Monitoring and Evaluation of Objectives and Accomplishments
Monitoring is an important aspect of the partnership’s work. This monitoring has two main objectives. The first is educational; to enhance understanding of the watershed ecosystem and to share knowledge and data so that others can use it. The Conasauga River Alliance website describes the Alliance’s goal for the monitoring program: “The long-term goal of our monitoring program is to gather basic information on the biological and physical components of local watershed ecosystems and to share that information with community members, schools, local agencies, other organizations and decision makers.” The second objective is to be better able to track and measure the progress and accomplishments of the Alliance and individual partner’s efforts.
The Nature Conservancy has focused its efforts in the watershed on research and monitoring. TNC and Dalton Utilities developed an agreement to collaboratively conduct water quality monitoring. TNC staff conducts the field work and monitoring on a quarterly basis at 11 different sites in the watershed, measuring nutrient loading, fecal coliform levels, and basic water quality parameters, and Dalton Utilities conducts pro bono fecal coliform testing. TNC established a baseline for monitoring in 1999 by taking monthly samples. TNC and Dalton College also conduct bi-annual macroinvertebrate monitoring.
In addition, Rick Guffey, TNC North Georgia Conservation Director, explains that they collect baseline water quality data and have a rigorous monitoring program so that they can track any improvements in water quality over time “as we continue our streambank restoration, riparian buffer work, mollusc propagation and stocking program.” In addition, a large focus of TNC’s program is to find the true culprit behind the decline in mussel species, which is occurring without a parallel decline in fish assemblages. Researchers are currently doing extensive work on sediment toxicity issues and expect answers within two years. Of this work, Guffey explains: “Then and only then will we know for sure if our work plan and implementation is addressing the problems of the decline in species and if we truly have the opportunity to bring back many of the populations that have been extirpated. This data along with our restoration projects and mussel propagation will give us our measures of success for restoring declining mollusc populations and providing long-term protection for many other aquatic species.” For The Nature Conservancy, measuring success is inextricably linked to conducting research to determine whether their current strategies are the right ones to be pursuing. As Guffey comments, “since my involvement here, I’ve tried to focus TNC’s efforts on finding the true cause of the decline of mollusc species in the Conasauga River and coming up with a new plan that addresses this issue. I’m trying to get away from addressing the symptoms of a perceived problem and [instead want] good peer reviewed documentation of the cause. It’s my belief that only then can we make a lasting and documented difference.”
There are other examples in the partnership where the Partners are focusing on measuring whether given strategies are moving the system towards the desired objective. Doug Cabe explains that the EPA 319 grant dictates monitoring and requires “incredible accountability.” For example, one goal in the grant is to reduce fecal coliform in Perry Creek by 40% over a five-year period, and he explains they are continuously monitoring to identify hotspots and measure whether levels are improving over time. Another way in which the Alliance is measuring its impacts, Cabe explains, is by using an ArcView GIS database, which is enabling them to see “what sites and what effects are happening watershed-wide.” Finally, he says that a large section of the north end of the Conasauga has been taken off the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) list, and he attributes this to the cumulative impacts of 18-19 miles of buffer installed, the stackhouses, cattle restrictions, and alternative watering systems installed. He believes that between the EPA 319 grant, the EQIP program, and the Forest Service’s work, they are “seeing that [we] are making an impact in the whole watershed.”
The Alliance continues to try to track progress towards its goals in other ways too. Some of the indicators that the Alliance has chosen to meet this challenge are found in the 2002 Annual Report written by Forest Service partner Kent Evans. They include tracking indicators such as: the number of conservation workshops held, number of riparian campsites rehabilitated, miles of forest trail maintenance conducted, and rare species monitoring, water quality sampling, and habitat research conducted. In order to measure success towards conservation and restoration objectives on private lands, the Alliance reports accomplishments by citing acres of the watershed planned for vegetation improvements, number of acres for which rotation grazing systems have been planned, riparian acres enrolled in the Environmental Quality Incentive Program or the Conservation Reserve Program, number of educational brochures distributed, and miles of riverbank that have vegetation buffers installed.
Tracking progress is not without its challenges and limitations and the Alliance and individual partners would like to be doing more. Many of these indicators can be characterized as measuring outputs, not outcomes, but as Forest Service partner Kent Evans comments, “Measuring success is very time-consuming, and we haven’t worked very hard on it because there was so much obvious work that had to be done. So we jumped right in trying to do the obvious. We know where we need to go, we just haven’t had the money, the time, or the staffing to do it.” He also comments, that as the person who summarizes the Alliance’s yearly accomplishments in its annual report, getting other organizations and agencies to “willingly come forward” with accomplishments measured against goals is often difficult. Evans has tried to quantify the yearly accomplishments of the Alliance in the annual report, but it has not always been easy to get all of the partners to report their accomplishments to him: “What I think has happened is that we haven’t pushed [the Alliance partners] to try to, in a real deliberate fashion, to lay these goals out, and the objectives, and the measureables, and then the accomplishments. What I’m doing is pulling teeth at the end of the last two or three years that I’ve written these annual reports. I’ve gone back to each [partner organization] and have thought of some kind of measureable and said, ‘how are we coming here?’”
Another factor that makes measuring progress difficult is that, in many cases, the full need for restoration or conservation has not been outlined; the target condition or goal against which to measure progress has not always been identified. For example, Evans explains that nobody has asked and answered the question, “what is the total need of vegetative buffers in the watershed?” For example, while they may have nearly 30 miles of vegetative buffers installed in the watershed, they may be far from doing enough to protect the watershed. And yet, because nobody has mapped the sub-watershed and its tributaries with GIS, Evans suggests that the group may be missing information about a large base of landowners who could be willing to participate in the Alliance or install buffers.
Strong links to the scientific community
In addition to the crucial financial, strategic, and administrative guidance of Alliance partners like the USFS, Limestone Valley RC&D, and The Nature Conservancy, another element that has helped the large, diverse group of partners is the existence of different forums in which to share current scientific knowledge. One example is the annual Coosa Basin Summit. According to Forest Service Conasauga River Coordinator Kent Evans, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been “one of the main facilitators for success in the Conasauga” because it coordinates the annual Coosa Basin Summit, a gathering of credible scientists across the Coosa Basin, including the Conasauga River watershed. While one of the main functions of the group is to provide expertise to the FWS about its concerns in the Basin (e.g., listed species conservation), the Coosa Basin Science Committee also plays an important role for the Conasauga River Alliance. When this group gathers annually, they share information about current research and monitoring efforts and help to set priorities for the Alliance’s restoration work in critical streams. The group is currently working to create an aquatic biodiversity poster of the fauna in the Basin.
While this group has been a facilitating factor in improving communication among the Alliance’s science partners, Evans sees an opportunity to broaden the scientists’ influence. “The Coosa Summit and Coosa Science Committee have a really rich, deep group of scientists, and the challenge,” according to Evans, “is integrating them into the policy realm where their information is palatable to the policy makers and understandable, and where their knowledge is incorporated into strategic long-term planning,” by local and state developers, planners, and policy makers.
Evans explains that a new group called the Northwest Georgia Regional Water Resources Partnership (NGRWRP) may be a step in the right direction towards incorporating scientific information from the watershed scientists into strategic long-term planning. The NGRWRP is currently organized along political county boundaries but contains about 90% of the Coosa Basin. At its first annual meeting in November 2002, over 120 people including water resource experts; citizens; state, federal, and local water program managers; business and industry representatives; conservation groups; and government agency representatives gathered to talk about key water resource issues in the six watersheds in the Coosa Basin (Tennessee, Conasauga, Coosa, Oostanaula, Coosawattee, and Etowah River basins), ways of working more effectively across jurisdictional boundaries, and roles of the new NGRWRP. Cabe and Evans, two of the key players in the Conasauga River Alliance, helped to organize this meeting, drawing upon their experiences in the Alliance.
Multiple Small and Large Partnerships
The Conasauga River Alliance’s strategy to establish multiple small and large partnerships is enabling the group to establish a long-term presence and relationships in the watershed. For example, the Alliance has engaged Dalton Middle School in maintaining the Alliance’s new website. Dalton Middle School will maintain the website, funded by TNC, the Forest Service, and a Lindhurst Foundation grant, providing the Alliance with an important link to the educational community and providing local students and teachers with greater ownership of the Alliance’s efforts. This small partnership will likely expand the volunteer base for Alliance projects and provide more opportunities for future partnerships.
The Alliance has successfully engaged private business in conservation and restoration efforts by identifying mutual goals. For example, The Nature Conservancy and Dalton Utilities (DU), which recently spent $100 million updating their entire wastewater and filtration facilities, have formed a partnership in which DU conducts pro bono testing on water samples and sponsors on-site projects to improve sedimentation problems. While purely anecdotal, one partner indicates that DU has done some comparisons of water filtration costs on regular days versus on days following big rain events, and the numbers, while too early to say conclusively, appear to show that the filtration costs after rain events are decreasing over time—indicating that sedimentation issues are improving. Certainly, reducing sediment and improving water quality lessens the filtration costs of turning river water into potable water, and the two groups working together may achieve their respective individual goals—improved water quality and reduced costs.
This site was developed by the Ecosystem Management Initiative through a partnership with the US Forest Service and the US Department of Interior. Read more.
