&EPA
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Off ice of Water
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-822-R-02-018
March 2002
METHODS FOR EVALUATING WETLAND CONDITION
#8 Volunteers and Wetland
Biomonitoring
-------
United States Environmental Office of Water EPA-822-R-02-018
Protection Agency Washington, DC 20460 March 2002
METHODS FOR EVALUATING WETLAND CONDITION
#8 Volunteers and Wetland
Biomonitoring
Principal Contributor
University of Massachusetts
Anna L. Hicks
Prepared jointly by:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Health and Ecological Criteria Division (Office of Science and Technology)
and
Wetlands Division (Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds)
-------
NOTICE
The material in this document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
technical review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. The information
contained herein is offered to the reader as a review of the "state of the science" concerning wetland
bioassessment and nutrient enrichment and is not intended to be prescriptive guidance or firm advice.
Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey, and should not be interpreted as
conveying official EPAapproval, endorsement, or recommendation.
APPROPRIATE CITATION
U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Volunteers and Wetland
Biomonitoring. Office of Water, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
EPA-822-R-02-018.
This entire document can be downloaded from the following U.S. EPA websites:
http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/bawwg
-------
CONTENTS
FOREWORD v
LIST OF "METHODS FOR EVALUATING WETLAND
CONDITION" MODULES vi
SUMMARY 1
PURPOSE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
VOLUNTEERS BIOMONITORING WETLANDS l
WORKING WITH VOLUNTEERS 2
VOLUNTEER TRAINING AND PROTOCOLS 8
BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES AND VOLUNTEER MONITORING 1O
STUDY PLANS AND QAPPs 11
DATA GENERATION, ANALYSIS, AND REPORTING 12
RECOMMENDATIONS 13
CASE STUDIES 13
REFERENCES 18
in
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE l: USES AND USERS OF VOLUNTEER DATA 4
TABLE 2: EXISTING VOLUNTEER BIOMONITORING
AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY LEVELS 15
TABLE 3: ROLES OF VOLUNTEERS AND PROFESSIONAL
SCIENTISTS IN A COOPERATIVE MONITORING PROGRAM 16
IV
-------
FOREWORD
In 1999, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began work on this series of reports entitled
Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition. The purpose of these reports is to help States and
Tribes develop methods to evaluate (1) the overall ecological condition of wetlands using biological
assessments and (2) nutrient enrichment of wetlands, which is one of the primary stressors damaging
wetlands in many parts of the country. This information is intended to serve as a starting point for States
and Tribes to eventually establish biological and nutrient water quality criteria specifically refined for
wetland waterbodies.
This purpose was to be accomplished by providing a series of "state of the science" modules concerning
wetland bioassessment as well as the nutrient enrichment of wetlands. The individual module format
was used instead of one large publication to facilitate the addition of other reports as wetland science
progresses and wetlands are further incorporated into water quality programs. Also, this modular
approach allows EPA to revise reports without having to reprint them all. A list of the inaugural set of
20 modules can be found at the end of this section.
This series of reports is the product of a collaborative effort between EPAs Health and Ecological
Criteria Division of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) and the Wetlands Division of the
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW). The reports were initiated with the support
and oversight of Thomas J. Danielson (OWOW), Amanda K. Parker and Susan K. Jackson (OST),
and seen to completion by Douglas G. Hoskins (OWOW) and Ifeyinwa F. Davis (OST). EPArelied
heavily on the input, recommendations, and energy of three panels of experts, which unfortunately have
too many members to list individually:
Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup
New England Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup
Wetlands Nutrient Criteria Workgroup
More information about biological and nutrient criteria is available at the following EPA website:
http ://www. epa. gov/ost/standards
More information about wetland biological assessments is available at the following EPA website:
htto ://www.epa. gov/owow/wetlands/bawwg
V
-------
LIST OF "METHODS FOR EVALUATING WETLAND
CONDITION" MODULES
MODULE # MODULE TITLE
1 INTRODUCTION TO WETLAND BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
2 INTRODUCTION TO WETLAND NUTRIENT ASSESSMENT
3 THE STATE OF WETLAND SCIENCE
4 STUDY DESIGN FOR MONITORING WETLANDS
5 ADMINISTRATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A
WETLAND BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAM
6 DEVELOPING METRICS AND INDEXES OF BIOLOGICAL INTEGRITY
7 WETLANDS CLASSIFICATION
8 VOLUNTEERS AND WETLAND BIOMONITORING
9 DEVELOPING AN INVERTEBRATE INDEX OF BIOLOGICAL
INTEGRITY FOR WETLANDS
10 USING VEGETATION TO ASSESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
IN WETLANDS
11 USING ALGAE TO ASSESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN
WETLANDS
12 USING AMPHIBIANS IN BlOASSESSMENTS OF WETLANDS
13 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT METHODS FOR BIRDS
14 WETLAND BIOASSESSMENT CASE STUDIES
15 BIOASSESSMENT METHODS FOR FISH
16 VEGETATION-BASED INDICATORS OF WETLAND NUTRIENT
ENRICHMENT
17 LAND-USE CHARACTERIZATION FOR NUTRIENT AND SEDIMENT
RISK ASSESSMENT
18 BlOGEOCHEMICAL INDICATORS
19 NUTRIENT LOAD ESTIMATION
2O SUSTAINABLE NUTRIENT LOADING
VI
-------
SUMMARY
A gency staff and other professional wetland
-/±. managers are called upon to achieve too
much with too few resources. Well-trained
volunteers have the potential to fill manpower
needs and provide the assistance that will lead to
scientifically sound data that are so urgently
needed to protect the integrity of the nation's
wetlands and to uphold the principles of the Clean
Water Act. Recruitment and management
guidelines, sound volunteer monitoring protocols,
outreach and education programs, training
workshops, volunteer service providers, and
many other resources including a pool of moti-
vated and often experienced volunteers, are
currently available for wetland managers and
State agency personnel to draw upon. The time is
ripe for the formation of committed partnerships
between volunteers and professional agency staff
that will further the common goal of wetland
protection.
PURPOSE
r I The purpose of this module is to address the
J. concerns held by many agency personnel,
whether national, State, or regional, in relationship
to volunteer participation in wetland biomonitoring
and the accomplishment of the goals of the Clean
Water Act.
cies with the local knowledge, personal involvement,
and energy of volunteers. This partnership helps to
build the capacity of citizens to become part of the
planning process at the community level, changes
the way volunteers think about wetland resources,
and strengthens local stewardship. Using their newly
acquired knowledge and tools, volunteers get in-
volved in local planning and decisions to improve
water quality, aquatic habitat, and biological com-
munities. Agencies, in turn, are able to monitor more
projects and obtain more data than would other-
wise be possible. This partnership also breaks
down some of the old barriers of mistrust and lack
of cooperation.
VOLUNTEERS
BIOMONITORING
WETLANDS
COMMUNITY-BASED ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
At some point the will to conserve our
natural resources has to rise up from the
heart and soul of the peoplecitizens
themselves taking conservation into
their own hands, andalongwith the sup-
port of their government, making it hap-
pen. Mollie H. Beattie, former Director,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
INTRODUCTION
TT'nvironmental managers are faced with the
-/.-/need to accurately portray the types and in-
tegrity of local wetlands to assist them in their goal
of sound management, yet they have decreasing
resources to spend on data collection and analysis.
Citizen volunteers can help to bridge this gap, es-
pecially with the application of biomonitoring. There
are many advantages in combining the technical
expertise of State and Federal environmental agen-
A growing sector of the public appreciates the
important functions and values provided by wet-
lands and is concerned about their continuing loss
and degradation in the face of ever-increasing de-
velopment. Many citizens motivated iodosome-
thingbecome involved as volunteers. The pool of
volunteers -trained scientists, retired profession-
als, schoolteachers and students, conservation com-
missioners, environmental consultants and lawyers,
as well as professional nonprofit volunteer organi-
zations acting as service providers to willing citi-
zens from all walks of life - is a growing source of
-------
willing assistants. Many of these people and groups
already have valuable skills, knowledge, and infra-
structure that could be applied in a cost-effective
manner to assist State and Federal agencies work-
ing to implement wetland conservation.
BRIDGING THE GAP
Agencies, on the other hand, are being directed
to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Water Act
and provide comprehensive monitoring data under
the various sections of the act. This task conflicts
with the reality of dwindling funding and manpower
resources. A number of agencies are exploring
volunteer participation in government monitoring
programs. There are many issues yet to be resolved,
and mechanisms to be put into place, before the
partnership between volunteers and agencies can
operate smoothly. This module aims to bridge the
gap between the partners by providing a set of
guidelines to facilitate volunteer participation in wet-
land bioassessment programs.
From the onset, a cooperative wetland
biomonitoring program needs a framework of real-
istic expectations of respective responsibilities, roles,
and tasks, together with a clear understanding of
the required endpoints.
WORKING WITH
VOLUNTEERS
ADVANTAGES
Education and environmental stewardship
Government agencies, watershed associations,
and nonprofit organizations promote volunteerism
to motivate people to change their attitudes and
become involved in preventing pollution and restoring
water quality. Volunteers usually become involved
through a personal concern for water quality or the
wildlife of a local wetland. By working with scien-
tists and other concerned citizens and attending
workshops or taking academic courses, volunteers
can receive hands-on education about wetland
plants and animals, food chains, ecological prin-
ciples, watershed management issues, regulations,
and legislation. This experience provides citizens
with valuable tools to use in a nonregulatory ap-
proach to protecting local wetland acreage, func-
tions, and values.
Local knowledge
Citizens have intimate local knowledge of water
resources and their environs and can provide an
account of changes over time. Their familiarity with
local land uses also helps to identify potential sources
of point-source (dumpage, spills, unregulated dis-
charges, etc.) and/or nonpoint-source pollution
(flow alterations, habitat alterations, eutrophication,
sedimentation, etc.). As members of the local com-
munity, volunteers can often gain access to privately
owned or remote wetland sites.
Local-level assessments, management,
and planning
Many local residents have a natural proclivity to
learn about wetlands, habitats, and biota and are
interested in monitoring water quality and the effec-
tiveness of best management practices. They can
act as public "watchdogs." Public interest helps to
shape planning policy in local communities. An in-
volved public can advance both scientific research
and good management practices.
Citizens do appreciate wetlands
Most citizens were first introduced to the won-
ders of aquatic flora and fauna on their first school
outing to examine pond life. Many conservation-
minded citizens view volunteering as an opportu-
nity to use that fascination as a tool to become ac-
tively involved in wetland conservation. A propor-
tionally very high number of listed threatened or
endangered species are wetland dependent, and the
connection between wetland health and biodiversity
is already clearly established in the public arena.
2
-------
Wetlands are also tied to a very personal interest.
In addition, citizens have a financial interest in wet-
lands through the real estate value of their own prop-
erty. A healthy wetland within or adj oining a private
property raises the value of that property because
of its aesthetic value and the associated privacy it
provides. Citizens will become actively involved in
protecting these vested interests.
Support and enhance agency efforts
Agency staff can engage volunteers in a variety of
ways, as described below:
An established volunteer organization with fully
trained team leaders and volunteer crews can
take on some of the monitoring load and asso-
ciated responsibilities from agency staff and can
produce scientifically acceptable data. In addi-
tion, community volunteer activities attract posi-
tive press coverage.
Volunteer-generated data are valuable as they
act as a diagnostic "screen" to pinpoint wet-
land health problems.
Several teams of volunteers can be sent into
the field at one point in time, which achieves
widespread sampling within the same period.
This is normally very difficult to achieve under
normal circumstances owing to a lack of per-
sonnel.
Data collected by volunteers can be used by
agencies to support their analysis of biological
or ecological functioning of wetlands, not only
in a utilitarian sense but in a broader context of
wetland condition. Volunteers can be helpful in
tracking whether key indicators of function are
present from year to year. They can record
presence/absence of birds, mammals, plants,
and other biota associated with wetlands. Sea-
sonal and annual changes can be recorded.
Volunteers provide additional assistance in the
field, in the laboratory, or on the computer key-
board.
The time and money saved through volunteer
participation can be spent in increasing the num-
ber of sites to be monitored and the amount of
data to be collected.
Many samples retrieved from wetlands are no-
toriously difficult and time-consuming to sort.
With relatively little training and professional su-
pervision, volunteers can complete this task im-
mediately after sampling.
Today' s volunteers often include people, espe-
cially retirees, with a high degree of professional
expertise in fields associated with both
biomonitoring and wetlands.
Appropriate use of volunteers by government
agencies
Volunteer monitoring can be applied at three
levels:
1. Increase awareness and knowledge of re-
source values and conditions. Awareness of
water resource values and conditions is a pre-
requisite for public support to restore, protect,
and maintain water resources. Such awareness
does not require rigorous sampling or complex
analytical methods, so volunteer monitoring pro-
grams can meet this goal.
2. Assist with the assessment and management
of wetlands at the community or watershed
level. Deci sions at the community or water-
shed level typically involve municipal and pri-
vately owned land. Many volunteer organiza-
tions already participate at this level and pro-
vide reliable data based on sound Quality As-
surance Proj ect Plans (QAPPs) that are geared
toward identifying gross problems and measur-
ing changes over time. This form of volunteer
involvement is most important if there is a need
for the continuous monitoring of many wetlands.
It can also provide information on wetland sta-
tus that would not otherwise be obtainable, such
as the presence of rare or invasive species.
-------
3. Contribute toward the evaluation and as-
sessment programs of State and Federal
agencies. Volunteer monitoring can be used
for many of the Federal and State wetland regu-
latory programs covered in Module 5: Admin-
istrative Framework for the Implementation of
a Wetland Bioassessment Program. A typical
example would be measuring the success over
time of compensatory mitigation proj ects. Con-
cerns about quality assurance/quality control
(QA/QC) issues and data generated by volun-
teers can be avoided if the roles of volunteers
are restricted to field assistance and, in the case
of invertebrate biomonitoring, to sorting samples
from debris, and possibly to identify to order
level. The delegation of simple tasks can be of
great assistance to professionals (modified from
Dates etal. 1997).
Unless volunteers are highly trained specialists with
a professional record in biomonitoring of particular
community groups, it is strongly recommended that
volunteers not be used when the quality of data has
to meet legal, regulatory, and scientific peer review
requirements.
4. Other applications of volunteer monitors.
Many opportunities for volunteer participation
exist apart from assisting agencies with data
collection (Table 1). The National Directory of
Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs
(1998) lists 772 water resources monitoring
groups with a wide range in program types. Of
these, 52% monitor macroinvertebrates to as-
sess water quality.
HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AS
VOLUNTEERS
There is an understandable reluctance among
agency scientists to involve students in rigorous
biomonitoring programs that require a high degree
of quality control to be coupled with accurate biota
identification. However, there are agency programs
in which students can act in a volunteer capacity,
particularly under the supervision of teachers who
have attended "train the trainer" workshops. A
number of agencies are developing their own high
school manuals, training videos, and other support
materials to encourage school participation in con-
servation programs.
One of the most encouraging case studies of school
participation in wetland conservation is student in-
volvement in the vernal pool certification program
in Massachusetts. Colburn (1997), an aquatic
ecologist working with Massachusetts Audubon,
developed a manual, Certified: A Citizen's Step-
by-Step Guide to Protecting Vernal Pools. Clear
TABLE l: USES AND USERS OF VOLUNTEER DATA
USE OF INFORMATION
TYPES OF USERS
Education
Establish baseline conditions
Screen for problems
Research
Advocacy and "watchdog" role
Community organizing
Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment
Watershed planning
Restoration projects
Land-use decisions
BMP evaluation
Enforcement
Legislation
State 305(b) reports
Shellfish bed closures
Individual citizen programs
Community organizations and watershed associations
University scientists
Local government
State government
Federal Government
Nonprofit foundations and trusts
Schools and nontraditional education programs
-------
and simple instructions guide citizens through the
steps necessary to officially certify vernal pools with
the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Once certi-
fied, the pool is then protected. Teachers through-
out the State were quick to use this manual and
now integrate vernal pool studies into their curricula.
Reading Memorial High School, under the leader-
ship of one teacher, Leo Kenney, has certified more
than 200 local vernal pools. (See Volunteer Moni-
tor, Spring 1998, "Defending the Underdog: Vol-
unteers Protect Vernal Pools.") To assist with ac-
curate identification of fauna, an excellent field guide
has been developed under sponsorship of the Ex-
ecutive Office of Environmental Affairs (Kenney
and Burne 2000).
As agency involvement in wetland restoration and
creation grows, there is an excellent opportunity to
engage teachers and students in habitat enrichment
programs such as removal of invasive species, plant-
ing of indigenous species, and monitoring the suc-
cess of the improvements. Students in turn learn
more about wetland flora and fauna and their im-
portance in wetland ecology and conservation.
Martin (1999), of the Center for Science Educa-
tion at Portland University, stresses the need to link
student fieldwork with the more theoretical prin-
ciples of science. In other words, an integrated edu-
cational approach of fieldwork and classroom in-
struction will provide students with a background
in the scientific approach, as well as build sound
ecological attitudes that students will carry into the
future as adults. Students enjoy sharing their expe-
riences with family and friends, thus increasing stew-
ardship and helping to build trust between agencies
and the public.
ADDRESSING CONCERNS
The reluctance of government agents to involve
volunteers with their programs arises from a num-
ber of concerns, including:
Fear of management pressure to substitute tech-
nical staff with volunteers
Cost of volunteer monitoring programs
Difficulty in recruiting and keeping effective vol-
unteers
Finding the time to train, coordinate, and su-
pervise volunteers
Professional di strust of data collected by vol-
unteers (is it credible? how was it obtained?
how stringent was QA/QC? etc.)
Volunteers are unreliable in meeting schedules
and deadlines
Safety and liability i ssues
The following sections of this module attempt to
address some of these concerns.
ROLE OF AGENCY PROFESSIONALS
Volunteers should not replace the work responsi-
bilities of trained agency technicians and scientists.
Agency staff need to generate the study design and
QAPP, conduct training at the appropriate level,
set required level of rigor, supervise volunteer in-
volvement, perform the data analysis, and follow
through with reports and recommendations for man-
agement.
FUNDING
Volunteer monitoring programs produce cost-ef-
fective wetland biomonitoring data, but they are not
free. A quality volunteer monitoring program re-
quires funding, either from an agency or an outside
source. At least one salaried person is required to
act as a volunteer coordinator to recruit volunteers;
to organize and coordinate monitoring; to purchase,
distribute, and maintain equipment; to organize meet-
ings and training sessions; to provide support ser-
vices; to receive records and monitoring data; to
enter and analyze data and possibly write study de-
signs, QAPPs, and reports; and finally, to provide
general administrative assistance. Other consider-
-------
ations include costs related to equipment purchase,
transportation, office overhead, photocopying, film
development, and last but not least, "rewards" such
as refreshments to maintain volunteer morale (Mil-
let et al. 1996). Volunteers will provide free labor,
but should not be asked to carry the burden of other
related expenses.
RECRUITMENT
One strategy for recruiting effective, committed
volunteers is to contact established volunteer re-
sources, including community watershed groups and
local environmental organizations already involved
in water resource protection, natural history societ-
ies such as Audubon, academic groups (high
schools, colleges, and universities), land trust orga-
nizations, and fishing and hunting clubs. Unaffili-
ated members of the public can be recruited at com-
munity meetings and through newsletters, posted
flyers, list servers' e-mail lists, or announcements
on cable television or radio and in newspapers. A
discussion of benefits and drawbacks of each of
these potential pools is provided by Miller et al.
(1996). It is important to make the volunteer proj ect
attractive and of relevance to the community.
ORGANIZATION AND LEADERSHIP
Agency staff already feel taxed with work require-
ments and are reluctant to take on the additional
responsibilities of recruiting, organizing, training, and
leading a team of volunteers, even though they rec-
ognize the long-term benefits. The best solution to
this dilemma is to work through an established vol-
unteer group, usually a watershed association, and
a service provider such as River Watch Network,
Adopt-A-Stream Foundation, New England Re-
gion Monitoring Consortium, or Massachusetts
Water Watch Partnership, that provides training
programs, manuals, and support services, and un-
derstands the QA/QC requirements associated with
the CWA monitoring and data quality. A trained
and experienced volunteer or volunteer team can
be more quickly incorporated into an agency pro-
gram and reduce the time required of agency staff.
MAINTAINING CONTINUITY AND
COMMITMENT
Volunteers come and go. Attrition is high. The
Spring 1996 issue of Volunteer is devoted to man-
aging a volunteer monitoring program and discusses
why people volunteer, why volunteers leave, and
what can be done to correct the situation. Florida
Lakewatch offers the following action plan:
Improve feedback
Hold more meetings - at least one general meet-
ing. These meetings will:
Give volunteers a sense of connection to a
group or proj ect
Offer opportunities for staff to deal firsthand
with volunteers' questions
Speed turnaround time between data collec-
tion and feedback; improve data report format-
ting (volunteers want simply expressed results,
not statistical rationale)
Produce a variety of types of feedback (vid-
eos, brochures, in-person-presentations, news-
letters, Web pages)
Use regional coordinators to maintain closer
touch with volunteers
Improve screening
Enroll new volunteers selectively, with long-term
commitment as the primary criterion.
Hold an initial interview that will:
Emphasize the benefits of having a long-term
database
Caution volunteers not to expect that data
alone can solve any particular problem
Warn volunteers about possible delays in
receiving feedback
6
-------
Identify and discourage mismatched volun-
teers
Add new challenges
Offer veteran volunteers training in new moni-
toring skills
Use veteran volunteers in a mentoring/training
capacity with new recruits
Involve volunteers in the planning stages of a
monitoring program
Provide positive feedback
Treat volunteers as if they were paid staff
Respect their opinions and local knowledge
Provide words of encouragement
Thank volunteers for their efforts
Provide rewardssocial gatherings with free
refreshments, an outing such as a canoe trip,
tee shirts, caps, mugs, certificates of apprecia-
tion, or free copies of photographs showing their
involvement
And finally, conduct regular workshops and re-
fresher courses, because they play an important role
in maintaining a pool of qualified volunteers (Miller
etal. 1996).
SAFETY/LIABILITY
Wetlands can be hazardous, and biomonitoring
requires intimate contact with potentially danger-
ous environs such as contaminants; unconsolidated
muddy substrates; sometimes concealed glass, fish-
ing hooks, and tins; allergic reactions from poison
ivy, stinging nettle, poison sumac, or insects;
scratches and cuts from thorned plants and fish
spines; and Lyme disease carried by ticks. A vol-
unteer should always work with another field tech-
nician or companion. Issues such as vaccinations,
suitability of clothing, first-aid measures, safety of
sampling sites, training in sampling techniques, and
the handling of equipment must be resolved prior to
taking volunteers into the field. Each team should
have a first-aid kit. Remember, volunteer safety is
always more important than data, and volunteers
should never be put at unreasonable risk to obtain
a measurement or a sample (Dohner et al. 1997).
Dangers associated with preservation solutions and
reagents must also be considered. The team/labo-
ratory leader should outline any hazards associated
with particular preservatives, and the precaution-
ary measures that can be taken prior to the volun-
teers handling the solutions.
Insurance coverage for volunteer workers has
been highly variable. Laws differ markedly from
State to State. Very few volunteer organizations have
formal liability insurance coverage, and the legal
strength of volunteers signing waivers of responsi-
bility is questionable. Few State and Federal agen-
cies had policies until the Federal Volunteer Pro-
tection Act of 1997 was enacted.
The act's primary purpose is to assist nonprofit
organizations in recruiting and maintaining volunteer
support by limiting their exposure to lawsuits aris-
ing from the volunteer activity. The act applies only
for "qualifying organizations," i.e., an organization
formed for charitable, civic, educational, religious,
welfare, or health purposes; or a tax-exempt orga-
nization; or a State or its subdivisions. The pro-
tected party must qualify as a "volunteer," i.e., the
party may not receive compensation for services
(other than reasonable reimbursement or allowance
for expenses actually incurred) or receive any gift in
lieu of compensation exceeding $500. A volunteer
will enjoy protection only if he or she: (1) was act-
ing within the volunteer's scope of responsibility;
(2) was properly licensed or certified if licensing or
certification is required; (3) did not engage in will-
ful, criminal, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct;
7
-------
or (4) did not cause an injury while operating a motor
vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle requiring a
license (Riverways Newsletter, Fall 1999).
For further assistance contact the advisory body,
The Nonprofit Risk Management Center, 1001
Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 900, Washington DC
20036, phone 202-785-3891, fax 202-833-5747
(Ely 1996).
VOLUNTEER TRAINING
AND PROTOCOLS
A good deal of the skepticism about vol-
unteer-collected data stems from the
feeling that data collected by "nonsci-
entists " or "nonprofessionals " cannot be
trusted. The best defense against such
objections is to make sure you give your
volunteers the most comprehensive train-
ing possible, then follow up by testing
the volunteers at intervals to document
the fact that they are performing proce-
dures correctly. (Ely 1992)
From the onset, the volunteer wetland
biomonitoring proj ect needs clearly stated goals and
endpoints. Related to these is the level of involve-
ment of volunteers and the intensity or rigor of their
sampling and data collection. If the volunteers do
not have the required skills at the onset, they will
need training.
WHO WILL PROVIDE THAT TRAINING?
Training can be provided by an agency, a
biomonitoring scientist, a volunteer service provider,
a land grant university with a volunteer training ex-
tension education program, or even private training
organizations such as the Izaak Walton Foundation
and the Institute for Wetland & Environmental Edu-
cation & Research.
Throughout the New England region there is a
comprehensive infrastructure of interconnected vol-
unteer training organizations that are now providing
training in freshwater wetlands and estuarine salt
marshes. Coordination of the many training orga-
nizations is provided by the New England Region
Monitoring Collaborative (NERMC). Members of
NERMC include representatives from EPA
NEB AWWQ New England Interstate Water Pol-
lution Control Commission (NEIWPC), River Net-
work, Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership
(MWWP), and Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA), as well as exten-
sion educators from the region's State universities.
Working as a team the members of NERMC write
standardized training protocols, produce training
videos, run training workshops, provide advisory
services for volunteer organizations, conduct sur-
veys on volunteer needs, and work towards filling
the gaps identified. This is an excellent example of
cooperation and coordination among agencies, edu-
cators, and volunteer organizations.
WHAT PROTOCOLS SHOULD BE
CONSIDERED?
Training manuals, protocols, and teaching materi-
als vary greatly in approach and levels of intensity.
There are two approaches to the selection of pro-
tocols: (1) manuals and training protocols should
be selected on the basis of their compatibility with
the goals of the study or (2) nationally standardized
protocols with accompanying training programs that
all volunteers working with government agencies,
regardless of their knowledge or previous experi-
ence, should attend. If agencies are not providing
training in their own methods, they need to ensure
that their volunteers have had training that will pro-
vide monitoring expertise equivalent to their own,
and if not, to be prepared to fill in the gap. To date
there is no EPA standardized Rapid Bioassessment
Protocol suitable for volunteers working in wetlands.
EPA's streams and rivers manual (Dohner et al.
1997) is an excellent resource for trainers and vol-
unteers engaged in lotic systems biomonitoring.
8
-------
There are some volunteer training protocols de-
veloped by the Biological Assessment of Wetlands
Workshop Group (BAWWG) members. As a
number of these protocols are not published, the
names, phone numbers, and e-mail address of con-
tacts are included.
Freshwater invertebrates
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Draft
Guidance on Sampling and Identifications of
Wetland Invertebrates for Training Citizen Team
Contact: Judy Helgen, (651) 296-7240,
judyhelgen@pca. state.mn.us.
Hicks AL,NedeauE. 2000. New England
Freshwater Wetlands Invertebrate Biomonitoring
Protocol. Communications Center UMass
Extension, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,
MA.
Contact: Anna Hicks, (413)253-3180,
anna.hicks@verizon.net.
Saltmarsh invertebrates
Hicks AL. 2001. Draft New England Estuaries
Invertebrate Biomonitoring Protocol. Massachu-
setts Coastal Zone Management. Boston, MA.
Contact: Anna Hicks, (413)253-3180,
anna.hicks@verizon.net
Freshwater plants
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Draft
Guidance on Sampling, Biological Metrics, and
Identification of Wetland Vegetation for Citizen
Teams.
Contact: Mark Gernes, (651) 297-3363,
mark.gernes@pca. state.mn.us.
Birds
FirehockK, Graff L, Middleton JV, Starinchak
KD, Williams C. 1998. Handbook for Wetlands
Conservation and Sustainability. Izaak Walton
League of America, Gaithersburg, MD.
Marine algae
Contact: Sherwood Hall, Washington Seafood
Laboratory, Office of Seafood HFS-426, U.S.
FDA, 200 C St. SW, Washington, DC. (202)
205-4818, shall@bangate.fda.gov. Has a training
video, color pictures of phytoplankton and
additional materials, and provides technical
advice.
Amphibians
King County Department of Natural Resources.
Amphibian Survey Protocols for the King County
Water and Land Resources Volunteer Amphibian
Monitoring Program.
Contact: Klaus Richter, (206) 205-
5622, klaus.richter@metrokc.gov.
Massachusetts Calling Amphibian Survey: North
American Amphibian Monitoring Program:
Procedures and Protocols.
Contact: Scott Jackson, (413) 545-4743,
sj ackson@umext.umass.edu.
Fish
FirehockK, Graff L, Middleton JV, Starinchak
KD, Williams C. 1998. Handbook for Wetlands
Conservation and Sustainability. Izaak Walton
League of America, Gaithersburg, MD.
TESTING COMPETENCY
Once volunteers have finished training and are in
the field sampling, it is essential to make sure they
are collecting and analyzing samples correctly The
two basic approaches to testing the soundness of
volunteers' techniques are to (1) bring the volun-
teers to a central location for periodic QC sessions
and (2) send a professional expert into the field with
the volunteers and perform parallel testing (Ely
1992). Parallel, or side-by-side, testing of data col-
lected by volunteers versus data collected at the
same sampling stations by professionals is con-
ducted for two primary reasons: to assure govern-
ment agencies that the quality of volunteers' data is
sufficiently reliable for use by those agencies, and
9
-------
to provide a volunteer program's staff and partici-
pating citizens with a measure of their ability to pro-
duce credible data (Ely 1997). Parallel testing also
identifies study design problems, leads to improved
training, and builds volunteers' confidence in their
abilities.
BIOLOGICAL
COMMUNITIES AND
VOLUNTEER MONITORING
T/blunteers performing biomonitoring in
V wetlands are encouraged to wear appropri-
ate footwear (sneakers or waders depending upon
the situation and safely issues) and should always
be accompanied by at least one other team mem-
ber. Every effort should be made to avoid damage
to the wetlands, wetland habitats, and biota. Iden-
tification of amphibian or reptile eggs, for example,
should be done without disturbing them. Typical
skills required of volunteers in addition to data re-
cording are listed below.
Vegetation
Experience with establishing transects or sam-
pling plots
Ability to use taxonomic keys
Ability to identify the local common wetland
plants at least to genus
Experience with collecting and preserving speci-
mens
Refer to Module 10: Using Vegetation to Assess
Environmental Conditions in Wetlands, and Mod-
ule 16: Vegetation-Based Indicators of Wetland
Nutrient Enrichment.
Ability to use taxonomic keys to species level
Use of microscope
Identify specimens to species level
Refer to Module 11: Using Algae to Assess Envi-
ronmental Conditions in Wetlands.
Invertebrates
Experience with sampling and preserving pro-
cedures
Ability to use taxonomic keys to family level
Use of dissecting microscope
Identify local macroinvertebrates to family level
Refer to Module 9: Developing an Invertebrate
Index of Biological Integrity for Wetlands.
Amphibians
Knowledge of appropriate seasons for the dif-
ferent organisms
Identify local frog calls
Identify egg masses of local frogs, salamanders,
and other amphibians to species level
Experience in trapping techniques
Refer to Module 12: Using Amphibians in
Bioassessments of Wetlands.
Fish
Experience in sampling techniques appropriate
to different types offish
Ability to use taxonomic keys to species level
Identify local fish to species level
Algae
Experience with sampling, preserving, and di-
luting procedures
Birds
Understanding of appropriate monitoring sea-
sons and times of day
10
-------
Identify bird calls
Ability to use bird identification keys
Identify local birds to species level
Refer to "Birds as Indicators"
Reptiles
Understanding of appropriate monitoring sea-
son and habitat
Identify eggs to species level
Experience in trapping methods
Ability to use identification keys
Identify reptiles to species level
Not all volunteers will be proficient in identifying
some of these biological groups to species level,
even with careful training. Supervision by a special-
ist will be necessary for the rigor that will produce
reliable, consistent data among volunteer teams.
When it is not possible to train all volunteers to the
desirable level of skill, volunteers can still accom-
pany experts and act as assistants and recorders.
STUDY PLANS AND
QAPPs
One of the most difficult issues facing
volunteer environmental monitoring pro-
grams today is data credibility. Poten-
tial data users are often skeptical about
volunteer data they may have doubts
about the goals and objectives of the
project, about how volunteers were
trained, about how samples were col-
lected, handled and stored, or about how
data were analyzed and reports written.
A key tool in breaking down this barrier
of skepticism is the quality assurance
project plan. Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Di-
rector, Office of Science and Technology,
U.S. EPA
Refer to Module 4: Study Design for Monitoring
Wetlands.
WHO is RESPONSIBLE?
If volunteers are to work under the supervision of
agency biomonitors, the agency itself is responsible
for the study design and the preparation of the
QAPP. The QAPP must include the measures that
will be taken to train, supervise, and control the
quality of work performed by volunteers.
If, however, a volunteer organization such as a
watershed association has been awarded a grant to
perform biomonitoring aimed at producing data suit-
able for agency use, designing the study and pre-
paring the written QAPP is the responsibility of that
organization. No biomonitoring is to be done until
the funding agency has reviewed the submitted
QAPP.
RESOURCES To ASSIST VOLUNTEERS
Volunteer organizations often feel they do not have
the expertise to produce a study design and QAPP
that will meet the rigorous standards of their fund-
ing agency. USEPA has provided a set of guide-
lines for producing a volunteer monitor's QAPP that
meets their requirements (Hunt etal. 1996). This
guide is available free from EPA on request. Un-
fortunately, State agencies frequently have QAPP
standards and formatting requirements that vary
from EPA's, and rarely have these agencies pro-
duced similar guidelines for volunteers.
The Fall 1992 issue of The Volunteer Monitor
covers the topics of volunteer study design and
QAPP preparation. Many volunteer organizations
have also structured their own guidelines. The Vol-
unteer Environmental Monitoring Network
(VEMN), with assistance from River Watch Net-
work, produced a Study Design Workbook (Dates
etal. 1997). VEMN holds workshops for volun-
1 1
-------
teers and the participants leave with a draft study
design for their specific proj ect. They are advised
to seek assistance from their funding agency,
whether Federal or State, in the construction of the
required QAPP.
During the process of writing the QAPP, specific
protocols should be specified, e.g., the degree of
precision in identification of organismsorder, fam-
ily, genus, or speciesmust be established. Plants,
fish, amphibians, and birds are usually identified to
species level. Invertebrates and algae are more dif-
ficult to identify to the species level and a fully trained
and experienced taxonomic expert is usually as-
signed that task. Volunteers can be trained to iden-
tify to order level, and even to family level with ap-
propriate and simple keys. However, the accuracy
of their work does need to be tested. This can be
done in a number of ways: through a voucher col-
lection that can be verified by an expert taxono-
mist; or having an expert taxonomist randomly se-
lect 10%-20% of the archived samples to verify
the accuracy of the identification and enumeration.
Design and maintain a volunteer database for ev-
ery biomonitoring proj ect to include name, mailing
address, phone contact, e-mail address, allocated
tasks, and allocated sites, and hold a sample signa-
ture on record. Ensure every volunteer has full con-
tact details for their project leader/s, and advise
them of any alterations. These precautionary mea-
sures will provide a means of quick exchange if any
serious questions arise or scheduling needs to be
altered.
Of prime importance is the level of accuracy re-
quired for the goals of the proj ect. For example, a
group that is monitoring for educational purposes
or performing the first screening assessment of wet-
land condition does not need as high a level of data
quality as a group that is generating data for a state
305(b) assessment report (Dilley 1991, Ely 1997,
Hannaford and Resh 1995, Penrose 1995, Setzer
1997).
In general, agency staffs use the raw data pro-
vided by volunteer monitors to generate a thorough
data analysis for incorporation into government re-
ports. However volunteers are not automatically
eliminated from these processes, and several vol-
unteer manuals provide suitable guidelines for data
analysis and report writing (Schoen et al. 1999,
Laughlin andRosselli 1994). Analytical methods for
use by volunteers should be designed to reflect
state-of-the-art science (e.g., the multimetric ap-
proach), but still be applicable at the nonprofes-
sional level. Volunteer monitoring program manag-
ers should carefully assess the information needs of
the agencies and/or individuals who will use the data.
Only volunteers capable of data analysis and re-
port writing should be selected to perform these
demanding tasks, and they should work in close
coordination with the agency staff member in charge
of the proj ect.
All environmental data measurements and analy-
sis procedures should be well documented and be
covered by the QAPP.
DATA GENERATION,
ANALYSIS, AND
REPORTING
A gency specialists frequently conduct
JTL parallel testing to identify problems and en-
sure data is sufficiently reliable for regulatory uses.
RECOMMENDATIONS
/T7he following summarized recommenda-
-L tions have been drawn from a large number of
sources, particularly Miller et al. 1996, and the quar-
terly EPA journal Volunteer Monitor. Many vol-
unteer coordinators and Agency scientists provided
valuable comments at conferences based on their
12
-------
personal experiences in training and supervising
volunteers.
Develop a selection process for volunteer re-
cruiting. An application process tied to the study
plan will help ensure volunteers meet relevant
requirements. This may take the form of profi-
ciency testing upon the completion of training.
Outline the study obj ectives and design to the
volunteers, and explain their role in achieving
overall study goals.
Match volunteers with the types of tasks for
which they are best suited.
Try to meet the scheduling needs of the volun-
teers as closely as possible.
When there is a mismatch between a project
and a volunteer, it is OK to advise that particu-
lar volunteer their assistance will not be required
in the future.
State short-term volunteer goals, outline respon-
sibilities, and specify time requirements at the
onset of a program.
Set realistic expectations for fieldwork and other
activities. Ensure these expectations are out-
lined to all involved and adhered to throughout
a project.
Establish safety guidelines and legal liability re-
quirements at the outset of a volunteer program.
Provide regular training programs using appro-
priate protocols.
Use piloted and peer-reviewed volunteer manu-
als and ensure that the protocol will relate to
the goals of the proj ect.
Apply the appropriate level of training for the
desired rigor of data (QA/QC and testing).
Have clearly written instructions on procedures
to be conducted in the field, laboratory, data
entry, etc., and be explicit when giving instruc-
tions.
Conduct routine and comprehensive monitor-
ing overview.
Have a system of collecting data in a set rea-
sonable time frame.
Validate volunteer data through technical assess-
ments and parallel studies.
Provide feedback, updates, and rewards to
volunteers.
Give volunteers the same respect as proficient
paid staff.
CASE STUDIES
r I The case study summarized below provides
J. an illustration of the application of many of the
principles covered by this module. The table that
follows lists, with a brief description, a number of
other existing volunteer biomonitoring programs
being conducted at the Federal and State agency
level. The EPAjournal Volunteer Monitor reports
on many case studies of volunteer biomonitoring
programs, many of which provide data useful to
government agencies.
WHAT (WETLAND HEALTH
ASSESSMENT TOOLBOX) PROJECT
Also reported by Eleanor Ely (2000). Volunteer
Monitor 12(2): 14-15.
Under the sponsorship of EPA's Wetlands Divi-
sion, a pilot volunteer program for estuarine salt
marsh health assessment was developed and imple-
mented on the North Shore of Massachusetts in
1999. This involved formation of a partnership
among Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management,
Mass Bays Program, University of Massachusetts
Cooperative Extension Service, and two citizens'
water protection nonprofit organizations, Salem
Sound 2000 and Eight Towns and the Bay.
13
-------
The major goals of the project were to establish
an estuarine salt marsh assessment training program
for volunteers, and implement volunteer monitoring
programs throughout New England that would:
Provide high-quality data for assessing estua-
rine salt marsh health
Evaluate the success of restoration/creation
projects
Improve local wetland protection efforts and
stewardship
Assi st with state program efforts for salt marsh
management and protection
This project contains six components of salt marsh
assessmentthe nonbiological tools of water chem-
istry, land use, and tidal influence; and the biologi-
cal tools of vegetation, invertebrates, and birds. The
training protocols were developed by the specialist
scientists, Bruce Carlisle (MCZM), Jan Smith
(MBP), and Anna Hicks (UMass Extension). A
coordinator/technician, Vivian Kooken, was hired
to administer the training program; to purchase
equipment; to roster, facilitate, and supervise vol-
unteer activities; and to manage volunteer data.
In the first year, 46 volunteers and volunteer lead-
ers participated in the training program, which con-
sisted of 6 individual workshops, one for each of
the assessment procedures. The workshops were
held at different times so that volunteers could
choose to attend more than one, and the respective
specialist scientists provided instruction. On
completion of their training the volunteers monitored
four estuarine marsh sites, three of which were im-
pacted by tidal restrictions and the fourth by inten-
sive urban development. Each of the four proj ect
sites had a corresponding reference site that repre-
sented the "best obtainable" condition for the area.
A parallel test (comparing volunteer results with
scientists' results) was conducted during the moni-
toring season to help evaluate the success of the
training program and to help the scientists improve
their training protocols. Issues arising from the par-
allel testing and the volunteer evaluation sheets were
mostly centered on difficulties the volunteers had
with identification of invertebrates and birds. An-
other problem was the lower number of organisms
sampled by volunteers compared with the scien-
tists, possibly because of their less rigorous sam-
pling techniques. Nevertheless, when the metrics
arising from volunteer data were compared with
those arising from the scientists' data, there was
encouraging similarity.
A followup meeting with the volunteers and the
scientists was arranged after the monitoring was
concluded and the data had been analyzed. The
agenda was mostly social. The volunteers were pre-
sented with certificates of achievement, T-shirts, and
a pizza dinner. A part of the meeting was set aside
for at report on the results of the volunteer monitor-
ing, and an open discussion session to share expe-
riences and generate suggestions for improvements.
The lessons learned in 1999 were transferred to a
successful repeat of the whole program in 2000.
The Department of Environmental Management has
since modified some of the tidal restrictions. The
volunteers are now collecting data to measure the
effect over time of the mitigation efforts. Based on
the WHAT proj ect's successful history, funding has
been established through the Jessie B. Cox Chari-
table Trust for 2 more years. The training proto-
cols for each of the assessment tools are currently
being revised in readiness for publication in 2001.
For further information on the WHAT program,
contact Vivian Kooken at Salem Sound 2000,201
Washington Street, Suite 9, Salem, MA 01970,
phone 978-741-7900, e-mail vivian.kooken
@salemsound.org.
Table 2 lists Federal and State agencies involved
in volunteer biomonitoring.
14
-------
Table 3 categorizes the various tasks for an inte-
grated biomonitoring proj ect, with the recommended
suitable roles of volunteers and supervising profes-
sional scientists. The foundations for this table were
laid during the pilot phase of two programs, the
WHAT Toolbox outlined in the case study, and the
Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve proj ect
reported by Neckles and Dionne (2000).
TABLE 2: EXISTING VOLUNTEER BIOMONITORING AT THE
FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCY LEVELS
AGENCY
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
JudyHelgen 651-296 -7240
judy.helgen@pca. state, mn. us
Mark Gernes 651-297-3363
mark.gernes@pca.state.mn.us
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
and Mass Bays Program,
University of Massachusetts
Bruce Carlisle 617-626-1205
Bruce.Carlisle@state.ma.us
Jan Smith 617-626-1231
Jan.Smith@state.ma.us
Anna Hicks 413-545-1884
ahicks@umext.umass.edu
Massachusetts Audubon Society
Elizabeth Colburn 781-259-9506
Leo Kenney 617-942-9135
vernalpool@whale.simmons.edu
Illinois Department of Natural Resource's
Eco Watch Network
Michael Jeffords 217-333-5986
Maryland Department of the Environment
Chirsti Noble 410-631-8904
Georgia Environmental Protection Division
Michele Droszcz 404-656-0099
U.S. EPA's Wetland Research Program
Mary Kentula 541-754-4478
kentula@mail.cor.epa.gov
King County Department of Natural
Resources, Seattle, WA
Klaus Richter 206-205-5622
klaus.richter@metrokc.gov
Elissa Ostergaard 206-296-1911
elissa. ostergaard@metrokc. gov
PROJECT
Project - Dakota County
Wetland Health Assessment
Toolbox -North Shore region of
Massachusetts
Certified: A Citizen's Step-by-Step
Guide to Protecting Vernal Pools
Eco Watch Network
Mitigation Banking
Adopt-A-Wetland
Citizen Science: The Oregon
Wetlands Study
King County Wetland-Breeding
Amphibian Monitoring Program
VOLUNTEER INVOLVEMENT
Trained volunteers to sample, sort,
for freshwater depressional wetlands
invertebrates and plants
Trained volunteers to monitor plants,
birds, and invertebrates in estuarine salt
marshes of the North Shore Region of
Massachusetts
Reading Memorial High School Students
sample for fairy shrimp and findings
support the State certification of vernal
pools
Statewide citizen volunteer monitoring
program that includes wetland
macroinvertebrat.es, vegetation, and
wetland zones
Program to train citizens to monitor
mitigation sites. Their manual includes
methods for monitoring vegetation
density, hydrology, and soils
A pilot program for volunteers. Level 1
is simple observational monitoring 4
times a year; levels 2 and 3 are yet to be
developed
Science teachers participate in a large-
scale monitoring effort paying particular
attention to vegetation
Trained volunteers counted amphibian
eggs, juveniles, and adults in freshwater
palustrine wetland in King County, WA
15
-------
TABLE 3: ROLES OF VOLUNTEERS AND PROFESSIONAL SCIENTISTS
IN A COOPERATIVE MONITORING PROGRAM
CATEGORY
VOLUNTEER
VOLUNTEER
+ PROFESSIONAL
PROFESSIONAL
+VOLUNTEER
Land Use
Preparation of base maps
Obtaining aerial photographs
Delineating zones of influence
Mapping land uses
Field works conducting Land Use Index of
Rapid Assessment
Calculation of wetland evaluation area (WEA)
Calculation of land-use coefficients
Calculation of Land Use Index
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Tidal Influence
a. Reference mark technique
Establishing benchmark
Recording readings
b. Staff gauge technique
Installing gauges
Recording readings
Data analysis and tidal range ratio
X
X
X
X
X
Water Chemistry
a. Ambient water quality for
invertebrates with YSI multimeter
calibration
Monitoring
Recording
b . S a linity
Establishing transects
Constructing wells
Installation of wells
Monitoring and recording
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Avifauna
Species identification
Behavior observations
Recording
Data analysis to Avifauna Index
X
X
X
X
Vegetation
Establishing transects
Selection of subunit transects
Laying of quadrates
Plant identification to genus & species
Abundance and cover estimates
Recording
Data Analysis to Index of Vegetation Integrity
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
16
-------
TABLE 3 (CONTINUED)
CATEGORY
VOLUNTEER
VOLUNTEER
+ PROFESSIONAL
PROFESSIONAL
+ VOLUNTEER
Invertebrates
Habitat assessment
Siting of sampling locations
Recording of field conditions
Sampling and preservation
Sorting
Identification to order level
Identification to family level
Counting and recording
Data Analysis to Invertebrate Community
Index
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
17
-------
REFERENCES
Bryne RR, Dionne M, Cook RA, Jones J. 1997. Maine
Citizens Guide to Evaluating, Restoring, and Manag-
ing Tidal Marshes. Maine Audubon Society,
Falmouth, ME.
ColburnEA. 1997. Certified: A Citizen's Step-by-Step
Guide to Protecting Vernal Pools. Massachusetts
Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.
Dates G Lehrer A, Schoen J, McVoy R. 1997.
Merrimack River Watershed Study Design Workbook.
The Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Network, C/-
Merrimack River Watershed Council, Lawrence, MA.
Dates GA, Schloss J. 1998. Data to Information: A
Guide Book for Coastal Volunteer Water Quality
Monitoring Groups in New Hampshire and Maine.
University of Maine Cooperative Extension and
University of Maine/New Hampshire Sea Grant
Extension.
Duly MA. 1991. A Comparison of the Results of a
Volunteer Stream Quality Monitoring Program and the
Ohio EPA's Biological Indices. In: Simon TP, Davis
WS, eds. Proceedings of the 1991 Midwest Pollution
Control Biologists Meeting. Environmental Indicators:
Measurement and Assessment Endpoints.
DohnerE, Markowitz A, BarbourM, Simpson J, Byrne J,
Dates G Mayio A. Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A
Methods Manual. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA841-B-97-
003.
EllettK, Mayio A. 1990. Volunteer Water Monitoring: A
Guide for State Managers. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds. EPA 440/4-90-010.
ElyE. 1992. Training and Testing Volunteers. Volunteer
Monitor 4(2): 3-4
ElyE. 1996. Are You Covered? Volunteer Monitor
8(l):22-23.
ElyE. 1997. Parallel Testing-Volunteers Versus
Professionals. Volunteer Monitor 9(1): 16-19.
ElyE, HamingsonE. 1998. National Directory of
Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds.
FirehockK, Graff L, Middleton JV, StarinchakKD,
Williams C. 1998. Handbook for Wetlands Conserva-
tion and Sustainability. Izaak Walton League of
America, Gaithersburg, MD.
Firehock K, West J. 1995. A brief history of volunteer
biological water monitoring using macroinvertebrates.
J North Am Benthol Soc 14(1)197-202.
GernesM. 1998. Wetland Vegetation Method for
Wetland Evaluation, Draft Guidance on Sampling,
Biological Metrics and Identification of Wetland
Vegetation for Citizen Teams.
HannafordMJ,ReshVH. 1995. Variability in
macroinvertebrate rapid-bioassessment surveys and
habitat assessments in a northern California stream. J
North Am Benthol Soc 14(3):430-439.
HelgenJ. 1998. Wetland Invertebrate Method for
Wetland Evaluation, Draft Guidance on Sampling and
Identifications of Wetland Invertebrates for Training
Citizen Teams. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
and Minnesota Audubon Council.
Hicks AL. 2001. Draft. New England Estuaries Inverte-
brate Biomonitoring Protocol. Massachusetts Coastal
Zone Management, Boston, MA.
Hicks AL, Nedeau E. 2000. New England Freshwater
Wetlands Invertebrate Biomonitoring Protocol.
Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Boston,
UMass Extension's NREC Program, University of
Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
Hunt M, Mayio A, BrossmanM, Markowitz A. 1996.
The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance
Project Plans. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.
LaughlinL, RosselliH. 1994. Water Quality Monitoring:
Data to Action. Long Island Sound Taskforce,
Stamford, CT.
Jackson S. 1998. Massachusetts Calling Amphibian
Survey. North American Amphibian Monitoring
Program: Procedures and Protocols. UMass
Extension's NREC Program, University of Massachu-
setts, Amherst, MA.
18
-------
KaynorS. 1997. Bridge Builder: A Guide for Watershed
Partnerships. Facilitator's Handbook. Conservation
Technology Information Center, Lafayette, IN.
Kenney LP, Burne MR. 2000. A Field Guide to the
Animals of Vernal Pools. Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Endan-
gered Species Program, Vernal Pools Association.
Westborough, MA.
Madison S, Paly M. 1994. A World in OurBackyard: A
Wetlands Education and Stewardship Program. New
England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commis-
sion. Lowell, MA.
Martin J. 1999. Learning Science Through Restoration.
Volunteer Monitor 11(1):22.
Mayio A, Hunt M, Brossman M, Markowitz A. 1996.
The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance
Project Plans. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds, Washington, DC.
Miller T, Bertolotto C, Martin J, Storm L. 1996. Monitor-
ing Wetlands: A Manual for Training Volunteers.
Adopt a Beach, Seattle, WA.
Neckles HA, Dionne M (eds). 2000. Regional Standards
to Identify and Evaluate Tidal Wetland Restoration in
the Gulf of Maine. Wells National Estuarine Research
Reserve Technical Report, Wells, ME.
PenroseD. 1995. Volunteer monitoring of benthic
macroinvertebrates: regulatory biologists' perspec-
tives. J North Am BentholSoc 14(1):203-209.
Riverways Newsletter. Fall 1999. A publication of the
Riverways Program, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife
& Environmental Law Enforcement, MA.
SetzerW. 1997. Tips for Statistical Analyses of Parallel
Studies. Volunteer Monitor 9( 1): 16-20.
Schoen J, Walk M-L, Tremblay ML. 1999. Ready, Set,
Present! A data presentation manual for volunteer
water quality monitoring groups. Massachusetts
Water Watch Partnership, University of Massachu-
setts, Amherst, MA.
Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC.
Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, DC.
Volunteer Monitor. Fall 2000. Topic: Monitoring Flora.
Volunteer Monitor. Spring 2000. Topic: Monitoring
Fauna.
Volunteer Monitor. Fall 1999. Topic: Youth Projects.
Volunteer Monitor. Spring 1998. Topic: Monitoring
Wetlands.
Volunteer Monitor. Fall 1992. Topic: Building Credibility.
Volunteer Monitor. Fall 1991. Topic: Biological Monitor-
ing.
19
------- |