uaemorethanonecodeforeachactivityifitisoooductedin
multipleenvironments P1acean“X"nexttoactivitiesyoudonotdo.

X notinvolvedwiththisactivity W wetlands

R riverastrcamscrecks L inlandlakesandponds
G (3th E wells

0 otherenvironments

watermonitonngbiologiml

watermonitonngchemial

water monitoring. physical (Wh- flow etc.)

environmentalclcan-ups

photographicsurveys

prpesurveys

Mauveyasedimentandpollutionaeuroearmys
aedimentassasmeut
habitatasscssmentlmrveys
fishorothervenebratepopulationasscssmentlsmvey
research
watercouraeconfigruationamssmcut(depth.slnpe.compositionetc.)
Weffloodplaincharacteristicflvegetationsizeetc.)

127

11. ladicate which of the following activities are currently conducted by your organization Check all of the
following which are conducted:
__ efl'ons to influence local (municipal/township) decision makers to support your organization’s position
_ efforts to influence county decision makers to support your organintion‘s position
_ efl'orts to influence state or federal decision makers to support your organization’s position
_ lobbying efl‘orts for legislative support of your organization’s position
_ provide information to the general public
_ provide information to riparian owners
_ provide information to youth
_ provide information to local or county government oficials
_ construction site inspections
__ watershed mapping
_waterresourccinventoriesatthewatershedlevel
_planning; i.e. watershedlevel land-useplanning
_ watershed level problem/activity priority setting
_ bank and road crossing assessments
_ mm or meet evaluation
other

 

12.0mmomannmpgemMWawfidubrmwfim?

_NO(Skiptothenextquestion)

_YES: lZaCheclrallofthefollowingwhichareconducted:
_vegeuuvenabilizauonwassorgroundcoverptanfingaandbioengineaing)
_treeandshrubplantings
_nonvegetationbankatabilintion
_vegetationremoval
_vegetationprotection
_runotfoontrol
_constnrctionand/orpiawmentd'in-streamstrucnues
_habitatimprovementsuchassedimentremoval
_placementofgravelorrockinthechannel
_pollutionandloreutrwhicationcontrol

other

 

l3.Doesyommgamnfionconmrafishwwildlifemmforareamsmfivus7
_NO(Skiptothenextquestion)
_YBS: 13a Checkallofthefollowingwhichareconducted:
_ fishhabitatassessmenr
_aquaticinvertebratehabitatassessment
_habitatalongbanks
_habitatinfloodplain
_aceesstohabitats
other

 

M.Doesyourorganizationconductstrumorriverm1

_NO(Skiptothenerrtquestioo)

_YES: 14a.Chedrallofthefollowingwhichareconducted:
_oollecthumancreateduashfromthestream/river
_collecthumancreatedtrashfrombanksorriparianzone
_runovebnrshandlogsfromthestream/river
_removebmshandlogsfrombanksorriparianm
_plantingofueashnlrsgramsforaesthetics
_prwideeducauonallawarenessactivifiesorevennoonmnunwithdeanqrps
_other riverciean-upactivities .

 

128

15. Does your organinu'on conduct W for streams or rivers?
_NO(Skiptothenextquestion)
_ YES =9 15a. Check all ofthe following which areoonducted:
__ production of printed materials
_holdingor hostingworkshopsorconferencesorpublicawarenessdays
_ production of displays for other organintions’ events
_ production of radio or television spots or program
__ working with youth or schools
_ other education activities

 

16.Doesyornorganizauoncouectdataorinformationfiomfiv_enm?

_N0(Skiptotbenerrtquestion)

_YES: l6aP1easepmvideinformationondatacollection andparametersaampled
duringthesamplingaaaaeabya typicalvolunteerinyourpmgram. Placetheappropriate
samplingfrequencycodebyeachofthe parametersbelow. lfthisfrequencyisirregularor
vafiablewithinymupmgramsimplycheckthosepanmetersthatammonitomd Placean
“X”nexttothoseparametersnotsampled. Uscthefollowingfrequencycodes.

 

X Notsampled E Eventsamplingmostrainfallevent)
D Daily Qanerly

W Weekly MMonthly

BW Biweekly (every other week) A Annually

S Semrannually' (twice a year) I irregular schedule. (cg.
BM Bimonthly(everyothermonth) weeklyforonemonthseasonally)
El 'HCl '1! 5'1 . II
_watertemperamreregimes _aquaticvegetation

_pH _riparianvegetation
_turbidity _algae

_Chlofidfl _invenebrares

_nitrogen _birdslwildlife
_BOD(BiologicaleygenDennnd _fish

_ DO (Dissolved Oxysen) _ amphibians and reptiles
_COD(ChemicaleygenDemand) _chlorophyll
_flowlvelocityregimes _coliformbacteria
_rainfall _otherbacteria

_metals _other

_hydrocarbons

_oiiandgreese

_pesticides

_Phoarhoms

_ TSS/l‘DS ('l‘otal Suspended Solids/Dissolved Solids)

_hardness

_alkalinity

_Secchitransparency

other

 

129

 

[Part IV. WhJ'Does Your Organization Collect Data on Rivers and Streams? I

I7. Doesyourorganizationcollectdataorinformtiononriversorstream?
_NO(Skiptothenernquestion)

 

_YE:

17a Howareyourdatahandledandaualyud Checkallthatapply:
_oollectedandserutoalaboratoryt‘oranalysis
_collectedwithatestkitandanalyzedbyourownstafl’

:other

11b. Whatisdonewiththedata? Checkallofthefollowingusesofyourdata.

_nothingisdone _305(b)report _waterclassifiation/standards

_watchdogging _watershedplanning _education
_Iegislation _habitatrestoration _resesreh
_localdecisionnnking _enforeement :non-pointpollutionassessment
_don’tknowwhatisdone _pointsomeepollutionassessrnent

:,other pleasespeeify:
17c. Withwhatorganintionsdoyoushareyourdfla? Cluckallthatappiy'.

 

 

 

_Msovernment _eountygovernment
_stategovemment _federal government
_university scientists _educators
_advmsmps _Iohbyorganintions
_dataarenotshared _uhaspleuespecify:
Lart V. What Resources Assist Your Organization’ s Activities? v 1

 

18.Whatreferences(manmls.guides.books.pmcedures.newflenus)doesymu organizationrelyonfor
proceduresorprotocolforitsactivities? Pleaseflstasmanyuueorhaveheemusedtodevelopyourriverand
streamprognms. Provide’l'itle'.“Author".andifpossible.“orderinginformation” Attachseparatepagesas
necessary.
tam: Title:
Author.
Orderinglnformation:
2mm: Title:
Author.

Ordering Information:

 

 

 

 

 

130

19. What mimic“ or asunder provide nonfinamial W
conndtationtimeorothermmassistance? Pleaseratethecontributions Circleonennmberforeach

' suchas

 

sonnets or assrsmncn' ’

Ila-Ire if
contribution
is made

7 Doesnot

contribute to i_

3+

Provides small
contribution (is
necessuy to '-

organinnon’s
7"')‘

Provides
significant
contribution

is . . i
would not occur
withoutthis

 

University stag

 

Junior/Community Coll stafl'

 

University/college students

 

Extension personnel

 

locaigovernmentstafl‘

 

County Drain Commissioner/stair

 

 

OtherCountygovernmentstafl

——-_flfl

NNNNNNN 1.

UUUUUUU

&&&ԤԤ

uuuuuuu

 

Stategovernrnentstafl’:
DepsrtofNanualResotuees
DepartofEnvironmeutalQuality
Deptof‘l‘ransportation
Deptongriurlture
Wm

 

 

 

 

nuns-sans:—

NNNNN

UUUUU

fibb“

“mum“

 

 

Federalgovenmentstafl:
USForestService
USFishandWildlifeService
NaturalResourcesConservation
Service(formerinCS)
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency
OtherFederMnmentstafl'

 

 

b‘

Mum

 

fl

NNN

HUN

A

 

 

 

For-profit (WWW

 

Other non-profit organintions

 

Other(plensoname):

 

 

Hun—H

 

NNNNN

 

UUUQU

b‘bb‘

 

 

uuuuu

 

 

 

131

 

 

 

 

20.Anyorganintionhastechnicalandorganintionalneeds.which.whenmet.mayresultinimpmvedfimctioningd‘the
organizationandmayallowittobettermeetitsgoals Whatorganizationalandtechnimlneedsdoesm

have? Pleasentethefouowingneedsmhowaiualdwyuemymuprognmmingbydrdmgthe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

appropnatenumber
. A g g ‘ Not at all Somewhat Important to . “Very Extremely

A I _ ~ -j elmportant‘to importantto Functioning important» Criticflto

YOUR ORGANIZATIONS NEEDS . Functioning Functioning of our Functioning Functioning
' “-ofour ofour Organintion ofour . ofour
Informationnecenarytodo 1 2 3 4 5
increasedadvocaey(ej.g;Llobying)
Amtohaselinedata l 2 3 4 5
Standardization of data collection procedures 1 2 3 4 5
Consistent funding and information on how 1 2 3 4 S
toaccessfundingsources
Focustoourgroup’sactivities.assistance l 2 3 4 s
xmmmmlm _‘a
Networkingamonggroups;better l 2 3 4 5
communication and sharing of information
Moreopportunityforinciusivestakeholder l 2 3 4 5
participationindecisionsanddiscussions
Opportunitiestolearnhowdeveiop l 2 3 4 5

.13.“le

lmprovedresourcematerialsandaccessto l 2 3 4 5
them
Other,Piesaeiist l 2 J 4 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

l

32

2!.Nwm’dhkeymuvkmmuwmmrimprofingmmammamrdsMppmgammingm What
mmmingknmdedwmmmmmmmmmemimiondorpmnumhkemmmmem'
so-to-speak)? Mmfiehflwhgnedsmhowaidalmeyammimpmvingmmandnmmhipin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Michigan
. a ‘ Notatalli f Somewhat » Importantto' ‘ ‘Very Extremely
' ‘ “_4 < A lmportantto-f‘ important-to ’Stream «important‘to Criticalto
. STATEWIDE NEEDS Stream Stream Stewardship ? Stream Stream
. , ., * Stewardship , ‘ "Stewardship in Mchtgan' ' ; Stewardship Stewardship
'9 ' ‘ . inMichifi .inMichiPn ' " " inMichiE in ”a
More citizen collection of baseline dag l 2 3 4 5
More use of citizen collected data 1 2 3 4 5
Standardintion of data collection procedures 1 2 3 4 5
Networking among groups; better i 2 3 4 5
communication and sharing of inforrnjoation
Mechanisms to ficilitate networking 1 2 3 4 5
More inclusion of citizen groups in l 2 3 4 5
_m_a__nagement decisions and discussions
Development of partnerships and
strengthening cfcunent liaisons. to increase 1 2 3 4 5
working metatively
Public education; to increase awareness and l 2 3 4 5
mnsibility
Watershed approach to phoning and l 2 3 4 5
h we"!
information on river stewardship options 1 2 3 4 5
such as management techniques. strategies
and selecting among Mons
Other, Please list 1 2 3 4 S

 

 

 

133

22. Please give us your thoughts on stratggjes to best begin meeting the needs rated in question 21 for improving stream

and river stewardship on a gatewide level. Circle your preference for web of the following Please rate the

following strategies on how critical they are to improving stream and river stewardship programs in Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not at all ' . Somewhat ; "Important . Very A 3aner
A. __; -. - . lmportantto -1ifl”fl.fl‘m ; ‘ .:-to_ Stream . important critical ,
STRATEGIES FOR STATEWIDE Stream .2 -' Stream ,. Stewardship toStream_W Stream ._
, A PROGRAMMING Stewardship g {Stewardship iniMi'chigan» Stewardship”? Stewardship
- in Michifi ¥ in Michigan in Midfifiim

A centralized office to serve as a cleaflglpuse l 2 3 4 5

Newsletters. on the state level i 2 3 4 5

Annual conferences or meetings in conjunction l 2 3 4 S

with existing conferences

Annual conferences or meeting separate from i 2 3 4 5

other meetirgs

A place to communicate with other groups on I 2 3 4 S

the internet or World Wide Web

Directog of organizations like yours 1 2 3 4 S

Bulletins, fact sheets. other publications 1 2 3 4 5

Procedures for data collection 1 2 3 4 5

improved coordination with state and federal l 2 3 4 5
_ggguiatm agencies

Procedures for standardization (Quality l 2 3 4 5
Amr'ancelQualig Control) of data

Advison team to address these issues 1 2 3 4 5

A new organintion to facilitate networking 1 2 3 4 5
among stream and river organizations

Site tours and demonstration area; i 2 3 4 5
Other. Please list

2 3 4 5
l

 

 

 

n.PiasepwfiemyMUomlmmmuabGnmorpnimionanmmmdshipmMiCMmoruus

surveybelow.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank You! Your input is appreciated

134

Do you want your organization published in a “Citizen’s Guide to River Basin
Stewardship for Michigan’s Watersheds”, an educational publication? Check one:

D NO; Do not continue.

D YES; Please complete the following:

Name of Organization:

 

Contact Person:

Address:

 

 

 

Phone: ( )

 

 

In 50 words or less, please provide a brief description of your organization,
including your stream and river activities.

 

 

APPENDIX E: Survey Cover Letters

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN ' 488244222
1.3 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING Apr“ 18, I996

(517) 555-4477
FAX (517) 332-1699

Dear Stream and River Steward:

Now is your chance to share your organization’s concerns about Michigan streams and rivers
with resource managers, decision makers and organizations similar to yours. We have enclosed a
survey to gather some information regarding your organization’s activities and technical and
organizational needs. Due to the importance of stream stewardship in Michigan and the fact that
only a small number of individuals will be surveyed, your response is very important.

This survey is one part of a larger project targeting organizations such as yours. The goals of this
project are to assess the status and needs of Michigan‘s stream stewardship organizations and to
initiate efforts to meet those needs. You may remember receiving an invitation to attend a
conference last March, “Coordinating Watershed Stewardship in Michigan: Citizen Monitoring,
Enhancement and Problem Solving for Streams and Rivers; " that conference was part of this
project. This survey will allow us to compile a Citizen’s Guide to River Basin Stewardship for
Michigan’s Watersheds, which will be made available to organizations like yours. Results of
this survey will be used to make recommendations to decision makers, funders, educators and
outreach programmers regarding the technical and organizational needs reported by stream
stewardship organizations.

Of course, your participation in this project is voluntary; by completing and returning this survey
you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate. Your response, representing your
organization will be treated with strict confidence and mom will not be reported in any
summaries of data collected in this survey. We will however, be publishing at “Citizens Guide to
River Basin Stewardship for Michigan '5' Watersheds. ” A notice will be sent regarding ordering
information when this is available. You may choose to have the name of your organization, its
mailing address and phone number, and a brief description of your organization published. If
you and your organization desire to have your organization listed, please complete the
information on the last page of this survey (which we will separate from the rest of your survey
responses.)

As the opinion leader of one of Michigan’s citizen stream stewardship organizations, your
feedback is important. Please return your response to this survey W in the
enclosed, stamped envelope. If you have any questions regarding this project or survey, please
contact us at (517) 353-0675.

Sincerely, ,

-/W')44)a11 J/CCLAA
Minis“ L. :3me n6 ' Dr. Shari L. Dann
Research Assistant Assistant Professor

asst} Is at War W W Institution

135

136

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE EAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 48820-1222
1.3 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

(SIT) 555-44“

FAX (SIT) 4324699

March 27, 1996
Dear Stream and River Steward:

Recently you received a survey for leaders of Michigan’s Stream and River Stewardship
organizations. If you have already completed and returned the survey, thank you for your
assistance. If not, please take a few minutes now to complete and return it.

This survey is designed to gather information from organization leaders, like yourself,
regarding your activities and organizational and technical needs. To better design
programs to assist organizations like yours, it is necessary to know what you are doing,
what procedures you use and what you believe your greatest needs are. Summaries of
this information gathered will be provided to resource managers, watershed
organizations and other individuals and organizations Who may be ina position to meet
needsidentified.

Your input is very critical to the future of stream and river programming in
Michigan. Please return your response as soon as possible in the stamped, addressed
envelope provided with the survey. If you have misplaced your copy of the survey, or if
you have any questions. we may be reached at (517) 353-0675. Please leave a message if
we are not in, and we will return your call.

Thank you,
aMelissa L. Miidleton M. m
Research Assistant Assistant Professor

MS! is an Alfrmatttrr Minn/Equal Warm!)- Ismsrtsmtm

137

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AN D WILDLIFE “51' LANSING . MICHIGAN . “‘32.” 133
IS NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

(Sl’) SSS-N”?

FAX (51?) 4524699

April 7, 1996

Dear Stream and River Steward:

Recemly you received a survey regarding your organization’s stream and river
programming. We have not yet received your completed survey, so we are enclosing another
copy. If you believe someone else within your organization should receive this survey
instead, please complete only questions 1 and 2 and return the survey to us in the enclosed
stamped envelope. If you believe your organization is not within the scope of this survey,
please return the uncompleted survey with a note as to why you believe your organization
is not within the scope of the survey. If you just recently mailed your survey back to us, thank
you!

This survey is one phase of a project targeting organizations like_yours. Our goal is to
assesthestatusandneedsofMichigan’sstreamandriverstewartlshiporganizationsandtoinitiate
efforts to meet those needs. Results of this survey will allow us to provide much needed
information and recommendations to decision makers, funding sources, educators and outreach
programmers.

Your response, representing your organintion will be treated with strict confidence and
M will not be reported in any summaries of the data collected by this survey. By
completing and returning this survey you indicate your voluntary agreement to participate. We
will be publishing a “Citizens ' Guide to River Basin Stewardship for Michigan 's Watersheds. "
If you would like have the name of your organization, its mailing address and phone number, and
a brief description of your organization published, please complete the information on the last
page of this survey (which will be separated from the rest of your survey responses).

 

Your input to this project is very important. Please respond as soon as possible.
=> We would appreciate your response no later than May l, 1996. 4::

 

If you have any questions regarding this project or survey, please contact us at (5] 7) 353-
0675. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely, f 6
galls” L. Middleton Dr. Shari L. Dann
Research Assistant Assistant Professor

MSU a an amt-saute W Omar-rm Mention

138
MICHIGAN sun: UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE FAST LANSING 0 MICHIGAN 0 488244222
I5 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

April 23, 1996
HI") SSS-H"

FAX (Sl‘) {5.2-I699
Dear Stream and River Steward:

WE WOULD STILL LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU!

Over the past month, you received a survey for leaders of Michigan‘s Stream and River

Stewardship organizations. Please take a few minutes now to complete and return this
survey. "

Your input is very critical to the future of stream and river programming in

Michigan. Please return your completed survey in the stamped, addressed envelope
provided with the survey.

We would appreciate your response by May 1, 1996,
or as soon as possible.

Thank you,
\ . . I \ .
WMW/Jlflb Wop? Cow
Melissa L. Middleton Dr. Shari L. Dann
Research Assistant Assistant Professor

(517) 353-0675

" If you recently completed and returned the survey, thank you for your assistance.

mun-nWAWWn-naylmmm

APPENDIX F: Script for Non-Respondent Telephone Follow-up Survey

ll w- rv N n-R nd nts

Group:
Name:
Phone:

 

Hi, this is I’m calling from Michigan State University. ls (Qutact Emu) available?
Hello, this is from Michigan State University, I’m calling regarding a survey sent to you

recently about (name at M“ 'le ’s involvement with rivers and streams.

Propose of the survey: We ’re interested in knowing what your needs are and what activities you 're
involved in so we. at hlSU car provide better We Other organ’zations such asWNR. WEQ (Mich
Dept. Erwiromnental Quality). Conservation Districts and foundations ntayfind this information usefitl as
well as they develqo prograns.

Do you have 2-3 minutes to answer a few questions?

May I ask. are there any main reasons we haven’t received a response from your organization yet?
(check one of the following)

_ passeditantasaneare else. : Oh, it'that’s thecase,wouldyon mind if! contacted them? (lick):
Do you have his/her name and phone number? lj’yeaget it and end call, thank you [or your help.

mialaced it or set it aside atdforgot (ofler to send a new one): We would still appreciate your
input. Ifwe send you another copy, eodd you fill it out? if “yes". verifiadaessardendcall: Could
we anticipate your response in the neat week? thank you for your time, we appreciate your support.

_donotthinkthemwapliesto theirgroua (lakegroup. writteumde upofrepresentativesof
other agatinations. mllgroup which ispart ofagmernrnentalorgunizafian, groupwhich onlydoesone
or two of the activities in the survey. Encourage them to canplete the surrey aryway: Your input would
still be valuable, would you be willing to complete the survey now? If yes: Could we anticipate your
response in the next week? thank you for your time. we appreciate your support.

1] they ae still hesitant: We would appreciate your response even if you answered questions 1-8
and any others you think pertain to you. If yes: Could we anticipate your response in the next week?
thank you for your time, we appreciate your support.

(ftheya'e stillnatintereaedincornpletingthesurveyoraportion ofit: That’s ok, thank you for
your time.

_don’ t recon receiving it:. We would still appreciate your input. ll'we send you another copy,
could you fill it out? lf‘yes ” .vertjy addres and end call: Could we anticipate your response in the next
week? thank you for your ”slime, we appreciate your support.

_ missed the deadline, We would stm appreciate your input. Could we anticipate your response in
the next week? thank you for your time, we appreciate your support.

not interatedinparticipating endoall. Thank you for your time.

_Other reason

 

139

140
If they are willing to complete the survey through one of the above scenarios, end the call If not:
Ok. that’s fine, but could you take another 3-4 minutes to answer just 4 questions about your
organization?

If “no end call. thank you for your time.
If “yes” continue on:

Is your organization a non-profit-non-governmental organization? _ Is it a private sector, for-profit
organization, then is it a governmental organization ?
Other

 

What percentage of your organization‘s time, is spent on activities oriented to rivers and streams?

%

What 55 these activities you’re involved in with rivers or streams? Do you do... As]: this as an open
ended question ard check ofi' all activities that apply below as they list them. If you are unsure where to
check, write the activity below.

lftheysay “ire onlydo one am things". then checkthose ardsay: So you 93!! do_ on rivers and
streams? (this may prompt them to list more). .

if they list a couple activities or are hesitating say : Could I read a list of some activities to you and you
can answer yes or no for each one? Then proceed below)

__ water monitoring, biological/chernicallphysical _ river or stream clean-ups,

_ photographic surveys, __ nmofi‘ surveys (sediment and pollution sources),
_pipesurveys, _habitatassessrnentsorsurveys,
_fishorothavertebratepopulationassessrnents _sedimentassessnrents,

_ research, watercourse configuration _ assessment of floodplain characteristics
assessment (depthshapecomposition), (vegetation, size etc..)
_ efl’orts to influence decision makers _ provide information to general public, youth.
riparian owners, government oflicials
_ educational projects (workshops, displays,
festivals, schools)
_constructionsiteinspections _bankandroadcrossingassessments

_ watershed mappingplanning, priority setting _ restoration or enhancement

 

 

 

I have just 3 more short questions about the size of your orgau'matiou:
Approximately how many members do you have? and about how many volunteers?

and how many paid stall?
Thank you for your time we appreciate your input!

APPENDIX G: Mail Survey Results

Table G1

Difl'erenceg. between Organizations in Stream and River Activities between Organizations Which Allocate
100% of their Budget to Stream and River Activities and Those Which Allocate a Smaller Percentage

(Mm-Whitng U Rank Sum test of signj cancel

 

 

 

Mean rank Mean rank
Organizations Organizations
which allocate which allocate

 

Activity <100% of budiet 100% of budflt Z p n
Environmental clean-ups 39.17 44.50 -l.07 0.28 80
Habitat assessment/ surveys 41.93 38.17 -0.72 0.47 81
Water monitoring, physical (depth,

flow etc.) 39.50 43.50 -0.77 0.44 80
Fish or other vertebrate population

assessment/survey 41.00 39.00 -0.39 0.70 80
Water monitoring, biological 39.83 42.50 -0.51 0.61 80
Sediment assessment 41.50 37.50 -0.78 0.44 80
Runofl' surveys, sediment and

pollution source survey 40.83 39.50 -0.26 0.79 80
Water monitoring, chemical 41.17 38.50 -0.52 0.60 80
Research 42.17 35.50 -l.44 0.15 80
Watercourse configuration

assessment (depth, shape,

composition etc.) 40.67 40.00 -0. 14 0.88 80
Photographic surveys 41.00 39.00 -0.45 0.65 80
Assessment of floodplain

characteristics (vegetation, size

etc.) 39.00 45.00 -l.36 0.17 80
Pipe surveys 38.84 43.42 -l.83 0.07 79
Provide information to the general

public 40.50 40.50 0.00 1.00 80
Educational activities 38.54 48.50 -2.44 0.01 81
Efl‘orts to influence local

(municipal/township) decision

makers to support

organization’s position 39.00 45.00 -l.41 0.16 80
Provide information to local or

county government

officials 41.17 38.50 -0.56 0.57 80
Provide information to riparian

owners 39.50 43.50 -0.92 0.36 80
Efions to influence county

decision makers to support

organization’s position 39.83 42.50 -0.54 0.59 80
Efl'orts to influence state or federal

decision makers to

support organization’s position 40.33 41.00 -0. 14 0.89 80
Restoration and enhancement

activities for rivers and streams 41.71 38.83 -0.60 0.55 81
Provide information to youth 41.00 39.00 -0.44 0.66 80
Collect data or information from

rivers or streams 39.59 41.20 -0.31 0.75 79

 

141

142

 

Table 61 continued
Planning; i.e. watershed level

land-use planning 41.00 39.00 -0.39 0.70 80
Watershed level problem/activity

priority setting 40.17 41.50 -0.26 0.79 80
Bank and road crossing

assessments 41.17 38.50 -0.52 0.60 80
Program or project evaluation 40.17 41.50 -0.26 0.79 80
Lobbying efforts for legislative

support of organization’s

position 40.33 41.00 -0.14 0.89 80
Watershed mapping 41.67 37.00 -0.99 0.32 80
Water resource inventories at the

watershed level 41.50 37.50 -0.92 0.36 80
Construction site inspections 40.33 41.00 -0. 16 0.87 80
Other' 38.50 46.50 -2.15 0.03 80

 

' Eleven (11) respondents provided responses unrelated to response categories: Fish rearing and planting (2
respondents), Work on gas and oil pipeline flow issues (1 ), trailway planning and conservation ( l ), Lake shore
surveys (l), thding eight projects on streams and rivers (1), Survey ofaccess sites for recreational use (1), Efforts to
get the DNR to clean up the Platte River State Fish Hatchery (1), Special grants projects (1), Land trust activities (1),
Scientific board (1 ).

Seven (7) reported activities which were addressed in otherparts ofthe survey. Stream bank erosion control
(l),Habitat restoration and improvement (2), Research to best manage nattn'al resources (1), Clean-up (over 32 tons
removed, 90% recycled) (1), Legal action (1), Survey and monitor natural areas which may or may not be directly
associated with rivers and streams (1).

 

143

m. 5333...... a a. 8.2....

v A83338 @8325»... c. 5208.. .2. =5

.85. .88. .2 2.. s .82 so»... 88.32 .2... 2...... use 25.28 use. 2.. 22.. .8295 88.2...
.225. as... 2.. .2. a»... 2.2. 2.. 8228 .2... 26 .2 2.. s 22.. 8....5 .8295 88.2...

85.8 use... 2 5.8 82.225 22.. 8.. 82235 85. 8232.2 88.. 88.2.. _.
2.5.8 combine“. 2 5...... 30:22.5 8...: .2... 627.823 25 32.33 nova—o... .

2.2.2... o... 5 3.5.9... .2. 2.3 83805 E... .35:
u _ .83 358.... 388 2. Am. v2.39... .2. .23 «5.8 n :5 e02: 23 5:38am... Ea... .5: he 3.8859...» a 6:35.22 3 28:8. 0.3.... ..

08.5.2 25 .35.? .58.. .2. 3.53 833...... 2:8. 8:35.80 88:82.» 2.2.6... u m 2... 63.3.2»... Be 3 8:35.80 880.6... 2.2.5... u

a

.222. a. 8:32.28 8.2 88.32 u 2 8.2.22... so a 23.2.8 .2. 8.... u N as? .2 2 2.. as. a 8 8.233 .

 

 

2 8... 2 2.2 8... 8... 8.: 2.: .. 850
S 2... 2 8... 2.2 2.2 2.2 3.2 .8... .8228» .58.. .25
2 8... 2 2.2 2.2 2. .2 8.2 n. .2 as. .8222.» 23m 5.5
8 2... 2 8.. 2.2 2.. m 8.2 8.2 as. .822on 8.2.... .85
2 .8 2 8... 8.8 8.2 8.8 2.2 22.222... 228.8: .25
2 .2... m 22 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.2 as. 02...... 88228.32...
8 8... 2 22 2.2 2.2 2.2 8.2 . 22.8.5... 8 .82.
2 S... m 2.. 2.2 2.2 8.2 8.2 8.22 2......» .2... 2... 2.
2 2... m 2. .N 2.2 2.2 8.2 8.2 8.5m .82.... 2.
8 2... 2 2.. 8.2 2.2 8.2 2.2 .82... 8.82.. 88222.2...
2 2. ... 2 8.... 8.8 2.8 2.2 2.2 82.222228 529 85.8
8 8... 2 8.... 2.2 8.2 2.2 2.2 28...... 22.83.2825
2 2... 2 8.. 8.2 2.2 2.2 8.2 .§.§§=§8. 829......
2 8.. m 8... 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 .8828 882....
2 2... 2 a... 2.8 2.8 8.2 2.2 as. .8228» .83
8 8... 2 2.... 8.2 2.8 8.2 2.2 as. 8.202....
.2 8... 2 22 8.2 2.8 2.2 2.2 2.96 82282.2... 8 .2§n
2 8... 2 :2 8.2 2.. 2 8.: 2.2 8.22 882880 82:23. .282
2 8... 2 2.. 2.2 2.2 N. .2 8.2 822822... 8 .22.
2 2... n 8... 8.8 2.8 8.8 2.8 8288... .282 8 .58..
.. a 52.8... On 8282.290 2222.230 2.2.2.525 2.2.2.350 8.8222 0.. 82:8

.8 meg—.223. 2.8.8.23. «£9.88... 9.8....an

82...... .8382 .2882 .8322 28.82

.22 =82 .52 :82 .22 :82 .22 =82

 

 

.0 8 20.5.8... 388E281 .8 gem a. «88.5.13...— 0... 0.. 2.... a... 2.9.09.0 a. 2.3.2. .0 8028.. . e 0.90

8 0......

 

144

Table G3

Difl'erences between Orggg'zations in the Northern and Southern Portions of the Lower Peninsula in
Sources of Non-Financial Technical or Orggu_z_a° tional Assistance, Such as Consultation Time or Other
Non-Material Assistance (M-Whitngy U Rank Sum test of sigfi cancel

 

Mean rank' Meanrank

 

Northern Southern
Responding Responding
Sources of Assistance Organizations Orga_nizations Z p 11
Depart. of Natural Resources 43.43 44.84 -0.27 0.79 87
Dept. of Transportation 30.58 28.88 -0.45 0.65 59
Natural Resources Conservation Service 39.31 32.56 -1.33 0.18 73
Depart. of Environmental Quality 35.91 36.16 -0.05 0.96 71
University stafi' 30.11 42.61 -2.66 0.01 69
Local government stafl' 31.78 43.76 -2.42 0.02 71
Extension personnel 38.00 38.00 0.00 1.00 75
For-profit (consultants/businesses) 32.34 34.06 -0.38 0.71 65
University/college students 30.32 42.28 -2.58 0.001 69
County Drain Commissioner/staff 33.68 43.77 -2. 10 0.04 74
Environmental Protection Agency 34.24 36.34 -0.45 0.65 69
US Forest Service 36.13 31.25 -1.03 0.30 68
US Fish and Wildlife Service 34.82 33.87 -0.21 0.84 68
Dept. of Agriculture 35.27 30.20 -l.10 0.27 66
Junior/Community College stafl' 32.36 31.37 -0.26 0.79 63
Other non-profit organizations 38.98 39.03 -0.01 1.00 77
Other County government staff 33.37 35.06 -0.37 0.71 67
Other State government stafl‘ 30.07 26.07 -1.09 0.27 56
Other Federal government stafl‘ 24.07 23.90 -0.05 0.96 47
Other " 12.20 8.00 -1.45 0.15 21

 

‘Calculatedonascaleon to 5, where: 2 =doesnotconu'ibutetoomorganization, 3 =providessmall contribution
(is helpful, but not necessary to organization’s activities), 4 = provides moderate contribution to our organization, and
5 = provides significant contribution (some activities would not occur without this support). 1 = unsure if a
contribution is made, and therefore was not included in the analysis.

b Public schools (1 respondmt), a governmental of non profit organization was listed but a rating was not provided
(3), no source specified (20).

145

Table G4

Differences between Orgfl'zations in the Eastern and Western Portions of the Lower Peninsula in
Sources of Non-Financial Technical or Organizational Assistance, Such as Consultation Time or Other
Non-Material Assistance (Mg-Whitney U Rank Sum test of sigm cance)

 

Mean rank' Meanrank

 

Eastern Western
Responding Responding

Sources of Assistance Organimtions Organimtions Z p n
Depart. of Natural Resources 45.81 42.95 -0.53 0.59 87
Dept. of Transportation 27.69 31.82 -1. 15 0.25 59
Natural Resources Conservation

Service 35.35 38.21 -0.59 0.56 73
Depart. of Environmental Quality 34.24 37.21 -0.62 0.53 71
University staff 32.61 36.54 -0.83 0.40 69
Local government stafi‘ 38.12 34.45 -0.77 0.44 71
Extension personnel 38.00 38.00 0.00 1.00 75
For-profit (consultants/businesses) 28.00 35.93 -1 .72 0.09 65
University/college students 37.09 33.57 -0.76 0.44 69
County Drain Commissioner/staff 39.30 36.27 -0.63 0.52 74
Environmental Protection Agency 33.95 35.76 -0.40 0.69 69
US Forest Service 33.50 35.16 -0.38 0.70 68
US Fish and Wildlife Service 33.70 35.06 -0.31 0.76 68
Dept. of Agriculture 31.65 34.78 -0.70 0.48 66
Junior/Community College stafl‘ 31.20 32.60 0.38 0.71 63
Other County government staff 31.25 35.74 -0.99 0.32 67
Other non-profit organizations 37.16 40.24 -0.63 0.53 77
Other State government staff 28.89 28.25 -0. 17 0.86 56
Other Federal government stafl' 24.61 23.62 -0.30 0.76 47
Other " 12.09 9.30 -0.87 0.38 21

 

' Calculated on a scale 01'2 to 5, where: 2 = does not contribute to our organization, 3 = provides small contribution
(is helpful, but not necessary to organization’s activities), 4 = provides moderate contribution to our organization, and
5 = provides significant contribution (some activities would not occur without this support). 1 = unsure if a
contribution is made, therefore was not included in the analysis.

b Public schools (1 respondent), a governmaital of non profit organization was listed but a rating was not provided
(3), no source specified (20).

Table GS

146

Differences in Sources of Non-Financial Technical or Organizational Assistance, Such as Consultation
Time or Other Non-Material Assistance between Difi‘erent Orgafl'zation Typgs (Elm-Wallis one-way

 

 

 

W
Mean Mean Mean
rank ' rank rank Degrees
Primary Secondary Fostered of

Sources of Assistance NGOs ° NGOs ‘ NGOs ‘ X2 p n freedom
Depart. of Natural Resources 52.53 39.52 64.03 8.01 0.02 101 2
Dept. of Transportation 33.76 34.00 44.82 5.29 0.07 71 2
Natural Resources Conservation

Service 39.80 33.39 65.29 18.20 <0.001 86 2
Depart. of Environmental Quality 41.17 35.53 60.36 9.75 0.008 85 2
University staff 44.70 42.17 34.96 1.79 0.41 84 2
Local government stafl' 47.11 28.90 42.50 8.92 0.01 83 2
Extension personnel 45.00 45.00 45.00 0.00 1.00 89 2
For-profit 39.37 39.76 42.62 0.23 0.89 79 2
(consultants/businesses)
University/college students 39.92 40.30 49.31 1.88 0.39 82 2
County Drain Commissioner/stafl’ 44.62 36.74 54.42 4.85 0.09 87 2
Environmental Protection Agency 37.32 42.72 56.56 9.07 0.01 84 2
US Forest Service 39.53 40.75 43.23 0.36 0.84 80 2
US Fish and Wildlife Service 40.60 40.47 40.15 0.01 1.00 80 2
Dept. of Agriculture 37.40 36.00 51.21 5.55 0.06 78 2
Junior/Community College staff 38.43 37.71 33.27 0.82 0.66 74 2
Other State government stafl' 30.04 26.64 44.29 10.82 0.004 63 2
Other Federal government stafl’ 29.94 24.00 29.43 2.38 0.30 56 2
Other County government stafi' 39.09 30.87 54.79 9.77 0.008 78 2
Other non-profit organizations 44.79 44.75 49.10 0.38 0.83 90 2
Other “ 14.38 9.67 12.33 2.02 0.36 25 2

 

‘Calculatedonascaleofz toS, where: 2 =doesnotcontributetoourorganization, 3 =provides small contribution
(is helpful, but not necessary to organization’s activities), 4 = provides moderate contribution to our organization, and
5 = provides significant contribution (some activities would not occur without this support). 1 = unsure if a

contribution is made, therefore was not included in the analysis.

5 Public schools (1 respondent), a governmental of non profit organization was listed but a rating was not provided

(3), no source specified (20).

‘ Not for profit, non-governmental organizations whose primary goals are directly related to stream and

river stewardship.

‘ Non-profit citizen action organizations which are indirectly or marginally involved in stream and river

stewardship.

‘ Non-profit citizen action organizations which are fostered by, or work closely with governmental

agencies.

147

Table G6 '
Differences between Orggu'zations with and with No Paid Stafi‘ in the Lower Peninsula in Sources of
Non-Financial Technical or Orgam'zational Assistance, Such as Consultation Time or Other Non-Material
Assistance (M-Whitng U Rank Sum test of signLfi' cance)

 

 

 

Mean rank ' Mean rank
Responding Responding
Organizations Organizations
with Paid with No paid

Sources of Assistance Stafi staff Z p 11
Depart. of Natural Resources 45.23 57.90 -2.26 0.02 101
Dept. of Transportation 39.13 31.47 -1.98 0.05 71
Natural Resources Conservation

Service 47.00 38.64 -1.58 0.11 86
Depart. of Environmental Quality 51.06 32.03 -3.65 <0.001 85
University stafl' 43.17 41.61 -0.30 0.76 84
Local government staff 45.12 37.93 -l.40 0.16 83
Extension personnel 40.50 40.50 0.00 1.00 80
For-profit (consultants/businesses) 43 .92 35.07 -1 .80 0.71 79
University/college students 44.61 37.53 -1.42 0.16 82
County Drain Commissioner/staff 48.76 36.57 -2.37 0.02 87
Environmental Protection Agency 45.58 38.19 -1.48 0.14 84
US Forest Service 37.20 44.34 -1.52 0.13 80
US Fish and Wildlife Service 39.63 41.57 -0.40 0.69 80
Dept. of Agriculture 41.21 36.90 -0.90 0.37 78
Junior/Community College stafi' 39.24 35.33 -0.98 0.32 74
Other non-profit organizations 45.89 45.01 -0. 16 0.87 90
Other State government staff 34.53 28.63 -l.57 0.12 63
Other County government staff 44.76 32.69 -2.54 0.01 78
Other Federal government stafi‘ 29.13 27.72 -0.44 0.66 56
Other b 12.83 13.15 011 0.91 25

 

'Calculatedonascaleon to 5, where: 2 =doesnotcontributetoo1n'organi7ation, 3 =provides srnallcontribution
(is helpful, but not necessary to organization’s activities), 4 = provides moderate contribution to our organization, and
5 = provides significant contribution (some activities would not occur without this support). 1 = unsure if a
contribution is made, therefore was not included in the analysis.

" Public schools ( l respondent), a governmental of non profit organization was listed but a rating was not provided
(3), no source specified (20).

 

148

 

 

 

Table G7
Differences in Stream and River Activities between the Three Or 'zation T -Wallis one-
way _a_na_ly_§is of variance)
Mean Mean Mean
rank rank rank Degrees
Primary Secondary Fostered of

Activity NGOs' NGOs” NGOs“ x2 freedom n p
Environmental clean-ups 58.75 39.34 54.31 9.69 2 106 0.008
Habitat assessrnent/ surveys 52.66 46.90 69.56 7.64 2 107 0.02
Water monitoring, physical

(depth, flow etc.) 56.98 45.61 62.35 4.96 2 109 0.08
Fish or other vertebrate

population

assessment/survey 55.10 45.96 65.26 5.56 2 108 0.06
Water monitoring, biological 56.30 46.61 63.35 4.54 2 109 0.10
Sediment assessment 54.62 40.56 79.38 22.39 2 109 <0.001
Runoff surveys, sediment and

pollution source survey 55.46 40.56 76.18 18.86 2 109 <0.001
Water monitoring, chemical 54.11 50.63 65.35 3.55 2 109 0.17
Research 57.11 47.57 58.74 3.30 2 109 0.19
Watercourse configuration

assessment (depth, shape,

composition etc.) 54.58 50.07 64.44 4.01 2 109 0.13
Photographic surveys 54.74 49.06 65.44 5.46 2 109 0.07
Assessment of floodplain

characteristics (vegetation,

size etc.) 54.90 52.07 60.03 1.37 2 109 0.50
Pipe surveys 54.94 50.00 56.29 2.73 2 107 0.25
Provide information to the

general public 58.42 49.41 61.00 8.81 2 112 0.01
Educational activities 54.89 58.67 65.33 3.14 2 114 0.21
Efl‘orts to influence local

(municipal/township)

decision makers to support

organization’s position 59.83 49.36 53.08 4.37 2 111 0.11
Provide information to loeal or 68.89 5.21 2 112 0.07

county government officials 53.91 54.62
Provide information to riparian

owners 54.41 53.19 69.39 5.56 2 112 0.06
Efforts to influence county

decision makers to support

organization’s position 57.27 53.26 58.94 0.65 2 112 0.72
Efforts to influence state or

federal decision makers to

support organization’s

position 56.91 53.76 59.44 0.55 2 112 0.76
Restoration and enhancement

activities for rivers and

streams 58.53 43.50 69.28 11.20 2 112 0.004
Provide information to youth 61.35 45.10 57.33 7.39 2 112 0.02
Collect data or information

from rivers or streams 55.47 50.05 68.18 4.59 2 111 0.10

 

149

 

Table G7 continued
Wildlife habitat assessments

(fish or wildlife) 56.43 48.63 72.17 7.94 2 113 0.02
Planning; i.e. watershed level

land-use planning , 54.82 54.31 66.11 2.65 2 112 0.27
Watershed level

problem/activity priority

setting 53.95 52.38 72.33 7.25 2 112 0.03
Bank and road crossing

assessments 58.40 39.86 76.40 21.00 2 112 <0.001
Program or project evaluation 57.45 46.22 69.61 9.01 2 112 0.01
Lobbying efforts for legislative

support of organization’s

position 58.95 59.31 43.11 5.85 2 112 0.05
Watershed mapping 57.37 50.66 62.78 2.76 2 112 0.25
Water resource inventories at

the watershed level 55.70 48.36 72.50 12.33 2 112 0.002
Construction site inspections 56.75 49.00 67.67 10.57 2 112 0.005
Other4 58.70 57.16 47.50 4.18 2 112 0.12

 

‘ Not for profit, non-governmental organizations Whose primary goals are directly related to stream and

river stewardship.
" Non-profit citizen action organizations which are indirectly or marginally involved in stream and river

stewardship.
° Non-profit citizen action organizations which are fostered by, or work closely with governmental

agencies.

" Eleven (1 l) respondents provided responses tmrelated to response categories: Fish rearing and planting (2
respondents), Work on gas and oil pipeline flow issues (1 ), trailway planning and conservation (1 ), Lake shore
surveys (1), thding eight projects on streams and rivers (1), Survey ofaccess sites for recreational use (1), Efforts to
get the DNR to clean up the Platte River State Fish Hatchery (1), Special grants projects (1), Land trust activities (1),
Scientific board ( l ).
Seven (7) reported activities which were addressed in other parts ofthe survey: Stream bank erosion control
(1 )J-labitat restoration and improvement (2), Research to best mange natural resources (1 ), Clean-up (over 32 tons
removed, 90% recycled) (1), Legal action (1), Survey and monitor natural areas which may or may not be directly
associated with rivers and streams (1).

150

 

 

Table G8
Differences between Orgafl'zations with Paid Staff and Those with No Paid Staff in Stream and River
Activities -Whitn U Rank Sum test of si ' cance
Mean rank Mean rank
Responding Responding
Organizations Organizations
with Paid with No paid

Activity Stafl stafi Z p n
Environmental clean-ups 49.78 45.02 -0.98 0.33 94
Habitat assessment/ surveys 42.28 53.84 -2.38 0.02 95
Water monitoring, physical (depth,

flow etc.) 44.17 53.01 -1.82 0.07 96
Fish or other vertebrate population

assessment/survey 52.03 44.82 -l.50 0.13 96
Water monitoring, biological 43.69 53.51 -2.03 -0.04 96
Sediment assessment 46.17 50.93 -1.00 0.32 96
Runoff surveys, sediment and

pollution source survey 47.13 49.93 -0.58 0.56 96
Water monitoring, chemical 41.28 56.03 -3.09 0.002 96
Research 45.76 51.36 -l.24 0.21 96
Watercourse configuration

assessment (depth, shape,

composition etc.) 44.36 52.82 -2.04 0.04 96
Photographic surveys 47.30 49.76 -0.59 0.55 96
Assessment of floodplain

characteristics (vegetation, size

etc.) 44.38 52.80 -2. 10 0.03 96
Pipe surveys 46.98 49.04 -0.86 0.39 95
Provide information to the general

public 48.08 48.94 -0.33 0.74 96
Edueational activities 45.76 53.40 -l.98 0.05 98
Efforts to influence local

(municipal/township) decision

makers to support

organization’s position 50.58 45.36 -l.28 0.20 95
Provide information to local or

county government

officials 47.79 49.24 -0.33 0.74 96
Provide information to riparian

owners 47.31 49.74 -0.55 0.58 96
Efforts to influence cormty

decision makers to support

organization’s position 47.85 49.18 -0.28 0.77 96
Efforts to influence state or federal

decision makers to

support organization’s position 49.81 47.14 -0.57 0.56 96
Restoration and enhancement

activities for rivers and

streams 48.65 49.35 -0.15 0.88 97
Provide information to youth 44.41 52.77 -1.81 0.07 96
Collect data or information from

rivers or streams 41.30 54.84 -2.77 0.006 95

 

 

151

 

Table G8 continued
Wildlife habitat assessments (fish

or wildlife) 46.32 51.74 -1.11 0.27 97
Planning; i.e. watershed level

land-use planning 42.23 55.03 -2.66 0.008 96
Watershed level problem/activity

priority setting 43.69 53.51 -2.03 0.04 96
Bank and road crossing

assessments 47.15 49.90 -0.58 0.56 96
Program or project evaluation 42.78 54.47 -2.50 0.01 96
Lobbying efforts for legislative

support of organization’s

position 49.19 47.78 -0.32 0.75 96
Watershed mapping 43.30 53.93 -2.33 0.02 96
Water resource inventories at the

watershed level 44.84 52.32 -l.78 0.07 96
Construction site inspections 43.46 53.76 -2.96 0.003 96
Other' 49.32 47.65 -0.45 0.65 96

 

' Eleven (1 l) respondents provided responses unrelated to response categories: Fish rearing and planting (2
respondents), Work on gas and oil pipeline flow issues (1 ), trailway planning and conservation (1), Lake shore
surveys (l ), Funding eight projects on streams and rivers (1), Survey ofaccess sites for recreational use (1), Efforts to
get the DNR to clean up the Platte River State Fish Hatchery (1), Special grants projects (1), Land trust activities (1),
Scientific board ( l ).

Seven (7) reported activities which were addressed in other parts of the survey. Stream bank erosion control
(1),Habitat restoration and improvement (2), Research to best manage natural resomces (l ), Clean-up (over 32 tons
removed, 90% recycled) (1 ), Legal action (1), Survey and monitor natural areas which may or may not be directly
associated with rivers and streams (1 ).

152

Table G9

Differences in Tms of Restoration and Enhancement Activities Conducted between the Three
Organization Tyms (W-Wallis one-way analysis of variance)

 

 

Mean Mean Mean
rank rank rank Degrees
Restoration and Enhancement Primary Secondary Fostered of
Activity NGOs' NGOs” NGOs“ x2 freedom 11 p
Tree and shrub planting 37.04 25.92 47.50 11.76 2 74 0.003
Vegetative stabilization (grass or
ground cover plantings and

bioengineering) 36.63 24.83 49.50 14.02 2 74 <0.001
Non vegetation bank stabilization 37.63 22.75 48.19 14.03 2 74 <0.001
Runofl' control 35.20 32.92 47.56 6.14 2 74 0.05
Construction and/or placement of

in—stream structures 36.50 30.33 45.75 5.06 2 74 0.08
Habitat improvement such as

sediment removal 6.09 32.33 45.40 4.10 2 74 0.13
Placement of gravel or rock in the

channel 40.20 25.58 38.69 6.16 2 74 0.05
Vegetation protection 37.37 33.75 40.69 1.05 2 74 0.59
Pollution and/or eutrophication

control 38.15 31.58 40.06 2.13 2 74 0.34
Vegetation removal 37.74 33.58 39.75 1.26 2 74 0.53
Otherd 35.80 44.25 37.31 7.77 2 74 0.02
‘ Not for profit, non-governmental organizations whose primary goals are directly related to stream and river

stewardship.

” Non-profit citizen action organizations which are indirectly or marginally involved in stream and river stewardship.
‘ Non-profit citizen action organizations which are fostered by, or work closely with governmental agencies.

‘ Three (3 respondents) were not appropriate responses to the question: Education, Will be conducting these activities
inthe future,Raisefish forriverstocking. Two(2)responsesmayhave fitintheresponsecategories, but cannotbe
interpreted Restoration of natural habitat, Recreational access.

 

 

Table 610
Difi‘e in th of F1 h or Wil ' 1 ed on Rivers And Streams
n the Three ' ' n T -W ' ne- ° variance
Mean Mean Mean
rank rank rank Degrees
Primary Secondary Fostered of
Habitat Assessment Activity NGOs' NGOs” NGOs“ x2 freedom 11 J
Aquatic invertebrate habitat
assessments ’ 22.04 21.07 24.50 0.56 2 44 0.76

Fish habitat assessment 22.69 16.29 26.00 3.34 2 44 0.19
Habitat along banks 21.65 20.93 25050 1.09 2 44 0.58
Habitat in floodplain 21.23 26.43 23.00 1.64 2 44 0.44
Access to habitat 22.23 24.29 22.00 0.33 2 44 0.85
Otherd 23.19 21.50 21.50 1.41 2 44 0.49

 

'Not fmpmfitnm—govamhlagflufimswhoseprimmygodsmdnecflymhtedmsueamand
riverstewardship.

t’Non-profit citizen action organizations whichare indirectly ormarginallyinvolved in stream andriver stewardship.

‘ Non-profit citizen action organizations which are fostered by, or work closely with governmental agencies.

‘Thetwo(2)reqrondents specifiedtheir . toutputs: Habitat impovementbyaddinglargewoodydebris,

0mm-

 

 

 

153

 

 

Table 611
Differences in Activities Conducted as Part of a River or Stream Clean-Up between the Three
Orgam'zation Tm (Kn__§_kal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance)
Mean Mean Mean
rank rank rank Degrees
Primary Secondary Fostered of

Clean-up Activity NGOs' NGOs” NGOs“ x2 frwdom n p
Collection of human created

trash fiom the stream or

river 40.08 31.60 37.57 4.04 2 76 0.13
Collection of human created

trash from the banks or

riparian zone 39.35 39.20 34.86 1.49 2 76 0.47
Provide educational/awareness

activities or events

concurrent with clean-ups 36.38 39.60 45.57 2.92 2 76 0.23
Planting of trees, shrubs,

grasses for aesthetics 35.65 37.70 49.64 6.07 2 76 0.05
Removal of brush and logs

from the stream/river 42.00 26.80 33.86 6.53 2 76 0.04
Removal of brush and logs

from the banks or riparian

zones 40.46 33.30 34.93 2.45 2 76 0.29
Otherd 38.88 42.10 34.50 2.62 2 76 0.27

 

‘ Not for profit, non-governmental organizations whose primary goals are directly related to stream and river
stewardship.

” Non-profit citizen action organizations which are indirectly or marginally involved in stream and river stewardship.

° Non-profit citizen action organizations which are fostered by, or work closely with governmental agencies.

" Four (4) respondents specified their response as follows: Cleanup of path near river (1 respondent), Conduct Beaver

Island Lake Days for every 6th grade student fiom three school commrmities (1 ), Restoration of natural habitat (1 ),

Roadside Adopt-a Highway (1). Two (2 )respondents reported activities which facilitate clean-ups conducted by other

organizations: Provide clearinghouse for clean-up efforts and information and facilities cornmrmication between local

clean-up and water monitoring groups (1), Provide “howto” andwhere toobtain assistance to served groups

wishing to conduct rivertrash clean-ups (1).

 

Table G12

154

Differences in Phfiical, Chemical and Biological Data Collected from Rivers and Streams between the

 

 

Three 'zation T -Wallis one-wa anal sis of variance
Mean Mean Mean
rank rank rank Degrees
Primary Secondary Fostered of

Parameters NGOs' NGOs” NGOs° x2 freedom 11 p
Water temperature 27.53 24.68 30.00 1.14 2 54 0.57
pH 28.31 25.77 27.00 0.30 2 54 0.86
DO 28.44 26.77 25.75 0.38 2 54 0.83
BOD 28.06 27.27 26.25 0.15 2 54 0.92
Phosphorus 26.82 25.32 31.25 1.28 2 54 0.53
Flow/velocity regimes 26.08 31.23 27.75 1.20 2 54 0.55
Turbididty 28.95 25.86 25.25 0.94 2 54 0.62
Nitrogen 28.08 25.86 27.50 0.24 2 54 0.89
Secchi transparency 26.34 30.77 27.50 0.97 2 54 0.62
Rainfall 26.97 27.36 29.00 0.24 2 54 0.89
TSS/TDS 28.34 22.95 29.50 2.08 2 54 0.35
Alkalinity 27.60 26.41 28.25 0.16 2 54 0.92
Chlorides 28.10 26.91 26.50 0.22 2 54 0.89
Pesticides 27.85 28.41 25.75 0.53 2 54 0.77
COD 26.98 30.86 25.75 1.81 2 54 0.41
Metals 29.60 25.95 23.50 3.78 2 54 0.15
Hardness 26.98 28.41 28.00 0.21 2 54 0.90
Oil and grease 28.35 28.91 24.00 2.28 2 54 0.32
Hydrocarbons 28.85 26.95 24.50 2.29 2 54 0.32
Invertebrates 29.18 25.77 24.75 1.14 2 54 0.57
Aquatic vegetation 25.95 32.68 26.75 2.05 2 54 0.36
Fish 25.58 30.73 29.50 1.52 2 54 0.47
Riparian vegetation 25.34 29.77 31.00 2.01 2 54 0.37
Coliform bacteria 27.21 30.77 25.25 1.10 2 54 0.58
Algae 27.47 30.32 25.00 1.14 2 54 0.57
Amphibians and reptiles 25.85 31.32 28.25 1.95 2 54 0.38
Birds/wildlife 24.61 31.82 31.00 5.07 2 54 0.08
Chlorophyll 25.74 31.36 28.50 3.24 2 54 0.20
Other bacteria 27.61 27.45 27.25 0.02 2 54 0.99
Other physical/chemical

parameters‘I 27.61 27.45 27.45 0.02 2 54 0.99
Other biological‘ 27.74 28.45 26.00 1.00 2 54 0.61

 

' Not for profit, non-governmental organizations whose primary goals are directly related to stream and

river stewardship.

" Non-profit citizen action organizations which are indirectly or marginally involved in stream and river stewardship.
‘ Non-profit citizen action organizations which are fostered by, or work closely with governmental agencies.
‘ Two of the five respondents specified Physical visual problems, Provide some financial support for students to do.
eOnerespondentspecifiedresptaiseas : Visualproblerns.

 

155

Table 613
Difl’erences between Organizations with Paid Staff and Those with No Paid Staff in Types ti Restoration
and Enhancement Activities Conducted (Mann-Whflva Rank Sum test of sigLfi' cance)

 

 

Meanrank Meanrank

Responding Responding
Organizations Organizations

 

Restoration and Enhancement with Paid with No paid
Activity Stafl' stafi' Z p n
Tree and shrub planting 31.50 37.50 -1.64 0.10 68
Vegetative stabilization (grass or

ground cover plantings and

bioengineering) 31.50 37.50 -1.54 0.12 68
Non vegetation bank stabilization 34.00 35.00 -0.25 0.80 68
Runoff control 34.00 35.00 -0.24 0.81 68
Construction and/or placement of

in-stream structures 42.00 27.00 -3.61 <0.001 68
Habitat improvement such as

sediment removal 38.00 31.00 -1.69 0.09 68
Placement of gravel or rock in the

channel 36.50 32.50 -0.98 0.33 68
Vegetation protection 33.00 36.00 -0.78 0.43 68
Pollution and/or eutrophication

control 33.50 35.50 -0.54 0.59 68
Vegetation removal 33.50 35.50 -0.59 0.55 68
Other' 34.00 35.00 -0.46 0.64 68

'Three(3 respondents)werenotappropriateresponsestothequestioru Education,Wi11beconductingtheseactivities
inthefuture,Raisefishforriverstocking. Two(2)responsesmayhavefitintheresponsecategories,butcannotbe
interpreted: Restoration of natural habitat, Recreational access.

Table G14
Difl’erences m Minions with Paid Staff and Those with No Paid Staff in Tm of Fish or

Wildlife Mint Assessments Conducted on Rivers And Streams (m-Whitng U Rank Sum test of
sigm cance)

 

 

Mean rank Mean rank
Responding Responding
Organizations Organizations

 

with Paid with No paid

Habitat Assessment Activiy Stafl' stafl' Z p n
Aquatic invertebrate habitat

assessments 19.72 21.14 -0.46 0.65 40
Fish habitat assessment 23.44 18.09 -1.68 0.09 40
Habitat along banks 18.78 21.91 -0.97 0.33 40
Habitat in floodplain 17.72 22.77 -1.81 0.07 40
Access to habitat 19.83 21.05 -0.47 0.64 40
Other‘ 20.61 20.41 -0.14 0.89 40

 

‘ The two (2)respondu1ts specified their assement outputs: Habitat impovement by adding large woody debris,
Camper programs.

156

 

 

Table 615
Differences between Organizations with Paid Staff and Those with No Paid Stafi' in Activities Conducted
as Part of a River or Stream Clean-U -Whitn U Rank Sum test of 51 ' cance
Mean rank Mean rank
Responding Responding
Organizations Organizations
with Paid with No paid

Clean-up Activity Stafi' stafl Z p 11
Collection of human created

trash fiom the stream or

river 34.23 32.68 -0.55 0.58 66
Collection of human created

trash from the banks or

riparian zone 34.23 32.68 -0.55 0.58 66
Provide educational/awareness

activities or events

concurrent with clean-ups 28.97 38.61 -2.47 0.01 66
Planting of trees, shrubs,

grasses for aesthetics 30.31 37.10 -1.67 0.09 66
Removal of brush and logs

from the stream/river 33.20 33.84 -0. 16 0.87 66
Removal of brush and logs

from the banks or riparian

zones 33.99 32.95 -0.29 0.77 66
Other‘ 32.33 34.82 -0.93 0.35 66

 

‘ Four (4) respondents specified their response as follows: Cleanup of path near river (1 respondent), Conduct Beaver
Island Lake Days for every 6th grade student from three school commrmities ( l ), Restoration of natural habitat (1 ),
Road side Adopt-a Highway (1 ). Two (2 )respondents reported activities which facilitate clean-ups conducted by
other organizations: Provide clearinghouse for clean-up efforts and information and facilities comrntmication between
local clean-up andwater monitoring groups (1), Provide “howto” and whaeto obtain assistance to served groups
wishing to conduct river trash clean-ups (l).

 

 

157

Table 616

Differences between Orga_nizations with Paid Stafl‘ and Those with No Paid Stafl‘ in Physical, Chemical
and Biological Data Collected from Rivers an‘d Strearms (Mann-Whitng U Rank Sum test of signj cance)

 

Mean rank Mean rank
Responding Responding
Organizations Organizations

 

with Paid with No paid

Parameters Stafi‘ stafi‘ Z p 11
Water temperature 25.29 26.42 -0.36 0.72 51
pH 24.58 26.84 -0.61 0.54 51
DO 25.58 26.25 -0. 18 0.86 51
BOD 21.21 28.84 -2.06 0.04 51
Phosphorus 21.21 28.84 -2.06 0.04 51
Flow/velocity regimes 23.55 27.45 -1.06 0.29 51
Turbididty 22.37 28.16 -1.62 0.10 51
Nitrogen 21.53 28.66 -2.03 0.04 51
Secchi transparency 22.87 27.86 -1.42 0.15 51
Rainfall 23.03 27.77 -1.42 0.15 51
TSSfI'DS 20.84 29.06 -2.53 0.01 51
Alkalinity 25.87 26.08 -0.07 0.95 51
Chlorides 23.68 27.38 -1.25 0.21 51
Pesticides 25.18 26.48 -0.50 0.61 51
COD 26.53 25.69 -0.33 0.74 51
Metals 25.18 26.48 -0.51 0.61 51
Hardness 24.68 26.78 -0.77 0.44 51
Oil and grease 24.34 26.98 -1.10 0.27 51
Hydrocarbons 24.84 26.69 -0.83 0.40 51
Invertebrates 23.24 27.64 -1. 18 0.24 51
Aquatic vegetation 24.39 26.95 -0.69 0.49 51
Fish 32.95 21.88 -3.01 0.003 51
Riparian vegetation 24.05 27.16 -0.85 0.39 51
Coliform bacteria 23.37 27.56 -1.21 0.22 51
Algae 26.21 25.88 -0. 10 0.92 51
Amphibians and reptiles 25.87 26.08 -0.07 0.94 51
Birds/wildlife 23.68 27.38 -1.25 0.21 51
Chlorophyll 26.53 25.69 -0.33 0.74 51
Other bacteria 26.68 25.59 -0.54 0.59 51
Other physical/chemical

parameters' 24.84 26.69 -0.83 0.41 51
Other biological” 25.84 26.09 -0.14 0.87 51

 

‘ Two ofthe five respondents specified‘ Physical visual problems, Provide some financial support for students doing
it.
l’Onererrptlidtnrtspecifiedresponseas:Visualproblerns.

158

Table G17
Differences in Educational Activities Conducted for Rivers and Streams between the Three Organization

Tyms (K_rgskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance)

 

 

Mean Mean Mean
rank rank rank Degrees
Primary Secondary Fostered of
Educational Activity NGOs‘ NGOs” NGOs“ x2 freedom n p
Production of printed materials 47.57 40.92 51.18 2.46 2 92 0.29
Working with youth or schools 50.37 36.17 49.47 7.07 2 92 0.03
Holding or hosting workshops of
conferences or public awareness
days 47.36 39.58 53.68 4.04 2 92 0.13
Production of displays for other
organizations’ events 51.25 33.67 50.35 10.14 2 92 0.006
Production of radio or television
spots or programs 46.72 41.42 53.03 4.88 2 92 0.09
Other education activities‘ 46.93 51.67 37.91 4.20 2 92 0.12

 

‘ Not for profit, non-governmental organizations whose primary goals are directly related to stream and

river stewardship.
‘ Non-profit citizen action organizations which are indirectly or marginally involved in stream and river stewardship.
° Non-profit citizen action organizations which are fostered by, or work closely with governmental agencies.
‘ Eight (8 respondents) report using other types of media: Local news articles, Developed groundwater curriculum
materials, Education videos, Press releases, Signage for access sites, Developing a slide show and video, Developed a
movie with local TV station, Travel panel for learning how to fish. Two (2) provide support to others who do
educational activities: Source for IWLA Save-Our-Streams material, Provide ftmds to youth camps and college
students with environmental interests. Ten (10) respondents report activities which can not be categorized: Meet
with service organizations, Boy Scout P.M. clean-up yearly, lakeside demonstration, student research, Directed to
land managers and decision makers, One of the nation's largest school monitoring programs with forty schools
participating, Fund research done by WSCC students, Educate canoeists on river use, Nature hikes, Boat tours and
canoe trips.

 

 

Table G18
Difi‘ n ' tionswithP' ThosewithNo 'd tafl‘inEd tinal
Activiti Conducted for Riv an -Whitn U Rank Sum test of si ' cance
Mean rank Mean rank
Responding Responding
Organizations Organizations
with Paid with N0 paid
Educational Activity Stafl' stafi‘ Z J) a
Production of printed materials 36.70 43.77 -1.65 0.10 80
Working with youth or schools 36.12 44.27 -1.89 0.06 80
Holding or hosting workshops at
conferences or public awareness days 37.04 43.48 -l.45 0.14 80
Production of displays for other
organizations’ events 42.54 38.74 -0.84 0.40 80
Production of radio or television spots or
programs 37.82 42.80 -1.45 0.15 80
Other education activities‘ 42.64 38.66 «0.94 0.35 80

 

‘ Eight (8 respondents) report using other types of media: Local news articles, Developed groundwater curriculum
materials, Education videos, Press releases, Signage for access sites, Developing a slide show and video, Developed a
movie with local TV station, Travel panel for learning how to fish. Two (2) provide support to others who do
educational activities: Source for IWLA Save-Our-Streams mataial, Provide funds to youth camps and college
students with environmental interests. Ten (10) respondents report activities which could not be categorized

 

8.5—
88. a o... e. 5:8 cos... 88.3: ea 2...... o... .e 8.5.. e.3. 2.. as. 328.5 8.5.8. .

5:5. 8.5. 0.: :8 8.5— 0..0m. 0.: 803.0: 8.5— .8.0 gm 0.: c. 5...... 823 8055...? 8.0... .

$.88 88”.. c. 8.. 80:30.03 08.: :8 8:833 .95. 88:82 .095 8:30..— ..

.856 89.2.2.0 o. 5.2. .885 89.. es. .8839. am 3.88 8.5.8. .

A C .8888... :8 9:8... 8:80.; 5

£58.80. :8 0.2 $888.88 .8 80.58.3238 A 3 35:38... 30.. :8 88.0... A C 308.08: :8 8858 A S 8:30. 0.3.... A N. 808.9... 8 E088...» :8
$8.38... 88.0... o. 8.3 A 3 88.080 8:30.25 0.: .u :08... was .23 .8 8:888 A C 0.»: 08.80.. A C 8......» 808.08» 0.8.. 0.8... A: 83.5.8800. :8
85:08... >08? .8 0.3.5... A 3 808208: 3:20.»... A 3 £0: 1&0. 00... A: 83.0.0800 0x5 .8 8:380... 030:. A S 8:83 350.. 8.88: mzo A3889...
8 8:88.88 2880.0 8.. 8:88.... 88.9.: :8 .28.... 0.: o. 0.88.. .808? .388 8:0.— 80880. :05 858% 58:88. An 3 80:... 0.: .8 Ac: 8... a
.8888»... .8 .8 8:08.. 8 30:8 E0880 .1. n :5. .88.:890 8 .8 8:05: e. 538...... 8.. n v

8.8.5.... as .e 8:65.. o. 88...... u n 8:88 as... 8.8.2.... o. .88.... .2558 u N assessese as... 8.8... e. .88.... .1... .8 u . 22.3 .

 

159

 

o. «N... m 8..” 8.: 8..“ 2.... an.” $2.5
2. E... m S .N and.” «ER 3....” 5.3. 8.882.. 8:8..8 8.... .8 8:86.853
2. z... m c... an: 2...... 2.2 “S... 8.38. :08.
8868.. 8820:. c: 3 E8082. 8:88...
mm mm... m and 3.3 Que.” 2 .2 8.3 88 05.08.. o. 882..

2 a... m a... a... 2.... 5.... N. .2 8.88.... a... 8.8.8.. 5 8.8.6.5..
822.930 038.0... 8.. 58:88 82

2. ca... m .2. 3.8 .3. an... 2.... deacon... a... 8.8.5.»... as.» 5.3
886.8 8:38.. P82» 8 c. 8....

a. 8.. m c. .o 3.... 8.3 e. .9. 2.... 2.8.2. as a.........u....s..
8.0.6: 8.. .80. o. 8:83.230
mm 3... m and 3.3. 2.3 3.2 «3... 0.880 :8 A....._..0...=. 8880. 888....
em 3... m e. .N «2... 3.3 n . .3. a. .w». 8:88.... .8 wees... :8 8:88:88
.08.. .88.» 98:... 9.28.802

a. an... m a... we... a. .2. 5 d. 9...... .858 m........... .88.. e.
32. 8 8:88... :8 98...: .8685

e A .880: ax 0880.830 «8:885 «8:88.30 88835 88.. 8.5.8. :8 8:83
.8 95.880: 8.82.0.3. 86880..— 868an
8309 ..m03.:8m .8598 emoeeeoz 8.80582

0.858.). 8:82 8:82 .8 e82

 

160

Table GZO

Differences between Organizations in the Eastern and Western mrtions of the Lower Peninsula in
Organizational and Technical Needs. Which When Met, may Result in Improved Organizational
Functioning and may Allow Organizations to Better Meet Goals (M-Whitng U Rflk Sum test of

 

 

 

sr cance
Mean rank ' Mean rank
Eastern Western
Responding Responding
_O_rga_nizational and technical needs Organizations Organizations Z 1) n

Consistent funding and information on how

to access funding sources 48.35 40.48 -1.67 0.10 86
Networking among groups; better

communication and sharing of

information 40.09 45.62 -1. 14 0.25 86
Improved resource materials and access 43.14 41.25 0.37 0.72 83
Opportunities to learn how develop

partnerships and liaisons 41.58 42.28 -0. 14 0.88 83
Focus to our group’s activities, assistance

with group organization and leadership 41.03 42.64 -0.31 0.76 83
More opportunity for inclusive stakeholder

participation in decisions and discussions 38.55 40.16 -0.35 0.73 78
Access to baseline data 45.80 38.75 -l.35 0.18 82
Information necessary to do

increased advocacy (e.g., lobbying) 44.65 40.42 -0.79 0.43 83
Standardization of data collection

procedures 42.68 36.65 -1. 18 0.24 77
Otherb 4.38 6.25 -1.00 0.32 10

 

‘Where 1 =notatallirnportanttofiinctioningofomorganization,2 =somewhatimportanttoftmctioningofour
organization, 3 = important to functioning of our organization, 4 = very important to ftmctioning of our organization,
and 5 = extremely critical to functioning of our organization.

b Ten (10) ofthe fifteen (15) respondents specified their responses: better computer system, access to the internet and
improved opportunities for electronic communication (3 respondents), DNR floodplain permit information ( l ), viable
association of Lake associations (1), free legal help ( l ), legislative development ( l ), analysis of agency procedures
and responsibilities (1), more state government support (1), resource lists ( l ), continuation of what was started at the
Watershed Conference (1), ways to increase membership and volunteers to implement (2), public relations ( l ),
outreach and development (1 ), increased and new membership ( l ), acknowledging“ of organization’s role and
leadership in watershed planning and management (1 ).

l 61
Table 621

Differences: between Organizations in the Northern and Southern Portions of the Lower Peninsula in
Orga_nizational and Technical Needs. Which When Met, M Result in Improved Orgfl'zational

Functioning and may Allow Orga_nizations to Better Meet Goals (mm-Whitng U Rank Sum test of

 

 

sr cance
Mean rank ' Mean rank
Northern Southern
Responding Responding
Manual and technical needs Organintions Organintions 2 p n
Consistent funding and information on
how to access funding sources 45.04 41.15 -0.83 0.41 86
Networking among groups; better
communication and sharing of information 41.63 46.37 -0.99 0.32 86
Improved resource materials and access 40.36 44.37 -0.78 0.44 83
Opportunities to learn how develop
partnerships and liaisons 42.23 41.65 -0. 12 0.90 83
Focus to our group’s activities, assistance
with group organization and leadership 42.39 41.41 -0. 19 0.85 83
More opportunity for inclusive
stakeholder participation in decisions
and discussions 39.74 39.13 -0. 13 0.89 78
Access to baseline data 42.13 40.52 -0.30 0.76 82
Information necessary to do
increased advocacy (e.g., lobbying) 39.00 46.55 -1.43 0.15 83
Standardization of data collection
procedures 40.91 36.16 -0.94 0.35 77
Olhcrb 7.33 4.71 -1.31 0.19 10

 

 

‘Where 1 =notatallimportanttofimctioningofornorganizatiorn2 =somewhatimportantto functioningofour
organization, 3 = important to functioning ofour organization, 4 = very important to functioning ofour organimtion,
and 5 = extremely critical to ftmctioning of our organization.

l’"l‘en(10)ofthe fifleen(15)respondents specifiedtheirresponses: bettercomputersystem, aceesstotheinternetand
improved opportunities for electronic communication (3 respondents), DNR floodplain permit information ( l ), viable
association of Lake associations (1), free legal help (I), legislative development (1), analysis of agency procedures
and responsibilities (1), more state government support (I ), resource lists ( l ), continuation of what was started at the
Watershed Conference (1 ), ways to increase membership and volunteers to implement (2), public relations (1 ),
outreach and development (1 ), increased and new membership (1 ), acknowledgment of organization’s role and
leadership in watershed planning and management (I).

162

Table (322

Differences in Orga_m'zational and Technical Needs, Which When M_e_t, may Result in Improved
Orgfl'zational Functioning and may Allow Organizations to Better Meet Goals between the Three

 

 

 

Orga_nization Tm (m-Wallis one-way analysis of variance)
Mean Mean Mean
rank ' rank rank Degrees

Organizational and Primary Secondary Fostered of
technical needs NGOs ° NGOs ‘ NGOs ' x2 p n freedom
Consistent funding and

information on how to access

funding sources 48.73 50.60 62.71 4.07 0.13 102 2
Networking among groups; better

communication and sharing of

information 49.98 58.00 47.66 2.08 0.35 102 2
Improved resource materials and

access 50.07 44.61 57.16 1.91 0.38 99 2
Opportunities to learn how

develop partnerships and

liaisons 53.27 43.93 45.88 2.71 0.26 99 2
Focus to our group’s activities,

assistance with group

organization and leadership 49.75 48.57 53.00 0.25 0.88 99 2
More opportunity for inclusive

stakeholder participation in

decisions and discussions 48.38 46.45 45.63 0.21 0.90 94 2
Access to baseline data 50.11 44.45 54.16 1.21 0.54 98 2
Information necessary to do

increased advocacy (e.g.,

lobbying) 53.52 45.87 42.75 2.51 0.28 99 2
Standardization of data collection

procedures 47.93 37.55 56.70 4.81 0.09 93 2
Otherb 8.50 7.67 3.50 1.24 0.54 15 2

 

'Where1=notatallimportar1ttoftmctioningofomorganization,2 =somewhatimportanttoftmctioningofour
organization, 3 =importantto fimctioningofourorganization,4 =veryimportanttoftmctioning ofourorganization,
and 5 = extremely critical to functioning of our organization.
b'I‘en(10)ofthefifteen(15)respondents specifiedtheirresponses:bettercomputersystan,accessmthemtanetand
improved opportunities for electronic communication (3 respondents), DNR floodplain permit information ( l ), viable
association of Lake associations (1 ), flee legal help (1 ), legislative development (1), analysis of agency prowdures
and responsibilities (1 ), more state government support (1 ), resource lists (1), continuation of what was started at the
Watershed Conference (1), ways to increase membership and volunteers to implement (2), public relations (1),
outreach and development (1 ), increased and new membership (1), acknowledgment of organization’s role and
leadership in watershed planning and management (I ).
° Not for profit, non-governmental organizations Wm primary goals are directly related to stream and

river stewardship.
‘ Non-profit citizen action organizations which are indirectly or marginally involved in stream and river

stewardship.
‘ Non-profit citizen action organizations which are fostered by, or work closely with governmental

agencies.

163

Table 623
Differences between Organizations with and with No Paid Staff in the Lower Peninsula in Organizational

and Technical Nwds. Which When Meg may Result in Improved Organizational Functioning and may
Allow Orga_nizations to Better Meet COMM-Mugq U Rank Sum test of signj cance)

 

Mean rank ‘ Mean rank
Responding Responding
Organizations Organizations

with Paid with No paid

 

Orgg'zational and technical needs Staff Staff Z p 11
Consistent funding and information on how

to access funding sources 51.48 38.38 -2.81 0.005 89
Networking among groups; better

communication and sharing of information 47.22 42.83 -0.92 0.36 89
Improved resource materials and access 48.85 51.43 -0.46 0.64 99
Opportunities to learn how develop

partnerships and liaisons 45.45 43.55 -0.40 0.69 88

Focus to our group’s activities, assistance

with group organization and leadership 54.55 44.32 -l.80 0.07 99
More opportunity for inclusive stakeholder

participation in decisions and discussions 46.64 38.16 -1.79 0.07 84
Access to baseline data 49.41 49.62 -0.03 0.97 98
Information necessary to do increased

advocacy (e.g., lobbying) 45.17 56.56 -l.99 0.05 99
Standardization of data collection

prowdures 47.39 46.52 -0.16 0.87 93
Other" 10.10 6.95 -1.33 0.18 15

 

'Where 1 =notatallimportanttoflmctioningofomorganization,2 =somewhatimportanttof1mctioningofour
organization, 3 = important to functioning of our organization, 4 = very important to functioning of our organization,
and 5 = extremely critical to functioning of our organization.

b Ten (10) ofthe fifteen (15) respondents specified theirresponses: bettercomputer system, access to the internet and
improved opportunities for electronic communication (3 respondents), DNR floodplain permit information (I ), viable
association of Lake associations (1 ), flee legal help (1 ), legislative development ( I ), analysis of agency procedures
and responsibilities ( l ), more state government support (1), resource lists (I), continuation of what was started at the
Watershed Conference (1 ), ways to increase membership and voltmteers to implement (2 ), public relations (I ),
outreach and deveth (l ), increased and new membership (1 ), acknowledgment of organization’s role and
leadership in watershed planning and management ( l ).

164

 

80>:— nnomea am 05 8 5:8 mafia come—32 .05 323 05 .8 82:2. 830— 05 82.. 80:50? 003.05.

.Efiax 82¢ 05 e5 02% 0:0m 05 80.33 00>:— uEU 4m 05 S 55 :02? 30:80.; 33.05.

.5550 .0EEm S 58: 30:80.; 085 23 3:80.85 55— 830.32 6.5: novice—e

.5580 commoeuau S 53: 80:80.?» 89: e5 €0.78»; sum 30:38 83.05 a

A 3 «80:0 aimegofi :30. 8.. £25.. 9.2808 .05 82580.. A 3 much—80.. 883 no 30095 0»: e5: .3 mama—SE35 8:09 A C «05308 858%

.8 80:083.. 0:95 e5 5353558 A S 30:82; :0 be 820205 03520:: 8 2.052280 .3553» AC 0053300 «5:80.355 98 558082 he mic—5.. A 3 3.6
3.835. .0: «06:03 306808» 1.0 3.28038 Eng .3 8:00:00 35. 088 A 5 8:00.03 a: x03 2 5.6 .8300. 08:. AS 98863 03 55: been. 8.. 28.82.88

mafia—n 2 53 18:28. 08:88 883 A S wanna .58503» 808 #202088 S 9:25.. ”mum—5&0. :05 358% 382588 AN: 020.3 05 we A3 032 a
dame—32 5 9.35308 5005» 8 30:5 3050.30 0 m was .SwwEuaz E @2835.» 6005» S 25895 b? n v .equoaz

5 3:35:07. 5005.». 2 35.8.5 0 m .fiwfiuaz E @238308 8008 2 acetone: «232:8 u N .qawfiomz E agenda.» 5005» 2 ESSA—Em =0 .0 .0: u _ ”000:3 .

 

 

: Se n 84. 83 88 n: e: .1050
2 an... m 82 3.8 2.8 3.: 2.8 see 8:83 8 838:8 888 2e:
8 Se m «2. See 2.: 8.: :8 58 88:8 888 8 8e .82
S 8.8 m Fe 2.8 2 .3. 3.8 8.3. 8888 882.8 58 8 8888888
a .8 m a... 8.2 :5. 8.3 8.8 088.52. 29:68 2 885.82

E 88 m Re :8 8.9. 3.3 8.2. 88.8% e8 8228.. .8888...
5 3:8» .836 we 57.205 80.2

8 35 m as 3.3. 8.8 e. an 8.8 888 828 088.8

1.8 «39.05» 60.83.00. 2.060352:
8 :08 98:8 eBay—«Bo.» .08 .8 eons—Ecua—
8 3.8 A 8A 2 .3 8.: 5.9 2.2. 225888

wee—.03 80085 2 .383_ 28.50 we
mew—0:35...» 65 32803 we 80.5.2969

we ”no N R: 8.8 3.2. :8 8.2 8:883 .8 888 e8 8:88.558
8:3 ”352» mace—a wee—3.502

8 8... m Se 8.: he...“ 8.: 2.8 £8888. .8
80:8030 0000.85 2 Eon—8:60 23.5
5 88 n 8s 2 .8 8.8 8.3 8.3 .8808... as 888... e. 888e 8883
e e 288... Q 88885 288805 283285 8.8285 802 8.8.8

.3 meme—.803. wefieonmom meme—.88.: meme—.88.:
e888 . 835:8 . 88.88 _. 83.82 . 2885

s28 :82 028 502 0:5 :82 . x5. :82

 

165

Table 625
Differences between Organizations in the Eastern and Western Portions of the Lower Peninsula in Needs

for Improving Stream and River Stewardship Program'ng Statewide in Michigan (M-Whitng U
Rank Sum test of sigr_u_fi' cance)

 

Meanrank' Meanrank

 

Eastern Western
Responding Responding

Statewide needs Organizations Organizations 2 p n
Watershed approach to planning and

management 50.88 39.58 -2.25 0.02 87
Public education; to increase awareness

and responsibility 52.12 39.70 -2.44 0.01 88
Networking among groups; better

communication and sharing of

information 47. 14 42.92 -0.80 0.42 88
Development of partnerships and

strengthening of current liaisons, to

increase working cooperatively 48.63 41.90 -1.27 0.21 88
Information on river stewardship options

such as management techniques,

strategies and selecting among options 47.52 41.00 1.26 0.21 86
More inclusion of citizen groups in

management decisions and discussions 44.55 41.18 0.65 0.52 84
Mechanisms to facilitate networking 46.58 37.36 -l.82 0.07 81
Standardization of data collection

procedures 44.16 39.80 -0.85 0.39 82
More use of citizen collected data 44.19 39.78 -0.85 0.39 82
More citizen collection of baseline data 42.58 41.62 -0. 18 0.85 83
Otherb 7.36 3.63 -1.97 0.05 11

 

'Where: 1 =notatallimportanttostreamstewardshipinMichigan,2=somewhatimportanttostreamstewardship
inMichigan, 3 =importanttosueamstewardslupinMichigan,4=veryimpmtanttosuearnstewudslupin
Michigan, and 5 = extremely critical to stream stewardship in Michigan.

” Nine (9) of the twelve (12) respondents specified their responses: funding (2 respondents), state goverrunent
funding (1 ), water resource technical data to planning commissions for proper land use decisions (2), more technical
data to back up protection (1 ), more data collection by paid professional of government agencies (i.e. unbiased data)
(1), ftmding for restoration and enhancement activities (1 ), government commitment to qualitative protection of all
watersheds (l), standardization and public awareness ofprotection measures (1), better understanding ofland use
impacts on waterresources (l), recognition andmatching funds for local stewardship efl‘orts (l).

 

166

Table 626

Differences between Orgar_u_za' tions in the Northern and Southern Portions of the Lower Peninsula in

Needs for Improving Stream and River Stewardship Proggm_nu'ng Statewide in Michigan (Mann-Whith
URankSumtestofsi 'canm

 

 

Meanrank' Meanrank

 

Northern Southern
Responding Responding

Statewide needs Organizations Organizations Z J n
Watershed approach to planning and

management 46.39 40.77 -1. 13 0.26 87
Public edueation; to increase awareness

and responsibility 43.56 45.74 -0.43 0.66 88
Networking among groups; better

communication and sharing of

information 42.18 47.55 -1.04 0.30 88
Development of partnerships and

strengthening of current liaisons, to

increase working cooperatively 43.92 45.30 -0.26 0.79 88
Information on river stewardship options

such as management techniques,

strategies and selecting among options 42.67 44.65 -0.39 0.70 86
More inclusion of citizen groups in

management decisions and discussions 42.54 42.44 -0.02 0.98 84
Mechanisms to facilitate networking 43.04 38.31 -0.95 0.34 81
Standardization of data collection

procedures 45.45 35.93 -1.88 0.06 82
More use of citizen collected data 39.13 44.85 -1.12 0.26 82
More citizen collection of baseline data 38.89 46.27 -l.43 0.15 83
Other” 6. 86 4.50 -1. 24 0. 21 11

 

Where: l=notatallimportanttostreamstewardshipinMichigam2= somewhatimportanttostreamstewardship
inMichigan,3=imponmtmsueamstewardshipmMic1ngam4=vayunputmtmsuumstewudshipm
Michigan, and 5 =extnemely critical to streamstewardship inMichigan.
t’Nine (9) of the twelve(12) respondents specified their responses: funding(2 respondents), state government
hmding(l),waterresomcetechnicaldatamplanningcommissionsforpmperlmdusedecisions(2),mmtechnical
data to back up protection (1), more data collection by paid professional of government agencies (i.e. unbiased data)
( l), funding for restoration and enhancement activities (1), government commitment to qualitative protection of all
watersheds(l), standardizationandpublicawarenessofprotectionmeamuefil), bettermderstandingoflanduse
impactsonwaterresoumesfl), reeognitionandmatchingfimdsforlocalstewudshipefforts(1).

 

167

 

 

Table 627
Differences in Needs for Improving Stream and River Stewardship Progm'ng Statewide in Michigan
between the Three Or 'zation '1‘ s -Wallis one-wa 's of variance
Mean Mean Mean
rank ' rank rank Degrees
Primary Secondary Fostered of

Statewide needs NGOs ° NGOs ‘ NGOs ' x2 p n freedom
Watershed approach to planning

and management 49.94 51.80 56.88 0.93 0.63 102 2
Public edueation; to increase

awareness and responsibility 55.25 42.00 55.84 4.70 0.10 103 2
Networking among groups; better

communieation and sharing of

information 52.94 51.30 49.47 0.21 0.90 103 2
Development of partnerships and

strengthening of current

liaisons, to increase working .
cooperatively 55.15 46.92 47.71 1.92 0.38 103 2
Information on river stewardship

options such as management

techniques, strategies and

selecting among options 51.60 45.39 56.34 1.55 0.26 101 2
More inclusion of citizen groups in

management decisions and

discussions 54.61 45.41 38.72 5.03 0.08 99 2
Mechanisms to facilitate

networking 49.03 44.47 48.59 0.46 0.79 95 2
Standardization of data collection

procedures 48.08 43.05 59.94 3.78 0.15 97 2
More use of citizen collected data 51.98 42.28 46.03 2.18 0.34 97 2
More citizen collection of baseline

data 50.63 47.17 48.03 0.29 0.86 98 2
Other” 7.71 3.75 9.00 4.52 0.10 12 2

 

'Where: 1 =ndataflimpmtmtmmumswwuddupmMichim2=mewhatimpmtmtwmanewudsMp
inMichigan,3=unpmtmtwsuemnstewmdshipmMichigm,4=vayimpmtmttomeunstewudshipm
Michigan, and 5 = exuvernely critical to stream stewardship in Michigan.

b Nine (9) of the twelve (12) respondents specified their responses: funding (2 respondaits), state government
funding(1), waterresoureetechnical data to planning commissions forproperlandusedecisions (2), more technical
data to back up protection (1), more data collection by paid professional of government agencies (i.e. unbiased data)
(1), funding for restoration and enhancement activities (1), government commitment to qualitative protection of all
watersheds (l), standardizationandpublic awareness ofprotectionmeasuresfl), bettermderstandingoflanduse
impactsonwaterresmtrcesfl), recognitionandmatching fundsforlocal stewardship efl‘orts(1).

‘Not fmprofignm-govanmmmlagminfimswhoseprunmygmlsueduecuymhwdmsuummdfim
stewardship.

" Non-profit citizen action organizations which are indirectly or marginally involved in stream and river stewardship.
' Non-profit citizen aetim aganizatitms which are fostered by, or work closely with governmental agencies.

Table 628

Differences between Organizations with and with No Paid Stafl‘ in the Lower Peninsula in Needs for

168

Improving Stream and River Stewardship Proggrprpu‘ng Statewide in Michigan (m-Whitng U Rank

Sum test of signi_fi' cance)

 

 

Mean rank ' Mean rank
Responding Responding
Organizations Organizations
with Paid with No paid

Statewide needs Stafl‘ stafl' Z p n
Watershed approach to planning and

management 51.65 51.31 -0.06 0.95 102
Public education; to increase awareness

and responsrbility 49.75 54.90 -0.95 0.34 103
Networking among groups; better

communication and sharing of

information 46.83 58.67 -2. 12 0.03 103
Development of partnerships and

strengthening of current liaisons, to

increase working cooperatively 48.00 56.96 -l.59 0.11 103
Information on river stewardship options

such as management techniques,

strategies and selecting among options 48.91 53.50 0.83 0.40 101
More inclusion of citizen groups in

management decisions and discussions 45.79 55.26 -1.70 0.09 99
Mechanisms to facilitate networking 45.94 50.49 -0.84 0.40 95
Standardization of data collection '

procedures 46.57 51.93 -0.99 0.32 97
More use of citizen collected data 47.42 50.90 -0.63 0.53 97
More citizen collection of baseline data 46.10 53.67 -l.36 0.17 98
Othcrb 6.39 6.83 on 0.84 12

 

'Where: 1 =notatallimportanttostreamstewardshipinMichigan,2=somewhatirnportanttostrearnstewardship
inMichigan,3=impmtmttosueamstewudshipmMichigan,4=vayunpomtmsuumstewardshipm

Michigan, and 5 = extremely critical to stream stewardship in Michigan.
” Nine (9) of the twelve ( 12) respondents specified their responses: funding (2 respondents), state government

finding (1 ), water resom'ce technical data to planning commissions for proper land use decisions (2), more technical
data to back up protection ( l ), more data collection by paid professional of government agencies (i.e. unbiased data)
(1), funding for restoration and enhancement activities (1), government commitment to qualitative protection of all
watersheds (l), standardizationandpublic awareness ofprotectionmeasures (1), bettermderstandingoflanduse
impacts on waterreaources (l), recognition andmatching ftmds for local stewardship efforts (1).

62: :88: em «5 e. 5:8 Sea 88:32 Be 223 22.. 22:8 use. a: .55 85.3.3 83.8..

3%: sea 2: e5. as: as: ea 63.8 e5: :30 em 2.. a see 523 855.3 833.

85.8 8.55 e. 5.2. ”8:5? as: e5 8835 E2 880.32 ea: 883 e

858 882.0 e. as: 855.3 see 8.. .8893 a: seamen 88.8— .
.A : 82:8 985.. .A z 88.658 88:53.: 8:835 A c 95.88

:5 $65.. :0 8.83 3 8:0: £20 5:38nt C 82:83:: 898.58 88 «:08 8:38 8.6.5:: ”magma“: 85 858% 3:30:28: 3v :8 05 we Avv :8..— a
.5320: 3 58.838» 58b... 85.8 £08506 .1. m :5 .fiwfiug 5 @8233» :88 8 Ear—8:: b3 u v .8389—
:_ 3:883on 888 3 35895 n n .8282 5 aim—558m 888 8 E5895 .3308 u N .3203 5 aim—530$ 888 8 Eaten—E .1332. u _ ”98:3 .

 

 

m z .o N 8... <2 8.: 8... 8a :85

3 8... m and :8 2 .8 8.: 8.8 8:35»... as. e5 58.: mega
$2.850: 3850mm 8 8:82:30 30: <

S 8... m 8: 8.8 8.8 8.8 3.8 358:. use see
2888 958:. :0 80:20.28 3:53.

8 8.: m S: 8.8 3.8 8.: 2.3. 8828.8 9.88 a? 8:25.38
5 $582: :0 80:20::8 .352
3 «3 m a: 8.8 3.8 8.8 8.8 83 88.2.2.8 e8 :8. 2a

a: as m 8.” 2 .8 a .8 8.: a .3. 83 8.3 283 .e 852.: 2: ee
9 8:8» 850 55 28:58:80 S 00:... <
w 8 S... m 3...: 3.8 2.»... 3.: 8.8 38. as... 2.. ee £8282
S 8... m S.— :.:. 8.8 8.8 3:. 8§_ 805 3208 e. as. :83?
a 2 .o m 8.“ z .8 8.8 8.2 8.8 83.8288 33% :e 8.8::
e» :3 m :3 3.8 8.8 2 .8 8.8 88.9.8.0 e 8 9:8 e. 8:? eon—.580 <
8 a... n 22 :8 :8 8.: 8.8 2383558 .38.: .2: .233:
a: 8... m 8: NS: 8.8 8.8 2...: 880:8 see 5: 8:682:

2 :3 m 2.... 3.8 8.8 8.8 8.8 as. :e 2880 £36
8:232 339 88888:... a: 83802:

5 8... m on 2.8 8.8 8.8 2.8 8888 822.8.
:58: e5 2% 55 88838 88.9.:
: a 5282.: «X gouge—«$0 8023330 Eeafifimmho 805% 9:; 033806 :8 025.85

me 88:88”: 36:88.: m:%:o%om 95:083—
sewe: . 835:8 . 85.8 s 835.2 . 52:2

is as: as: :82 is :82 .aa. :82

 

170

Table G30
Differences between Orga_m'zations in the Northern and Southern Portions of the Lower Peninsula in

Strategies to Best Begin to Meet Needs For Improving Stream and River Stewardship on a Statewide

 

Level -Whitn U Rank Sum test of si ' rcance
Mean rank ' Mean rank
Northern Southern

Responding Responding

 

Strategies for statewide programming Oflaruzations Organizations Z p n
Improved coordination with state and

federal regulatory agencies 42.42 46.24 -0.83 0.41 87
Procedures for standardization (Quality

Assurance/Quality Control) of data 42.44 43.80 -0.29 0.77 85
Procedures for data collection 45.02 38.97 -l.l7 0.24 84
Bulletins, fact sheets, other publications 41.56 46.19 -0.91 0.36 86
Acentralizedoficetoserveasa

clearinghouse 44.74 41.70 -0.63 0.53 86
Directory of organimtions like yours 40.04 44.69 -1.01 0.31 83
Advisory team to address these issues 39.97 43.77 -0.73 0.47 82
Newsletters, on the state level 38.38 50.96 -2.40 0.02 86
A place to communicate with other groups

on the Internet or World Wide Web 40.63 45.00 -0.90 0.37 84
Site tours and demonstration areas 41.17 45.75 -0.88 0.38 85
Annual conferences or meetings in

conjunction with existing conferences 40.19 44.49 -0.84 0.40 83
Annual conferences or meeting separate

from other meetings 38.76 45.37 -1.30 0.19 82
A new organization to facilitate

networking among stream and river

organizations 40.88 43.70 -0.57 0.57 83
Other” 3.00 3.00 0.00 1.00 5

 

'Where: l=notatallimportanttostreamstewardshipinMichigan,2=somewhatimportanttostream

stewardship in Michigan, 3 = important to stream stewardship in Michigan, 4 = very important to stream
stewardship in Michigan, and 5 = extremely critical stream stewardship in Michigan.

" Four (4) of the six (6) respondents specified their responses: Improved coordination among state
supported universities (1 respondent), DNR policy to work on funding and permitting (1), watershed
management commission (1), frmding sources (1).

171

Table G31
Differences between Orgm’ tions in the Eastern and Western mrtions of the Lower Peninsula in

Strategies to Best Begin to Meet Needs for Improving Stream and River Stewardship on a Statewide Level
-Whitn U Rank Sum test of si ' rcance

 

 

 

Mean rank' Meanrank

 

Eastern Western
Responding Responding

Strategies for statewide programming Organizations Organizations Z p n
Improved coordination with state and

federal regulatory agencies 47.58 41.81 -1.23 0.22 87
Procedures for standardization (Quality

Assurance/Quality Control) of data 45.18 41.62 -0.75 0.46 85
Procedures for data collection 46.73 39.89 -l.30 0.19 84
Bulletins, fact sheets, other publications 48.59 40.17 -1.64 0.10 86
A centralized office to serve as a

clearinghouse 45.88 42.02 -0.80 0.43 86
Directory of organimtions like yours 47.55 38.34 -1.99 0.47 83
Advisory team to address these issues 44.25 39.74 -0.86 0.39 82
Newsletters, on the state level 49.39 40.01 -1.76 0.08 86
A place to communicate with other groups

on the lntemet or World Wide Web 42.97 42.21 -0. 15 0.88 84
Site tours and demonstration areas 48.23 39.84 -1.60 0.11 85
Annual conferences or meetings in

conjunction with existing conferences 49.21 37.70 -2.21 0.03 83
Annual conferences or meeting separate

from other meetings 43.13 40.46 -0.52 0.60 82
A new organization to facilitate

networking among stream and river

organizations 43.73 40.86 -0.58 0.56 83

4.00 1.50 -1.82 0.07 5

 

'Where:1=notatallhnpatmtmsuumstewudahipmMichigm2=smneMutimpmtmtmsuwnstewudship
inMichigan,3=impmtmtmmaewudshipmMichigm4=vuyimpmmtmmeamnewardshipm
Mchigan,and5=extremely criticalsu'eamstewardshipinMichigan
hl~‘otn'(4)ofthesix(6)reeponde.ntaspecifiedtheirresponses:Improvedcoordinationamongstatesupported
universitiesa respondent), DNRpolicytoworkonfimdingandpamittingO), watershedmanagetnentcommission
(1),fundingsotn'ces(1).

 

172

Table G32

Differences in Strategies to Best Begin to Meet Needs for Improving Stream and River Stewardship on a
Statewide Level between the Three Orm'zation a Tyms (Elm-Wallis one-way analysis of variance)

 

 

Mean Mean Mean

rank ‘ rank rank Degrees
Strategies for statewide Primary Secondary F ostered of
an NGOs“ NGOs‘ NGOs‘ x2 J) n frwdom

 

Improved coordination with state
and federal regulatory agencies 56.73 34.65 52.31 13.15 0.001 101 2
Procedures for standardization

(Quality Assurance/Quality

Control) of data 53.40 42.46 51.00 3.12 0.21 100 2
Procedures for data collection 50.20 43.89 58.03 2.50 0.29 99 2
Bulletins, fact sheets, other

publications 51.09 50.54 51.31 <0.01 1.00 101 2
A centralized office to serve as a

clearinghouse 53.57 46.98 43.84 2.41 0.30 100 2
Directory of similar

organizations 50.44 46.36 50.03 0.45 0.80 98 2
Advisory team to address these

issues 51.35 42.31 48.97 1.70 0.43 97 2
Newsletters, on the state level 56.93 49.71 30.31 11.53 <0.01 101 2
A place to communicate with

other groups on the Internet or

World Wide Web 50.04 54.32 43.91 1.51 0.47 99 2
Site tours and demonstration

areas 52.47 43.21 49.53 1.82 0.40 99 2
Annual conferences or meetings

in conjunction with existing

conferences 53.49 41.37 46.47 3.56 0.17 98 2
Annual conferences or meeting

separate from other meetings 56.21 40.07 33.69 11.94 <00! 97 2
A new organization to facilitate

networking among stream and

river organizations 51.48 41.77 52.69 2.57 0.28 98 2

4.33 2.67 0.00 1.39 0.24 6 l
'Where:1=notatallimpor1anttostreamstewardshipinMichigan,2 =somewhatimportanttostreamstewardship
inMichigan,3=impormntmsueunswwudshipmMichigm,4=vayimpomtmmemnstewardshipm
Michigan, and 5 = extremely critical stream stewardship in Michigan.
" Four (4) ofthe six (6) respondents specified theirresponses: Improved coordination among state supported
universities (l respondent), DNR policy to work on funding and permitting (1), watershed management commission
(1), funding sources (1).
° Not for profit, non-governmental organizations whose primary goals are directly related to stream and
river stewardship.

‘ Non-profit citizen action organizations which are indirectly or marginally involved in stream and river stewardship.
' Non-profit citizen action organintions which are fostered by, or work closely with governmental agencies.

 

173

Table G33
Difi'erences between Organizations with and with No Paid Staff in the Lower Peninsula in Strategies to

Best Begin to Meet Nwds for Improving Stream and River Stewardship on a Statewide Level {M-

Whitnev U Ra_n_k Sum test of sng' cance)

 

Mean rank Mean rank
Responding Responding
Organizations Organizations

with Paid with No paid

 

Strategies for statewide programmirg Stafl' stafl‘ Z p n
Improved coordination with state and

federal regulatory agencies 43.2 47.71 -0.93 0.35 90
Procedures for standardization (Quality

Assurance/Quality Control) of data 42.37 49.71 -l.51 0.13 91
Procedures for data collection 50.19 49.76 -0.08 0.94 99
Bulletins, fact sheets, other publications 49.89 52.44 -0.46 0.64 101
A centralized oflice to serve as a

clearinghouse 42.30 47.88 -1.16 0.25 89
Directory of organizations like yours 41.26 49.00 -1.66 0.10 89
Advisory team to address these issues 48.17 50.05 -0.34 0.74 97
Newsletters, on the state level 43.91 60.18 -2.89 0.004 101
A place to communicate with other

groups on the Internet or World

Wide Web 45.23 44.74 -0.10 0.92 89
Site tours and demonstration areas 49.74 50.31 -0.10 0.92 99
Annual conferences or meetings in

conjunction with existing

conferences 47.31 52.42 -0.92 0.36 98
Annual conferences or meeting

separate from other meetings 44.19 55.03 -1.98 0.05 97
A new organization to facilitate

networking among stream and river

organizations 41.16 48.93 -1.59 0.11 89

3.17 3.83 -0.47 0.64 6

 

'Where:1=nflatanimpmuntmmmmnewmdshipmMicMgm2=meWMtimpMmtmsuwnnewudsMp
inMichigan,3=impatmtmsuumstewardshipmMichigan4=vayimpm1mtmsuemnstewudslupm
Michigan, and 5 = extremely critical stream stewardship in Michigan.

bFour(4) ofthesix(6)respondarts specifiedtheirresponses: Improved coordination among statesupported
universitiesu respondent), DNR policytowork on ftmdingandpermitting (1), watershed management commission
(l),fundingsourees(1).

APPENDIX B: Final Study Population

 

Final Study Population

Augusta Creek Watershed Association
PO. Box 1 8 1
Hickory Corners, MI 49060

Ausable North Branch Area Association
5081 N. River Road
Freeland, MI 48623

Bay De Noc Great Lakes Sport
Fisherman

PO. Box 1322

Escanaba, MI 49829

Bear Creek Watershed Project
6878 Belding Rd.
Rockford, MI 49341

Benzie Fishery Coalition
1008 Bluewater Drive
PO. Box 54

Benzonia, MI 4961

Betsie River Restoration Project
PO. Box 8
Thompsonville, MI 49683

Ausable Institute of Environmental
Studies

7526 Sunset Trail, N.E.
Mancelona, MI 49659

AuSable River Property Owners
Association

224 W.Park Drive

Grayling, MI 49738

 

Bear Creek Watershed Council
5406 Kerry Rd.
Manistee, MI 49660

Benzie Area Steelheaders
PO. Box 395
Benzonia, MI 49616-0395

Betsie River Restoration Committee
P.O. Box 15
Thompsonville, MI 49683

Blue Water Sportfishing Association
PO. Box 1337
Port Huron, MI 48060

174

Carlton Creek Restoration Project
2785 Weesies Rd.
Montague, MI 49437

Center for Wildland Cons.
Box 415 Courthouse
Atlanta, M] 49709

Chippewa Watershed Conservancy
3483 East River Road
Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858

Cisco Chain Riparian Owners Association
1319882 Thousand Island Lake Road
Watersmeet, MI 49969

Clean Water Action
4990 Northwind Drive, Suite 210
East Lansing, MI 48823

Clinton River RAP PAC

C/O Clinton River Watershed Council
1970 East Auburn Rd.

Rochester Hills, MI 49307-4803

Coalition for the Preservation of the
Grand River

4642 Abrigader Trail NE
Comstock Park, MI 49321

175

Cass River Corridor Authority
362 Green Street
Caro, MI 48723-1998

Chippewa Indian Tribe
206 Greenough
Sault Saint Marie, MI 49783

Chocolay Watershed Council
1055 West Baraga Ave.
Marquette, MI 49855

Citizens for Alternative to Chemical
Contamination

8735 Maple Grove Rd.

Lake, MI 48832-9716

Clinton River Authority/CR. Clean-up
12159 Fairview Dr.
Sterling Height, MI 48312-2165

Clinton River Watershed Council
1970 East Auburn Road
Rochester, MI 49307-4803

Concerned Citizens Couoncil for Rural
Awareness

32800 Mound Rd.

Warren, MI 48092

Concerned Citizens for Clean Water
9027 Kasson, Box 123
Cedar, MI 49621

Dewey Lake Monitor
51256 Garret Road
Powagiac, MI 49047

Ecology Center of Ann Arbor
417 Detroit St.
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Elk-Skegemog Lakes Association
PO. Box 8
Elk Rapids, MI 49629

Fleming Creek Advisory Council
c/o Huron River Watershed Council
1100 N. Main Street, Suite 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Friends of McCoy’s Creek
306 Liberty
Buchanan, MI 49107

Friends of Tahquamenon Falls State Park
Route 48, Box 225
Paradise, MI 49768

176

Delton Crooked Lake Association
7420 N. Crooked Lake Drive
Delton, MI 49046

East Michigan Environmental Action

Council
21220 W. 14 Mile Road

Bloomfield Township, MI 48301-4000

Elk River - Chain of Lakes Steering
Committee(c/o NW RC & D Council)
3193 Logan Valley Road

Traverse City, MI 49684

Flat River Preservation Association
990 North Washington
Lowell, MI 49331

Friends of the St. Joseph River
PO. Box 354
Athens, MI 49011

Friends of Ox Creek
501 Main
St. Joseph, MI 49085

Friends of the Clinton River
49 Brietrneyer
Mt. Clemens, MI 48043

 

 

ad

Friends of the Crystal River
PO. Box 123
Glen Arbor, MI 49636

Friends of the Huron-Oakland
375 Martindale
Milford, MI 48381

Friends of the Looking Glass River
12310 Forest Hill Rd.
DeWitt, MI 48820

Friends of the Rouge

950 Michigan Building, 220 Bagley Ave.

Detroit, MI 48226-1412

G.T. Bay Boat Trail

c/o Grass River Natural Area
PO. Box 231

Bellaire, MI 49615-0231

Global Rivers Environmental Education
Network

721 E. Huron

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Grand River Coalition for Preservation
4642 Abrigador Trail, NE
Comstock Park, MI 49321

177

Friends of the Detroit River
PO. Box 3099
Melvindale, MI 48122

Friends of the Jordan River Watershed,
Inc.

106 Depot Street, Complex 2

Bellair, MI 49615

Friends of the River, Inc.
410 S. Cedar St., Suite B
Lansing, MI 48912-1106

Friends of the Shiawassee River
604 N. Ball St.
Owosso, MI 48867

Galien River Watershed Council
Box 345
New Buffalo, MI 49117

Grand River Expeditioon
12310 Forest Hill Road
Dewitt, MI 48820

Grand River Enhancement Action Team
11222 Hardenburg Trail
Eagle, MI 48822

 

 

Grand River Environmental Action Team
6195 Jefl‘erson
Clark Lake, MI 49234

Grand Traverse Conservation District
1222 Veterans Drive
Traverse City, MI 49684

Grand Traverse Water Trails Committee
PO. Box 231
Bellaire, MI 49615

Greater Flint Muddler Minnows
5560 Maple Park Drive, Apt. #6
Flint, MI 48507

Greater Manistee Fly Fishers
485 Oxford Court
Manistee, MI 49660

Gull Lakes Quality Organization
PO. Box 769
Richland, MI

Huron Manistee National Forest
1755 South Mitchell
Cadillac, MI 49601

178

Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
1102 Cass Street, Suite B
Traverse City, MI 49684

Grand Traverse Regional Land
Conservancy

624 Third Street

Traverse City, MI 49684

Great Lakes Council, Inc. of the
Federation of Fly Fishers, Inc.
PO. Box 828

Pentwater, MI 49449-0828

Greater Lansing Adopt A River
Woldumar Nature Center

5539 Lansing Road

Lansing, MI 48917

Green Lake/Betsie River Association
5624 Lakeview Dr.
Interlochen, MI 49643

Holland Fish and Game Club
610 Butternut Drive
Holland, MI 49424

Huron Pines Resource Conservation &
Development Council

501 Norway Street

Grayling, MI 4973 8

Huron River Watershed Council
1100 N. Main St., Suite 210
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-1059

Izaak Walton League
Michigan Division

55 Kenton SE

Grand Rapids, MI 49548

Kalamazoo River Partners Program
1327 Academy
Kalamazoo, MI 49006-3200

Kalamazoo River Trailways Partnership
1327 Academy Street
' Kalamazoo, MI 49006

Kearsley Creek Preservation Council
7034 East Court Street
Davison, MI 48423

Lake County Riverside Property Owners
1040 Fairfield, N.W.
Grand Rapids, MI 49504

Lake Preservation League
2855 Round Lake Hwy
Manitou Beach, MI 49253

179

Ingham County Drain Stenciling Project
221 Kensington
East Lansing, MI 48824

Kalamazoo Nature Center
7000 N. Westnedge Ave.
Kalamazoo, MI 49004

Kalamazoo River Protection Association
PO. Box 408
Allegan, MI 49010-0408

Kawkawlin River Watershed Property
Owners Association

3357 Old Kawkawlin Road

Bay City, MI 48706

Lake Charlevoix Association
704 Mercer Boulevard
Charelvoix, MI 49720

Lake Leelanau Lake Association
3824 S. Grants landing
Lake Leelanau, Mi 49653

Lake St. Clair Advisory Committee
PO. Box 272
Mt. Clemens, MI 48046

Lake Superior State University’s
Environmental Awareness Club
1000 College Drive

Sault Ste. Marie, MI 49783

Leelanau Watershed Council
Leelanau Conservancy

PO. Box 1007

Leland, MI 49654-1007

Mackinaw Trail Fly Fishers
530 West 13th Street
Cadillac, MI 49601

Makinaw Trail Fly Fishers
530 West 13th Street
Cadillac, MI 49601

Maple River Restoration Project
7515 S.Lake Shore Drive
Harbor Springs, MI 49740

Michigan B.A.S.S. Chapter Federation,
Inc.

2032 Mary Avenue

Lansing, MI 48910

Michigan Bass Chapter Federation, Inc.

1120 Dogwood
Portage, MI 49002

180

Land Action of Green Oak Township
8304 Evergreen Road
Brighton, MI 48116

Little Manistee Property Owners Assoc.
1501 Main Street
Manistee, MI 49660

Mainstream Flow Group
PO. Box 96
Auburn, MI 48611

 

Manistique River Watershed Partnership
300 Walnut, Couthouse Room 318
Manistique, MI 49854

Math & Science Technology Center
15760 190th Ave.
Big Rapids, MI 49307

Michgian Trailfinders Club
2680 Rockhill NE
GrandRapids, MI 49505

 

Michigan Environmental Council
115 W. Allegan, Suite 103
Lansing, MI 48933

Michigan Fly Fishing Club
PO. Box 52113
Livonia, MI 48152

Michigan Natural Areas Council
10353 Judd Road
“fillis, MI 48191

Michigan Recreational Canoeing
Association

PO. Box3 57

Baldwin, MI 493 04-0357

Michigan Steelhead & Salmon
Fisherman’s Assoc.

PO. Box 213

Paw Paw, MI 49079

MI Steelhead & Salmon
F isherrnen’s Association
Central Michigan Chapter
95 White Tail Drive

Mt. Pleasant, MI 48858

MI Steelhead & Salmon
Fishermen’s Association
Grand Rapids District
2471 Ancient SW
Wyoming, MI 49509

M] Steelhead & Salmon
F ishermen’s Association
Huron Valley Chapter
15146 Dasher

Allen Park, MI 48101

181

Michigan Lake and Stream Associations,
Inc.

PO. Box 249

Three Rivers, MI 49093

Michigan Natural Areas Council
University of Michigan

Matthai Botanical Gardens

1800 N. Dixboro Rd.

Ann Arbor, MI 48109-9741

Michigan Recreation and Park
Association

2722 E. Michigan,Suite 201
Lansing, MI 48912

MI Steelhead & Salmon Fishermen’s
Association

Ausable Chapter

328 Mill St.

Oscoda, MI 48750

MI Steelhead & Salmon Fisherrnen’s
Association

Flint River Valley Chapter

6420 River Road

Flushing, MI 48433

MI Steelhead & Salmon Fishermen’s
Association

Holland District

3046 Summercrest Court
Hudsonville, MI 49426

MI Steelhead & Salmon Fishermen’s
Association

Kalamazoo Valley Chapter

2526 Springrnont

Kalamazoo, MI 49008

MI Steelhead & Salmon
F ishermen’s Association
Maumee Valley Chapter
121 Heilrnan Ave.
Perrysburg, OH 43551

MI Steelhead & Salmon
Fishermen’s Association
Mid-Michigan Chapter
2961 Tupper Lake Rd.
Lake Odessa, MI 48839

MI Steelhead & Salmon
F isherrnen’s Association
Muskegon Chapter
3644 Evaline
Muskegon, MI 49444

Nfl Steelhead & Salmon
Fishermen’s Association
Saginaw Valley Chapter
1908 E. Moore
Saginaw, MI 48601

Nfl Steelhead & Salmon Fishermen’s
Association

White River Chapter

8934 Burroughs

Montague, MI 49437

Michigan Wildlife Habitat Foundation
6425 S. Pennsylvania, #S-9
Lansing, MI 48911

Mill Creek Coalition
203 S. Main St.
Yale, MI 48097

182

Ml Steelhead & Salmon F ishermen’s
Association

Metro District Chapter

2154 Cottrill

Westland, MI 48486

MI Steelhead & Salmon F ishermen’s
Association

Midland Chapter

800 S. Winona

Bay City, MI 48706

M] Steelhead & Salmon Fishermen’s
Association

New Buffalo Chapter

112 W. Clay

New Bufl‘alo, MI 49117

MI Steelhead & Salmon Fishermen’s
Association

SW Michigan

4788 Lake Street

Bridgeman, MI 49106

Michigan United Conservation Clubs
2101 Wood Street
Lansing, MI 48912

Mid-Michigan Environmental Action
Council

4990 Northwind Drive, #210

East Lansing, MI 48823

Montrnorency County Conservation Club

16350 N. County Rd. 459
Hillman, MI 49746

Mullett Lake Area Preservation Society
625 Grand View Beach
Indian River, MI 49749

National Wildlife Federation Great Lakes
Resource Center

506 E. Liberty, 2nd Floor

Ann Arbor, MI 48104

Nature Conservancy-Michigan Chapter
2840 East Grand River, #5
East Lansing, MI 48823

Northeast Michigan Council of
Governments

PO. Box 457

Gaylord, MI 49735

Northern Tittabawassee River Task Force
4449 East R Lane
Alger, MI 48610

Oakwood Environmental Concerns
Association

2216 College

Lincoln Park, MI 48146

Partnership for the Saginaw Bay
Watershed

Pioneer Annex 9A

Superior Valley State University
University Center, MI 48711

183

Muskegon County Soil Conservation
District

425 W. Western, Suite 201
Muskegon, MI 49440

Natural Areas Conservancy of West
Michigan, Inc.

1423 Wealthy SE, Suite L-3

Grand Rapids, MI 49506

Ne—Bo-Shone Associaiton
900 Old Kent Bnk Bldg.
Grand Rapids, MI 49501

Northern Michigan Environmental Action
Council

106 S. Union

Traverse City, MI 49685

Northern Tittabawassee River Task Force
West River Drive
Gladwin, MI 48624

Ottawa Sportsman's Club
Baraga, MI 49908

Pere Marquette Watershed Council, Inc.
PO. Box 212
Baldwin, MI 49304-0212

Pine River Association
10711 S. 5 1/2 Mile Rd.
Wellston, MI 49689

Platte Lake Improvement Association
28991 Glenbrook
Farrnington Hills, MI 48331

Raisin Valley Land Trust
PO. Box 419
Manchester, MI 48158

River Network in Michigan
2061 Day Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48104-3605

Sarett Nature Center
23 00 Benton Center Rd.
Benton Harbor, MI 49022

Science for Citizens Center
Wetem Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008

Sierra Club - Mackinac Chapter
300 N. Washington Sq. Suite 411
Lansing, MI 48733

184

Pine River Watershed Restoration
Steering Committee

PO. Box 629

Hart, MI 49420

Rails-to-Trails Conservancy, MI Chapter
913 West Holmes, Suite 145
Lansing, MI 48910

Rifle River Watershed Restoration
Committee

2230 E. N. Union

Bay City, MI 48706

River Raisin Watershed Council
425 N Main Street
Adrian, MI 49221

Save Our Selves
12757 Lakeshore Drive
Grand Haven, MI 49417

See North
03001 Church Road
Petosky, MI 49770

Sierra Club, Midwest Ofice
214 N. Henry Street
Madison, WI 53703

Sinclair River Steering Committee
03530 Beatty Road
Charlevoix, MI 49720

Southeast Michigan Greenways Project
3050 Lorraine
Ann Arbor, MI 48108

Spirit of Woods Conserv. Club
PO. Box 358
Bear Lake, MI 49614

The Audubon Society
6011 W. St. Joseph Hwy
PO. Box 80527
Lansing, MI 48908-0527

The River Rescue Committee
196 Strongwood
Battle Creek, MI 49017

Thomapple Trail Association
PO. Box 134
Shelbyville, MI 49344-0134

185

Slagle Trout Club
24656 Lakeland
F armington Hills, MI 48336

SouthEast Regional Center for
Groundwater

Education in Michigan (SER-GEM)
34 N. Washington
Ypsilanti, MI 48197

Tahquarnenon Sportsman's Club
PO. Box 232
Newberry, MI 49868

The Lake Watch
PO. Box 353
Alden, MI 49612

Thomapple River Watershed Group
5831 Whitneyville Ave.
Alto, MI 49302

Three Lakes Association
PO. Box 353
Alden, MI 49612

Thunb Bioregional Alliance
203 S. Main St.
Yale, MI 48097

Thunder Bay River Watershed Council
P.O. Box 751
Alpena, MI 49707

Trout Unlimited- Arnold J. Copeland
Chapter

200 St. Andrews Rd.

Saginaw, MI 48603

Trout Unlimited-Ann Arbor Chapter
1321 Franklin Blvd.
Ann Arbor, MI 48103-5802

Trout Unlimited-Clinton Valley Chapter
2142 Kennedy
Rochester Hills, MI 48309

Trout Unlimited-Headwaters Chapter
3626 Theisen Rd.
Gaylord, MI 4973 5-9261

Trout Unlimited-Lansing Chapter
83 5 Call St.
Lansing, MI 48906

186

Thunder Bay River Seven Mile
Impoundment Association

491 Johnson Street

Alpena, MI 49707

Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
PO. Box 300
Conway, MI 49722

Trout Unlimited-Adams Chapter
PO. Box 57 8
Leland, MI 49654

Trout Unlimited-Challenge Chapter
1455 Kent Rd.
Ortonville, NH 48462

Trout Unlimited-George W. Mason
Chapter

224 W. Park Dr.

Grayling, MI 49738

Trout Unlimited-Kalamazoo Vally
Chapter

5189 W. “B” Avenue

Kalamazoo, MI 49009

Trout Unlimited-Leon P. Martuch
Chapter

2524 E. Sugnet

Midland, MI 48642

Trout Unlimited-Marquette Chapter

Peterson Ave.
Ishpeming, MI 49849

Trout Unlimited-Michigan Council
6815 Clubhouse Dr. W.
Stanwood, MI 49346

Trout Unlimited-Muskegon-White River
Chapter

2011 Miner Street

Muskegon, MI 49441

Trout Unlimited-Paul H. Young
1440 Shipman
Birmingham, MI 48009

Trout Unlimited-Vanguard Chapter
PO. Box 535
Sterling Heights, MI 48311

Trout Unlimited-William B. Mershon
Chapter

3157 Church Street.

Saginaw, MI 48604-2203

United Auto Workers Conservation

Committee
PO. Box 40720 Lansing, MI 48901-7920

187

Trout Unlimited-Menominee Range
Chapter

PO. Box 48

Stambaugh, MI 49964

Trout Unlimited-Miller-Van Winkle
Chapter

123 Stuart

Petosky, MI 49770

Trout Unlimited-Ottawa Chapter
PO. Box 41
Ironwood, MI 49938

Trout Unlimited-Pine River Area Chapter
11501 Cedar Run Rd.
Traverse City, MI 49684

Trout Unlimited-West Michigan Chapter
49 Morningside SE.
Grand Rapids, MI 49506

Union Lake Community Association
RR. #2, Box 407B
Union City, MI 49094

Upper Black River Watershed
Restoration Committee

825 Huron Street, Suite 2
Cheboygon, MI 49721

Upper Manistee River Restoration
Committee

501 Norway St.

Grayling, MI 49738

Walleyes for Iosco County, Inc.
2572 M. Wiber Raod
East Tawas, MI 48730

Wexford Conservation District
7192 E. 34 Road
Cadillac, MI 49601

York Creek Watershed Project
Water Resources Institute
Grand Valley State University
One Campus Drive

Allendale, MI 49401

188

Vassar Cork Pine Riverfest
287 E. Huron
Vassar, MI 48768

West Michigan Environmental Action
Council

1432 Wealthy St. SE

Grand Rapids, MI 49506-2717

Whetstone Creek Watershed Project
1055 West Baraga Avenue
Marquette, MI 4985 5

LITERATURE CITED

LITERATURE CITED

Alexander, D. (1990). Bioregionalism: Science or sensibility?. Environmental
Ethics, 12(2),]61-173.

The American heritage dictionm of the english langpage (third edition). (1992).
New York: Houghton Mifllin Company.

Anderson, R. C. (1993). The interorganizap'onal community. New York: The
Edwin Mellen Press, Lewiston,

Arbuthnot, J. (1977). The roles of attitudinal and personality variables in the
prediction of environmental behavior and knowledge. Environment Ed Behavipr, 9(2 ),
217-232.

Asch, J. and B. M. Shore (1975). Conservation behavior as the outcome of
environmental education. Journal of Environmental Educatiop, 6(4), 25-33.

Buttel, F .H. and W.L. Flinn (1976). Environmental politics: The structuring of
partisan and ideological cleavages in mass environmental attitudes. Spcial Science

9mm 477-190.

Charns, H. (1973). Personalig, preferenge, and plm'ng. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of California Berkley, Berkley, California.

Craik, K. H. (1970). The environmental dispositions of environmental decision-
makers. The Annals of the American Academy. 387-3 92, 87-94.

De Young, R. (1986). Encouraging environmentally appropriate behavior: The
role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Environmental Systems 15(4), 281-292.

Dillrnan, D. A. (1978). The tptal desigp mam. New York: John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.

Dunlap, R. E. (1975). The impact of political orientation on environmental
attitudes and actions. Envirpnment apd Bphavipr, 7(4), 428-454.

189

190

Dunlap, R. E. and K. D. Van Liere (1984). Commitment to the dominant social

paradigm and concern for environmental quality. Social Science Quarterly. 650-4). 1013-
1028.

Ellett, K. (1994). Assuring quality data. In E. Ely (Ed), Fourth national citizens’
Volunteer Monitoring Conference; Putting volunteer information to use (p. 29). Portland,
Oregon: Portland Sate University.

The Environmental Protection Agency and the University of Rhode Island Sea
Grant. (1994). National directory of volunteer monitoring proggams (fourth edition).
Rhode Island: Kerr, M., E. Ely, V. Lee, and A. Desbonnet.

 

Hines, J. M., H. R. Hungerford and A. N. Tomera (1986/1987). Analysis and
synthesis of research on responsible environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of

Environmental Educatiop, 18( 2 ), 1-8.

Hopper, J. T. and J. McCarl Nielsen (1991). Recycling as altruistic behavior:
normative and behavioral strategies to expand participation in a community recycling

program. Environment and Behavior, 23(2),195-220.

Hungerford, H. R. and R B. Peyton (1980). A paradigm for citizen responsibilig:
environmental action. Paris: UNESCO/UNEP.

Hungerford, H. R and T. L. Volk (1990). Changipg learning behavior through

environmental edueation (Paper Prepared for the Round Table on Environment and
Education at the World Conference on Education for All). J omtien, Thailand: UNESCO,
UNICEF and UNDP.

The Izaak Walton League of America. (1994). Hands on §_ave our greams: The

save our stream teacher’s manual for ggades one through twelve. The Save Our Streams
Program, Gaithersburg, Maryland: K. F irehock.

McKechnie, G. E. (1977). The environmental response inventory in application.
Envirpnment and Behavior, 9(2), 255-276.

Mitchell, M. K. and W. B. Stapp (1994). Field manual for water quality

monitoring: An environmental edueation progzam fer schools, (eighth edition). Dexter,
Michigan: Thomson-Shore, Inc.

Monroe, M. (1994). Converting “it’s no use” into “hey, there’s a lot I can ao”: A
matrix for environmental action taking. In Towne, Chari, and Lowell Klessig, Adopt-A-

me Project: A Resource Guide Fer geders. Stevens Point, “fisconsin: University of

VVrsconsin Stevens Point, University of Msconsin Extenion

191

The Pacific Rivers Council, Inc. (1993). Entering the watershed: A new approach
to save americg’s river ecosystems. Island Press, Washington DC: Dopplet, B., M.
Scurlock, C. Frissell, and J. Karr.

 

Peyton, R. B., H. Campa, S. R. Winterstein, M. D. Peyton, and J. V. Peyton
(1992). Environmental education module on biological diversity for secondgy education:
A teacher training workshop text. Paris: UNESCO/UNEP.

The River Network. River Voices, A Quarterly Publication. Portland, Oregon.

The River Network. (1994). How to save a river: A handbook for eitizen action.
Washington DC: Island Press, Bolling, D. M.

Rochford, EB. and T.J. Blocker (1991). Coping with “natural” hazards as
stressors: The predictors of activism in flood disaster. Environment and Behavior 23,171-
194.

 

Rogers, E. M. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations. New York: The Free Press.

Samdahl, D. M. and R Robertson (1989). Social determinants of environmental
concern: Specification and test of the model. Environment and Behavior, 21(1), 57-81.

Schoderbek, P. P., A. G. Kefalas, and C. G. Schoderbek (1975). Management
gistems: conceptual considerations. Dallas, Texas: Business Publications, Inc.

Sewell, WRD. (1971). Environmental perceptions and attitudes of engineers and
public health officials. Environment and Behavipr, 3, 23-59.

Syme, G. J ., C. E. Beven, and N. Sumner (1993). Motivation for reported
involvement in local wetland preservation: The roles of knowledge, disposition, problem

assessment, and arousal. Environment and Behavior, 251 5),586-606.

VandeVisse, E. and W. B. Stapp (1975). Developing a K-12 environmental

education program. In N. McInnis and D. Albrecht (Eds), What Mes Edueetion
Environmental?. Washington DC: Environmental Educator, Inc.

Van Liere, K. A. and R E. Dunlap (1981). Environmental concern: Does it make a
difi‘erence how its measured? Environment and Behevipr, 13( 6), 651-676.

Wandersman, A, P. Florin, R. Friedman, and R. Meier (1987). Who participates,
who does not, and why?: An analysis of voluntary neighborhood organizations in the
United States and Israel. Socielpgt'cal Forupt, 2(3 ), 534-555.

Zuckerman, Seth. Living There. Sierre 72,61-67.