by the

Committee Membership

George Kelley, Ph.D. – Chairman
President, NYSFOLA

Rebecca Schneider, Ph.D. - Co-chair
Dept. of Natural Resources
Cornell University, Ithaca NY

Lyle Raymond
Local Government Program
Cornell University, Ithaca NY

Nancy Mueller Manager, NYSFOLA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The NYSFOLA Oversight Committee for the Pilot Watershed Management Program acknowledges the long-term commitment and assistance of the members listed on the title page. We also acknowledge the efforts of the Lake Leaders and lake community members involved in developing the individual Watershed Management Plans. The Committee particularly wants to thank those individuals who took the time to complete the rather lengthy survey that became the basis for this report, and Lyle Raymond for his work in developing the survey and analyzing the results. Thanks also are extended to Nancy Craft for her editorial efforts and for assisting this committee through the multiple revisions of the report.

The Committee also acknowledges with thanks the various agencies involved in the extended funding of this Pilot Project and the work of the several lakes involved. These agencies include:

1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

3. Lake Champlain-Lake George Regional Planning Board

4. Cayuga County Water Management Agency

5. Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 PROGRAM OVERVIEW 6 Why the Focus on Watershed Management? 6 What is the Pilot Watershed Management program? 6 The Model 6 NYSFOLA Goals 7 Role of the Oversight Committee 7 Profile of the Pilot Lakes 7 Final Status of the Program 8 Profile of Survey Respondents 9 LESSONS FOR BULDING A SUCCESSFUL WATERSHED PROGRAM 10 The Organizational Framework 10 The real goal is to build a sense of community in the watershed 10 It takes 3 to 6 years to build a watershed program 10 The NYSDEC Model is useful as catalyst and organizing framework 11 The pivotal role is that of the Project leader 11 A committed core team depends on citizen participation 12 The Scientist role provides critical support 12 Successful Communication with Stakeholders 13 Public Opinion Surveys 13 Public Meetings 14 Newsletters and Information Flyers 14 Mailing Lists, News Media, Web Sites, Exhibits 14

Involvement of Outside Organizations 14 Linkages 14 Town Involvement 15 Agency Involvement 15 Institutional Involvement 16 Challenges and Problems 16 Weaknesses of the NYSDEC Model 16 The Mentor Role 17 Timelines 17 Problems 17 Limited Funds 17 The Role of NYSFOLA 18 Provide an Information Clearinghouse 18 Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) 18 Future Lake Planning Projects 18 SAMPLE CASE STUDY 19 APPENDIX A: Oversight Committee Participant Survey Form 20-20S APPENDIX B: Pilot Project Results State of the Lake Reports and Watershed Management Plans 21 APPENDIX C: Guidelines for Grant Writing 22 APPENDIX D: Sample Watershed Planning Tools and Sources 29 Organizations 29 Watershed Management Planning Tools 30 Grant Writing Tools 30 Survey Writing Tools 31 Local Educational Institutions 31 Miscellaneous Titles 31 Sampling of “Lake Books” 32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

There has been a rebirth in the last ten years of using “watersheds” as the basis for making environmental management decisions with stronger local public involvement. In 1996 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) began testing a program model that would allow watershed management programs to be developed quickly with limited funds using New York State Federation of Lake Associations (NYSFOLA) lake associations as the core organizing groups.

Four lakes ultimately became NYSFOLA cooperative test projects with NYSDEC funding. Two other lakes received separate NYSDEC and/or other agency funding and independently used the NYSDEC program model.

Even allowing for the differing sizes of the lakes and for the differing kinds of lake and town interaction, the NYSFOLA Oversight Committee is reporting relatively good success for the Pilot Program. The initial two-year management plan development program was extended to five years. Five of the six lakes have State of the Lake Reports completed. Three have Management Plans in place and two more Plans are imminent. A final survey from the Committee identified several issues critical to success as well as several challenges and problems in the projects.

The NYSFOLA Pilot Watershed Management Program Oversight Committee has realized that “completing the State of the Lake Report and Watershed Management Plan” is not the only and final goal. Instead, an equally important outcome is the dialogue created among all the watershed stakeholders. Other critical elements include the importance of a strong leader and active interaction with agencies and town governments. A key weakness in the original model was the failure to provide for follow-up at the end of the pilot study. Watershed members need to feel that their efforts will lead to successfully addressing at least one of the problems identified in their Watershed Management Plan. To get to this step, they need to get grants and government support. However, many of the Lake Associations do not know how to use their Watershed Management Plan as the basis for applying for grants. They are naturally turning to NYSFOLA and to NYSDEC to help them in this next step. We do not have any current mechanism to assist them other than materials such as the source lists in Appendices C and D. One recommendation to set up an Information Clearinghouse with NYSFOLA and the NYSFOLA Scientific Advisory Board (SAB) is an attempt to remedy this deficiency.

Why the Focus on “Watershed Management”?

There has been a shift in the last ten years from using towns, counties, or other political units to using “watersheds” as the basis for making environmental management decisions and particularly for addressing local water quality issues. State and federal funding is increasingly being allocated to those regions that have developed watershed management plans outlining the needs and goals for the target watershed. The development of watershed programs, however, is unequal across the state. In 1993 Lee Neville reported in New York State Collaborative Watershed Management Survey (MPS thesis, Cornell) that there were approximately 65 watershed programs around New York State, but the size and resources of these programs varied considerably. New York State’s Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) recognized the need for increasing the development of watershed programs statewide.

What is the Pilot Watershed Management Program?

In 1996, NYSDEC decided to test the feasibility of using a program model that would allow watershed management programs to be initiated and developed fairly quickly using a limited amount of resources. Part of NYSDEC’s model was the use of New York State Federation of Lake Associations (NYSFOLA) individual associations as core organizing groups to develop the Pilot Watershed Management Plan projects. NYSFOLA had already demonstrated a successful long-term collaboration with NYSDEC through the Citizen’s Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) that has provided volunteer monitoring on selected New York lakes for more than ten years. The two agencies also collaborated in 1990 to publish Diet for a Small Lake: A New Yorker’s Guide to Lake Management. In 1996, NYSFOLA agreed to carry out a pilot project to test the NYSDEC model for development of watershed management plans.

The Model

The NYSDEC model included three components:

1. A Lake Association and its members, acting within a selected watershed, as the core group to lead the development of the watershed program.

2. A core team, consisting of a Lake Manager, a Scientist, and a Mentor providing leadership for the lake association volunteers.

3. NYSDEC providing $8,000 - $10,000 per lake as an operating budget.

The team was to identify and work with relevant groups or persons in the watershed with inherent interest in protecting water resources. These were the stakeholders in the watershed who would work together to develop two specific products.

The stated goal for each Lake Association-based Watershed Management Plan project was to complete a “State of the Lake Report” by the end of Year 1. This Report was to summarize the health of the lake and its associated watershed, and identify problems that needed to be addressed. Lakes in the Citizen’s Statewide Lake Assessment Program (CSLAP) were selected because they already had several years of water testing data. The second product was a “Watershed Management Plan” to be produced by the end of Year 2 which outlined actions needed to remedy each problem identified.

NYSFOLA Goals

NYSFOLA had several reasons for participating in this cooperative effort. In the short term, it was hoped that the participating Lake Associations would each produce a Watershed Management Plan that would outline activities needed to maintain or improve the health of their lake and the people’s enjoyment of the lake. It was also hoped that having an actual written Plan, complete with current statistical data, would provide leverage with which to access sources of government funding to tackle such problems identified in the Plan. Over the longer term, it was hoped that the Pilot Program, if successful, would provide a template strategy. The template would serve as an incentive to action and as a useful tool for other lake associations to build similar watershed management plans.

Role of the Oversight Committee

The NYSFOLA Watershed Program Oversight Committee was set up to provide oversight to the project and to ensure that the interests of the participating lakes were being addressed. Given the pilot nature of the project, it was not known what problems might arise. Since volunteers, frequently non-professionals, were conducting most of the effort, NYSFOLA felt it particularly important that these people feel supported by the Association that had involved them in the work.

Profile of the Pilot Lakes

Seven Lake Associations were initially chosen to test the model. They were dispersed throughout New York State and ranged in size from the small 150-acre Findley Lake in the southwest corner to the 6863.5-acre Owasco Lake in the Finger Lakes region. There were also differences in the degree of agency involvement in each project.

One lake dropped out almost immediately because the relationships between the Lake Association and the town governments were considered too strained for a successful collaboration to occur. Of the remaining six lakes, four ultimately became NYSFOLA cooperative test projects with NYSDEC funding – Findley, Chateaugay, Oscawana, and Queechy. The other two lakes received separate NYSDEC funding. They are included in this assessment since they were independently using the same NYSDEC model. Funding for Cossayuna Lake went through the Lake Champlain-Lake George Regional Planning Board. The manager was an appointed, agency-related person. Owasco Lake received separate funding through the Cayuga County Water Management Agency and also worked with agency appointees. The remaining lakes were funded through the Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board (CNYRPDB)

Only four of the six watersheds were completely encompassed within just one county – Findley, Cossayuna, Oscawana, and Queechy. The largest watershed, Owasco Lake, extends into three counties. The next largest watershed, Chateaugay Lake, extends into two counties.

Three of the six lakes reported that 75 – 100 percent of the shoreline was developed. Two lakes reported less than 50 percent development. Public ownership was less than 10 percent on most of the lakes. Two lakes reported no public ownership. Three lakes reported that up to 25 percent of their shoreline was owned by organizations such as clubs, youth camps, and educational institutions. All reported at least some such ownership. There was zero to less than 10 percent shoreline ownership by non-governmental groups such as land trusts or the Nature Conservancy.

The age of the six Lake Associations in the project ranged from 16 to 83 years. Lake level control and aquatic weeds were cited as the principal concerns since the formation of the Association.

Estimated Lake Association membership ranged from 93 to 300. However, in only two of the lakes was association membership reported to include as much as 75% of the lakeshore property owners. Two reported that less than 50 percent of the lakeshore owners belonged to the Lake Association.

The principle reason the respondents gave, described in several ways and with a variety of terms, for participating in this pilot program was to produce a Watershed Management Plan. A second and/or alternative reason given was to be able to reap the benefits of having the data collected and a Management Plan in place.

Final Status of the Program

The Watershed Program Oversight Committee can report relatively good success five years after the start of the experimental program. Five of the six lakes have State of the Lake Reports completed. Three have Watershed Management Plans in place. Management Plans for two more lakes are imminent. The sixth lake is still a work in progress, but they report pending completion of many projects. None of the lakes were able to meet the original, probably unrealistic two-year timeline for completion of both the State of the Lake Report and the Watershed Management Plan.

To assess the Pilot Program accomplishments and problems, a written survey was sent to members of the core group committees. The importance of justifying their conclusions was stressed and follow-up calls were made where necessary. There were 12 written respondents. The findings from their survey responses are summarized in the remainder of this document.

One question on the Survey was “Where will your Lake Association go from here?” Survey respondents indicated that this was a weak link. Qualifying terms used in responding to this question included: “Hopefully” to get plan implemented on a “timely basis”; “Hope” to become a major force in seeing plan updated annually; “Working to agree on the exact strategy that we will implement with the towns”; or “Get it adopted by the town.”

Other respondents were not so hopeful. One suggested they would just “continue our monitoring practices” -i.e., apparently not much change in what they were doing before they developed the Management Plan. Another simply said “unknown”; and one pessimist postulated that the management plans “will probably smolder along for a few years and then die out”.

The key issue now appears to be implementation. Many associations were unclear about how to parlay their Watershed Management Plan into the next step of locating and accessing funding. Appendices C and D include suggestions for the next step.

The Oversight Committee has recognized the importance of getting grant money and taking the Watershed Management Plans forward. The Plan is too often seen as endpoint in itself instead of as a major step in a long-term process. The Plan is useful only if it is an active tool to improve the quality of water and life in the whole watershed.

Profile of Survey Respondents

Over half of the respondents were long-term residents of their watersheds. Seven of the 12 respondents were property owners in the watershed; four of them owned property on the lakeshore and had lived there from 10 to 42 years. None of the respondents were engaged in a business enterprise in the watershed, although one had previously done so. The survey respondents were current or former professionally employed people, including two project managers who responded that they were employed by NYSDEC. They included a planner, engineers, a CPA, a teacher, college professor, dentist, insurance person, and a marketing manager. All had played roles in their watershed projects, such as chairing committees or providing professional assistance. Most had previously engaged in activities to preserve their lake and its watershed such as water sampling, nonpoint source projects, and serving on task forces as well as holding office within their Lake Association.

LESSONS FOR BUILDING A SUCCESSFUL PROGRAM

This Pilot Program has accomplished its primary purpose by highlighting those issues critical for the successful development of a Watershed Management program, including actual implementation. These issues have been listed below as a series of lessons or suggestions for future groups to follow.

The Organizational Framework

SAMPLE CASE STUDY

Findley Lake has been a success story from the onset of the Pilot Project, and the leadership team discovered and directly addressed many of the factors listed in this report. They chose to create separate committees for recreational, developmental and environmental concerns. This helped partition the workload and to focus individual efforts. They also worked with Cornell Cooperative Extension to conduct a Home-A-Syst program to raise environmental consciousness among stakeholders. They held frequent meetings and always featured a speaker or some other activity that served as a “hook” to draw people in and keep them interested. The Findley Lake experience, in particular, identified some major pitfalls to avoid. These included the mistake of overloading of volunteers which caused many to drop out; the importance of focusing on small steps instead of long-term, grandiose plans; and the mistake of not allowing sufficient time for participating stakeholders to digest and understand the information presented.

APPENDIX A

PILOT WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

PARTICIPANTS SURVEY FORM

The following pages, 20A-20S, contain a copy of the survey instrument the Committee used with participating lake leaders. In order to preserve anonymity, specific answers to specific questions are not included. Summary answers are in the report above.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

NEW YORK STATE FEDERATION OF LAKE ASSOCIATIONS
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

The attached Guidelines for Grant Writing manual is a work in progress. Lake Associations should periodically check the NYSFOLA web page, listed below, to see updates added by this committee or others.

This publication represents ideas and thoughts from many sources. The committee particularly thanks Kathleen McLaughlin for her research from the librarian’s perspective, and the many lake association members who shared ideas with us at meetings. An additional resource is: Principles of Grantsmanship: A manual on Organizing a Competitive Grant Proposal, by David MacKenzie and J. Scott Angle. It is available from the University of Maryland, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, College Park MD 20742.

If you have ideas, or have had success with other suggestions, please send them to us for inclusion in later

Revised July 17, 2000

NEW YORK STATE FEDERATION OF LAKE ASSOCIATONS

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLANNING
OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

GUIDELINES FOR GRANT WRITING
OR
HOW TO GET MONEY TO SOLVE LAKE PROBLEMS
DON’T THINK SMALL - THINK CREATIVELY!

One of the main questions for many lake associations is how to get funding in order to correct a lake-related problem. The good news is the existence of a diversity of state, federal and private agencies willing to fund environmentally related projects. The problems arise in knowing where and how to obtain funding and having the determination and patience to access it. This guide provides a brief, step-by-step approach to finding funds and some useful tips for getting started on the process. It has been compiled from the experience of numerous people involved in different forms of grantsmanship.

CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM OR ISSUE THAT NEEDS FUNDING.

Problem identification may arise during the development of a watershed management plan for your lake. Alternatively, it may result from an immediate crisis facing the lake.

STRATEGIZE THE BEST SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM.

It is important to place the issue in a fundable context. Focus on individual projects rather than just stating, “we need money to save the lake”. Small projects are more easily funded. Alternatively, consider coordinating with other members of the watershed (e.g. DEC, Soil & Water, etc.) to see if your project can fit into a larger area activity.

Use creative thinking about potential solutions. How can solving your problem be useful or “valuable” to other parties or areas? Brainstorm ideas. For example, erosion and sedimentation may be causing water quality problems in a headwater lake, but you should also consider the outflow of the lake and its destination. Lake association members could try to partner with downstream towns concerned about quality of their drinking water or flood control problems. The combined group may be able to access state water quality funds or federal flood control funds. Another example is farm runoff into the lake. Farmers may also be concerned about waste storage problems. Combining forces may provide easier access to state or federal pollution control funding.

PARTNER WITH APPROPRIATE GROUPS OR AGENCIES

Grantors often want their funds to be shared with additional entities for more benefits. If you feel your lake may be perceived as too small consider joining with one or two other lakes within your township. Consider partnering with a school or college for equipment use on your lake and for student volunteers or interns. This may open the door to some educational grants, as the school or college may need a site for research purposes. Several FOLA member lakes are already partnering with colleges for data collection or analysis. Consider contacting nearby youth correctional facilities. They can often provide people for branch cutting/clean-up, gabion construction or other heavy labor work.

It is critical that you partner with, and gain support from your local municipal government agencies. Most state and federal agencies will require that funds be directed through such local governments. More importantly, these local contacts are already tapped into the network of fund sources and are aware of resources. Attend local town meetings in a cooperative spirit! Make your elected officials aware of your presence and dedication to lake preservation for the benefit of the area as a whole. If they recognize a commitment on the part of your organization and its members, you may more easily establish a dialogue and an ongoing working relationship.

CASE STUDY: One New York lake group combined three lake watersheds into one grant because 2/3 of the town roads were in those watersheds. Working with the highway superintendent, they were able to fund a road sweeper for the town to clean up sediments and de-icing salts from the roads, thereby reducing runoff pollution. The grant also funded the construction of catch basins where none had previously existed. The grant had an educational requirement which was met by having a volunteer lake advisory committee produce a nonpoint source stormwater education brochure and a lake website featuring nonpoint source information links.

DRAFT A CLEAR SCOPE OF THE WORK AND A REALISTIC BUDGET

Both the scope and budget will be critical components of any grant application and will also help obtain support from local officials. It is also important to consider the motive of the external grantor from whom funds are being sought. Is their mission focused on philanthropic work, media attention, good will, government action, public interest, or public health and safety? Knowing this will help to focus the request appropriately.

Know that most grants require matching funds. Some grants will allow the matching portion of the grant to be partially or fully fulfilled with in-kind services from volunteers or local municipalities. The value of the time expended by volunteers should not be underestimated, but a careful budget and realistic price for their time and equipment must be established.

START SMALL AND BUILD ON SUCCESSES

Success in obtaining small grants is important for momentum and for establishing a good track record in order to get later, larger grants considered. A grant written for less than $5000 has a good chance of getting funded. One or two knowledgeable volunteers can often write such small grants. Grants asking for larger sums, or for periods longer than one-year time frames, take more effort and usually require involvement of professionals in the development and writing of the grant.

IDENTIFY SOURCES OF FUNDING

Try several of suggested strategies, but expect bottlenecks and many rejections. Realize that there are very different issues and they may require very different resources. There is no simple answer and certainly no pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

1. Grant News. This is a newsletter from NYS Assemblyman Sheldon Silver. It is available in print or online (www.assembly.state.ny.us) under Announcements. It lists sources of grants and deadlines. About one year is archived online. It also lists courses in grant writing.

2. Foundation Directory. Grant subjects are listed, followed by foundations that give funds for that purpose. Each foundation listed has a number. Locate that number to find full foundation information.

3. Foundation Grants Index. This lists grants previously given; by subject, then by state and foundation, listing grant amounts awarded and description of the purpose of the grant.

1. Online (www.fdncenter.org) from the Foundation Center is an extensive site for grants. It lists public, corporate and charitable organizations that provide grant monies. It also lists courses in grant writing. In select libraries, often the central reference section of a public library system, Foundation Center is available on CD-ROM. This version allows you to limit your

2. search geographically and by purpose of the grant, which helps to fine-tune your search to meet your needs. Online has to be used at their discretion. These funds can be given for large and small community projects in their districts. Consider photo opportunities in the context of your proposal. Consider a catchy title for your project so it will look good in the press. The official is usually interested in media coverage so constituents become aware of his/her good deed.
1. Other sources for grants and ideas for proposals.

1. Lake association newsletters. The address for lakes similar in size to yours can be found through the NYSFOLA office. Copies can often be viewed at the annual NYSFOLA conference

2. Lake Watch. This is the newsletter of the Seneca Lake Pure Waters Association. The Winter/Early Spring 1999 issue includes an article about grants that helped support the Seneca Lake Watershed Project. Contact: Seneca Lake Pure Waters Association, Inc. 435 Exchange Street, Suite 20, P.O. Box 247, Geneva, NY 14456-0247. 315-789-3052. slpwa@eznet.net

3. Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Fund. An example of a fund which supports citizen efforts to protect wetlands, lakes, streams and other aquatic habitats across a specific drainage basin or watershed. Look for a similar fund in your area.

4. Open Space Institutes’ Rural New York Landscapes Program. They supported research on industry in the Seneca Lake Watershed and production of some FOLA videos. Could be a source of funding.

5. Nonpoint Source News Notes, published by EPA and available free in print or online (www.epa.gov/OWOW). Contains stories about successful programs and how they were funded, research and educational resources, and related websites. Be aware – EPA money is usually channeled through states and is not always granted directly to groups.

6. Volunteer Monitor. This national newsletter of volunteer water quality monitoring contains reports about volunteer projects. It could be used for grant ideas and also lists some educational resources. It is available online (www.epa.gov/OWOW/volunteer/vmm_index.html) or in print.

7. Do a fundraiser and gain support of local people. $10,000 is not an unreasonable goal and donations are deductible to donors if you are a non-profit group. A lake association showing work of value to the area as a whole can also be a good entry into erasing any “town folk vs lake folk” problems. Whether the donations can be used as matching funds for a grant depends on the agency and local municipal law.

8. Community “free” money.

i. Corporate in-kind donations are often made for publicity and community good will. For instance, check out the Bell Atlantic website for instructions and application process for equipment donations to non-profit tax-exempt organizations. Bell Atlantic also has a retiree’s organization called the Pioneers. Their members often use their phone company skills/experience to do community work. Other companies, such as Corning, Kodak, etc, are also good community neighbors, as are many others local to your area of the state.

ii. Local community stores and corporations can be helpful sources for supplies for your lake events. Be sure to give them GOOD press coverage for their generosity. For example, one such donation was a pontoon boat borrowed from a local storeowner. The owner took people for tours around the lake during Lake Mohegan’s Community Day. Of course, the store’s name was prominently displayed on the “tour boat”.

Don’t forget Member Items! Elected officials, both state and federal, often have access to money for local projects. They are always interested in good work for the local region or community. Do not forget to include media and photo coverage of the project.

6. Prepare a basic template about your lake and its watershed. Consider it a resume for your lake that you can adjust for each grant application. You can highlight things required for each application, but the basic statistical work is done. A sample “Table of Contents” is attached. Copies of full “State of the Lake” and “Lake Management Plans” may be borrowed from NYSFOLA (www.nysfola.org)

GRANT PREPARATION

Fill out several application forms to various sources. Key words (“buzz words”) are important. One lake representative said that their town did not like the words “Lake Manager”, i.e. the municipality manages, not a citizen. The lake association changed the wording in the proposal to emphasize watershed conservation. Simple wording changes that emphasized the most current data made the proposal acceptable to the town. Remember that print publishing takes times so remain prepared.

a.

Grant applications usually have a limited window of opportunity. By gathering pertinent information about the lake and its watershed, and keeping it up-to-date, grant applications are considerably simplified. Basic information should include statistics about size and current conditions in the lake and watershed, USGS maps, vital statistics, number of homes, number of residents, and number of non-resident users. It should also include information on environmental projects already accomplished and data on unsolved problems.

b.

Get letters of support from local officials, relevant agencies, and high-level directors of appropriate organizations. Update them as new problems are identified, or at least have the officials primed to write letters on short notice.

GET THE WORD OUT

Use the media to your advantage! Write brief but informative press releases to local newspapers, radio and television stations. Don’t forget the local “weeklies”. They are often hungry for local public interest stories. Invite media personalities for a tour of the watershed and/or a visit to our lake. Who can resist a boat ride on a sunny day! An informative visit could produce a full-page article in the local section of the area newspaper.

SUMMARY:

1. Clearly identify the problem or issue that needs funding.

1. Strategize the best solution to the problem.

1. Focus on individual projects.

2. Use creative thinking.

1. Partner with appropriate groups or agencies.

1. Partnering can produce volunteers, equipment and/or data analysis.

2. It works to convince local authorities and townspeople of your interest in the area as a whole, not just the lake.

2. Draft a clear scope of the work and a realistic budget.

3. Start small and build on successes.

4. Identify sources of funding.

1. Grant preparation

1. Prepare a basic data template about the lake and watershed.

2. Keep it up-to-date

3. Get letters of support from local authorities.

5. Get the word out – use the media to your advantage.

Sample

STATE OF THE LAKE REPORT