Você está na página 1de 77

HUDSON RIVER NATIONAL ESTUARINE

RESEARCH RESERVE

Data Analysis and Report on
The Estuary Training Program

September 29, 2008

Report and Analysis Provided by
McCord Consulting

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 2
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
2. BACKGROUND 5
3. SURVEY AND REPORT INTRODUCTION 5
4. DISCUSSION AND SYNTHESIS OF WORKSHOPS 6
4.1 WORKSHOPS: MANAGING VISITOR USE, APRIL 6, 2005............................................................................................ 6
4.1.1 Overview 6
4.1.2 Summary 6
4.1.3 Workshop Participants 7
4.1.4 Workshop Analysis 7
4.1.5 Workshop Outcomes 10
4.2 WORKSHOPS: INVASIVE PLANT SPECIES FOR PARK STAFF IN COOPERATION WITH NYS PARKS, MAY 11, 2005.... 11
4.2.1 Overview 11
4.2.2 Summary 11
4.2.3 Workshop Participants 12
4.2.4 Workshop Analysis 12
4.2.5 Workshop Outcomes 15
4.3 WORKSHOP: WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING WITH NYSDEC HUDSON RIVER ESTUARY PROGRAM, JUNE
21, 2005 .......................................................................................................................................................................... 16
4.3.1 Overview 16
4.3.2 Summary 16
4.3.3 Workshop Participants 17
4.3.4 Workshop Analysis 17
4.3.5 Workshop Outcomes 19
4.4 WORKSHOP: MILE-A-MINUTE: PUSH BACK THE INVASION, SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 .................................................. 20
4.4.1 Overview 20
4.4.2 Summary 20
4.4.3 Workshop Participants 21
4.4.4 Workshop Analysis 22
4.4.5 Workshop Outcomes 23
4.5 WORKSHOP: HUDSON RIVER ESTUARY SHORELINES: SOFT ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS TO SHORELINE
STABILIZATION, MARCH 23, 2006..................................................................................................................................... 25
4.5.1 Overview 25
4.5.2 Summary 25
4.5.3 Workshop Participants 26
4.5.4 Workshop Analysis 26
4.5.5 Workshop Outcomes 29
4.6 WORKSHOP: ECOLOGY AND SPATIAL DYNAMICS OF SUBMERGED AQUATIC VEGETATION IN THE HUDSON ESTUARY,
SEPTEMBER 27, OCTOBER 26 OR DECEMBER 1, 2006 .................................................................................................... 30
4.6.1 Overview 30
4.6.2 Summary 30
4.6.3 Workshop Participants 31
4.6.4 Workshop Analysis 31
4.6.5 Workshop Outcomes 33
4.7 WORKSHOP: MUNICIPAL LEADERS SUMMIT ON GLOBAL WARMING FOR A SUSTAINABLE HUDSON VALLEY, IN
COOPERATION WITH SUSTAINABLE HUDSON VALLEY AND NYSDEC HUDSON RIVER ESTUARY PROGRAM, AUGUST 24,
2007 34
4.7.1 Overview 34
4.7.2 Summary 34
4.7.3 Workshop Participants 35
4.7.4 Workshop Analysis 35
4.7.5 Workshop Outcomes 38
4.8 WORKSHOP: RESTORING MIGRATORY FISH HABITAT: MITIGATING DAMS IN TRIBUTARIES OF THE HUDSON RIVER
ESTUARY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2007 ..................................................................................................................................... 39
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 3
4.8.1 Overview 39
4.8.2 Summary 39
4.8.3 Workshop Participants 40
4.8.4 Workshop Analysis 40
4.8.5 Workshop Outcomes 43
4.9 WORKSHOP: SOCIAL SCIENCE IN SUPPORT OF WATERSHED MANAGEMENT, SEPTEMBER 26, 2007....................... 44
4.9.1 Overview 44
4.9.2 Summary 44
4.9.3 Workshop Participants 45
4.9.4 Workshop Analysis 45
4.9.5 Workshop Outcomes 47
4.10 WORKSHOP: PROJECT DESIGN AND EVALUATION, OCTOBER 30, 2007 .................................................................. 48
4.10.1 Overview 48
4.10.2 Workshop Participants 49
4.10.3 Workshop Analysis 49
4.10.4 Workshop Outcomes 51
4.11 WORKSHOP: RESOLVING CANADA GEESE CONFLICTS, NOVEMBER 15 AND 16 2007 ............................................. 52
4.11.1 Overview 52
4.11.2 Summary 52
4.11.3 Workshop Participants 53
4.11.4 Workshop Analysis 53
4.11.5 Workshop Outcomes 56
5. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF REQUEST FOR REFRESHERS ON PAST TRAINING TOPICS 57
6. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FUTURE TRAINING TOPICS 59
6.1 EDUCATION AND OUTREACH PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................................ 59
6.2 ENGINEERS, CONSULTANTS AND RESTORATION PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................. 60
6.3 LAND MANAGERS .................................................................................................................................................... 60
6.4 MUNICIPAL OFFICIALS ............................................................................................................................................. 61
6.5 NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGERS............................................................................................................................ 61
6.6 SCIENTISTS ............................................................................................................................................................. 62
6.7 WATERSHED COORDINATORS ................................................................................................................................. 62
6.8 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................................................ 63
7. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF INCENTIVES 64
8. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 65
8.1 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................................................................... 65
8.2 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................................ 67
9. APPENDIX A 68
10. APPENDIX B 74

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 4
1. Executive Summary

The Estuary Training Program (ETP) of the NYSDECs Hudson River National Estuarine
Research Reserve has a primary objective to enhance informed, science-based decision-making
on estuarine issues by providing training and access to scientific and technical information to
audiences that influence the management of estuary resources. In order to evaluate the training
program against its objectives, in early 2008, participants in workshops given from 2005 through
2007 were asked to take a survey utilizing the online survey tool, Survey Monkey.

Of the 650 total workshop participants, 152 answered the survey. Over 35% of survey
participants were land managers, which may be a result of when the survey was distributed as
well as the nature of the ETPs relationship with this participant category.

Overall, this report finds that the Estuary Training Program of the Hudson River National
Estuarine Research Reserve, is successfully meeting its objective to enhance informed, science-
based decision-making on estuarine issues among those individuals who have influence over the
management of estuary resources. The program presents complicated, scientific topics in such
a way that over 75 percent of survey participants feel that there are no barriers to applying the
information. Therefore, the program is driving attendees to take action, collaborate with other
attendees and disseminate the program information beyond the doors of their own organizations.

Participants in this survey found the discussions and the sharing of information between
workshop attendees to be one of the most valuable aspects of the ETP workshop. Respondents
also reported that the workshops were professional, well-organized and provided high quality
resource materials.

Regarding training topics, survey respondents showed a high level of interest in further invasive
species and project design and evaluation training. While the list of the future training topics
most desired by all survey respondents is diverse, one overarching theme emerges; attendees
are looking for more information on how to protect, manage and restore our natural resources.
In addition respondents reported that interactive, low cost workshops offer strongest incentive to
attend future workshops.

Moving forward, it is recommended the ETP incorporate the findings of this report into a
communication to all respondents to show the value of their input. This would include programs
to be executed as a result of emerging training topic themes and changes in program format due
to attendee input. While workshop participants are asked to complete a workshop evaluation
immediately following the seminar, it is important to look for recurring themes regarding the
entire ETP training program. This can be completed by compiling results from individual surveys
annually to look for trends in attendee responses. It is also recommended if the program does a
similar survey in the future, that an incentive for participating in the survey is provided, such as
access to online resource materials or an online community network on the related training topic.

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 5
2. Background

The Estuary Training Program (ETP) of the NYSDECs Hudson River National Estuarine
Research Reserve has a primary objective to enhance informed, science-based decision-making
on estuarine issues by providing training and access to scientific and technical information to
audiences that influence the management of estuary resources.

The Program follows a systematic approach to program planning, design and implementation,
and evaluation of its workshops. The ETP continues to identify decision makers information and
training needs, provide targeted training activities using the best available science-based
information, and collaborates with partners to develop programs that address coastal decision
maker needs. The ETP also seeks to promote collaboration among its audience members.

Challenges and external threats to the program and its outcomes include the present economic
recession and the cost of fuel, which could make it more difficult for decision makers to take time
for training or to travel to training. More than ever, the ETP program needs to clearly identify
and understand its audiences needs in order to create the most valuable, actionable and
cost-effective training program.

3. Survey and Report Introduction

In order to evaluate the training program against its objectives, in early 2008, participants in
workshops given from 2005 through 2007 were asked to take a survey utilizing the online survey
tool, Survey Monkey. Of the 650 total workshop participants, 152 answered the survey. The
survey consists of questions directed at understanding the workshop audiences, obtaining
feedback on the individual workshops, their content and materials as well as understanding the
future programming needs of the ETP.

The following report synthesizes the data collected in the survey and provides analysis as well
as recommendations for actions to be taken as a result of these collective responses. Please
note, the online survey tool, Survey Monkey, allows the respondents to skip questions in the
survey if desired. Due to this feature, you will notice a discrepancy on the number of responses.
For example, in the analysis of the Watershed Assessment and Planning Workshop you will see
that eight workshop attendees responded to the survey. However, only five survey responders
answered the question Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you
gained from the workshop? Also, as some respondents attended more than one workshop,
their comments were manually assigned to the proper workshop analysis.

In addition, for purposes of analyzing the data, respondents have been categorized in to seven
participant categories: Education and Outreach, Land Managers, Municipal Officials, Scientists,
Engineers, Consultants and Restoration, Natural Resource Managers and Watershed
Coordinators.



Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 6
4. Discussion and Synthesis of Workshops

This section provides a comprehensive look at each workshop including an overview of the
workshops objectives, a look at who participated in the workshop, feedback from participants as
well as outcomes taken by participants as a result of the training provided. Please note some
workshops have been combined due to similar program objectives and participants.

4.1 Workshops: Managing Visitor Use, April 6, 2005
Managing Visitor Use: Selecting Useful Indicators, January 13, 2006
Horses, Hikers, Habitats and Hounds; Managing Land for Multiple
Recreational Uses, in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy, April 15,
2007
4.1.1 Overview
These three workshops provided an overview of the human dimensions of protected area
management, offered examples of visitor use and associated impacts to natural resources
and visitor experiences, outlined information on selecting useful indicators and
demonstrated applications to help managers address the people side of resource
management.

All three workshops were held as a result of collaborations between the HRNERR Estuary
Training Program and the following organizations:
! Instructors from the NOAA's Coastal Services Center taught the workshop held in
2005.
! The workshop in 2006 was hosted with cooperation from the National Parks Service.
! The Nature Conservancy (TNC) received funding from The Henry Philip Kraft
Memorial Fund of the Westchester Community Foundation for the 2007 workshop,
with many other organizations collaborating on the event.

A total of 146 participants collectively attended these three workshops; 25 individuals
participated in this survey.

4.1.2 Summary
When reviewing the results as reported in the survey against the ETP objectives, the
series of workshops on Managing Visitor Use performed well, particularly in the areas of
partnership, sharing information and future collaboration with attendees.

The majority of participants in these workshops were Land Managers, representing 64%
of those who responded to the survey. Education and Outreach participants represented
the next highest number of respondents with 12%.

Approximately 44% of respondents did feel there were barriers in applying the
skills/knowledge gained from the workshop, citing lack of time, funds and staff as the
primary obstacles. At the same time, respondents felt the workshops were most helpful by
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 7
providing a venue to share issues and solutions related to managing visitor use as well as
setting realistic strategies for application including in signage and volunteer involvement.

The resource materials provided at these workshops were rated high, garnering an
approximately 4 point overall rating, on a scale from 1-5 (lowest to highest). One
participant cited the booklet format as being excellent.

The highest rated areas for these workshops were the areas of partnership, sharing
information and collaboration. Over 81% of respondents stated they have established
new or strengthened existing partnerships as a result of these workshops. You could link
this to their comments on sharing issues and solutions as being the most helpful result of
these programs. Equally as impressive is approximately 94% of respondents went on to
share information from these workshops with others, primarily other staff and volunteers,
and over 62% have gone on to collaborate with other seminar attendees.

When looking at what actions respondents have taken as a result of these programs, this
is where we see the strength of this workshop series. Respondents noted they have
included information on managing visitor use in to the management plans, in application
for grants, shared and worked with staff to implement strategies and have improved the
function of their overall trail systems.

4.1.3 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of participants of these workshops by the seven assigned
categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 12.0% 3
Engineers and consultants and restoration 4.0% 1
Land managers 64.0% 16
Municipal officials 8.0% 2
Natural resource managers 8.0% 2
Scientists 4.0% 1
Watershed coordinators 0.0% 0
Other 0.0% 0
Total 25

4.1.4 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from these
workshops?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 43.8% 7
NO 56.3% 9
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 8

Please explain
Lack of time.
Funds to maintain the programs.
It has been very difficult to determine the limits of acceptable change.
The visitor use analysis is complex and should be performed on a regular basis to gain
experience using it.
Only one or two plans have been completed.
Lack of time and staff to implement.

b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Hearing from people with similar issues.
Understanding the delicate balance of impacts of visitor use/land management a little bit better.
Application of course topics to individual questions.
Listening to other people's situations and their solutions. Even if they were different, it was useful
to see the approach taken.
I found the information on signage beneficial and we have incorporated key points into the design
of our signs along with proper placement.
Opportunity to share ideas with other participants.
Professional quality.
Organizing thoughts and outcomes.
The importance of involving volunteers in the discussions, education and hands on.
Using the matrices to identify issues/problems.
Realistic strategies for dealing with the problems.

c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1

Answer Options Not Useful
Somewhat
useful Very useful
Rating
Average
Response
Count
The materials were 0 0 4 9 3 3.94 16

Comments
The booklet format is excellent. Good to have the presenters talks and other material related to the
Symposium focus.

d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 81.3% 13
NO 18.8% 3

Please explain
Important connections made with state officials, TNC, & others.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 9
It has helped to give our partnership with Pace University a greater focus. It has also helped give new
direction for our volunteers.
This was a great networking tool for me, being relatively new to the area.
Developing.
We are better able to coordinate our activities due to the contacts we made at the conference.
Wonderful networking with people.
The workshops were great for even making connections within our own agency as well as other partners,
particularly regarding invasive species.

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 62.5% 10
NO 37.5% 6

If yes, how?
Multiple consultations.
As part of the Shawangunk Ridge Biodiversity Partnership we have since worked with Nature
Conservancy on prescribed burns as a land management tool.
I have discussed partnering on projects with other attendees.
One of the participants gave us a contact for The Nature Conservancy-Eastern New York Chapter
and we were able to schedule guided hikes with the Nature Conservancy on our OTA trail system.
Programs in the "Conservation Cafe" series in Westchester County.
Have called on people as a resource for information.
NY Department of Environmental Conservation.

f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 93.8% 15
NO 6.3% 1

Please explain
Provided notes to my firm and some clients.
The information discussed has been shared with the other staff at the park.
In updating our Land Management Plan we work with Stewardship, Education, and Land Protection staff,
some of which aren't familiar with threats, impacts, etc.
Merely in conversation with existing club members, mentioning general park use philosophy and concerns.
We discussed the seminar with the OTA Board members and encouraged participation in other similar
seminars.
We discussed ideas at staff meetings.
Maryknoll Sisters, volunteers.
Visitor use workshop information was shared with colleagues who did not attend.
Staff, public.

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 10
4.1.5 Workshop Outcomes
Participants of these workshops reported they have taken the following actions as a result
of the information they learned at these workshops:

None
Included visitor uses in management plan.
Adapted visitor use information into thesis and fellowships.
Included visitor use in update of management plan.
Included visitor uses in management Plan.
Worked with fellow staff to implement methodologies from workshop. Applied for a grant to implement
methodologies from workshop.
Incorporated feedback from participants to continue dialogue with Park mgmt regarding visitors and park
use.
Incorporated the information into the public programs at my own site. Incorporated some of the
management strategies at my facility.
Worked with fellow staff to implement methodologies from workshop.
We have utilized the information provided on multiple usage and signage in regards to improving the use
and function of our trail system.



Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 11
4.2 Workshops: Invasive Plant Species for Park Staff in Cooperation with NYS Parks, May
11, 2005
Invasive Plant Species for Palisades Interstate Park Commission Staff with
PIPC and NYS Parks, June 6, 2006

4.2.1 Overview
In collaboration with the Environmental Management Bureau of NYS Office of Parks
Recreation and Historic Preservation, two similar workshops on invasive plants were
given to a total of 68 Park personnel on the west and east sides of the Hudson River
approximately one year apart. The objectives for workshop participants were to:
1. Understand what makes a plant invasive
2. Understand the problems caused by invasive species
3. Know how to identify the most common invasive plants in Taconic and Palisades
Parks and Sites
4. Know how to inventory, record and map invasive plant locations
5. Know how to plan a pilot control project
6. Know where to go for more information

A combined total of 21 participants answered the survey.

4.2.2 Summary
When reviewing the results as reported in the survey against the ETP objectives, the
series of workshops on Invasive Plant Species performed well, particularly in how
participants took action with the information provided.

The clear majority of participants in these workshops are Land Managers, representing
over 75% of those who responded to the survey. Natural Resource Manager participants
represented the next highest number of respondents with 14.3%.

When discussing obstacles, over 65% of respondents did not feel there were barriers in
applying the skills/knowledge gained from the workshop. Of the roughly 30% of
respondents who did feel there were barriers, they cited lack of time, funds and staff as
the primary obstacles. You could relate the lack of barriers to the respondents answers
to what they found most helpful from the workshops. Many cited the on-site field analysis
and identification versus a classroom style workshop to be extremely beneficial to their
long-term understanding and sharing of the material.

The resource materials provided at these workshops were rated high, garnering a 4 point
overall rating, on a scale from 1-5 (lowest to highest). One participant cited the ID sheets
as being beneficial.

Approximately 59% of respondents stated they have established partnerships with others
as a result of this workshop series. Many stated the seminars were great for making
connections and strengthening relationships. While the majority of respondents (58.8%)
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 12
stated they did not collaborate with other attendees, the approximately 41% who did noted
that it was valuable to continue to share information, experiences and updates with others
after the seminar.

The strongest rated question for this series of workshops on Invasive Plant Species was
whether respondents shared information with others who did not attend the seminar.
Over 94% of respondents stated they went on to share information from these workshops
with others, including co-workers, volunteers and the general public. This high rating
coupled with the response on the lack of barriers for application of the information
presented directly relates to responses when looking at what actions respondents have
taken as a result of the workshop.

Respondents noted they have obtained an increased awareness and understanding of the
need to deal with the problem of invasive species. They have worked with staff as well as
volunteers to identify, map and eliminate invasive plant species. They have developed
materials for their own workshops as well as displays and information for general public
education. Overall, this series of workshops achieved the overall objective to educate
attendees on all aspects of dealing with invasive species and drive them to action.

4.2.3 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of participants of these workshops by the seven assigned
categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 4.8% 1
Engineers and consultants and restoration 0.0% 0
Land managers 76.2% 16
Municipal officials 0.0% 0
Natural resource managers 14.3% 3
Scientists 4.8% 1
Watershed coordinators 0.0% 0
Other 0.0% 0
Total 21

4.2.4 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from the
workshop?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 33.3% 5
NO 66.7% 10


Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 13
Please explain
Lack of time
Funds to maintain the programs; personnel to actively pursue invasive species removal on a regular basis;
The inability to use some of the most effective methods of removal because of our public status.
No barriers. I have not had much opportunity to use in a proactive way, though.
It seems that with older patrons getting the message across is a bit more difficult, but young adults and
children understand the importance of the issue [editor note: issue of invasive insects]
Limited time and funding
Time and man power constraints

b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Response
Actual on-site analysis versus classroom education
Invasive species
None
Knowledge of invasives and the best ways to deal with them
Actually getting out in the field and understanding what habitats these plants can be found in and
matching that up against the habitats I have here at the park makes it a little easier for me and
my staff to pinpoint where we might find invasives now and in the future.
The importance of involving volunteers in the discussions, education and Hands on.
Fieldwork exercises in identifying invasives and discussion on removal methods.
Professional quality
Identification of invasive species
To be more aware.
Honestly, the course was so long ago I don't recall many of the specifics about it.
Increased knowledge of the subject matter and how best to manage negative impacts.


c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1


Not Useful Somewhat useful Very useful Rating Average Response Count
0 0 4 6 4 4 14

Comments
I can't recall if there were any handouts.
Very useful, and very nicely presented.
ID sheets.
Refer to previous comment section.




Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 14
d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 58.8% 10
NO 41.2% 7

Please explain
It has helped to give our partnership with Pace University a greater focus. It has also helped give new
directions for our volunteers.
I haven't had much of an opportunity...I have been at my current post only a few months.
Since I have moved to a new region of the State where invasive plants are less prevalent, I have kept in
contact with people who I worked with to remove invasives and I get updates on their progress and how
invasives are migrating north to where I am located.
More contact with Bob OBrien [editor note: speaker at workshops and Park invasive species expert]
The workshops were great for even making connections within our own agency as well as other partners,
particularly regarding invasive species.
When the work was in progress I forged many relationships with other agency staff, as well as volunteers,
with regards to invasive eradication.
Strengthened.
Made contacts with other agencies.

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 41.2% 7
NO 58.8% 10

If yes, how?
We continue to meet on Mile-a-minute and invasive species issues.
Like I said before, just asking how invasives are migrating and how they are doing in their efforts of
eradication.
not yet
Particularly invasive species programs
By organizing park invasives clean ups
Co-workers.

f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 94.1% 16
NO 5.9% 1


Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 15
Please explain
The information discussed has been shared with the other staff at the park.
With site staff to allow a more effective work plan to discover and remove invasive species found in the park.
We are in the process of developing a program to educate the public on invasive plants and animals
Visitor use workshop information was shared with colleagues who did not attend. Taconic invasives
information has been used in developing other programs.
Shared with employees of the park
Passing along certain pertinent info to our specific jobs as they related to the invasives issues
With the staff
Passed on info to other employees

4.2.5 Workshop Outcomes
Participants of this workshop reported they have taken the following actions as a result of
the information they learned at the workshop:

Increased awareness of evolving problem with invasives, and the need to initiate programs to address
growing problem
We have begun an invasive species management program at the park.
We have followed up with programs dealing with invasive species on site. Being able to identify the
problem and deal with it proactively has helped immensely.
None - at the time I was the manager for Philips Manor Hall which is a 1-acre urban historic site with no
invasives. At JJ [John Jay Homestead] we are working with a landscape committee for our Friends group
toward clearing invasives along a stream and planting natives.
Worked with park staff to eliminate invasives in selected areas.
Worked closely with regional staff to eradicate certain invasive species from park property.
Worked with fellow staff to implement methodologies from workshop.
The information at the Taconic invasives workshop has been used by the agency to develop materials for
other invasives workshops and presentations.
We are in the process designed an environmental program to educate the public about invasive plant and
animal species. We advise visitors before they get here not to bring fire wood from certain regions of the
State and we are also trying to map invasive species at this facility.
Coordinated volunteers for cutting invasive plants. Educational displays on invasive plants in our
woodlands. Discussions and taking steps to use native plants.
Used knowledge gained in training to apply best removal methods for pockets of invasives at the previous
facility I supervised. I have done very little with invasives at my current facility.
Have done some work with regard to invasive species. Specifically removal of stilt grass along the Taconic
Parkway. However, most of these efforts are coordinated out of our Regional Office.
Become more in tune with accepted thinking re: invasives. I have worked to convince landowning
neighbors to the park to avoid planting invasives such as bamboo as groundcover, etc. Also have started
factoring invasive growth into planning for newly-opened areas, e.g. those where several trees have been
removed or blown down in storms.
Identified and documented kudzu at Rockland Lake State park Fall 2006.
Incorporated the removal of invasive plants when we are out cutting trees.
Mapped invasive plants at the Fort Montgomery Site.

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 16
4.3 Workshop: Watershed Assessment and Planning with NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary
Program, June 21, 2005

4.3.1 Overview
This workshop was put on by staff from the Center for Watershed Protection and was a
collaboration with the NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program. The intense two-day
watershed assessment and planning workshop included:
! Presentation on local watershed planning framework
! Self-assessment of watershed needs and capabilities
! Watershed field assessment methods
! In the field stream corridor assessment and upland source control assessment
! Discussion of seining on the Hudson River Estuary
! Information on applying the eight tools of watershed protection
! Better site design and changing the development rules
! Case study on defining and delineating sub watersheds
! Sub watershed comparative analysis
! Discussion on represented watersheds and planning for action

4.3.2 Summary
When reviewing the results as reported in the survey against the ETP objectives, the
workshop on Watershed Assessment and Planning performed relatively well among those
who responded to the survey. Please note, the time passed since this workshop was
executed coupled with the low number of survey respondents (8), may not provide an
accurate picture of the performance of this seminar, which had forty-two participants.

There is a three way split among the majority of participants in this workshop between
Municipal Officials, Scientists and Watershed Coordinators, each holding 25% of the total
audience. Education and Outreach as well as volunteers make up the remaining 25%.

The clear majority (80%) felt there were no barriers in applying the skills/knowledge
gained from the workshop. Of the 20% of respondents who did feel there were barriers,
they cited lack of time and inadequate information as the main obstacles for execution.

The resource materials provided at these workshops were rated high, garnering a 4 point
overall rating, on a scale from 1-5 (lowest to highest). This relates back to the responses
on the most helpful aspects of the workshop. They cited the reference materials provided
as well as the opportunity to build partnerships as the most valuable elements of the
training program.

When we take a look at partnerships forged and future collaboration among workshop
attendees, both questions garnered a 50/50 response. Of those who did go on to create
partnerships and collaborate with other attendees, they stated they built strategic
partnerships and incorporated these partnerships in to future activities.

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 17
The strongest rated question for this workshop on Watershed Assessment and Planning
was whether respondents shared information with others who did not attend the seminar.
Over 83% of respondents stated they went on to share information from these workshops
with others, including co-workers, other watershed organizations and through their own
programming.

When discussing actions taken as a result of the information provided at this workshop,
respondents noted they have incorporated the materials in to the development of
watershed plans and in the application of grants. In addition, they found the information
extremely helpful in the execution of their everyday duties including helping them with the
review of future development plans.

4.3.3 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of participants of this workshop by the seven assigned
categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 12.5% 1
Engineers and consultants and restoration 0.0% 0
Land managers 0.0% 0
Municipal officials 25.0% 2
Natural resource managers 0.0% 0
Scientists 25.0% 2
Watershed coordinators 25.0% 2
Other 12.5% 1

4.3.4 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from the
workshop?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 20.0% 1
NO 80.0% 4

Please explain
Except for the lack of time.







Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 18
b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Response
Reference materials
Don't remember (this was over 2 1/2 years ago) sorry!
Accurate and useful information presented and the opportunity to build
partnerships.

c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1

Answer Options
Not
Useful
Somewhat
useful
Very
useful
Rating
Average
Response
Count
The materials were 0 1 1 0 3 4 5

Comments
Especially on-line access to materials that were distributed.

d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 50.0% 3
NO 50.0% 3

Please explain
Never
Incorporation of partners in follow up activities

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 50.0% 3
NO 50.0% 3


If yes, how?
Strengthened partnerships with citizen volunteers who participated




Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 19
f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 83.3% 5
NO 16.7% 1

Please explain
With watershed council, and MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer
system) communities.
At staff meeting and in programs offered.
Shared with staff at my office.

4.3.5 Workshop Outcomes
Participants of the above workshop reported they have taken the following actions as a
result of the information they learned at the workshop:

Used knowledge in assisting a watershed council in developing a watershed plan.
None.
Submitted grant to work on watershed issues.
I used the information that I learned in my every day work duties and as Chairman of the Wappinger Creek
Watershed Inter-Municipal Council, this information is handy as well. I have always believed that inter-
facing with others in similar duties and interests can only enhance each other.
Have worked on watershed assessments for Wallkill River, Moodna creek, Ramapo River and will work on
Tuxedo Park Lake. Information learned has helped with review of development projects.



Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 20
4.4 Workshop: Mile-a-Minute: Push Back the Invasion, September 27, 2005

4.4.1 Overview
Participants developed a plan to treat infestations in 2006, realizing that this is a multi-
year collaborative effort. This workshop brought together 54 individuals from agencies
with the ability to be leaders in outreach and education and eradication and control of
mile-a-minute vine in the lower Hudson Valley together to:
! Learn about the natural history of mile-a-minute
! Share information about the occurrence of mile-a-minute
! Learn about control options
! Learn about a protocol for reporting and inventory
! Draft a strategy for coordinated rapid response
! Brainstorm on who else to involve
! Brainstorm on next steps
! Know where to go for help and information
! Network with colleagues and experts

The ETP organized and implemented the workshop, which had numerous sponsors: NYS
DECs Hudson River Estuary Program, Hudson Valley Horticulturists of Cornell
Cooperative Extension, Central Hudson, The Invasive Plant Council of New York,
Rockland County Soil and Water Conservation District, NYS OPRHP: Environmental
Management Bureau, Taconic Region, and Palisades Interstate Park Commission.
4.4.2 Summary
When reviewing the results as reported in the survey against the ETP objectives, the
workshop on Mile A Minute: Push Back the Invasion performed well, particularly in how
participants shared information and took action with the knowledge provided.

Unlike the other invasive plant series workshops where Land Managers were the clear
majority of attendees, participants from other categories had a higher level of
representation at this seminar. While Land Managers still held the majority, representing
33% of the audience, National Resource Managers as well as Education and Outreach
participants represented 25% and 17% respectively.

When discussing obstacles, over 78% of respondents did not feel there were barriers in
applying the skills/knowledge gained from the workshop. Of the 22% of respondents who
did feel there were barriers, they cited lack of time, funds and staff as the primary
obstacles. At the same time, the respondents felt the overall information provided
regarding mile-a-minute (MAM), the field work completed in the workshop to identify the
invasive plant species, the networking opportunities, and the realistic eradication
strategies provided where the most helpful aspects of the seminar.

The resource materials provided at these workshops were rated very high, garnering a 4.5
point overall rating, on a scale from 1-5 (lowest to highest). Participant cited the materials
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 21
as informative and timely, while one participant felt the materials on mile-a-minute in
Pennsylvania were extremely helpful.

Approximately 67% of respondents stated they have established partnerships with others
as a result of this workshop series. Many stated the workshop helped them make
stronger connections with state officials and other organizations to expand awareness
regarding this invasive plant species beyond their small circle. A slight majority of
respondents (55.6%) stated they did collaborate with other attendees by utilizing each
other as consultants and resources on this topic, create a network for notifications of new
findings of the vine and obtaining insight from issues in other regions/states.

The strongest rated question for this series of workshops on mile-a-minute was whether
respondents shared information with others who did not attend the seminar. 100% of
respondents stated they went on to share information from these workshops with others,
including co-workers, volunteers and the general public. This high rating coupled with the
response on the lack of barriers for application of the information presented directly
relates to responses when looking at what actions respondents have taken as a result of
the workshop.

Respondents noted they have obtained an increased awareness and understanding of the
need to immediately address the problem of mile-a-minute. They have worked with staff
as well as volunteers to identify, map and eliminate invasive plant species. They have
developed materials for their own workshops as well as displays and information for
general public education. Attendees have also enlisted staff and volunteers in full-scale
eradication efforts. Overall, this workshop achieved the overall objective to educate
attendees on all aspects of dealing with mile-a-minute vine and drive them to action.
4.4.3 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of participants of this workshop by the seven assigned
categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 16.7% 2
Engineers and consultants and restoration 8.3% 1
Land managers 33.3% 4
Municipal officials 8.3% 1
Natural resource managers 25.0% 3
Scientists 8.3% 1
Watershed coordinators 0.0% 0
Other 0.0% 0
Total 12



Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 22
4.4.4 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from the
workshop?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 22.2% 2
NO 77.8% 7

Please explain
Raising money.
Lack of time and staff to implement.

b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Autecology of the MAM plant.
The information presented plus the what we saw on the field trip enabled the group from our area to
come up with a plan and motivated us to get started right away on trying to eradicate this weed.
Professional quality.
Great speakers from multiple states.
Realistic strategies for dealing with the problems.
Realizing the severity of the problem.
Networking efforts and the invasive weed outreach stepping up to the next level!

c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1

Answer Options Not Useful
Somewhat
useful
Very
useful
Rating
Average
Response
Count
The materials were 0 0 0 4 4 4.5 8

Comments
The materials from the people working with MAM in PA were especially useful. In addition, I have felt
comfortable contacting the speakers when I have questions.
Timely and informative.

d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 66.7% 6
NO 33.3% 3



Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 23
Please explain
Important connections made with state officials, The Nature Conservancy and others.
We have a larger and ever-expanding group of people who are aware of the seriousness of MAM as a
problem and have become involved in MAM education and control.
Wonderful networking with people.
We pretty much take care of everything internally.
We just need to expand outside of MAM for eradication efforts and resources.

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 55.6% 5
NO 44.4% 4

If yes, how?
Multiple consultations. Notification of new sightings.
Have worked with a number of persons I met there to a greater or lesser extent in planning and
implementing the work we are doing here. In addition, I continue to value the information that comes to us
from NY and continue to update the persons working on MAM in NY with what we are doing here.
Have called on people as a resource for information.
Lower Hudson PRISM [Partnership for Regional Invasive Species Management].

f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 100.0% 9
NO 0.0% 0

Please explain
Provided notes to my firm and some clients.
We have discussed MAM briefly in Conservation Advisory Council meetings and posted information on our
bulletin board at town hall.
I share this information with anybody who will stand still long enough to listen.
Staff, public.
Every talk I give across the state, northeast or nationally, I mention and highlight the Lower Hudson's
commitment to MAM eradication.

4.4.5 Workshop Outcomes
Participants of the above workshop reported they have taken the following actions as a
result of the information they learned at the workshop:

Within the week a group of us initiated MAM pulling on known sites in New Milford, CT, - by volunteers with
help from the town for disposal of plants by incineration. This practice continued thru 2006. Informal MAM
education program: posters, flyers, newspaper articles, speaking engagements. Initiated full scale battle in
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 24
2007 - raised money; hired college student interns and others as May-October pullers, educators and
workers; continued full scale education program. Surveyed, pulled, and distributed information with help of
the paid workers and volunteers.
Nothing, MAM is not on the National target weed list.
Explained Mile a Minute to others and kept an eye out for it.
Identified Mile-a-minute as a high priority in the Catskills.
Have applied invasive species management techniques.

Note: The ETP and several other organizations went on to form the Mile-a-minute Project of the
Hudson Valley, which is housed at the ETP and supported with a Student Conservation
Association intern. This project has carried out education and outreach, monitoring, control and
technical assistance since 2006.


Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 25
4.5 Workshop: Hudson River Estuary Shorelines: Soft Engineering Solutions to Shoreline
Stabilization, March 23, 2006
4.5.1 Overview
This workshop provided valuable tools for the forty-two participants to explore alternatives
to conventional shoreline stabilization techniques that will allow communities to utilize and
enjoy their river front properties while protecting and maintaining important Hudson River
estuary habitats. The event was organized and implemented by HRNERR and was
sponsored by NYSDECs Hudson River Estuary Program and Hudson River Valley
Greenway. Eleven participants fully answered the survey.
4.5.2 Summary
When reviewing the results as reported in the survey against the ETP objectives, the
workshop on Hudson River Estuary Shorelines performed well, particularly in how
participants took action and even sought alternatives with the knowledge provided.

The majority of participants in these workshops were Engineers, Consultants and
Restoration professionals, representing 58% of those who responded to the survey.
Natural Resource Managers and Scientists represented the next two largest numbers of
respondents with 25% and 17% respectively.

When discussing obstacles, 64% of respondents did not feel there were barriers in
applying the skills/knowledge gained from the workshop. Of the 36% of respondents who
did feel there were barriers, they cited variable strategies/techniques in different regions,
questions on if soft engineering solutions were right for the Hudson River and different
approaches needed for marine shorelines as the primary obstacles. These responses
indicate potential for follow-up workshops/seminars to address these issues.

The respondents reported the concepts, techniques and application examples provided
regarding Soft Engineering Solutions to Shoreline Stabilization as well as the group
design problem and better understanding of stabilization options where the most helpful
aspects of the seminar. The resource materials provided at these workshops were also
rated as very useful, garnering a 4.2 point overall rating, on a scale from 1-5 (lowest to
highest).

In addition, participants stated the ability to interact with others in the field was extremely
valuable. This may attribute to the input provided when discussing strategic partnerships
and collaboration.

Approximately 55% of respondents stated they have established partnerships with others
as a result of this workshop series and 64% have gone on to collaborate with other
attendees. Through these partnerships and collaborations they have become more active
in shoreline restoration projects, actively funded more of these types of projects, worked
together in grant writing and funding as well as supporting each other in the execution of
these techniques.

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 26
The strongest rated question for this workshop was whether respondents shared
information with others who did not attend the seminar. Approximately 91% of
respondents stated they went on to share information from these workshops with others,
including co-workers, clients and communities as well as organizations that are seeking
information on shoreline stabilization.

The strongest indication of this workshops success is the actions taken by respondents
as a result of this workshop. Participants stated they have incorporated soft engineering
solutions in to the shoreline restoration plans for the Hudson River. They have gone on to
recommend these techniques to the public and clients in the designing of projects.
Respondents have used this information in reviews of permit applications and shared
suggestions with applications and consultants. For those who are concerned about the
techniques recommended, they have gone on to seek additional information on other
approaches to shoreline stabilization.

One respondent did note that, although they recommended the techniques from this
workshop they were turned down by FEMA/SEMA [Federal Emergency Management
Agency]who stated they Do not do landscaping. This may be an opportunity for
education/outreach to this organization on this subject.

4.5.3 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of participants of this workshop by the seven assigned
categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 0.0% 0
Engineers and consultants and
restoration
58.3% 7
Land managers 0.0% 0
Municipal officials 0.0% 0
Natural resource managers 25.0% 3
Scientists 16.7% 2
Watershed coordinators 0.0% 0
Other 0.0% 0

Answered
question 12

4.5.4 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from the
workshop?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 36.4% 4
NO 63.6% 7
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 27

Please explain
Not sure whether/which soft engineering techniques are appropriate for the Hudson River. I'm not an
engineer and have to rely on applicants engineering design. Can only suggest consideration for these
softer/vegetative techniques.
The work is specific to freshwater locations. Different plant species and possibly different approaches are
necessary for marine shorelines.
Tried to use concepts for a project through FEMA and SEMA. Rejected because they "do not pay for
landscaping". Had to use standard hardened shoreline.
Variable strategies in different regions of the country to restoring "soft" shorelines.

b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Response Text
The group design problem.
Example projects.
General better understanding of shoreline stabilization options.
Sample shoreline cross-sections and correlation with shear stress is valuable for engineering
design.
I try to dissuade clients from heavy reliance on these techniques involving rip rap.
The information provided, interaction with other participants.
Great ideas. Need to get regulatory agencies on board.
Technical aspects.
1. Basic concepts and principles
2. New techniques and applied science
3. Conservation strategies

c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1

Answer Options Not Useful
Somewhat
useful
Very
useful
Rating
Average
Response
Count
The materials were 0 0 1 7 3 4.18 11

Comments
Have distributed some examples of shoreline techniques to permit applicants.
A hugely beneficial start to improved shoreline management. Needs to be coupled with a primary
approach of eliminating shore protections where feasible, managing uses for appropriate locations, and
constructing shore defense only where urban density or industrial or water dependent use requires it.

d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 45.5% 5
NO 54.5% 6

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 28
Please explain
Great networking
We have strengthened partnerships with NYS-DEC Region 3.
Yes, we [NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Habitat Conservation] have now been
involved in significantly more shoreline restoration projects, and have actively funded more of these
projects, since the workshop

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 63.6% 7
NO 36.4% 4

If yes, how?
With many persons working at NERR and for the Estuary Program
Several supportive exchanges with NYS-DEC Hudson region on shoreline management have followed.
Thanks DEC.
I had previous work relationships with several attendees.
Permitting with NYS DOS
a fellow consulting engineer
1. Grant funding
2. Project and grant applications reviews (collaboration)
3. Technical guidance and discussions
4. New partnerships and regional initiatives

f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 90.9% 10
NO 9.1% 1

Please explain
Info is shared with Trustees of the Hudson River Natural Resource Damage Assessment: NOAA and DOI
We are supporting similar approaches to managing shorelines to reduced structure impacts with several
communities. Numerous communities are seeking this type of information.
Again, trying to move away from rip rap solutions
Shared with colleagues at Dewkett
We shared all of the information from the workshop with our regional NOAA staff and HQ Program Officers.





Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 29
4.5.5 Workshop Outcomes
Participants of the above workshop reported they have taken the following actions as a
result of the information they learned at the workshop:

Incorporated soft engineering in restoration planning for the Hudson River
Recommendations to the public and design
Incorporated the "joint planting" technique into the design of a recent project
Look for and recommend soft engineering techniques where possible in permit applications. Have
sent information on soft engineering techniques to applicants/consultants. Am mindful of Hudson
River issues discussed at the workshop in all Hudson River permit review.
Forwarded project documents to City of Ithaca and Town of Moriah for consideration in shoreline
management projects. Forwarded project reports to the South Shore Estuary Reserve Office (Long
Island) for consideration n addressing shoreline erosion questions.
Reviewed grant applications for shoreline restoration & engineering projects (for NOAA)
Recommend to clients the use of soft engineering techniques for shoreline stabilization.
Worked with fellow staff to implement methodologies from workshop.
Tried to use concepts for a project through FEMA and SEMA. Rejected because they "do not pay
for landscaping" Had to use standard hardened shoreline.
Recommend to clients the use of soft engineering techniques for shoreline stabilization
I've sought alternate solutions to the ones proposed in the workshop. The soft shoreline technique
most often suggested in the workshop was rip rap. We have to get away from calling this a soft
shoreline technique.


Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 30
4.6 Workshop: Ecology and Spatial Dynamics of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the
Hudson Estuary, September 27, October 26 or December 1, 2006

4.6.1 Overview
The purpose of these workshops was to present new information on submerged aquatic
vegetation (SAV) ecology, function, and spatial distribution and change. Participants
learned new scientific findings on the role of submerged aquatic vegetation to the Hudson
estuarine ecosystem as well as how the SAV beds have change in extent and size in the
last five years.

Staff of the Reserve coordinated and presented three identical workshops to a total of
fifty-nine representatives of state and federal agencies and non-profits. A total of nine
individuals participated in this survey with approximately six answering most questions.

4.6.2 Summary
When reviewing the results as reported in the survey against the ETP objectives, the
workshop on Ecology and Spatial Dynamics of SAV in the Hudson Estuary performed
well, particularly in how participants shared information and took action with the
knowledge provided.

The majority of participants in these workshops who responded to the survey were evenly
split between Scientists and Natural Resource Managers, each representing 33% of the
audience. Watershed Coordinators, Education, Outreach, Engineers, Consultants and
Restoration professionals, represented the remaining approximately 33% of those who
responded to the survey.

When discussing obstacles, half of respondents felt there were no barriers in applying the
skills/knowledge gained from the workshop. Of the 50% of respondents who did feel
there were barriers, they cited time and funding constraints as the primary obstacles.

The respondents reported the expansion of their general knowledge on the ecology and
spatial dynamics of SAV and the tools for identification of potential locations of SAV beds
were the most helpful aspects of the seminar. The resource materials provided at these
workshops were also rated as very useful, garnering a 4.25 point overall rating, on a scale
from 1-5 (lowest to highest). One respondent noted that the software was a good tool for
locating submerged aquatic vegetation when needed.

While only half of respondents stated they have established partnerships with others as a
result of this workshop series and 33% have gone on to collaborate with other attendees,
they stated that this was due to the lack of projects to apply this information. Respondents
did note that they have built a network of resources through this workshop so when the
right project comes along, they will be able to access the information and tools needed.

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 31
The strongest rated question for this workshop was whether respondents shared
information with others who did not attend the seminar. 100% of respondents stated they
went on to share information from these workshops with others, including property owners
during the permit application process, co-workers and other agencies.

When discussing actions taken as a result of this workshop, participants stated they have
incorporated information on SAV when reviewing applications, updated extension target
audiences, and utilized the information provided in their workshop to locate and access
potential effects to SAV beds from projects under review.

One respondent did note that they want to incorporate SAV in to the Heritage Database
but do not have the time or funds to execute this project. This indicates a potential for
follow-through with this respondent.
4.6.3 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of responding participants of this workshop by the seven
assigned categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 11.1% 1
Engineers and consultants and restoration 11.1% 1
Land managers 0.0% 0
Municipal officials 0.0% 0
Natural resource managers 33.3% 3
Scientists 33.3% 3
Watershed coordinators 11.1% 1
Other 0.0% 0

answered
question 9

4.6.4 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from the
workshop?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 50.0% 3
NO 50.0% 3

Please explain
I have not had the opportunity to review many applications directly involved with this issue, but the
general knowledge is helpful in my overall understanding of the functioning of the Hudson River and the
tributaries associated with it.
Time and Funds

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 32
b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Response Text
See #9
Identifying potential locations where SAV beds are located.
NA
The entire workshop was great.

c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1

Answer Options Not Useful
Somewhat
useful
Very
useful
Rating
Average
Response
Count
The materials were 0 0 1 1 2 4.25 4

Comments
The information was well presented. I have not had the opportunity to utilize it to date.
My projects are often outside of the Hudson River Estuary, but the software is a very good tool to
help look for SAV when my project is in the area covered by the software

d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 50.0% 3
NO 50.0% 3

Please explain
Helps to better understand the needs of those concerned...can speak their language
I haven't had to use them yet, but it's good to have met some folks that did the presentations so that if I
have a case that comes up (I deal with violations usually) that involved impact to SAV, there are people
that I can call for advice on remediation or mitigation possibilities (albeit with the knowledge I gained
through the training that SAV avoidance is easier since remediation, let alone mitigaion is v. difficult)

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 33.3% 2
NO 66.7% 4

If yes, how?
Collaborated on a review of a large project that would have affected SAV, but the project ended up being
withdrawn.
Not yet because I haven't run across a violation case in the Hudson Estuary that involved SAV.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 33

f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 100.0% 6
NO 0.0% 0

Please explain
As a "Biologist" when I am in the field meeting with property owners discussing permit applications or
having conversations with random people I am frequently asked all types of questions especially about the
buzz words thrown about by the media and the information provided in this workshop expanded my general
knowledge base and has helped me to better inform the general public on these important issues.
Circulated some materials around the office and to other city agencies
It has been shared with the staff at our field office where the workshop was held, as well as with staff in our
NYC office.
We drafted notes from the meeting for others in the office who could not attend.

4.6.5 Workshop Outcomes
Participants of the above workshop reported they have taken the following actions as a
result of the information they learned at the workshop:

Incorporated information on submerged aquatic vegetation when reviewing applications for regulated
activities at boat launches, docks, bank stabilizations and dredging for habitat protection
Update my extension target audiences marina operators and recreational boaters on SAV data
SAV regulation
We have not had time or funds to implement our desired action - to incorporate all the SAV into the
Heritage Database.
Incorporated information on submerged aquatic vegetation when reviewing applications for regulated
activities at boat launches, docks, bank stabilizations, dredging.
None to date.
Utilized the information provided by the NYSDEC staff in the workshop to locate and assess potential
effects to SAV beds from proposed projects that require permits from this office.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 34
4.7 Workshop: Municipal Leaders Summit on Global Warming for a Sustainable Hudson
Valley, in cooperation with Sustainable Hudson Valley and NYSDEC
Hudson River Estuary Program, August 24, 2007

4.7.1 Overview
Over 100 political and environmental leaders from across the Hudson Valley gathered for
this workshop to discuss ways for municipalities to cost-effectively implement green
technologies and practices in their communities. The purpose of the workshop was to
establish a practical partnership to respond to the threat of global warming, on municipal
infrastructure and economies, in a way that actually improves quality of life, creates
meaningful work for our citizens, and builds political support.

This workshop was a collaboration of Sustainable Hudson Valley, NYSDEC Hudson River
Estuary Program and many other organizations, with support from the ETP. Of the total
106 attendees, 20 individuals participated in the survey.

4.7.2 Summary
The Municipal Leaders Summit on Global Warning for a Sustainable Hudson Valley not
only received a great response from participants but also was the catalyst for multiple new
partnerships, collaborations and actions taken in the surrounding communities.

The majority of participants of this summit who responded to the survey were Municipal
Officials, representing 57% of the sample. Education and Outreach professionals
represented the next largest number of participants with approximately 20% of those who
responded to the survey.

The overwhelming majority of participants, nearly 87%, reported they encountered no
barriers in applying the skills/knowledge gained from the workshop. Of the 13% of
respondents who did feel there were barriers, they cited time constraints as the primary
obstacle.

Respondents reported the most helpful aspects of the seminar to be the expansion of
their general knowledge on climate change and sustainability, a stronger awareness of
the problems facing the Hudson Valley community, and the information provided on
ICLEIs activities. The resource materials provided at these workshops were also rated as
very useful, garnering a 4 point overall rating, on a scale from 1-5 (lowest to highest).
One respondent noted less printed materials with links provided to online resources
should be considered, especially for a workshop focused on sustainability.
One of the strongest indicators of the success of this program are the high number of
respondents who reported they have forged strategic partnerships (93%) and collaborated
with other attendees (85%) as a result of this summit. Attendees stated they created
valuable networks, supportive exchanges and new committees as a result of the
relationships they forged at the summit. In addition, over 92% of respondents shared
information from this summit with others who did not attend the seminar.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 35

Another clear indicator of the success of this summit is the actions reported by attendees
as a result of their attendance at this workshop. Attendees have gone on to host their
own summits modeled after this workshop, obtain grants to expand outreach and provide
plans for improving water source monitoring, bring information from summit to Town
Board meetings, lead towns to join ICLEI, form environmental committees and change
their personal focus to advocate for government management of sustainability problems.
4.7.3 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of responding participants of this workshop by the seven
assigned categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 19.0% 4
Engineers and consultants and restoration 9.5% 2
Land managers 4.8% 1
Municipal officials 57.1% 12
Natural resource managers 4.8% 1
Scientists 4.8% 1
Watershed coordinators 0.0% 0
Other 0.0% 0
Total 21

4.7.4 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from the
workshop?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 13.3% 2
NO 86.7% 13

Please explain
I believe with the growing awareness and concern for the issues discussed has energized more
organizations and public policy group to get involved.
Just time constraints
I do not find a single place -- but rather several -- to put my energies. I would like to work fulltime as an
advocate on sustainability issues, but haven't found a way to make it work.
The Woodstock Environmental Commission is an advisory body and we have given our advice freely.
Except for the lack of time.
The Woodstock Environment Commission (WEC) has supported the Carbon Neutral plans of the Town
Board. We have reviewed the report of the Carbon Neutral Committee to the Town Board. We have
attended Town Board meetings in support of the climate action.



Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 36
b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Response Text
The logic model clarified my decision making for program design and implementation [editor note: logic
model was taught in Project Design and Evaluation]. It is precisely relevant in assessing municipal global
warming responses. The ICLEI Climate Protection Program, which may be accepted as a template by
Ulster County, implements a 5 point process similar to that used in the Logic Model.
As in number 3 above. [Partnered with the Hudson Watershed Alliance and have received a Grant from
DEC to expand outreach and provide a comprehensive plan for improving water resources monitoring.]My
organization is in various stages of pursuing other grant program opportunities.
Brought these issues more into my awareness and attention
Best practices and motivation by others to begin some ongoing work (even though I have been unable to
be involved)
Specific information about climate change in HV; e.g., winters in New York are almost 5 degrees warmer
on average since 1970
I took voluminous notes and have referred to them frequently.
Just getting information
The information from financial experts about the market for verifiable carbon offsets. All that ICLEI is
doing. (Woodstock has recently become a member.)
Accurate and useful information presented and the opportunity to build partnerships.
Better understanding of the little things that can turn into big problems - like flooding.

c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1

Answer Options
Not
Useful
Somewhat
useful Very useful
Rating
Average
Response
Count
The materials were 0 0 3 4 3 4 10

Comments
Dont remember
I am very attracted by Westchester's way of handling the sustainability report -- here's the website,
download it if you want it. I can imagine conferences where you're handed a list of URLs when you walk in
-- which will change the way we market ideas and persuade others. Sometimes people pick up pamphlets
and so on and find them later, and they're just the thing. The question is whether we want to encourage
the proliferation of pamphlets and so on. I shudder to think of the tons of reports and other paper
giveaways I have recycled over the years!

d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 92.9% 13
NO 7.1% 1




Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 37
Please explain
Valuable networking.
We have strengthened partnerships with NYS-DEC Region 3.
Again, with the Hudson Valley Watershed Alliance and Sustainable Hudson Valley and the Hudson Valley
Energy Smart group.
Became more familiar with local DEC staff- shared information
I learned of programs offered by local organizations
Definitely, locally and around Westchester county.
I have a new appreciation for Sustainable Hudson Valley.
Incorporation of partners in follow up activities
Tons of networking that is invaluable

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 84.6% 11
NO 15.4% 2

If yes, how?
Ulster County Global Warming Advisory Committee
We are also tied into the Sustainable Hudson climate change effort partly through these connections.
As in #3, #5 and #7 [Pursuing various grant opportunities.]
Yes, people I was already working with though
But may in future now that we have an environmental committee
Climate Action Week, Hastings-on-Hudson, April 1 to April 6. (2008)
Several members of the WEC attended, and we are continuing to work together.
By following up on previous contacts to an official in a municipality I am urging to be greener.
Seminars involving the Yonkers waterfront


f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 92.9% 13
NO 7.1% 1

Please explain
Yes, with colleagues, and with community (Global Warming)
At Marbletown Environmental Conservation Commission
See above [Westchester County and Hastings contacts]
I talk about the problem of Climate Change all the time.
At staff meeting and in programs offered.
Yonkers Green Policy Task Force

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 38
4.7.5 Workshop Outcomes
Participants of the above workshop reported they have taken the following actions as a
result of the information they learned at the workshop:

Worked with Ulster county planning on water and energy issues
Followed up on the networks and technical assistance mentioned at the Global Warming Summit.
We hosted a "Stakeholder's Summit" in our Town, very much modeled after your Municipal
Leaders Summit
Partnered with the Hudson Watershed Alliance and have received a Grant from DEC to expand
outreach and provide a comprehensive plan for improving water resources monitoring.
Followed up on previous contacts to a municipality I am urging to be greener.
Continue to investigate regional approaches to sustainability particularly in relationship to natural
resource use.
The Woodstock Environment Commission (WEC) has supported the Carbon Neutral plans of the
Town Board. We have reviewed the report of the Carbon Neutral Committee to the Town Board.
We have attended Town Board meetings in support of the climate action.
Lead my town to join ICLEI. Encouraged 9 Town staff to attend Westchesters release of its
Global Warming Task Force Action Plan
It's changed the focus of how I spend my time, making more more intensely an advocate to/for
gov't management of Sustainability problems. Provided public/gov't support to Sustainable
Hastings; encouraged our Conservation Committee to focus on Sustainability issues; had follow-
up meeting in October for Westchester attendees; coordinating week-long sustainability event in
the spring.
Have brought workshop information to attention of newly formed Environmental Committee; may
hold a mini forum of impact of global warming on Hudson Valley; researched steps other
municipalities are taking to address issue
Made some recommendations found at the Summit to the Westchester County Task Force on
Global Warming
Working with the Yonkers Green Policy Task Force on any related issues.


Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 39
4.8 Workshop: Restoring Migratory Fish Habitat: Mitigating Dams in Tributaries of the
Hudson River Estuary, September 12, 2007
4.8.1 Overview
The objective of this workshop was to provide participants with an understanding that dam
mitigation is a significant natural resource improvement opportunity. Presentations
focused on the alternatives and benefits of dam mitigation projects and the permitting
process that regulates implementation. 42 individuals attended the workshop, which was
coordinated and planned by staff of the Reserve and NYSDEC and hosted by the
Reserve and the Hudson River Estuary Program.
4.8.2 Summary
When reviewing the results as reported in the survey against the ETP objectives, the
workshop on Restoring Migratory Fish Habitats performed well, particularly in how
participants shared information and took action with the knowledge provided.

The majority of the total 26 participants in this workshop, who responded to the survey,
were Engineers, Consultants and Restoration professionals, representing 31% of the
respondents. Natural Resource Managers and Watershed Coordinators where the next
two highest percentages of respondents, each representing 19% of the total participants.

Approximately 65% of the workshop attendees felt there were no barriers to applying the
skills/knowledge obtained at the seminar. Of the 35% of respondents who did feel there
were barriers, they cited time constraints, particularly to better understand their own sites
dam safety issues, land owners, and changes in dam safety regulation and as the primary
obstacles.

The respondents reported the most helpful aspects of the seminar were expansion of their
general knowledge on mitigating dams, networking, the regulatory framework provided for
dam removal and environmental considerations. In addition, attendees stated that the
real-examples presented by speakers, Dan Miller and Curt Orvis as well as the
discussions surrounding these presentations were very valuable.

The resource materials provided at these workshops were also rated as useful, garnering
a 3.6 point overall rating, on a scale from 1-5 (lowest to highest). One respondent noted
that additional diagrams and schematics on barrier mitigation would be helpful. Another
respondent reported that the regulatory overview was handy.

While 71% of respondents stated they have established partnerships with others as a
result of this workshop series, only 45% have gone on to collaborate with other attendees.
Respondents elaborated that, while the workshop was a great networking opportunity and
they have begun to work on new proposals with partners, many of these are in the
preliminary stages as of the time they completed this survey.

The strongest rated question for this workshop was whether respondents shared
information with others who did not attend the seminar. Over 76% of respondents stated
they went on to share information from these workshops with others, including co-
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 40
workers, related organizations and other stakeholders who have gone on to develop a
better community outreach plan based on the information provided. Attendees have also
posted information from the workshop on their Web site and included in strategic
meetings.

When discussing actions taken as a result of this workshop, participants stated they have
incorporated the information in to white papers, technical presentation and lectures,
utilized the information for site assessments, future proposal efforts and planning barrier
mitigation projects as well as increased their personal focus on protecting and restoring
wetlands and river corridors.
4.8.3 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of responding participants of this workshop by the seven
assigned categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 7.7% 2
Engineers and consultants and restoration 30.8% 8
Land managers 7.7% 2
Municipal officials 0.0% 0
Natural resource managers 19.2% 5
Scientists 11.5% 3
Watershed coordinators 19.2% 5
Other 3.8% 1
Total 26

4.8.4 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from the
workshop?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 35.0% 7
NO 65.0% 13

Please explain
Time
Not enough time to thoroughly utilized knowledge obtained.
Changes in dam safety Environmental Conservation Law
I have to better understand the process of dam safety at my particular sites. Maybe not barriers but this is
holding up on the permit applications.
No plans have been made yet to pursue such projects.
Before your organization can try to remove the dam, which was recommended in the report on THE DAM
AT THE MUITZESKILL, the other side of the 14 acres on the stream has to be sold.

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 41
b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Response Text
Presentation by Curt Orvis [US Fish & Wildlife Service]
Meeting folks at the state level and from other organizations working on stream management and habitat
restoration.
Gave me specific information I could present to support my increased focus on the need for wetland
protection and enhancement.
Regulatory framework for dam removal and environmental considerations
Increased my baseline knowledge which helps me plan how best to utilize these techniques for the future
Hearing about the specific regulations and how it pertains to our sites.
Should be helpful as I plan for future research and grants
We know that this pursuit will be a long, arduous task but one that is possible to achieve. The workshop
showed that others have thought about this also. The sportsmen are not alone in their quest to improve
fish access to prime spawning habitat.
Professional quality
That Dan Miller came out; did an excellent evaluation, etc. The stream is directly opposite SCHODACK
ISLAND STATE PARK. He suggested removal would be the best. He was a huge help. He also thought
the project had a good chance of approval, but we have to get an owner for the other side first of all and
then an owner's agreement.
Practice sessions were helpful and slideshow presentations were helpful as well.
The group exercise.
Exchange of information with instructor and participants of real-life situations and examples.

c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1

Answer Options Not Useful
Somewhat
useful Very useful
Rating
Average
Response
Count
The materials were 0 3 6 10 3 3.590909 22

Comments
Would have enjoyed more diagrams/schematics of barrier mitigation methods
The regulatory overview was a handy reference. I also found the engineering/safety presentation to be
very informative.

d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 71.4% 15
NO 28.6% 6

Please explain
Great networking
USFWS - eel passage
This is the second meeting that I have had a chance to work with the NYS DEC Dam Safety folks.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 42
Helps to better understand the needs of those concerned...can speak their language
Met new collaborators
We have spoken with NYSDEC about our concerns but nothing further so far.
Not since the workshop.
Yes, within [my engineering consulting firm], and specifically within our in-house Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Practice Group, it is recognized that we have access to info and resources regarding dam
removal opportunities regionally

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 45.5% 10
NO 54.5% 12

If yes, how?
With many persons working at NERR and for the Estuary Program
USFWS - eel passage
Not specifically, but the stakeholders who I passed the info onto have utilized the info to develop a
better community outreach plan and to open discussions with NYSDEC about installing an eel
ladder.
Working on new proposals
Only preliminarily...lots of good ideas get generated...but never get acted on immediately
Meeting with the NYSDEC--the specific individuals were not present at the meeting, but their agency
was. I also networked with colleagues I've met through an oyster restoration project.
See above [NYSDEC]
See above [Dan Miller]

f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 76.2% 16
NO 23.8% 5

Please explain
Info is shared with Trustees of the Hudson River Natural Resource Damage Assessment: NOAA [National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] and DOI [Dept. of Interior]
Through our website and in strategy meetings.
I spoke with a number of our board members about what I learned and how I feel it can be incorporated
into some of the decisions we make.
Information shared with co-workers in Environmental Management and Resources Group
With colleagues and members of the Peconic Fish Comission.
Circulated some materials around the office and to other city agencies
The Federation delegates were informed about the meeting and the importance of fish ladders or dam
mitigation.
Yes. And I just last night I was approved for a small micro grant to run my old grist mill as a green market.
We would love to interest a conservation group in buying the old house that goes with the mill. The area is
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 43
truly an extension of the park.
Materials were shared with my supervisor.
Aforementioned white paper, technical presentation and class lectures.

4.8.5 Workshop Outcomes
Participants of the above workshop reported they have taken the following actions as a
result of the information they learned at the workshop:

Application of information on eel passage to project plans
Potential constraints associated with fish passage projects in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions;
Tributaries to further the range of spawning herring and shad.
Investigated a dam or two.
Did nothing
Followed up on the technical assistance, etc.
Followed up with NYSDEC Dam Safety from Albany to visit my project sites on the Bronx River
Increased my focus on protecting and restoring wetlands and river corridors. I have investigated a
Obtained increased knowledge on the topic.
Planning barrier mitigation projects
Prepared a white paper on anadromous fish restoration to inform colleagues at HDR of opportunities and
potential constraints associated with fish passage projects in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions;
presented an overview of monitoring techniques associated with dam removal projects at a technical
workshop hosted by the Hudson River Foundation; incorporated elements of the workshop into my lecture
materials for a class I teach at Purchase College.
Shared information with the Federation as we are interested in seeing fish ladders installed in the Hudson's
tributaries to further the range of spawning herring and shad
Used information in framing new proposals on Long Island fish restoration projects
Used the information for site assessments and future proposal efforts.
Workshop hosted by the Hudson River Foundation; incorporated elements of the workshop into my lecture
No action taken.
None
NONE
None. This was informational for me
Nothing yet


Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 44
4.9 Workshop: Social Science in support of Watershed Management, September 26, 2007

4.9.1 Overview
The objective of this workshop was to provide attendees information on social science
applications in natural resource management, how social indicators can be used to
understand local communities and community-based social marketing to empower
voluntary change. Forty-eight representatives of state and municipal agencies and non-
profits attended the event, which was funded in part by NOAAs Coastal Services Center
and organized and implemented by the ETP in collaboration with the speakers from
Sustainable Hudson Valley, University of New Brunswick and NOAA CSC.
4.9.2 Summary
The survey reports regarding the workshop conducted on Social Science in Support of
Watershed Management indicate that individual attendees found this program useful.
However, there was limited collaboration and establishment of strategic partners as a
result of this workshop.

The majority of participants in these workshops were Watershed Coordinators,
representing 31% of the audience. Natural Resource Managers held the next highest
percentage of attendees, representing 25% the total participants.

Approximately 77% of the workshop attendees felt there were no barriers to applying the
skills/knowledge obtained at the seminar. Of the 23% of respondents who did feel there
were barriers, they cited time constraints and limited practical tools for future application
as the primary obstacles.

The respondents reported the information on motivation to change behavioral patterns
and the discussion during and between presentations were the most helpful aspects of
the seminar. However, the resource materials provided at this workshop was rated as not
very useful, garnering an only 2.8 point overall rating, on a scale from 1-5 (lowest to
highest).

As stated above, this seminar did not result in a high number of strategic partnerships and
future collaborations with 58% of respondents stating they have not established
partnerships with others as a result of this workshop series, and 75% have not gone on to
collaborate with other attendees. On the other hand, over 83% of respondents stated they
went on to share information from these workshops with others, including co-workers,
board members related organizations and specialists.

When discussing actions taken as a result of this workshop, participants stated they have
incorporated the information in to outreach projects, used the census tool to create a GIS
map, added social scientists to a science advocate group and recommended using more
social science data in watershed planning processes.

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 45
4.9.3 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of responding participants of this workshop by the seven
assigned categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 18.8% 3
Engineers and consultants and restoration 0.0% 0
Land managers 0.0% 0
Municipal officials 12.5% 2
Natural resource managers 25.0% 4
Scientists 6.3% 1
Watershed coordinators 31.3% 5
Other 6.3% 1
Total 16

4.9.4 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from the
workshop?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 23.1% 3
NO 76.9% 10

Please explain
Not applicable
Not enough time to thoroughly utilized knowledge obtained.
The workshop was very general, an introduction really, with few tools available to move forward.

b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Response Text
I did not find that the information provided improved my decision making ability.
Interesting to learn about the many different social data layers
Professional quality
The conversations that were held during and after presentations.
The emphasis on motivation to change behavioral patterns
I had to leave the workshop early due to a conflict, and the part I attended was of interest, but hasn't been
of much use to me






Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 46
c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1

Answer Options Not Useful
Somewhat
useful
Very
useful
Rating
Average
Response
Count
The materials were 2 2 4 4 0 2.83 12

Comments
Don't remember what the handouts were - sorry!
I haven't look at them since the workshop

d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 41.7% 5
NO 58.3% 7

Please explain
As I mentioned earlier, strengthening relationships with social scientists that work in my department at
Cornell.

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 25.0% 3
NO 75.0% 9

If yes, how?
Collaborating on the Hudson River Climate Action Plan

f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 83.3% 10
NO 16.7% 2

Please explain
Brought social data layers to the attention of our GIS specialist and conservation science staff
Through our website and in strategy meetings.
I spoke with a number of our board members about what I learned and how I feel it can be incorporated
into some of the decisions we make.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 47
I have brought back the information on social sciences and we are putting more of this into our watershed
planning.

4.9.5 Workshop Outcomes
Participants of the above workshop reported they have taken the following actions as a
result of the information they learned at the workshop:

Added social scientists to our Science Advisory Group
Considered integrating social science principles into project development
Have recommended using more social science data in the watershed planning process to communities I
work with.
I am reaching out more to social scientists at Cornell as I am moving forward with a social science based
evaluation of my program.
I did not agree that the methods used at the seminar were the best methods. We use much more precise
measurement here.
Incorporating social marketing techniques into the Fall Kill outreach project. Used the census tool to
create a GIS map of the Fall Kill. The HRWA [Hudson River Watershed Alliance] is a resource
organization for many stakeholders in the region, making this type of information available via our
website and through dialogue.
Increased my focus on protecting and restoring wetlands and river corridors.
No actions were taken.
Nothing as result of workshop - events were planned prior to it
Haven't used info/tools yet









Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 48

4.10 Workshop: Project Design and Evaluation, October 30, 2007

4.10.1 Overview
This two and a half day workshop, taught by staff from NOAAs Coastal Services Center,
aimed to provide the twenty-four participants with a comprehension of the big picture of
instructional design theory, a thorough understanding of the needs assessment process,
an overview of project design, knowledge of the components of logic models and
descriptions of performance measures. In addition, workshop presenters discussed the
project development process as well as program design and evaluation.

Summary
The survey reports regarding the workshop conducted on Project Design and Evaluation
indicate that this workshop was successful in both generating strategic partnerships
amongst attendees and driving attendees to utilize tools provided.

The majority of the 10 attendees in this workshop who participated in the survey were
Natural Resource Managers, representing 30% of the audience. Municipal Officials, Land
Managers and Education and Outreach professionals all tied for the next highest
percentage of attendees, each representing 20% the total participants.

Over 90% of the workshop attendees felt there were no barriers to applying the
skills/knowledge obtained at the seminar. Later comments regarding actions taken
indicate that the concepts, particularly the logic model, were easily applied in the field. Of
the 10% of respondents (in this case it was one respondent) who did feel there were
barriers, they cited employment issues as the primary obstacles.

The respondents reported the clarity provided to the decision making process by the logic
model in program development and implementation as well as the discussions on
prioritizing and organizing thoughts and outcomes were the most helpful aspects of the
seminar. The resource materials provided at this workshop were rated as useful,
garnering a 3.9 point overall rating, on a scale from 1-5 (lowest to highest). One
respondent stated the logic model chart was especially useful.

This workshop did result in a high number of strategic partnerships and future
collaborations with 78% of respondents stating they have established partnerships with
others as a result of this workshop series, and 56% have gone on to collaborate with other
attendees. Participants reported the seminar provided a great networking opportunity and
they utilize each other as resources for additional information as well as discussions on
future projects. In addition, 89% of respondents stated they went on to share information
from these workshops with others, including co-workers and colleagues.

When discussing actions taken as a result of this workshop, participants stated they have
used the logic model to develop and assess programs, adapted this new model and used
in presentations to municipalities as well as other organizations, utilized the logic model to
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 49
re-evaluate a grants program and included the brain teasers from the workshop in their
future presentations.

4.10.2 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of responding participants of this workshop by the seven
assigned categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 20.0% 2
Engineers and consultants and restoration 0.0% 0
Land managers 20.0% 2
Municipal officials 20.0% 2
Natural resource managers 30.0% 3
Scientists 0.0% 0
Watershed coordinators 10.0% 1
Other 0.0% 0
Total 10

4.10.3 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from the
workshop?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 10.0% 1
NO 90.0% 9

Please explain
No personal interest in pursuing this approach until I know if I'm
employed.

b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Response Text
The logic model clarified my decision making for program design and implementation. It is precisely
relevant in assessing municipal global warming responses. The ICLEI Climate Protection Program, which
may be accepted as a template by Ulster County, implements a 5 point process similar to that used in the
Logic Model.
All of it.
Decisions on prioritizing
Application of course topics to individual questions
Professional quality
Organizing thoughts and outcomes
Exchange of information with instructor and participants of real-life situations and examples.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 50
This doesn't really apply to me at this time.

c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1

Answer Options Not Useful
Somewhat
useful Very useful
Rating
Average
Response
Count
The materials were 0 0 3 4 2 3.89 9

Comments
Logic model chart was especially useful.

d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 77.8% 7
NO 22.2% 2

Please explain
Valuable networking.
It is always in the back of my mind
Developing
Wonderful networking with people
Became more familiar with local DEC staff- shared information-

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 55.6% 5
NO 44.4% 4

If yes, how?
Ulster County Global Warming Advisory Committee
I have discussed partnering on projects with other attendees
Have called on people as a resource for information
Joined Rondout Valley Watershed Council and continue to work with Manna Jo
Greene






Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 51
f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 88.9% 8
NO 11.1% 1

Please explain
Yes, with colleagues, and with community (Global Warming)
Other staff have expressed interest in using logic models
At Marbletown Environmental Conservation Commission


4.10.4 Workshop Outcomes

Participants of the above workshop reported they have taken the following actions as a
result of the information they learned at the workshop:

Used logic models to assess programs.
Developed logic models for a program
I enthusiastically described the Logic Model program at a monthly meeting of the Albany County
MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer system) municipalities and have since referenced it when
discussing the MS4 Annual Report document, pointing out that the Annual Report is similar to data
gathering requirements/needs associated with the Logic Model. This did not register with anyone but me.
Should we form a dues paying Stormwater Coalition, I intend to develop all programs using the Logic
Model approach. I suspect there is a small cadre of like-minded MS4 municipal engineer and
administrative types who are familiar with the Logic Model approach. I'm hoping they will help me
implement LM when developing the overall Stormwater Program and associated smaller projects. We have
yet to discover each other.
We are currently designing a volunteer river herring monitoring program and are using some of the
thought processes described during the course.
I did some follow up work with the logic model but honestly the status of the project hasn't significantly
changed/improved as a result.
Used logic models to re-evaluate grants program
Project Design workshop extremely useful in planning and implementing
Adapted visitor use information into thesis and fellowships.
Included brain teasers in my presentations



Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 52
4.11 Workshop: Resolving Canada Geese Conflicts, November 15 and 16 2007

4.11.1 Overview
This workshop was held in two different locations on consecutive days and was attended
by a total of 95 individuals from a variety of organizations, businesses and government
agencies. It was held in collaboration with NYS Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation, NYSDECs Hudson River Estuary Program and Game Bird Unit, USDA
Wildlife Services and Geese Peace, Inc. The objective of the workshop was for
participants to learn about Canada geese behavior, effective geese management
techniques, case studies from other communities, new federal and state regulations and
where to find additional resources. The program also focused on opportunities for and the
importance of collaboration as well as the importance of being prepared for action in the
spring.

4.11.2 Summary
While the survey reports regarding the workshop conducted on Resolving Canada Geese
Conflicts indicate that this workshop was successful in both providing variety of practical
methods for dealing with this issue as well as driving attendees to utilize techniques as
well as information provided, the workshop did not result in a large number of strategic
partnerships or future collaboration between attendees.

The clear majority of attendees in this workshop were Land Managers, representing 79%
of the audience. Over 72% of the workshop attendees felt there were no barriers to
applying the skills/knowledge obtained at the seminar. Of the 28% of respondents who did
feel there were barriers, they cited lack of time, staff and funds as well as community
support as the primary obstacles.

The respondents reported the background information on nesting habits and egg oiling
procedures, the wide variety of practical, strategic methods for dealing with this issue, the
support network provided and the information of the effects of new construction and
development on habitats were the most helpful aspects of the seminar. The resource
materials provided at this workshop were rated as useful, garnering a 4 point overall
rating, on a scale from 1-5 (lowest to highest). Respondents stated that the materials
were good basic reference materials and a great contact list.

This workshop did not result in a high number of strategic partnerships or future
collaborations with 75% of respondents stating they did not established partnerships with
others as a result of this workshop series, and 83% have not gone on to collaborate with
other attendees. Participants reported that distance from each other was a barrier for
partnering with organizations.

On the other hand, 96% of respondents stated they went on to share information from
these workshops with others, including co-workers and colleagues, local community, park
patrons, Town Board and through their newsletters.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 53

When discussing actions taken as a result of this workshop, participants stated they have
hired vendors to remove geese via border collies, purchased kites and plan to use laser
hazing technology, advise people on and continue to execute egg oiling, and informed
land owners of geese issues through newsletter. Many of the actions suggested for goose
management must take place in spring, which was when this survey was administered;
some actions may have taken place after the survey.

4.11.3 Workshop Participants
Following is the breakdown of responding participants of this workshop by the seven
assigned categories:

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
Education and outreach 3.6% 1
Engineers and consultants and restoration 7.1% 2
Land managers 78.6% 22
Municipal officials 7.1% 2
Natural resource managers 3.6% 1
Scientists 0.0% 0
Watershed coordinators 0.0% 0
Other 0.0% 0
Total 28

4.11.4 Workshop Analysis
a) Have there been any barriers in applying the skills/knowledge you gained from the
workshop?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 28.0% 7
NO 72.0% 18

Please explain
Lack of time
Need the support of residents of Silver Lake. Poor to no response as of
today.
Supervisors are very open minded to new ideas for dealing with geese.
Limited time and funding
Lack of time and staff to implement
Too labor intensive/costly




Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 54
b) What aspects of the workshop(s) did you find most helpful in improving your decision-
making and/or your work with clients?

Response Text
Background information on nesting habitats, and egg oiling procedures
Information was very insightful.
The variety of methods for dealing with geese. We can pick and choose methods based on the exact
problem and the resources available for dealing with them.
Presented a lot of ideas for future consideration.
Have been waiting for March to implement some of them - when the birds start arriving.
There are practical strategies that we could incorporate in our work plan, plus a support network if we need
assistance.
Hearing from people with similar issues
I found all of the information helpful.
Professional quality
understanding how the oiling of eggs works.
Increased knowledge of the subject matter and how best to manage negative impacts.
Realistic strategies for dealing with the problems
contact and information about the program
To be more aware.
N/A
The wide variety of [geese] habitats caused by new construction and development

c) If resource materials were handed out, how useful did you find these materials?
Please note the rating average is based on the following point system:
Very useful = 5 Somewhat useful = 3 Not useful = 1

Answer Options Not Useful
Somewhat
useful Very useful
Rating
Average
Response
Count
The materials were 0 1 6 9 8 4 24

Comments
Very useful
The resource material are great for references and contacts
Materials were very helpful and informative
I will use it to inform owners if they have issues with geese
I thought the program was excellent. It was highly informative and well put together. Although we have not
followed through on using the techniques that were taught, we now know what we're up against. Should
we decide our goose problem is serious enough to warrant this level of intervention, we would consider
some kind of region wide strategy rather than trying to deal with the problem using just the resources at
one facility.
For most people the materials would be very useful. I deal with goose issues on a regular basis so for me
they were not as useful.






Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 55
d) From participating in the workshop(s) have you established new or strengthened
existing partnerships in regards to the issue(s) covered?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 25.0% 6
NO 75.0% 18

Please explain
Knowledge is power.
I know who to call and have made local contacts since the workshop.
Not yet anyway
It has helped to give our partnership with Pace University a greater focus. It has also helped give new
directions for our volunteers
Members of our community have not responded.
We pretty much take care of everything internally
Strengthened
My technical advice I give when I receive a nuisance wildlife call will remain the same. No partnerships
needed.

e) Since the workshop, have you collaborated with any of the people you met there on
programs or planning?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 16.7% 4
NO 83.3% 20

If yes, how?
Most are too far away.
Working closely with our sister park - Roberto Clemente State Park
Co-workers.

f) Have you shared any of the information you gathered at the workshop with your
colleagues, clients, or others?

Answer Options
Response
Percent
Response
Count
YES 96.0% 24
NO 4.0% 1

Please explain
Shared info with Long Island region and local parks.
With members of my staff.
When other people learned of our program and strategies, they inquired about how we started and what
went well, and what didn't.
The information discussed has been shared with the other staff at the park.
I shared the info with Regional staff.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 56
With fellow workers.
I have spoken with other staff about egg oiling.
With my supervisors and a bordering town park to see if they wanted to get involved.
Shared hazing techniques
Share information regarding geese populations and habitats with park patrons
Shared with employees of the park
Staff, public
Newsletter notification
With the staff
I gave a over view of the class to the Town Board

4.11.5 Workshop Outcomes

Participants of the above workshop reported they have taken the following actions as a
result of the information they learned at the workshop:



Taken as an educational workshop, for future design programming
We've contracted with a vendor to remove geese from our premises via border collies.
Contacted local park staff about the issue, Dialogued with other regions about some techniques that are
useful where geese are pulling up newly seeded wetland plants.
We did purchase a kite to scare geese away. Nothing else to date.
Worked with fellow staff to implement methodologies from workshop
Performed training for staff after I attended the workshop.
None
Plan on looking for geese nest
No actions have happened as of yet.
Hoping to enlist the support of residents on Long Pond to participate in egg oiling/goose control this spring.
I intend to implement some of the info to control the geese population
Will advise a greater number of people to oil goose eggs.
We have discussed putting some of the options in use this Spring
Talked with my staff, Decided the program was too labor intensive for us here
Informed our land owners, through our newsletter, about the geese program.
Waiting to hear from Ken Preusser [of USDA Wildlife Services]
Information I learned about geese problems has been conveyed to home owners in our town-home
complex.
Incorporated the information into the public programs at my own site, Incorporated some of the
management strategies at my facility
Worked with fellow staff to implement methodologies from workshop.
Continued with egg addling program
We have purchased hawk kites, goose chase and plan to use laser hazing techniques.
Had a company visit with their border collie to explain their program for deeling with geese. Company
also gave quote.
I have discussed goose egg oiling with our park manager.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 57
5. Discussion and Analysis of Request for Refreshers on Past Training Topics
Overview:
While respondents requested refreshers on a wide-variety of past training topics, there are a
couple of topics that received a high number of mentions. Additional training on invasive plant
species is clearly a topic that respondents are interested in as it received nine mentions in this
open-ended survey question. Another topic that received a high number of mentions is project
design and evaluation, including but not limited to logic model training and rapid needs
assessment.

Please note this survey question was an open-ended format.

REFRESHERS
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
Climate change
Coldwater fisheries and climate change
Effects of climate change & government response
Sea level rise
Fish passage and dams
Fish/migrating species
Natural fishway design
Geese Management
Landscaping that geese find unattractive.
Use of radio controlled vehicles [for geese management]
What not to plant or grow to discourage geese
Invasive Species
Anything regarding invasives.
Invasive aquatic species management
Invasive species
Invasive species
Invasive species in the area and control
Invasive species monitoring & management
Mile-a-Minute
Techniques for eliminating plant invasives as well as identification of said plants
Updated input on controlling of invasive plant species.
Project Design and Evaluation
Logic Model
Logic Model training for MS4 (municipal separate storm sewer system) municipal staff
Needs assessments
Program design
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
More detailed information on impact assessment and functional assessment
SAV restoration and SAV invasive removal
Emergent vegetation restoration
Shoreline
Soft stabilization methods
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 58
Water quality, watersheds and streams
Flood and erosion management
Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Macro invertebrates
Rapid assessment methods
Sediment & erosion control
Stormwater management
Watershed management
Watershed planning
Other
Region-wide deer management
Endangered habitat/species
Habitat conservation
Indiana bat monitoring
Adaptive reuse (land or facilities)
Collaborations & connections of open space & conservation organizations




Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 59
6. Discussion and Analysis of Future Training Topics

The following provides a breakdown of how the top seven participant categories responded to
the three survey questions on future training topics. The charts have been organized to present
the highest rank topics to the lowest. Please note that the ratings are calculated based on:

Very interested = 3 points
Interested = 2 points
Not interested = 1 point.

In this section of the report, only the top 15 requested future training topics are listed for each
participant category. Please refer to Appendix B for full list of training topics and their ratings.

6.1 Education and Outreach Participants

Answer Options
Rating
Average
Response
Count
Reaching various audiences with environmental messages and getting them to change
behavior.
2.71 7
Outreach and education 2.63 8
Creating effective interpretive/education programs 2.63 8
Implementing interpretive signage and exhibits 2.57 7
Funding 2.57 7
Working with volunteers 2.43 7
Native plants 2.43 7
Green landscaping practices 2.29 7
Needs assessments 2.25 8
Using economics in natural resource planning 2.25 8
Project design and evaluation 2.25 8
Basic Ecology of the Hudson Estuary Watershed 2.25 8
Leadership training 2.17 6
Stewardship of natural resources 2.17 6
Valuing Ecosystem Services 2.14 7
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 60
6.2 Engineers, Consultants and Restoration Participants

Answer Options
R
a
t
i
n
g

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

C
o
u
n
t

Habitat friendly shoreline stabilization 2.73 15
Habitat restoration 2.73 15
Stream restoration 2.73 15
Geographic Information System training for environmental planning, restoration, and education 2.67 15
Flood plain management 2.60 15
Project design and evaluation 2.57 14
Impoundments and dams 2.53 15
Stormwater management 2.53 15
Native plants 2.47 15
Stream assessments 2.47 15
Stream protection 2.47 15
Watershed hydrology 2.47 15
Land management plans 2.40 15
Fish passage 2.40 15
Green building practices 2.40 15

6.3 Land Managers

Answer Options
R
a
t
i
n
g

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

C
o
u
n
t

Stewardship of natural resources 2.54 24
Green landscaping practices 2.50 28
Native plants 2.43 28
Nuisance wildlife 2.42 26
Habitat restoration 2.37 27
Biodiversity inventory and protection 2.35 26
Green building practices 2.33 27
Alternative energy usage 2.32 28
Natural resource inventories 2.31 26
Reaching various audiences with environmental messages and getting them to change
behavior.
2.29 28
Land management plans 2.29 28
Terrestrial invasive plants 2.27 26
Implementing interpretive signage and exhibits 2.26 27
Working with friends groups 2.25 28
Funding 2.21 29
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 61
6.4 Municipal Officials

Answer Options
R
a
t
i
n
g

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

C
o
u
n
t

Stream restoration 2.78 9
Using SEQR and land use law to protect biodiversity 2.73 11
Visual impacts 2.71 7
Geographic Information System training for municipal officials and municipal
volunteers
2.67 12
Flood plain management 2.67 9
Riparian buffer ordinances for municipal officials 2.67 9
Riparian corridor protection 2.67 9
Storm water management 2.67 9
Storm water and conservation design Innovative and creative techniques 2.67 9
Low impact development techniques 2.63 8
Biodiversity inventory and protection 2.60 10
Stream assessments 2.60 10
Stream protection 2.60 10
Watershed based water resource protection strategies 2.60 10
Watershed hydrology 2.56 9
6.5 Natural Resource Managers

Answer Options
R
a
t
i
n
g

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

C
o
u
n
t

Habitat restoration 2.60 15
Results of scientific research concerning the Estuary 2.54 13
Geographic Information System training for environmental planning, restoration, and
education
2.53 15
Flood plain management 2.53 15
Habitat friendly shoreline stabilization 2.53 15
Stream restoration 2.53 15
Project design and evaluation 2.50 14
Low impact development techniques 2.50 14
Native plants 2.47 15
Storm water management 2.47 15
Basic ecology of the Hudson Estuary watershed 2.43 14
Valuing ecosystem services 2.43 14
Estuarine ecology 2.36 14
Stream protection 2.36 14
Leadership training 2.33 15
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 62
6.6 Scientists

Answer Options
R
a
t
i
n
g

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

C
o
u
n
t

Results of scientific research concerning the Estuary 2.80 5
Data sources on Hudson River resources 2.60 5
Biodiversity inventory and protection 2.60 5
Fish passage 2.60 5
Impoundments and dams 2.60 5
Ecosystem based management 2.40 5
Natural heritage inventory and Biodiversity in Hudson Valley 2.40 5
Habitat restoration 2.40 5
Stream assessments 2.40 5
Stream protection 2.40 5
Reducing energy use in communities 2.40 5
Alternative energy usage 2.40 5
Estuarine ecology 2.20 5
Basic Ecology of the Hudson Estuary Watershed 2.20 5
Benthic Mapping in the Hudson Estuary 2.20 5

6.7 Watershed Coordinators

Answer Options
R
a
t
i
n
g

A
v
e
r
a
g
e

R
e
s
p
o
n
s
e

C
o
u
n
t

Watershed management plans 3.00 5
Habitat restoration 2.83 6
Riparian buffer ordinances for municipal officials 2.83 6
Riparian buffer protections and management for municipal officials 2.83 6
Riparian corridor protection 2.83 6
Stream restoration 2.83 6
Storm water management 2.83 6
Watershed based water resource protection strategies 2.83 6
Watershed hydrology 2.83 6
Geographic Information System training for environmental planning, restoration, and
education
2.67 6
Results of scientific research concerning the Estuary 2.67 6
Habitat friendly shoreline stabilization 2.67 6
Natural resource inventories 2.67 6
Stream assessments 2.67 6
Stream protection 2.67 6
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 63
6.8 Summary
In order to see the recurring future training topic themes across the seven participant
categories, we looked at the top 15 topics from each participant category and merged those
together to see which topics rose to the top in highest number of participants interested.
Following is the top 15 future training topics from this merged list:

Answer Options
Rating
Average
Response
Count
Habitat restoration 2.6 68
Native plants 2.5 65
Stream protection 2.5 50
Storm water management 2.6 45
Stream restoration 2.7 45
Land management plans 2.3 43
Green building practices 2.4 42
Biodiversity inventory and protection 2.5 41
Flood plain management 2.6 39
Funding 2.4 36
Project design and evaluation 2.4 36
Stream assessments 2.5 36
Geographic Information System training for environmental planning,
restoration, and education 2.6 36
Habitat friendly shoreline stabilization 2.6 36
Green landscaping practices 2.4 35
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 64
7. Discussion and Analysis of Incentives
Summary:
Workshop attendees were asked to rate the factors that would be incentives to attend future
HRNERR Estuary Training Program workshops. The following is a discussion of the responses.
From the chart below and information in the individual workshop responses, following are clear
incentives/indicators for attendees to participate in future workshops:

! On-site, field demonstrations
! Low or no cost for the workshop
! Interactive sessions involving real-life examples/problems
! Collaboration among attendees
! Locality of the workshop. (This could be linked with the potential interest in online workshop
format.)
! Morning programs are rated as the highest incentives, with afternoon sessions next and
evening programs rated very low.
! Respondents do not indicate a preference between full or half day programs.
! Transportation does not rate very high as an incentive.


An extreme incentive = 5
Somewhat of an incentive = 3
Not at all an incentive = 1

Answer Options
Rating
Average
Response
Count
Field demonstration 3.72 95
Low or no cost 3.71 99
Problem solving sessions 3.35 100
A workshop location closer to my job location 3.18 100
Morning program 2.70 94
Full day programs 2.69 91
Half day programs 2.68 94
More networking time 2.66 93
Professional development credits 2.48 97
Afternoon program 2.38 90
On line workshop format 2.26 93
Real time web and telephone conferencing (webinar) 2.20 96
Video conferencing 2.16 92
Car pooling opportunities 2.09 94
Multi-day programs 1.89 91
Pick up at train or bus station 1.57 90
Evening Program 1.45 89
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 65
8. Recommendations and Conclusions

Based on the workshop survey results, the Estuary Training Program of the Hudson River
National Estuarine Research Reserve, is successfully meeting its objective to enhance informed,
science-based decision-making on estuarine issues among those individuals who have influence
over the management of estuary resources. The program also delivers on its objective to
encourage collaboration among workshop attendees. The following are conclusions emerging
from analysis of the survey results and recommendations for future activities.

8.1 Conclusions

Workshop Attendees Take Action
Across all workshops, survey respondents reported that they not only found the information
provided at the training seminars valuable but they also went on to take critical actions
within their organizations as a result of their training. Attendees have gone on to influence
local policy, educate communities, develop their own training efforts and utilize the
information to obtain program grants/funding, to name a few.

While Barriers are Few, There Are Shared Issues with Implementation
Over 75% of responding workshop participants felt there were no barriers to implementing
the information received at the workshops. However, among the remaining respondents
who did face implementation barriers, the lack of time, funds and staff to execute the
programs were repeatedly cited as the primary obstacles. Furthermore, funding rose to top
of future training topics with approximately 40% of survey participants responding they
would be interested in a workshop on funding.

Workshops Stimulate Partnerships and Collaboration
The ETP workshops not only bring organizations together on critical issues for informative
workshops, they result in over 56% of survey respondents engaging in strategic
partnerships with other workshop attendees and 40% of participants collaborating on future
projects.

Discussion Among Attendees Rated as One of the Most Valuable Aspects of
Workshops
Survey participants consistently stated that discussions among workshop attendees were
one of the most helpful parts of the workshops. They found value in hearing others issues
and solutions to similar problems.

Sharing of Information Does Not Stop at Workshop
One of the most significant statistics coming out of this survey is that 87% of survey
participants reported that they go on to share the information presented at the workshop
with colleagues, staff members, volunteers, the community and the list goes on. What this
means to the ETP is their message lives on beyond the workshop and is disseminated to a
much larger audience then the workshop attendees. You can say the ETP creates
message ambassadors out of their workshop attendees.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 66

Resource Materials Consistently Rated High
Attendees consistently rated the resource materials given to them at the workshops as
useful, garnering an overall rating of 3.9 out of 5 (with 1 being not useful).

Land Managers Represent the Majority of Participants
Over 35% of all survey participants are categorized as Land Managers. There are a few
factors that may attribute to this number: The ETP Coordinator consistently works closely
with land managers, which were the subject of an audience needs assessment in 2003 and
identified as a major training audience in the 2004-2007 ETP strategic plan. In addition,
over 44% of the land managers who responded came from the last workshop included in
the survey, executed only a few months before the survey was distributed. Regardless, the
ETP has already set a goal to diversify participants in its 2008-2011 strategic plan.

Interactive, Low Cost Workshops Offer Highest Attendance Incentives
Survey respondents ranked low to no cost workshops that feature on-site, field
demonstrations as the features that would most likely motivate them to participate in a
workshop. Other interactive programming elements such as sessions involving real-life
examples and problems as well as collaboration among attendees were among the top five
workshop incentives.

High Level of Interest in Further Invasive Species, Climate Change, Watersheds and
Project Design and Evaluation Training
Nine respondents specifically cited more information and additional training is needed on
the topic of invasive species. In addition, roughly 21 Land Managers responded as being
interested or very interested in future training on invasive species. Project Design and
Evaluation rose to the top of the list for both refresher and future training topics. This topic
was the second most mentioned refresher training topic and it was ranked among the top
15 future training topics across all participant categories, with 34 individuals responding as
very interested. Also, both climate change and watersheds/water quality themes emerged
as top training topics of interest in both the refresher and future training topics.

Protection, Management and Restoration of Natural Resources Rise to Top of Future
Training Topics
While the list of the future training topics most desired by all survey respondents is diverse,
one overarching theme emerges; attendees are looking for more information on how to
protect, manage and restore our natural resources. From green building practices and
storm water management to habitat restoration and stream protection, workshop
participants are seeking to learn more in all areas of sustainability.

Survey Respondents Looking Beyond Traditional Education to Driving Action
Outside the topics listed above, survey respondents indicated a high level of interest in
training on how to reach various audiences with environmental messages and get them to
change behavior. This topic particularly rated high among land managers as well as
education and outreach participants.
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 67
8.2 Recommendations
The survey reports that the ETP is a well managed and presented program that is meeting
its primary objectives. The following recommendations focus on two areas: potential future
survey topics and the process of collecting more useful and timely data to better analyze
the individual workshops.

Consider Workshop on Process and Execution
As noted in the conclusions, workshop attendees feel there are very few barriers to
executing the information presented with the exception of how to get things done from an
process prospective: time, funds and staffing. This opens an opportunity for the ETP to go
back to this community, show they listened to their input in the survey and offer a workshop
that specifically targets these barriers.

Further Promote Collaboration through Online Community
While the workshops themselves are resulting in collaboration among almost half of the
survey respondents, the ETP should consider a forum for continuing the discussions and
interaction among attendees beyond the event itself. Survey participants reported that the
discussions among attendees were one of the most valuable elements of these workshops.
It is worth looking into the value and mechanism of providing an online networking resource
for ETP workshop attendees. Note: could add this as a question to your workshop surveys
to determine interest.

Share Next Steps with Survey Respondents
Besides sharing this report with Reserve partners and funders, it is recommended that the
ETP communicate the results of this survey with respondents as well as share the actions
the ETP will take as a direct result of the report conclusions. This action would show the
value of attendee input and encourage participants to respond to survey requests in the
future.

Provide Incentive for Participating in Survey
To increase your number of survey participants, consider providing an incentive for filling
out the survey. An idea for the incentive would be to provide access to electronic resource
files for those who fill out the survey. Current survey participants noted that it would be
useful to have the resource materials available electronically after the event. This could
also be linked to the online community, if executed.

Analyze Workshop Program Annually
While workshop participants are asked to complete an evaluation immediately following the
workshop, it is important to look for recurring themes regarding the entire ETP training
program. This can be completed by compiling results from individual surveys annually to
look for trends in attendee responses.

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 68
9. APPENDIX A

A) Organization, Business or Institution Affiliation of Participants of Workshops who
Responded to Survey

Abbreviations
NYSDEC: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
CCE: Cornell Cooperative Extension
NYS DOS: New York State Department of State
NYSDOT: New York State Department of Transportation
NYS-DAM: New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
NYS OPRHP: New York State Office of Parks Recreation and Historic Preservation


i) Workshops:
Managing Visitor Use, April 6, 2005
Managing Visitor Use: Selecting Useful Indicators, January 13, 2006
Horses, Hikers, Habitats and Hounds; Managing Land for Multiple Recreational Uses, in cooperation with
The Nature Conservancy, April 15, 2007

Following is the breakdown of participants of these workshops by organization, business or institution:

Bedford Dog Owners Group
Creative Habitat Corp.
Greenburgh Nature Center
Maryknoll Sisters Environment Office
Maryknoll Sisters Environment Office
Mohonk Preserve, Research
National Park Service, Roosevelt-Vanderbilt NHS
NYS OPRHP two participants
NYS OPRHP Rockefeller State Park Preserve
NYS OPRHP: Albany Planning Bureau
NYS OPRHP: Harriman Group Camps
NYS OPRHP-Fahnestock State Park
NYS OPRHP-Fahnestock/Hudson Highlands State Park
NYSDEC
NYSDEC - Hudson River Estuary Program
Oblong Trail Association
Taconic State Park
Teatown Lake Reservation
The Nature Conservancy
Town of Clarkstown Deputy Town Attorney (at the time)
Town of Clarkstown Parks Board & Recreation Comm.
Westchester County Parks- Conservation-Ward Pound Ridge Reservation
Westchester Track Club and Rockefeller State Park (volunteer)

ii) Workshops:
Invasive Plant Species for Park Staff in Cooperation with NYS Parks, May 11, 2005
Invasive Plant Species for Palisades Interstate Park Commission Staff with PIPC and NYS Parks,
June 6, 2006
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 69

Following is the breakdown of participants of these workshops by organization, business or institution:

NYS OPRHP
NYS OPRHP
NYS OPRHP
NYS OPRHP Bear Mountain State Park
NYS OPRHP Fahnestock State Park
NYS OPRHP Fahnestock/Hudson Highlands State Park
NYS OPRHP Fort Montgomery historic site
NYS OPRHP John Jay Homestead
NYS OPRHP Lake Taghkanic State Park
NYS OPRHP Mine Kill State Park
NYS OPRHP Moreau Lake State Park
NYS OPRHP Newtown Battlefield State Park
NYS OPRHP Palisades Region
NYS OPRHP Rockefeller State Park Preserve
NYS OPRHP Saratoga spa State Park
NYS OPRHP Sterling Forest/ Schunnemunk Mtn. state parks
NYSDEC - Hudson River Estuary Program [Currently]
Palisades Interstate Park Commission
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry [currently]
Taconic State Park

iii) Workshop:
Watershed Assessment and Planning with NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program, June 21, 2005

Following is the breakdown of participants of this workshop by organization, business or institution:

Albany County
Cornell Cooperative Extension Of Greene County
Individual
Moodna Watershed Coalition - retired volunteer
NYSDEC
Orange County planning Dept
Town of Poughkeepsie Zoning Department
Volunteer

iv) Workshop:
Mile-a-Minute: Push Back the Invasion, September 27, 2005

Following is the breakdown of participants of this workshop by organization, business or institution:

Cornell Cooperative Extension of Rockland County
Creative Habitat Corp.
Individual
Mad Gardeners, Inc.
New York City Dept of Environmental Protection
NYS-DAM Division of Plant Industry, CAPS Program
NYSDEC
NYSDEC - Hudson River Estuary Program
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 70
The Nature Conservancy
Volunteer - Red Hook Conservation Advisory Council
Volunteer CCE Dutchess County

v) Workshop:
Hudson River Estuary Shorelines: Soft Engineering Solutions to Shoreline Stabilization, March 23, 2006

Following is the breakdown of participants of this workshop by organization, business or institution:

Clough Harbour & Associates LLP
Dewkett Engineering
Greene County Soil and Water Conservation District
Kaaterskill Associates
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Habitat Conservation
NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Habitat Conservation
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC: Division of Permits, Region 4
NYSDOS, Division of Coastal Resources
Ocean and Coastal Consultants (engineering firm)

vi) Workshop:
Ecology and Spatial Dynamics of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in the Hudson Estuary, September 27,
October 26 or December 1, 2006

Following is the breakdown of participants of this workshop by organization, business or institution:

New York Sea Grant
NY Natural Heritage Program
NYSDEC Bureau of Habitat
NYSDEC Hudson River Fish - New Paltz
NYSDEC:BMR-SWG Program
US Army Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers - Regulatory Branch
US Army Corps of Engineers, New York District


vii) Workshop:
Municipal Leaders Summit on Global Warming for a Sustainable Hudson Valley, in cooperation with
Sustainable Hudson Valley and NYSDEC Hudson River Estuary Program, August 24, 2007

Following is the breakdown of participants of this workshop by organization, business or institution:

Alliance For Human Dignity
City of Hudson
City of Kingston Parks and Recreation
City of Yonkers, Office of City Council President Chuck Lesnick
Cornell Cooperative Extension Of Greene County
Cornell University: Dept. of Natural Resources for NYS DEC: Hudson River Estuary Program
Hastings-on-Hudson - Village
Hudson Valley Regional Council
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 71
Individual
NYSDOS, Division of Coastal Resources
NYSERDA (NYS Energy Research and Development Authority)
Riverkeeper
Sierra Club
Sustainable Hudson Valley
Town of New Castle
Town of Orangetown
Town of Woodstock Environmental Commission
Ulster County Department of the Environment

viii) Workshop:
Restoring Migratory Fish Habitat: Mitigating Dams in Tributaries of the Hudson River Estuary, September
12, 2007

Following is the breakdown of participants of these workshops by organization, business or institution:

Albany Engineering Corporation
Bard College
Cornell Coooperative Extension of Dutchess County
Cornell University: Dept. of Natural Resources for NYS DEC: Hudson River Estuary Program
HDR Architecture and Engineering
HDR Architecture and Engineering
Hudson River Watershed Alliance
Moodna Watershed Coalition - retired volunteer
New York City Department of Parks & Recreation
NYSDEC
NYSDEC
NYSDEC - Hudson River Estuary Program
NYSDEC, Division of Water
NYSDEC: Division of Permits, Region 4
NYSDEC: Office of General Counsel
NYSDEC: Bureau of Marine Resources-State Wildlife Grant Program
NYSDOT - Region One, Schenectady, NY
NYSDOT Environmental Science Bureau
NYSDOT: Region 8 Poughkeepsie
Orange County Land Trust
Private owner of one half of an old dam
Ulster County Federated Sportsmen's Clubs
US Fish and Wildlife Service -Coastal Program
Vassar College
Volunteer

ix) Workshop:
Social Science in support of Watershed Management, September 26, 2007

Following is the breakdown of participants of this workshop by organization, business or institution:

Cornell University: Dept. of Natural Resources for NYS DEC: Hudson River Estuary Program
Cornell University: Dept. of Natural Resources for NYS DEC: Hudson River Estuary Program
Hudson River Watershed Alliance
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 72
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
New York Sea Grant
NYS DOS, Division of Coastal Resources
NYSDEC - Hudson River Estuary Program
NYSDOS, Division of Coastal Resources
Orange County Land Trust
Rockland County Drainage Agency
SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry
The Nature Conservancy
Vassar College
Vassar College
Volunteer
Westchester County Department of Planning

x) Workshop:
Project Design and Evaluation, October 30, 2007

Following is the breakdown of participants of these workshops by organization, business or institution:

Albany County Stormwater Coordinator - [Currently]
Alliance For Human Dignity
Cornell Cooperative Extension
NYSDEC - Hudson River Estuary Program
NYSDEC Division of Fish, Wildlife, and Marine Resources
NYSDEC Region 3 - Solid Waste
NYSDEC: Office of General Counsel
Teatown Lake Reservation
Ulster County Department of the Environment
Westchester County Parks- Conservation-Ward Pound Ridge Reservation


xi) Workshop:
Resolving Canada Geese Conflicts, November 15 and 16, 2007

Following is the breakdown of participants of this workshop by organization, business or institution:

Columbia County Health Department
Continental Village Park District
Middletown, Enlarged City School District of
NYS OPRHP
NYS OPRHP - Design and Construction
NYS OPRHP- Peebles Island State Park
NYS OPRHP Rockefeller State Park Preserve
NYS OPRHP Schoharie Crossing State Historic Site
NYS OPRHP: Bear Mt State Park
NYS OPRHP: Clay Pit Ponds, Empire-Fulton Ferry
NYS OPRHP: Mine Kill State Park
NYS OPRHP: Mine Kill State Park
NYS OPRHP: Riverbank State Park
NYS OPRHP: Riverbank State Park
NYS OPRHP-Fahnestock State Park
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 73
NYS OPRHP-Fahnestock/Hudson Highlands State Park
NYSDEC
NYSDEC - Hudson River Estuary Program
NYSDEC: Region 4 Wildlife Unit (I cover Rensselaer + Columbia Counties)
NYSDOT - Region 9
Omega Institute for Holistic Studies
Palisades Interstate Park Commission
Private estate
Town of Newburgh Parks & Rec
Westchester Community College
Winnakee Land Trust
Yorktown Central School District

Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 74
10. APPENDIX B

A) Breakdown of Interest in Training Topics by Seven Designated Survey Participant
Categories

Please note that the ratings are calculated based on:

Very interested = 3 points
Interested = 2 points
Not interested = 1 point.


Answer Options
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s

a
n
d

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

L
a
n
d

M
a
n
a
g
e
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s

W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s

Alternative energy usage 2.00 2.27 2.32 2.20 2.20 2.40 2.00
Aquatic invasive plants 1.67 2.33 2.19 2.33 2.27 2.00 2.00
Basic Ecology of the Hudson Estuary
Watershed
2.25 2.29 2.00 2.45 2.43 2.20 2.17
Benthic Mapping in the Hudson Estuary 1.29 1.87 1.62 2.13 2.14 2.20 2.17
Better site design 1.83 2.40 2.00 2.50 2.21 1.80 2.50
Biodiversity inventory and protection 2.00 2.27 2.35 2.60 2.14 2.60 1.83
Climate change basics 2.00 1.53 2.00 2.10 2.00 1.60 1.83
Coastal laws and regulations 1.57 2.21 1.65 1.90 2.14 1.80 2.17
Collaboration 1.86 1.67 1.90 1.88 2.13 1.80 1.67
Communicating climate change adaptations 2.14 1.60 1.92 2.00 2.27 2.20 2.00
Communicating climate change general 2.13 1.53 1.92 2.11 2.00 2.20 1.83
Communicating climate change mitigation 2.14 1.60 1.92 2.10 2.20 2.00 2.00
Communications skills for land use planners 1.83 1.60 1.78 2.00 2.14 2.00 1.80
Community based social marketing 2.13 1.47 1.67 2.00 1.79 1.00 1.83
Conflict resolution 1.83 1.54 1.93 2.00 2.00 1.80 1.50
Consensus building 2.13 1.64 1.75 1.89 2.07 2.00 1.67
Creating effective interpretive/education
programs
2.63 1.62 2.14 2.29 1.71 1.60 2.17
Data sources on Hudson River resources 1.71 2.07 1.73 2.11 2.29 2.60 2.33
Dealing with change in recreational user
types
1.83 1.80 2.04 2.11 1.71 1.60 1.83
Demographic analyses 1.83 1.43 1.56 1.75 1.60 1.60 1.83
Docks, piers and boat launches 1.14 2.33 1.81 2.00 2.07 2.00 1.67
Ecosystem based management 2.00 2.33 2.19 2.33 2.21 2.40 2.17
Estuarine ecology 1.83 2.00 1.96 2.38 2.36 2.20 2.50
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 75
Answer Options
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s

a
n
d

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

L
a
n
d

M
a
n
a
g
e
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s

W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s

Facilitation of meetings 2.00 1.43 1.62 1.71 2.20 1.80 1.67
Fish passage 1.17 2.40 1.79 2.13 2.33 2.60 2.17
Flood plain management 2.00 2.60 1.81 2.67 2.53 2.00 2.60
Focus groups 1.86 1.47 1.48 1.83 1.43 1.60 1.20
Funding 2.57 1.57 2.21 2.11 2.07 2.00 2.17
Geographic Information System training for
environmental planning, restoration, and
education
2.00 2.67 2.19 2.42 2.53 2.00 2.67
Geographic Information System training for
municipal officials and municipal volunteers
1.86 2.00 1.60 2.67 1.64 1.20 2.00
Grant writing 1.80 1.86 2.18 2.00 1.79 1.40 1.83
Grasslands stewardship 1.67 2.07 1.88 2.25 1.86 1.80 2.17
Green building practices 2.14 2.40 2.33 2.25 1.86 2.20 2.50
Green landscaping practices 2.29 2.33 2.50 2.38 2.14 2.00 2.33
Habitat friendly shoreline stabilization 1.83 2.73 2.00 2.50 2.53 2.00 2.67
Habitat restoration 2.14 2.73 2.37 2.25 2.60 2.40 2.83
Hudson Estuary basics and its importance 2.13 2.07 1.89 2.30 2.20 2.00 1.83
Hudson River Estuary Action Agenda 1.57 1.80 1.74 2.22 2.00 2.00 1.50
Human community characteristics
monitored for trends over time
1.83 1.29 1.62 1.86 1.50 1.80 1.83
Implementing interpretive signage and
exhibits
2.57 1.85 2.26 1.88 1.79 1.60 1.67
Impoundments and dams 1.33 2.53 1.96 2.29 2.31 2.60 2.40
Joint fact finding 1.57 1.62 1.74 1.88 1.93 1.50 1.60
Land management plans 2.00 2.40 2.29 2.33 2.20 2.20 2.17
Land use mapping 1.71 2.20 2.00 2.38 1.79 2.00 2.33
Land use policy 1.67 2.07 1.96 2.38 2.00 2.00 2.17
Leadership training 2.17 1.79 1.93 1.71 2.33 1.80 1.67
Leave no trace 1.60 1.60 2.17 2.11 1.79 1.60 1.83
Logic models 2.00 1.69 1.63 1.75 1.64 1.20 1.67
Low impact development techniques 1.83 2.40 1.91 2.63 2.50 2.00 2.33
Municipal code review 1.33 1.67 1.43 2.25 1.50 1.80 1.83
Native plants 2.43 2.47 2.43 2.30 2.47 2.00 2.50
Natural heritage inventory and Biodiversity
in Hudson Valley
2.14 2.27 2.11 2.40 2.27 2.40 2.17
Natural resource inventories 2.00 2.33 2.31 2.14 2.21 2.20 2.67
Needs assessments 2.25 1.64 1.80 2.25 1.71 1.60 2.00
NEMO Non-point source education for
municipal officials
1.71 2.00 1.41 2.29 1.64 1.60 1.83
Nuisance wildlife 2.00 1.93 2.42 2.11 1.86 2.00 1.83
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 76
Answer Options
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s

a
n
d

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

L
a
n
d

M
a
n
a
g
e
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s

W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s

NYS Stormwater Design Manual 1.50 2.20 1.73 2.38 2.00 1.80 2.17
Outreach and education 2.63 1.79 2.15 2.50 2.07 1.80 1.83
Project design and evaluation 2.25 2.57 1.96 2.22 2.50 1.80 2.17
Quadricential Celebration: How to
participate
1.71 1.40 1.85 1.86 1.64 1.40 1.67
Reaching various audiences with
environmental messages and getting them
to change behavior.
2.71 2.13 2.29 2.27 2.29 1.75 2.50
Reducing energy use in communities 1.83 2.00 2.18 2.20 1.79 2.40 2.33
Results of scientific research concerning the
Estuary
2.00 2.13 1.92 2.33 2.54 2.80 2.67
Riparian buffer ordinances for municipal
officials
1.71 2.07 1.57 2.67 1.79 1.80 2.83
Riparian buffer protections and
management for municipal officials
1.71 2.07 1.57 2.50 1.85 1.80 2.83
Riparian corridor protection 2.00 2.33 1.91 2.67 2.21 1.80 2.83
Shoreline flooding mitigation techniques for
municipal officials
1.86 2.13 1.44 2.13 2.07 2.00 2.67
Social marketing 2.13 1.43 1.67 2.00 1.64 1.00 1.67
Spatially explicit examination of human
community structure and function
1.67 1.36 1.48 1.57 1.57 1.20 1.67
Stewardship of natural resources 2.17 2.20 2.54 2.33 2.33 2.20 2.17
Stormwater and conservation design
Innovative and creative techniques
1.67 2.27 1.84 2.67 2.27 2.00 2.67
Stormwater management 2.00 2.53 1.89 2.67 2.47 2.00 2.83
Stormwater management and better site
design for town officials; how to incorporate
into development plans
1.57 2.27 1.75 2.50 2.07 1.80 2.50
Stream assessments 1.86 2.47 2.21 2.60 2.20 2.40 2.67
Stream protection 1.86 2.47 2.17 2.60 2.36 2.40 2.67
Stream restoration 1.86 2.73 2.15 2.78 2.53 2.20 2.83
Survey methods 1.86 1.75 1.79 1.75 1.86 1.40 2.17
Terrestrial invasive plants 2.00 2.36 2.27 2.33 2.07 2.20 2.00
Trail maintenance 1.60 1.73 2.19 2.00 1.50 1.40 1.83
Using economics in natural resource
planning
2.25 2.27 1.85 2.00 2.08 1.80 2.50
Using SEQR and land use law to protect
biodiversity
1.88 2.27 2.04 2.73 2.07 2.00 2.33
Valuing Ecosystem Services 2.14 2.20 2.04 2.18 2.43 2.00 2.00
Visual impacts 1.33 2.20 2.15 2.71 2.13 1.40 1.67
Water quality monitoring 1.67 2.13 1.76 2.25 2.07 2.00 2.33
Prepared by McCord Consulting September 2008 77
Answer Options
E
d
u
c
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

O
u
t
r
e
a
c
h

E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,

C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s

a
n
d

R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

L
a
n
d

M
a
n
a
g
e
r

M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l

O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s

N
a
t
u
r
a
l

R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e

M
a
n
a
g
e
r
s

S
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
t
s

W
a
t
e
r
s
h
e
d

C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
s

Water use plans 1.71 1.93 1.59 2.14 1.80 1.50 1.83
Watershed based water resource protection
strategies
2.00 2.33 1.82 2.60 2.20 1.80 2.83
Watershed hydrology 2.13 2.47 1.91 2.56 2.33 2.20 2.83
Watershed management plans 1.71 2.33 1.77 2.50 2.27 2.00 3.00
Working with friends groups 2.00 1.38 2.25 1.86 1.79 1.40 2.00
Working with volunteers 2.43 1.43 2.10 2.11 2.00 1.40 2.00

Você também pode gostar