About Us

How You
Can Help

Activities and
Special Events

What's New

Search

Contact Us

Sitemap

Thalweg

The second message with RCM's electronic newsletter (Thalweg) includes
comments from others in response to this discussion about measuring
success, AND also explains how you can subscribe, in case you are
interested.----------------

Begin Forwarded Message ----------------
Date: 5/20/99 12:02 PM
Received: 5/20/99 11:57 AM
From: Rivers Council of Minnesota, info@riversmn.org
To: Karen Plass, slrcac@cp.duluth.mn.us

Excerpt from Thalweg (electronic newsletter from the Rivers Council of
Minnesota):

CITIZENS ACTION COMMITTEE WORKS TO PROTECT THE ST. LOUIS RIVER

Recent email newsletter articles, e.g. our first Thalweg and Watershed
Currents, have highlighted how difficult it is to document success or
even determine appropriate measures of success achieved by watershed
organizations. In late April, a group actively involved in protecting the
St. Louis River identified measures THEY consider to be indicators of
success. The St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee (SLRCAC) is a
nonprofit dedicated to protecting and restoring the St. Louis River.

The St. Louis River is an interstate resource that was designated in 1987
as one of 42 Areas of Concern (AOCs) on the Great Lakes because of
concerns about polluted sediments, habitat degradation, and water
quality. In 1989, state agencies (MN & WI), local units of government,
industry, researchers, and concerned citizens began developing a Remedial
Action Plan (RAP), with Citizens and Technical Advisory Committees for
toxics, sediments, habitat, institutional arrangements, and stewardship.
In 1996, the SLRCAC was registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and the first
Executive Director, Karen Plass, was hired in June of 1997. For the past
two years, as a nonprofit, the Citizens Action Committee has led efforts
to protect the St. Louis River and implement 43 recommendations developed
for the RAP.

Members of the SLRCAC came together for 6 hours over two evenings in late
April to affirm an organizational mission, identify goals and objectives
to achieve those goals, and set priorities for the next two years. As
part of their planning retreat, participants brainstormed an impressive
list of accomplishments and successes from the past decade and they
identified outcomes that would indicate to them that their work had made
a difference.

The SLRCAC mission statement is being refined by the Stewardship
Committee and will be approved by membership at a meeting on May 26.
Meanwhile, it looks something like this:
"The St. Louis River Citizens Action Committee ... working together to
restore and protect the St. Louis River and its watershed.
Coordinating community efforts
Increasing public awareness
Focusing on the St. Louis River Area of Concern
Helping implement the St. Louis River Remedial Action Plan"

To help identify ways for the organization to evaluate progress on their
newly defined goals, participants responded to these three questions:
1) "If we gathered again at the end of two years, what SRLCAC
accomplishments would give you a personal sense of
success and the feeling that your investment
of time in this organization was worthwhile?"
2 )" In two years, what CAC accomplishments would indicate that the
organization has accomplished or made
significant progress toward our objectives or
goals?"
3 )" What improvements in the river will indicate that the work of the
CAC has made a difference?"

Participants' responses were thoughtful and exciting and can help those
of us who feel compelled to measure outcomes understand what is really
important to the people working to protect rivers and watersheds. Here
are some examples of their indicators of success:
Organization continues to grow as a committed group of people working
on issues
At least 70% of the schools in the watershed adopting some streams or
tributaries of the St. Louis River
No net gain of exotic species and some increase in native species
restoration Be able to eat fish out of the river; no fish
consumption advisories in theSt.Louis
Achieve recommendations for implementing the Remedial Action Plan
Actually made some remediation in our sediment hot spots
Significant reduction in nonpoint source mercury
Shoreline areas are less degraded; better access for public to natural
areas on the river
More riparian landowners involved
Greater recognition of the value of the SLR estuary and the role the
CAC played
That the CAC is considered when the SLR ecosystem issues are discussed
Reduced sediment load, measurable reduction in toxics and nutrients
USX, Dock C & Interlake (superfund) sites have been cleaned up
Dredging is no longer conducted above the iron docks
More birds at Herding Island; habitat restoration

DEFINING SUCCESS

Those are measures that members of the St. Louis River CAC identified as
meaningful for them. On a broader scale, how should we define success?
Does it have to be defined solely by changes in water chemistry or
biological communities? Is a committed group of active volunteers an
acceptable indicator of progress? Are changes in legislation or a local
ordinance significant, even if they haven't led to documented
improvements in water quality? Isn't it a measurable accomplishment to
have a group of students learning more about a stream by monitoring
benthic invertebrates or water chemistry? Isn't checking ONE THING off a
list of recommendations a step in the right direction?

What would you suggest as measures or indicators of success? Please
share your thoughts with us via email<info@riversmn.org> I'd suggest
that the definition of success SHOULD be established and celebrated
locally: as continued or increased citizen participation, informed
decision-makers, increased public access and enjoyment of healthy rivers,
and improvements in the water resources. People who live in the watershed
and care about their local rivers will be the ultimate arbiters of
whether their watershed organization has been successful.

A McKnight report published in 1998, " The Great Waters Report: A Review
of Six Major Watershed Initiatives in the U.S.," concluded that
evaluation is seldom well thought out. "Very few groups evaluate the
impact of their work, though many will argue they do. They could indicate
tasks accomplished, but not the impact of their work on the watershed.
Despite all the rhetoric around the use of "indicators" no one could
produce a set of indicators to assess impact or measure progress in their
watershed. Many groups believe they have contributed to improvement in
the conditions of the watershed, but most acknowledge that they cannot
demonstrate the link between their efforts and the improvements. Many
point out that a specific success is often the result of work by many
entities."

The report goes on to say, "Most groups define success in one of two
ways: 1) a numerical accounting of how many people they reached or
activities they structured around the watershed or 2) a laundry list of
actions taken or policies effected. These definitions tells us something
about an organization's ability to implement programs but not much in
terms of what impact these programs have had on the health of the
ecosystem."

As an educator and one who believes in community involvement, I'd respond
that if the only acceptable indicator of success or progress is a
measurable change in water quality, we might as well all go home now and
spend our hard-earned time and money on projects with a short-term focus.
As we've all heard, it's taken years to create the problems and it will
take us years to create the solutions. Besides, as a scientist, I'd be
pretty skeptical of any watershed organization that claimed credit for
effecting an improvement in water quality over a limited number of years,
because of the complexity of ecological and climatic variables that can
mask or lead to a false appearance of improvement over a few years. While
watershed groups may not be experts at evaluation, they are able to
assess the actions they've initiated that should LEAD to improvements in
water quality. And, I like it that they're willing to share the credit
and recognize that improvements will be the result of the !
work of many.
Barb Liukkonen, Program Director

READERS RESPOND TO THALWEG

A Thalweg reader from up north wrote after last week's newsletter,
"Great program, don't forget the pristine rivers of NE Minnesota that are
being threatened by developmental pressures, marginal and voluntary
forestry buffers and changing forest type. These rivers flow through
highly erodible red clay soils on very steep slopes. Barb Liukkonen has
been excellent in her visits up here for St. Louis River RAP CAC. But the
North Shore Streams need attention as well. The development pressures are
tremendous and growing exponentially with numerous plans for sewer line
up the shore. These stunningly beautiful and unique resources need all
the help they can get ASAP."

In response, RCM staff are scoping out case studies and stories about
pressures on North Shore streams. If you want to share your concerns or
thoughts, please write. Watch for a future issue of the Thalweg devoted
to the fabulous resources of the North Shore .

BEET COOPERATIVE WATER QUALITY PERMIT EXPLAINED AT RENVILLE MEETING
Tthe public is invited to learn how expansion of production at the
Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar cooperative will protect downstream water
quality of the Beaver Creek watershed and the Minnesota River, at a
meeting 12:30 to 5;00 p.m., Wednesday, May 26,at the Renville Community
Center.
A tour of sites related to the beet sugar plant wastewater mamangement
system and the Beaver Creek watershed begins at 6:00, following a short
supper break. The meeting will inotroduce Renville area stakeholders to
the new SMBSC wastewater permit, in the context of Minnesota's clean
water requirements. The permit features several innovations. These
include requirements that discharge from the plant is prohibited when the
summer flow in Ditch 37 (the receiving water) is low; and pollutant
trading, where the plant offsets phosphorus in the discharge by trading
for phosphorus reduction elsewhere in the basin, and a program to
encourage beer growers to adopt best managment practices that will
promote clean water.
The meeting is sponsored by the Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar
Cooperative, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and the Rivers
Council of Minnesota. These groups wanted to inform the public about how
the permit will work and also talk about the public role in maintaining
water quality of the watershed. The Rivers Council of Minnesota is a
state wide nonprofit dedicated to helping Minnesotans protect and enjoy
rivers. The council plans to establish a citizen water quality monitoring
program in the watershed to evaluate the health of Beaver Creek and its
tributaries. The monitoring program will be established in cooperation
with local waterhshed projects and other local resource management
efforts.

8TH ANNUAL CURE SPRING OBSERVATION TRIP - THIS WEEKEND