United States Environmental Research EPA/600/R-95/024
Environmental Laboratory March 1995
Protection Agency Corvallis, OR 97333
SIS EPA Field and Laboratory
Operations Report for the
Oregon Wetlands Study
-------
United States Environmental Research EPA/600/R-95/024
Environmental Laboratory March 1995
Protection Agency Corvallis, OR 97333
Field and Laboratory
Operations Report for the
Oregon Wetlands Study
-------
EPA/600/R-95/024
March 1995
FIELD and LABORATORY OPERATIONS REPORT
for the OREGON WETLANDS STUDY
by
Teresa K Magee
Kate A. Dwire
Stephanie E. Gwin
Paul W. Shaffer
Cindy C. Holland
JoEllen Honea
ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
EPA Project Leader
Mary E. Kentula
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
-------
DISCLAIMER
Although the research described in this report has been funded wholly or in part by the
United States Environmental Protection Agency under Contract #68-C8-0006 to ManTech
Environmental Technology, Inc., it has not been subjected to Agency review and therefore does
not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be inferred.
Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use
This document should be cited as-
Magee, T.K., K.A. Dwire, S E. Gwin, P.W. Shaffer, C.C. Holland, and J. Honea. 1995. Field and
Laboratory Operations Report for the Oregon Wetlands Study. EPA/600/R-95/024. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon. 167
PP
The National Technical Information Service access number is PB95-192217.
i
-------
CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER i
LIST OF TABLES ii
LIST OF FIGURES v
I. INTRODUCTION 1
II. CREW DEVELOPMENT 2
II.A. Recruitment of Teachers 2
II.B. Selection of Teachers 2
II.C. Field Crew Structure 2
II.D. Influence of Crew Representatives 6
II.E. Crew Dynamics 6
II.F. Recommendations 7
III. TRAINING 8
III.A. Description of Training 8
1M B. Results of End-Of-Training Questionnaire 9
III.C. Recommendations for Future Training 12
III.C.1. Recruitment and training methods to retain 12
III.C.2. Recommended changes for future training 15
IV. SITE SELECTION AND LOGISTICS 19
IV.A. Site Selection and De-Selection 19
IV.B. Logistics of Weekly Site Selection 19
IV. C. Preparation of Site Packets 27
IV. D. Clearance for Access to Sites 29
IV.E. Preparation of Field Equipment 29
IV. F. Lodging/Accommodations 34
IV.G. Recommendations 34
V. FIELD & LABORATORY ACTIVITIES 34
V.A. Summary of Field Data Collection Procedures 34
V.B. Survey Activities 36
V.B.1. Mapping 36
V.B.2. Surveying 37
V.B.3. Recommendations 38
V.C. Vegetation. . 39
V.C.1. Field activities 39
V.C.2. Plant specimen collection and handling 39
V.C.3. Plant species identification and data sheet annotation 40
V.C.4. Plant specimen archival 44
V.C.5. Recommendations 45
ii
-------
V.D. Soil Sampling and Analysis 47
V.D 1. Field sampling 47
V.D.2. Laboratory Analysis of Soils 54
V.D.3. Summary 58
V.D.4. Recommendations 58
VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE 60
VI.A. Results of Field Audit by ERL-C OA Staff 60
VI.B. Description of Proficiency Criteria 63
VI.C. Summary of Training Results, End-of-Training Calibration 66
VI.C.1. Plant identification and cover estimates 66
VI.C.2. Soil description 67
VI.D. Mid-season Calibration 68
VI.E. Field Remeasurement Data 69
VI F. Quality Assurance Evaluation of Soil Samples 70
VIG. Recommendations 73
VII. SUMMARY & OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS 78
VIIA Training 78
VII B. Overall Field Sampling 79
VII.C. Mapping 79
VII.D. Vegetation 80
VII.E. Soils 80
VII.F. Assessing Proficiency and Data Quality 81
VII.G. End-of-Season Questionnaire - Teacher's Perspectives 81
LITERATURE CITED 88
APPENDIX A OREGON WETLANDS STUDY TRAINING AGENDA 89
APPENDIX B: OREGON WETLANDS STUDY END-OF-TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE ... 97
APPENDIX C: OREGON WETLANDS STUDY END-OF-SEASON QUESTIONNAIRE .... 107
APPENDIX D: PLANT SPECIES COLLECTED DURING THE 1993 OREGON WETLAND
STUDY 137
APPENDIX E: RESULTS OF ERL-C QA REVIEWS 143
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Oregon Wetlands Study personnel and responsibilities 3
Table 2. Crew structure and membership for the Oregon Wetland Study 5
Table 3. Teachers' responses. Summary from the end-of-training
questionnaire 10
Table 4. Site numbers of natural wetlands and projects sampled by each crew
during the field season 20
Table 5. Geographic locations of sites sampled during the field season 21
Table 6. Reasons for eliminating natural wetlands before and during the field
season and reducing the sample size from 111 sites as originally
planned to 48 sites actually sampled 25
Table 7. Reasons for eliminating and adding projects before and during the
field season and reducing the sample size from 51 sites as originally
planned to 49 sites actually sampled 26
Table 8. Equipment and supplies used to perform each sampling activity in the
field 30
Table 9. Faulty field equipment 32
Table 10. Additional equipment needed to better facilitate field sampling 33
Table 11. Numbers of plant specimens for the OWS listed by family and archive
location 42
Table 12. Reasons for non-sampling of plots for soils on OWS wetlands 50
Table 13. Numbers of soil samples planned for collection in OWS wetlands, and
numbers of samples actually collected 52
Table 14. Reasons for non-collection of individual OWS soil samples 53
Table 15. Summary of issues identified during the June 1993 OA audit of the
OWS soil analytical laboratory at Portland State University, and
resolution of those issues by OWS staff 61
Table 16. Internal quality control checks for assessment of individual and team
proficiency in executing sampling methods 64
Table 17. Comparisons of audit soil organic matter content (loss on ignition) as
determined by analyses at Oregon State University (OSU) and by
analyses at PSU and ERL-C for the OWS 72
Table 18. Summary of precision data for field and laboratory soil OA duplicate
samples analyzed for loss on ignition in the Oregon Wetlands Study. . . 75
Table 19. Teacher's perspective. Summary of the end-of-season questionnaire. . 83
Table B-1. Teachers' comments, summarized from the end-of-training
questionnaire 103
Table C-1. Summary of teachers' comments; end-of-season questionnaire 117
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Numbers of sites sampled by week for: A. wetland locations
(Tualatin Basin, Columbia Basin, and other areas) and B. wetland
types (natural wetlands and projects) 28
Figure 2. Comparison of methods used by the three field crews, and comparing
methods for natural wetlands (N) and projects (P), for soil sampling
on OWS wetlands 49
Figure 3. Control charts showing data for audit soils analyzed for loss on
ignition for the OWS 71
Figure 4. Frequency distributions and cumulative distributions for precision data
for OWS laboratory analyses of field and laboratory duplicate soils for
loss on ignition 74
Figure 5. Comparison of measured soil organic matter content (loss on ignition)
for soils analyzed during the summer of 1993 at Portland State
University and reanalyzed at ERL-C in November, 1993 76
v
-------
FIELD and LABORATORY OPERATIONS REPORT
for the OREGON WETLANDS STUDY
I. INTRODUCTION
The Oregon Wetlands Study (OWS) was designed to provide detailed
characterizations of a large number of natural, created, and restored freshwater wetlands
that range from sites dominated by open water to those dominated by emergent
vegetation, and are located in the urban environment of Portland, Oregon. We expect the
data from the OWS to contribute to the scientific knowledge of wetlands and to provide
wetland regulators with information that can improve management strategies and wetland
project design, and facilitate implementation of a no net loss policy within the study area.
Information from the OWS may also be applicable to freshwater wetlands in
geographic regions outside the study area due to similarities in 1) hydrologic conditions
that support grass and sedge dominated vegetation (Mitsch and Gosselink 1986), and 2)
wetland management strategies (Gwin and Kentula 1990, Owen 1990, Brown 1991, and
Kentula et al. 1992). We also anticipate that the methodology used in this study can be
adapted with minimal effort to wetlands elsewhere in the country, particularly to other
freshwater marsh systems.
The general approach was to collect data to characterize and compare the structural
and functional attributes of: 1) populations of natural wetlands in different land use
settings and 2) populations of natural wetlands and wetland projects. Characterizations
will be used to 1) document direct losses of wetland area or function through conversion;
2) identify the relationships between land use and attainable wetland quality; 3) evaluate
indirect losses or degradation of wetlands due to impacts from surrounding land uses and
poorly designed projects; and 4) evaluate the potential for wetland restoration and
replacement.
During the 1993 growing season, 97 freshwater wetlands were sampled, including
sites sampled during the 1987 Oregon Pilot Study (Gwin and Kentula 1990, Kentula et al.
1992). Because we designed the OWS to produce results that are regionally applicable to
wetland protection and management, an extensive sampling approach focusing on
populations of wetlands was adopted. Each wetland was sampled once during the field
season. The variables sampled were selected to provide data that describe the structural
features of wetlands, and that facilitate assessments of ecological condition and permit
compliance. Structural features (vegetation, soils, hydrology, wetland morphology, etc.)
were used to characterize current wetland conditions and attributes, providing a basis for
the comparisons required to answer the study questions.
This document, the Field and Laboratory Operations Report for the Oregon Wetland
Study, discusses 1) training the elementary, middle and high school teachers in the
sampling methods; 2) the implementation of the sampling activities and use of the teachers
as field workers; 3) changes made in individual sampling protocols due to the practicalities
of field sampling; and 4) the overall efficacy of the sampling methodology. The titles,
1
-------
names and responsibilities of all OWS participants are displayed in Table 1. The sampling
activities as designed prior to the field season are described in the Research Plan and
Methods Manual for the Oregon Wetlands Study (Magee et al. 1993a) and Quality
Assurance Project Plan for the Oregon Wetlands Study (QAPP) (Magee et al. 1993b). In
addition, the Oregon Wetland Study Final Quality Assurance Report (in progress) will
discuss the quality control data of field measurements, data verification and validation, and
the overall achievement of OWS data quality objectives.
II. CREW DEVELOPMENT
II.A. Recruitment of Teachers
A cooperative agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Portland State University's (PSU) Center for Science Education was established. Under the
agreement, EPA Wetland Research Program (WRP) staff worked with PSU staff to recruit
elementary, middle- and high-school science teachers to be field workers for the OWS.
Recruitment began with the Oregon Science Teachers Association's annual conference in
October 1992. Stephanie Gwin attended the conference to give a brief presentation about
the OWS, staff two posters portraying the WRP and the OWS, and distribute brochures to
interested teachers. PSU then mailed brochures containing applications to participate in
the OWS to science teachers in Oregon and southwestern Washington during the winter of
1992/1993.
II.B. Selection of Teachers
PSU received forty-five applications and transferred them to the WRP for review.
Teresa Magee and Stephanie Gwin reviewed the applications, first looking for teachers
with botanical expertise, and then looking for applications that indicated high levels of
dedication and enthusiasm. We regarded very favorably those applications in which the
teacher conveyed ideas for transferring skills and information learned during the OWS to
their students. The applications were arranged in order of most to least desirable and
submitted to the Project Leader (Mary Kentula). Mary reviewed the applications and
approved the "selections". The list of teachers, in order of preference for participating in
the OWS, was then sent to PSU. PSU staff (Bill Becker and Neal Maine) concurred with
our recommendations, making a few minor changes in the order. They then contacted the
top 25 of the 45 applicants to advise them of their acceptance into the OWS training
program.
II.C. Field Crew Structure
Three field crews were necessary to meet the labor requirements for collecting the
data. Each field crew sampled one wetland per day throughout the eight week field
season. Each field crew consisted of the crew leader, two botanists, two recorders and
three surveyors.
Based on the teacher's application materials, we made tentative assignments of
individuals to positions (i.e., botanists, recorder $ or surveyors) early in the training
schedule. Crew and final position assignments were made during the last few weeks of
2
-------
Table 1. Oregon Wetlands Study personnel and responsibilities. 1 = Environmental Protection Agency, 2= ManTech
Environmental, 3 ° Portland State University, 4 = Crew Representatives.
Title
Name
Responsibilities
Project Leader
Mary Kentula1
Study Oversight, Research Ran, Training, Data
Analysis and Interpretation.
OA Auditor
Deborah Coffey2
Review of OA and Research Plans, OA Audits of Field
and Lab Work.
OA Specialist,
Crew Leader
Kate Dwire2
Review Research Plan, Training, OA Plan, Field
Sampling, Data Analysis and Interpretation,
Preparation of OA Final Report.
Plant Ecologist, Crew
Leader, Project Botanist
Teresa Magee2
OA and Research Plans, Training, Field Sampling,
Data Analysis and Interpretation.
Environmental Scientist,
Crew Leader
Stephanie Gwin2
Site Selection, OA and Research Plans, Training. Field
Sampling, Data Analysis and Interpretation.
Soil Scientist,
Alternate Crew Leader
Paul Shaffer2
OA and Research Plans, Training, Data Analysis and
Interpretation, Field Sampling, Soils Analysis.
Environmental Scientist,
Crew Leader
Cindy Holland2
Site Selection, OA and Research Plans, Training, Field
Sampling, Data Analysis and Interpretation.
Environmental Scientist,
Crew Leader
JoEllen Honea2
Site Selection, OA and Research Plans, Training, Field
Sampling, Data Analysis and Interpretation, Soils
Analysis.
Programmer
Robert Gibson2
Research Plan, Data Management and Verification.
Biostatistician
Jeannie Sifneos2
Research Plan
Statisticians
Barbara Pemston2, Ted Ernst2
Consultation for Data Analysis.
Data Entry Technician
Ty Hildreth2
Data Entry and Management, Soils Analysis.
Science Educator
Bill Becker3
Recruitment of Teachers, Management of Cooperative
Agreement.
Science Educator
Neal Maine3
Recruitment of Teachers, Management of Cooperative
Agreement.
Plant Taxonomist, Project
Botanist
Sherry Spencer3
Training, Plant Identification, Sample Transfer and
Custody.
Teacher Botanists3
Joe Blowers, David Blenberg, Mary
Pfauth, Russ Roseberry, Janice
Thompson, Gordon Whitehead4
Vegetation Sampling.
Teacher Recorders3
Gail Cape, John Colvin, Maureen
Kelly, John McGinity4, Eric Olson,
Gail Peterson
Recording Data for the Botanists, Transect
Establishment, Assisting the Survey Team as Needed.
Teacher Surveyors3
Byron Ball, Janet Brandeburg, Allen
Browning, Mary DeLong, Gary
Hook, Jennifer McNutty, Barbara
Stross, Lynn Wilson-Dean4, Joe
Zenisek
Site Mapping, Surveying Wetland Morphology, Soil
Sampling and Measuring Water Depths.
Teacher Lab
Technicians3
Deborah Suing-Cassell, Ken Krause
Lab Analysis of Soil Samples, Crew Alternates.
3
-------
training. WRP staff and teachers were assigned to field crews and individual positions for
the entire field season. This was done as follows:
Crew Leaders: Five WRP staff members were available to act as crew leaders for
the OWS. Therefore, two crews had two co-crew leaders, and one crew had a single
crew leader. Teresa Magee and Kate Dwire were the WRP staff members with the
greatest botanical experience. Therefore, they were paired up as co-crew leaders to allow
assignment of the botanists with weaker skills to their crew. Pairing Teresa and Kate
meant that Cindy Holland and JoEllen Honea would be co-crew leaders, and, as originally
planned, Stephanie Gwin would be sole leader for one crew.
Botanists: The teachers with the best skills in identifying species and estimating
percent cover were assigned to act as botanists on the field crews. As stated above, two
of the weaker botanists were assigned to work with the crew leaders with the strongest
taxonomic skills. The remaining botanists were assigned to crews according to skill levels
and personalities. For example, we tried to ensure that the skills of the botanists on each
crew were complimentary by pairing people with stronger and weaker taxonomic skills.
This, we hoped, would allow the weaker botanists to continue to develop their skills and
alleviate some of the concerns about making errors by working closely with a botanist who
possessed stronger skills.
Recorders: Recorders were assigned to botanists based on taxonomic skill and
personality. If a botanist could not perform his or her duties (due to absence, injury, etc.),
a recorder would temporarily step into the position. In addition, recorders acted as
"sounding boards" for the botanists, helping to make decisions when the botanists were
unsure. Therefore, recorders with stronger taxonomic skills were paired with botanists
with weaker skills, and those with relatively weaker taxonomic skills were paired with the
stronger botanists.
Surveyors: Again, skill level was the first criteria in assigning people to crews as
surveyors. Each crew needed at least one person with strong soils and transit skills.
Other than this, surveyors were assigned to crews based on compatibility of personalities
with other crew members and the crew leaders.
Lab Technicians: Two teachers were chosen to work as lab technicians based on
the content of their applications to the program. However, they participated in the entire
field training process, because in addition to their lab responsibilities, they acted as crew
alternates.
In making crew assignments, we considered friendships that were forming among
the teachers, noticed who tended to work together most often during training, and put
potential car-poolers together. We also considered individual traits of assertiveness and
working pace to ensure that people who would be working closely together had
compatible personalities and working styles. Finally, we considered the personality traits
of the individual crew leaders when making assignments. Table 2 displays the structures
of the three crews.
4
-------
Table 2. Crew structure and membership for the Oregon Wetland Study.
CREW
BUFFERS
OBLIGATES
VANISHING
POINTS
CREW LEADERS
Cindy Holland
JoEllen Honea
Stephanie Gwin
Kate Dwire
Teresa Magee
BOTANISTS
Mary Pfauth
Janice Thompson
Russ Roseberry
Gordon Whitehead*
Joe Blowers
David Ellenberg
RECORDERS
John Colvin
John McGinity,b
Gail Capeb
Gail Peterson
Maureen Kellyb
Eric Olson
SURVEYORS
Byron Ball
Mary DeLong
Gary Hook
Janet Brandeburg
Jennifer McNulty
Joe Zenisek
Allen Browning
Barbara Stross
Lynn Wilson-Dean"
LAB
TECHNICIANS/
ALTERNATES
Ken Krause
Debbie Suing-
Cassell
Crew Representative
bAlternate Botanist
5
-------
II.D. Influence of Crew Representatives
Each crew elected a representative on the last day of training. The crew
representatives' duties were to: 1) relay safety concerns to the crew leader (e.g., reasons
they considered a site too hazardous to sample); 2) relay information from the crew leader
to the crew members after hours (e.g., if the meeting place or time was changed for the
next week); and 3) contact alternates for absent crew members.
All three crew representatives took the position seriously. All crew leaders reported
incidents where the crew representative relayed crew member concerns that a site was
too dangerous to sample. Also, the crew leaders found that giving the crew representative
the responsibility for finding crew member alternates and conveying information to crew
members after hours were valuable time savers.
In some situations, crew representatives took their responsibilities beyond the
stated duties. The crew representative for the Vanishing Points took a more active role in
watching out for one crew member's safety, because the individual was inclined to take
chances while performing data collection activities (i.e., venturing into water that was too
deep and refusing to take breaks). The crew representative would bring such situations to
the attention of the crew member or, if necessary, the crew leader. The crew
representative for the Buffers organized a party to celebrate the successful completion of
data collection. Anticipating the party was a definite morale booster at the end of the
season when everyone was feeling the effects of the long hours of work.
II.E. Crew Dynamics
Each crew developed its own characteristics. The Buffers worked very quickly and
were greatly concerned with efficiency, while the Vanishing Points were extremely
meticulous and took more time to complete sampling activities. The Obligates fell
somewhere between the other two crews.
Early in the season it became clear that keeping morale high was important to
keeping crew members motivated. Efforts to increase morale helped to ensure
consistency and quality in each crew's data collection efforts. Because of the long hours
and intense physical demands, crew members soon learned the importance of helping each
other. They became sensitive to the problems other crew members experienced and found
ways to help. For example, botanists and recorders would assist in completing surveying
tasks, crew leaders would help with soil sampling, surveying and plant identification, and
surveyors would help botanists and recorders press plants. This was possible because all
crew members were trained in all aspects of sampling.
Each crew had its own way of lifting the morale of the group. Buffer crew
members often brought baked goods to share. After a few difficult days in the field, the
prospects of a treat lifted everyone's spirit. The Obligates camaraderie was enhanced by
their tradition of "van-food" (always keeping snacks in the van). They also designated
social gathering nights at which they met for pizza and movies. The Vanishing Points
were fortunate to have a musician on their crew who often entertained by playing tunes
on the sampling quadrat.
6
-------
From the beginning of the project, we based the crew leader/crew member
relationship on equality. The teachers were accomplished educators and felt that they
were scientists in their own right. Treating them as subordinates would have been
inappropriate. Because the crew leaders treated the teachers as peers, the teachers felt
ownership of the project, and thus, were very dedicated and committed to its successful
completion.
II. F. Recommendations
Overall, the crew and position assignments were very successful. People worked
well together with a minimum of friction. However, to further improve the process, we
recommend the following:
1. In the future, all crews should have two people acting as co-crew leaders unless the
study is conducted in the crew leaders' home area. The amount of time and travel
required for a study of this magnitude was too much for one person. Co-crew
leaders spent alternate weeks at home and in the office, handling regular tasks and
resting from the long hours in the field. Stephanie, who was in the field for the
entire eight weeks, experienced a high level of "burn-out" about midway through
the season because of lack of time at home and the inconveniences placed on her
personal life. In addition, a few minor office problems would not have occurred had
Stephanie occasionally been present.
To continue on the theme of ensuring that crew leaders have adequate time
between weeks in the field to rest, take care of personal tasks, and have time in
the office, co-crew leaders shouldn't be heavily committed to other projects. Kate
experienced much of the same "burn-out" that Stephanie did, because on the
weeks when she wasn't in the field for the OWS, she was traveling for other
projects. Kate believes that her leadership would have been more effective had she
been able to rest, re-orient herself in the office on alternate weeks and, above all,
communicate more closely with Teresa, her co-crew leader.
Finally, because of Kate and Stephanie's absence from the office, neither
were able to take care of their own preparatory work. The tasks of organizing site
packets, copying and filing completed field forms, and ensuring that all equipment
and supplies were available for the next week fell to Teresa, Cindy and JoEllen,
who took care of these details in addition to preparing for their own weeks in the
field.
2. Co-crew leaders should have different expertise. During training, the two WRP
members with the greatest botanical expertise (Teresa and Kate) were involved
exclusively with teaching plant identification and vegetation data collection
techniques. Therefore, pairing Teresa and Kate as co-crew leaders caused their
crew to be without a crew leader who possessed strong surveying and soil
description skills. Although the surveyors on this crew were well trained, Teresa
and Kate felt inadequately prepared to handle unusual surveying problems.
7
-------
3. One crew leader, should rotate through all crews during the first week of sampling
and mid-season to ensure that all crews (and crew leaders) are interpreting and
implementing protocols consistently. This might have prevented the perceived
overuse of the corers for soil sampling by the Buffer crew. It also might have
provided insight into why the Vanishing Point crew spent a greater amount of time
collecting data each day than did the other crews, and allowed them to shorten the
time spent at each site.
III. TRAINING
III.A. Description of Training
OWS crew members participated in an intensive 3-credit (quarter-system) course
offered at PSU, and taught by staff from the WRP and PSU. Training took place on seven
Saturdays, in day-long sessions, during the Spring of 1993, and included classroom,
laboratory, and field components. Wetland ecology concepts, field and laboratory
techniques for data collection, and sample processing procedures formed the core
curriculum. During training, crew members developed: 1) botanical or soil/survey skills; 2)
proficiency in data collection, sampling, and laboratory procedures; and 3) quality
assurance skills for maintaining precision, accuracy, and comparability in data collection.
Lectures and laboratory sessions were held at PSU and field training took place
primarily at Bryant Woods Park in Lake Oswego, OR. Bryant Woods was used for
conducting the field portion of training because it: 1) was close to PSU (within a 15
minute drive); 2) is publicly owned; and 3) possessed a variety of wetland habitat types
(i.e.. wet meadow, shallow open water, and deep open water). Training days 1 through 5
consisted of a morning lecture session, followed by an afternoon field or laboratory
session. Two 1-hour lectures were presented each morning, one an educational lecture
illustrating ways to bring wetland science into elementary and secondary classrooms, and
the other a science-based lecture illustrating wetland concepts and their relationship to the
OWS. In the afternoon sessions, hands-on field or lab activities were used to teach
techniques in plant identification, plant cover estimation, wetland mapping, soil
description, and soils analysis. Following the afternoon instruction, crew members used
their new skills to practice data collection, sampling, and analysis procedures in the Bryant
Woods wetland or in the OWS soils lab at PSU.
On training day 6, crew members worked to calibrate their data collection
techniques and took part in a sampling "dry run" at Bryant Woods. Calibration exercises
helped crew members develop consistency in making plant cover estimations and in
describing soil characteristics and profiles. Crew members worked to obtain values for
plant cover and soil variables that were close to values obtained by the OWS scientists for
the same vegetation quadrats or soil profiles. Calibration results are discussed in Section
VI.C. - Summary of Training Results, End-of-Training Questionnaire. The "dry run"
provided the crews with a chance to combine the skills they had learned to implement
sampling procedures required to collect all data for a study site. During this mock
sampling exercise. Project Leader, Mary Kentula, and OA Specialist, Deborah Coffey
evaluated the performance of crew members and crew leaders in executing their assigned
tasks.
8
-------
Training day 7 served as an opportunity for review and synthesis of the skills and
concepts learned during the training course. A final education lecture led off the morning
session. The WRP staff discussed crew member sampling skills based on observations
made by crew leaders, Mary Kentula, and Deborah Coffey during the day 6 activities. At
this time, the WRP scientists also provided coffee and snacks to celebrate the crew
members completion of training and to recognize their commendable performance and
effort. The afternoon was devoted to visiting a number of local wetlands to discuss
boundary determination and sampling strategies related to variation in wetland sites.
The syllabus and training agenda for the course (Appendix 1} includes dates and
descriptions of classroom activities, laboratory exercises, field training, and performance
evaluation. Details of the education based lectures presented by PSU are not provided.
Training materials such as handouts, overheads, and lecture notes/outlines are archived
with the field data. Additional information regarding training can be found in the Quality
Assurance Project Plan for the Oregon Wetland Study (Magee et al. 1993b).
III.B. Results of End-Of-Training Questionnaire
A questionnaire was prepared by the WRP crew leaders to obtain feedback from the
teachers on the effectiveness of training. The questionnaire (Appendix II) consisted of 25
questions about the structure of training, utility of training materials, effectiveness of
proficiency evaluation, and clarity of training goals and study objectives. It was filled out
anonymously by the teachers at the last training session. All questionnaires were returned
(100% response rate), although everyone did not answer every question.
Results of ranking-type questions are summarized in Table 3. In general, responses
were extremely favorable, indicating that the teachers felt well trained and prepared for
data collection activities. They rated the training materials, particularly the Oregon
Wetland Study Research Plan and Methods Manual (Magee et al. 1993a), as being "very
helpful" for review and understanding of methods. Most teachers (74% - 91 %) rated the
classroom presentations and the training goals and study objectives as being either "very
clear" or "exceptionally clear and relevant". In general, the field training activities were
also rated high, although about one-third of the teachers rated the soil sampling and
analysis activities as "somewhat" to "reasonably clear". About half of the teachers rated
the proficiency evaluation as "good" to "excellent", while the other half rated the
evaluation as "OK" to "reasonable". All respondents indicated that the training increased
their understanding of wetland ecosystems, with 61% noting that their understanding was
greatly increased.
A number of the questions were open-ended, requesting additional comments and
suggestions for improvement. Because these responses provided informative feedback, all
comments were recorded, and are summarized in Appendix II, Table 1. Appendix II, Table
1, notes whether the response was made by a botanist, surveyor, or soils laboratory
assistant, since people in these positions received slightly different emphasis in their
training. The major themes from both the ranking-type and open-ended questions are
summarized and discussed in more detail in Section III.C. - Recommendations for Future
Training.
9
-------
Table 3. Teachers' responses. Summary from the end-of-training questionnaire.
Question
Response Frequency
Total
Structure of Training
Rate effectiveness of:
Effective
Not Effective
Somewhat Effective
Combining morning lectures and
afternoon field/lab activities
16
0
5
21
Sequence of presentation of
different sampling techniques
16
0
7
23
Rate clarity, relevance, and
Somewhat clear,
Reasonably dear,
Very dear,
Exceptionally
assistance in field preparation
relevant
relevant
relevant
dear, relevant
of training activities:
ok prep
reasonable prep
good prep
excellent prep
Classroom presentations-
Overview of science
3
12
8
23
Sampling soils/hydrology
1
5
9
8
23
Sampling vegetation
3
11
9
23
Sample design & QA
14
9
23
Evaluating wetland project design
2
12
9
23
Laboratory Activities'
Soil analysis
1
4
5
7
17
Plant identification & collection
1
3
14
5
23
Map making
1
7
10
18
Field Activities'
Sampling soils/hydrology
7
B
6
21
Sampling vegetation
1
2
12
8
23
Surveying Techniques
1
9
11
18
Overall Preparation for field and
laboratory work
1
1
13
6
21
Training Goals & Study
Objectives
Rate clarity of:
Training goals
3
10
10
23
Study objectives In:
Reading (Research Plan)
2
8
14
24
Presentations
1
9
13
24
Connections between objectives
and data in:
Reading (Research Plan)
4
10
9
23
Presentations
3
10
10
23
Significance of data quality/QA in:
Reading (Research Plan)
2
11
10
23
Presentations
1
9
11
21
10
-------
Table 3. Continued
Question
Response Frequency
Total
Training Materials
Rate degree of helpfulness in
explaining research methods of:
Somewhat
helpful
Reasonably
helpful
Very Essential
helpful
OWS Research Plan and
Methods Manual
1
3
6 13
23
Handouts prepared by trainers
7
8 8
23
Wilt you continue to use the
handouts:
Yes
No
Not Sure
During data collection
19
2
21
For yourself or in your classroom
21
1
1
23
Evaluation of Proficiency
Rate the proficiency evaluation
activities (field checking for
surveyors and botanists/
recorders):
OK
evaluation
3
Reasonable
evaluation
9
Good Excellent
evaluation evaluation
9 2
23
Do you feel confident that you
can implement the OWS
research methods?
Yes
20
No
Somewhat
3
23
General
Did training provide you with an
understanding of all research
tasks?
Some Reasonable
understanding understanding
1 6
Good Excellent
understanding understanding
14 2
23
Did training increase your
understanding of wetland
ecosystems?
Increased
slightly
1
Increased
reasonably
Increased Greatly
considerably increased
8 14
23
Were you given ample
opportunity to interact with
peers?
Yes
3
No
S
Somewhat
11
-------
III.C. Recommendations for Future Training
Training was very successful and field crew members were, without exception, able
to competently execute all data collection tasks at the beginning of field sampling. Crew
members performed well in the end-of-training calibration activities and sampling "dry run"
(See Section VI. A). Throughout the field season, OWS crews conducted field and lab
work proficiently and accurately, and their attention to detail was reflected in high data
quality (see Section VI).
At the completion of the training course many of the teachers still felt slightly
uncomfortable with their levels of expertise and recommended further training or changing
the emphasis on some topics. However, crew member expertise and confidence increased
markedly in the first week of sampling. Also, based on time constraints and limitations of
the cooperative agreement between EPA and PSU (i.e., exposing all teachers to every
study aspect, allowing time for education-application lectures), the training agenda was as
complete as possible. Our general recommendations for future training are: 1) retain the
crew recruitment procedures, overall course content, and training methods used in the
OWS, and 2) implement, as feasible, changes in the curriculum based on consistently
voiced concerns of the teachers and crew leaders.
III.C. 1. Recruitment and training methods to retain
Recruitment must remain a high priority for training to be successful. Enthusiastic,
dedicated personnel with backgrounds in biology or ecology and realistic expectations
about field work are essential. Also, due to the complexity of botanical training, it is very
important to recruit individuals for botany positions with, at least, minimal expertise (i.e.,
have taken a taxonomy course, are good amateur botanists).
Three basic training approaches were adopted and found to be effective in helping
crew members develop the expertise required for field and lab work. First, hands-on
experience and practice with data collection, sampling, and lab activities helped develop
skills and confidence. Second, consistency in data collection and quality assurance were
stressed as central to data integrity and validity of results. Third, because data collection
depended on the work of the crew members, we recognized them as peers and valued
their contributions as integral to the success of the study. These training techniques
proved to be highly effective and are recommended for incorporation in future studies.
Hands-on data collection, sampling, and lab activities - Clear and concise
descriptions of the variables (wetland morphology, buffers, soils, hydrology, and
vegetation) to be sampled and their importance to the study were provided at the
beginning of training. This initial background in wetland ecology formed the conceptual
framework for the practical training. Hands-on instruction had three essential aspects: 1)
understanding sampling procedures and equipment use, 2) developing skills and expertise
required for sampling, and 3) practicing sampling and data collection techniques.
1. The following overviews of the sampling procedures, how to use the equipment,
and how to record data on the appropriate forms were presented.
12
-------
o Mapping and morphology - how to use compass, transit, and stadia rod,
under a variety of different situations varying in complexity, to map the
perimeter and elevations of a wetland.
o Buffers - recognition of different wetland buffer (land cover) categories and
demonstration of procedures for measuring their width.
o Soils - description of general soil characteristics, how to dig pits with a
spade, and how to use auger and coring devices in excessively wet
situations.
o Vegetation - how to recognize major wetland plant groups, how to lay a
transect, how to place 1-m2 quadrats to make cover estimates for herbs,
how to measure line-intercept distances for shrub cover estimates, how to
measure diameter breast height (dbh) for trees, and how to use a plant
press.
o Soil Organic Matter - description of general laboratory procedures, and how
to use soil sieves, analytical balance, drying oven and muffle furnace.
2. Intensive training was critical to the development of crew competency. Training
was provided through detailed field and lab activities to meet the following
objectives:
o Mapping and morphology - Develop accuracy in reading the stadia rod
through the transit, and in wetland mapping techniques including taking
elevation readings and recognizing the wetland perimeter. Learn how to
establish a benchmark and make turns (move the transit). Learn how to
calculate relative elevation and draw finished maps.
o Plant species identification - Develop competency in plant identification
through lab and field training in keying plants using standard local floras,
learning field characteristics of common wetland plants, and developing skill
in recognizing different species as distinct entities, even if the name of the
species is unknown to the sampler.
o _ Plant specimen collection - Learn how to collect complete specimens and
press unidentified plant species. Learn and apply precise record keeping
procedures for cataloging unknown plant species.
o Estimation of plant species cover - Develop the ability to estimate plant
species cover consistently and within specified ranges of the estimates made
by project botanists and other crew botanists.
o Soil description and sampling - Develop competency in soil profile description
and characterization of horizon depth, soil color, determination of the
presence or absence of mottles, gleying, organic layers, and H2S, depth to
soil saturation and free water surface, and depth to standing water. Develop
13
-------
consistency in sampling and description of soil parameters, so that data
values are within a specified range of the values made by the project soil
scientist and other crew surveyors.
o Soil organic matter analysis - Learn skills required for loss on ignition
analyses (LOI) for determining soil organic matter content. Develop precision
in record keeping and sample handling, and in sieving, weighing, drying (in
drying oven), and ashing (in muffle furnace) soils.
3. Extensive opportunities were provided for repeated practice of skills and sampling
techniques in the field and lab with plenty of feedback from crew leaders.
Stressing the importance of consistency and collecting high quality data -
Procedures for maintaining high data quality and collecting comparable data were built into
the protocols and sampling methods (Magee et al. 1993a and 1993b), and we stressed
their importance throughout training. Quality assurance practices were integrated in
training as a part of the sampling process, and not isolated as separate activities. We
emphasized that the results of the study and the management recommendations arising
from these results could only be as good as the data collected. This approach is
important, because it conveys the message that OA and careful data collection are integral
to the study and not an afterthought or trivial concern. We advocate adoption of this
strategy in crew instruction for future studies.
Recognizing the contributions of the teachers and facilitating positive morale during
training - Recognition of the pivotal role of crew members in the OWS was key to
promoting crew member motivation and enthusiasm, development of crew member
expertise and, overall success of the study. Crew members who feel peripheral to a study
might lack the motivation to precisely follow sampling protocols or to collect consistently
high quality data. We stressed that the teachers were essential to the OWS; that the
quality of the study depended on their understanding of project goals and methods, and on
their commitment to the field and laboratory research. We viewed the crew members as
peers, and solicited comments on field procedures, encouraged questions on the study
plan, and showed respect for their ideas and efforts. Difficulties in comprehension of
sampling techniques or wetland characteristics were addressed with encouragement, and
praise was offered for creative thinking and excellence in effort or understanding.
Concerns about field conditions, safety, long hours, and logistical difficulties were treated
seriously. Finally, to avoid false perception of a h'srarchy in the importance of various
sampling tasks, precise and very positive job descriptions were provided to emphasize the
importance and merits of all sampling roles.
The teachers participated in Saturday training sessions during a time when their
own teaching commitments were very pressing. Their dedication in developing the
expertise required for the OWS was commendable. The overall atmosphere of camaraderie
that developed during training formed the basis for many comfortable relationships that
persisted throughout the field season. Friendships and mutual respect prevented friction
among crew members during adverse field conditions, and allowed the teachers to voice
concerns to crew leaders about methodology or to suggest ways to increase sampling
efficiency. The importance to the teachers of recognition of their contributions by crew
14
-------
leaders is illustrated by the comments listed on the End-of-Season Questionnaire (Appendix
III) and comments made to crew leaders throughout the field season.
III.C.2. Recommended changes for future training
Training for the OWS was highly successful. Classroom, lab, and field activities
were well organized in terms of content and effective use of time. Facilities for instruction
at PSU were very good and the field training site at Bryant Woods was quite suitable.
Nevertheless, a number of possible improvements were identified. Recommendations are
based on observations made by crew leaders and from suggestions made by crew
members. In general, recommended changes are designed to fit into the OWS training
framework because it is unlikely that future studies will have the resources or time to
expand training beyond the 3 credit hour course offered. We have five basic
recommendations:
1. Increase time spent on hands-on activities to develop greater expertise in botany,
soils, and surveying and to practice data collection and sampling skills.
2. Provide more training in plant identification and soils description.
3. Provide an overview of sampling procedures and a typical day in the field at the
beginning of training.
4. Increase the number of training sites to allow experience with a range of wetland
communities and conditions.
5. Improve assessments of consistency in plant cover estimation and accuracy in plant
species identification (see Section VI.G.).
Options for addressing these recommendations are provided below.
Increasing training time in the field and lab - The opportunity to use a 3-credit hour
course for OWS training was very important in preparing personnel, who had limited
experience in field work or wetlands science. It was also useful that the seven class days
were long (7.5 hours) and spread out over the spring term to allow the teachers time to
review and assimilate what they had learned. We recommend this format for future
training of field workers with limited scientific background, and acknowledge that it is
unlikely more time than a university term could be provided for training. In light of this
constraint, increasing the time spent in field or lab training activities would require either
increasing the number of class days to eight or nine (matching the number of weeks in a
term), or restructuring the daily agenda. Options for shifting the emphasis are:
1. Add one or two days to the course. We did not have class on April 17 due to a
teachers conference that many crew members needed to attend, but could likely
include this additional day in future studies. Also, there was no class on Memorial
Day weekend. Loss of this Saturday is likely to occur in most spring term
schedules, but it may be possible to begin training one week earlier to gain another
day. The addition of this ninth day would be contingent on whether it fit into the
15
-------
normal schedule of a university Spring term. The addition of two days to the
curriculum should be considered carefully in terms of potential burn-out of crew
members who have teaching commitments during the week. However, many of
the teachers recommended more training time, both in the end-of-training
questionnaires and in comments to crew leaders. Also, in a normal 3-credit lab
course it is not unusual to have two hours of lecture and one lab per week, so
adding the two days would make the course equivalent to a nine week term.
Because of the long lab hours it might be appropriate under the 9-day scenario to
increase the credit for the course to 4-credit hours.
2. Present the education lectures at the end of training or after the field season
instead of as part of the daily agenda. The incorporation of the education lectures
into the field and lab training was part of the EPA-PSU cooperative agreement for
the OWS. However, based on the OWS experience it may be appropriate to
conduct these lectures at a one day post-training or post-sampling workshop or
symposium. Presenting this information after training or the summer in the field
might increase the value of the lectures by providing the teachers with 1) a larger
knowledge base in wetland science and methodology; 2) more time and expertise
for brainstorming about how to use wetland science in the classroom; and 3)
greater familiarity with their fellow crew members which could aid in development
of cooperative wetland science projects between schools. The benefits to the daily
agenda would include reducing the number of concept shifts (e.g, shifting from
education to wetlands sampling) during the day, and increase time for developing
wetlands expertise and practicing sampling skills.
3. Begin the morning session earlier. The 9:30 a.m. start time was established for the
OWS because several of the teachers were traveling two or three hours to get to
PSU (the course location). Also, careful consideration should be given to this
option regarding the potential decline in the ability of teachers and instructors to
concentrate near the end of the afternoon session. Longer breaks and lunch hours
would be necessary to prevent burn-out. However, this down time might be
appreciated by the teachers as an opportunity for more peer interaction --
something most teachers requested.
Provide more training in plant identification, cover estimation, soil description, and
survey techniques - If more training time can be made available, the extra time should be
spent on lab or field activities. Expanding the hands-on activities has several implications.
Crew member confidence would be greater at the beginning of the field season, reducing
the amount of time required for data collection and the number of untraceable mistakes
that might occur during the first sampling week. Also, the teachers would obtain a slightly
broader base in wetland plants and soils to take back to their students. Although they
expanded their knowledge about plants and soils immensely during the field season, many
felt further formal training would have been beneficial. Greater skills in sight recognition of
wetland plants would reduce the time spent on collection and subsequent plant
identification by project botanists. One more practice session in plant species cover
estimation would have alleviated much of the crew members' discomfort when making
estimates, and enhanced the initial cover calibrations. More time spent on soils training
could prevent confusion during initial field days regarding soil features such as organic
16
-------
layers, concretions, and mottle size. Added time for more detailed training in survey skills
would alleviate problems encountered early in the season in 1) moving the transit (making
a turn), 2) long-distance reading of the stadia rod, and 3) understanding how to map the
sinuosity of the wetland perimeter. Suggestions for expanding the content of training
beyond the instruction provided in the 1993 OWS are listed below.
1. Plant identification - Expanded lab activities should include, in order of importance,
more of the following: a) instruction in field characteristics to sight recognize a
greater number of the common wetland genera; b) keying unknown plants together
as a class to develop skill in working with the floras; c) keying identified wetland
plants to learn characteristics of individual species; d) time for sight recognition of
plants in the field; and e) providing field characteristics for identification of a greater
number of plant families.
Because sampling is scheduled to take place during peak vegetative cover
and flowering for the majority of the wetland species, training takes place
substantially before most wetland taxa are keyable. This necessitates the use of
early flowering species for fresh material and dried material for the more common,
later-flowering taxa. As a result of the collecting effort during the OWS, we now
have a large herbarium collection of plant species common to freshwater emergent
marshes in the Portland metropolitan region. These specimens span a phenological
range from juvenile to vegetative to flowering for many species. Some of these
specimens could be used in future training exercises to show not only mature
specimens of common species but also how immature plants look. The latter is
important in field identification since not every plant encountered in a plot is
mature. Toward the end of training more taxa reach a developmental state suitable
for keying or sight recognition and more fresh material can be brought into the lab
or students can go to the field to enhance their keying and sight identification skills.
Regardless of how skilled the teacher botanists become, it is extremely
important to stress the need for plant specimen collection. Complete plant
specimens should be collected for any plant with questionable or unknown identity.
Correct pressing and labeling techniques must be used at all times to preserve the
integrity of the specimen and data. Based on experience in the OWS greater
emphasis on collecting complete specimens (root, shoots, flower, fruits) should be
included in the session on plant preservation.
2. Plant cover estimation - One additional session in plant cover estimation would have
helped the crew members develop confidence and become more rapidly calibrated
to estimates of the project botanists (Teresa Magee and Sherry Spencer). Contents
of this session should include repetition of the techniques and criteria for cover
estimation and discussion of problem growth forms such as vining herbs or straight,
narrow graminoids (e.g., Eleocharis spp.). Also, time should be provided for
practice in estimating cover and comparing crew member estimates with project
botanist estimates.
3. Soils description and sampling - Provide more time for practicing description and
sampling techniques. More visual and hands-on examples of a variety of soils
17
-------
showing differences in soil horizons, gleying, mottle size and abundance, organic
layers, concretions, and colors would be useful. This might be accomplished by
visiting a number of sites with distinctly different soils, or by bringing into the lab a
variety of soil profiles showing an array of different soil characteristics.
4. Mapping - Offer further instruction in transit use with more time for practicing
turns. Such practice needn't take place in a wetland. A park, playground, field or
parking lot near PSU would have been suitable. Visit several wetlands with diverse
mapping problems and practice techniques required to handle these situations.
Alternatively, set up flagged boundaries for demonstration "wetlands" at the main
training site (Bryant Woods for the OWS) depicting a variety of mapping problems,
and ask the surveyors to practice techniques for addressing these difficulties. Also,
walking the perimeter of several wetlands with a crew leader and discussing the
placement of map points would clarify boundary questions and clarify the level of
sinuosity needed for accurate map production.
Presenting an overview of the sampling procedures - Many of the teachers
suggested presenting the sampling method in its entirety prior to teaching individual
sampling activities. Crew members felt that developing the skills piece by piece was
disjointed and continuously asked about how it would fit together. They suggested that
the crew leaders demonstrate how to sample an entire wetland on the first field training
day. Although the crew members realized their limited background would make it difficult
to understand all aspects of sampling, they felt that seeing how all the sampling activities
fit together would provide a framework for learning the specific skills. For the OWS, this
was not feasible in terms of time or logistics. In future training courses, perhaps
presentation of an abbreviated version of sampling an entire wetland with the trainers
conducting all the major steps would be useful. However, logistics problems must be
considered in this endeavor. Communication across a site so that the crew members
could hear and see all the salient points and activities would be difficult. Also, boredom
may set in with crew members acting as spectators for the two or three hours required for
such a demonstration, particularly if the weather is inclement. A preferred alternative
would be to produce a video (1/2 - 1 hour) depicting all the steps and procedures used in
sampling. Possibly the PSU video developed from the OWS would work - although it does
not specifically address the sequential steps of sampling. Perhaps at some future date, the
WRP staff could produce a sampling overview video illustrating the wetland sampling
method. This might be done once the sampling method is updated and incorporated into
the proposed "wetland characterization methods manual" under consideration by the WRP.
Alternatively, a slide-based lecture discussion of the sampling activities might suffice.
Increasing the number of training sites Only one training site, Bryant Woods, was
used in the OWS because of its ecological diversity, ease of access, and logistical
considerations. However, whenever possible it would be better to use several sites with
distinctly different soils, vegetation, and morphology. Such diversity would allow the crew
members to increase their skills in describing soils and in recognizing more wetland plant
species, and better prepare them for the variety of wetland conditions and communities
they might encounter in the field. We recommend using different sites with a variety of
wetland habitats for training if two major constraints can be eliminated. First, the sites
must be in close proximity to the central training site and access must be easy (i.e., no
18
-------
long hikes). Otherwise, too much training time will be lost in traveling between the field
and the central training facilities. Second, the training sites should not be study sites
because of the potential for disturbance caused by three crews working, standing, and
walking in a limited area.
IV. SITE SELECTION AND LOGISTICS
IV.A. Site Selection and De-Selection
Site selection was conducted according to the procedure described by Magee et al.
(1993a). The number of sites sampled, however, was less than the number in the
population. We planned to sample 162 sites-111 natural wetlands and 51 projects-but
ended up sampling 97 sites--48 natural wetlands and 49 projects (Tables 4 and 5). Tables
6 and 7 list the natural wetlands and projects not sampled and the reasons for excluding
them.
During the field season, we spent 34 days sampling wetlands, four days in the lab,
and one day conducting mid-season calibrations. Ideally, three crews sampling one
wetland per day could have sampled 102 sites during the 34 field days. However, two of
the crews sampled only three wetlands per crew during the first week, one wetland
sampled during the second week was dropped because it was not a study site, and two
crews did not sample on one day during the fifth week due to rain.
After the third week of sampling, we realized that we would not be able to sample
more than one wetland per day, which would have been required to sample the 162
wetlands as planned. To reduce the sample size in a non-biased way, we randomly de-
selected sites from the original list, then re-selected sites when needed (i.e., when sites
were dropped in the field). We decided to de-select only natural wetlands, to sample the
entire population of projects and have approximately equal sample sizes of projects and
natural wetlands.
The proportion of the total number of natural wetlands in each of the five land use
categories was calculated. For example, 23% of the 111 natural wetlands were
surrounded by agricultural land. We then determined the number of natural wetlands in
each land use needed to end up with the same proportions after reducing the sample size.
The site numbers for all natural wetlands not sampled were written on slips of
paper and placed in one of five envelopes (agricultural, industrial, residential, commercial,
and undeveloped) based on the predominant surrounding land use. The required number of
slips were drawn from each envelope and the sites on those slips were de-selected. If a
site was dropped by a crew while in the field, we randomly re-selected a site from the
same land use category to replace the site that was dropped.
IV.B. Logistics of Weekly Site Selection
Cindy Holland, who was responsible for site selection, assigned each crew a
week's worth of sites, including several extras in case sites had to be dropped. The crew
leader exercised discretion in the choice of which site to sample each day, but generally
19
-------
Table 4. Site numbers of natural wetlands and projects sampled by each crew
during the field season. Weeks six and seven had five samplings days; the
other weeks had four.
CREW
BUFFERS
OBLIGATES
VANISHING POINTS
Natural
Project
Natural
Project
Natural
Project
Week 1
172
4594
P42
4275
312
4960
175
4858
4585
9382
Week 2
399
3206
P46
4285
P3
4621
423
9285
4724
4785
4925
Week 3
88
4949
P26
4126
P17
5023
299
4974
5033
173
9033
304
Week 4
225
5335
243
4310
235
8379
237
4570
241
262
9570
272
Week 5
4
4366
P19
4130
P20
67
2
31
82
63
Week 6
99
4778
3062
4431
181
5179
3772
4562
9777
3849
4567
4488
4957
4573
5027
Week 7
289
45
4144
182
3826
489
485
4377
540
4988
490
6826
9826
613
615
Week 8
112
5397
P8 .
3862
72
4933
189
76
5172
271
248
291
20
-------
Table 5. Geographic locations of sites sampled during the field season.
NATURAL
SITE #
LATITUDE &
LONGITUDE
PROJECT
SITE #
LATITUDE &
LONGITUDE
31
45
63
67
72
76
82
88
99
112
172
45° 32' 46.7" N
123° 06' 47.7" W
45° 31' 93.0" N
123° 06' 78.7" W
45° 32' 01.6" N
123° 00' 02.2" W
45° 30' 80.7" N
123° 03' 21.8" W
45° 31' 31.4" N
122° 58' 03.8" W
45° 30' 57.3" N
122° 56' 99.5" W
45° 30' 44.7" N
122° 56' 19.3" W
45° 30' 80.7" N
122° 58' 97.5" W
45° 32' 05.8" N
122° 58' 87.5" W
45° 30' 71.2" N
122° 52' 53.7" W
45° 29' 51.7" N
122° 47' 33.7" W
45° 30' 38.7" N
122° 59' 32.0" W
45° 26' 89.3" N
122° 47' 55.8" W
3062
3206
3772
3826
3849
3862
4126
4130
4144
4275
4285
4310
4377
45° 25' 43.8" N
122° 34' 09.8" W
45° 12' 12.7" N
122° 39' 19.7" W
45° 27' 44.0" N
122° 47' 37.8" W
45° 36' 04.9" N
122° 43' 49.2" W
45° 28' 29.5" N
122° 46' 66.0" W
45° 31' 75.0" N
122° 50' 30.0" W
45° 29' 63.7" N
122° 50' 02.2" W
45° 32' 68.5" N
122° 53' 26.8" W
45° 36' 32.7" N
122° 44' 55.5" W
45° 26' 71.3" N
122° 47' 28.5" W
45° 33' 39.2" N
122° 27' 43.5" W
45° 25' 72.2" N
122° 46' 35.7" W
45° 31' 30.2" N
122° 50' 50.5" W
21
-------
Table 5 (cont).
173
175
181
182
189
225
235
237
241
243
248
262
271
272
289
45° 26' 42.7' N
122° 48' 04.6" W
45° 26' 62.0" N
122° 47' 19.5" W
45° 28' 00.0" N
122° 47' 20.0" W
45° 28' 01.0" N
122° 47' 23.3" W
45° 31* 22.5" N
122° 48' 35.3" W
45° 23' 53.8" N
122° 46' 17.7'W
45° 22' 52.9" N
122° 45' 16.9" W
45° 22' 54.7' N
122° 45' 01.5" W
45° 23' 05.3" N
122° 45' 58.6" W
45° 22' 99.2" N
122° 46* 60.7' W
45° 22' 62.5" N
122° 45' 49.8" W
45° 21'50.9" N
122° 51' 16.0" W
45° 23' 00.6" N
122° 48' 20.9" W
45° 22' 50.2" N
122° 48' 15.3" W
45° 33' 65.8" N
122° 51' 54.7" W
4386
4431
4488
4562
4567
4570
4573
4585
4594
4621
4724
4778
4785
4858
4925
45° 32* 32.2" N
122° 53' 41.2'W
45° 29' 44.8" N
122° 47' 99.0' W
45° 31' 27.3" N
123° 01' 86.3" W
45° 27' 41.2" N
122° 48* 57.5" W
45° 28' 59.5" N
122° 47* 28.1" W
45° 26' 52.5" N
122° 46* 05.7' W
45° 27' 37.0" N
122° 47' 37.2" W
45° 26* 75.8" N
122° 49* 73.0" W
45° 25' 53.3" N
122° 44' 40.2' W
45° 26' 25.9" N
122° 46' 55.1" W
45° 35' 21.5" N
122° 38' 93.8" W
45° 28' 29.9" N
122° 32' 45.5" W
45° 33' 45.0" N
122° 31'35.4" W
45° 2T 18.8" N
122° 49' 71 .Z W
45° 34' 12.1" N
122° 34' 08.1" W
22
-------
Table 5 (cont).
291
299
304
312
399
423
485
489
490
539
613
615
P3
P8
P17
45° 33* 26.0" N
122° 42' 03.6" W
45° 32' 56.7' N
122° 50' 63.3" W
45° 31' 44.7' N
122° 50' 57.4" W
45° 26' 27.1" N
122° 46' 58.4" W
45° 31* 43.4" N
122° 21' 41.7" W
45° 33* 14.4" N
122° 22' 25.1" W
45° 37' 61.5" N
122° 43* 11.2" W
45° 37' 65.8" N
122° 42' 57.2" W
45° 37' 71.2' N
122° 42' 85.3" W
45° 37' 36.8" N
122° 45' 03.6" W
45° 36' 79.5" N
122° 45' 81.8" W
45° 36' 89.8" N
122° 45' 79.0" W
45° 34' 13.1" N
122° 34' 07.2" W
45° 29' 29.2" N
122° 55' 90.8" W
45° 31'16.3" N
122° 53' 08.4" W
4933
4949
4957
4960
4974
4988
5023
5027
5033
5172
5179
5335
5397
8379
8826
45° 22' 55.4" N
122° 44' 55.6" W
45° 30* 96T N
122° 50' 75.8" W
45° 26' 27.2" N
122° 37' 35.3" W
45° 26' 50.9" N
122° 47' 31.7' W
45° 32' 70.5" N
122° 53' 09.7'W
45° 29* 32.2' N
122° 47' 49.9" W
45° 27' 41.2" N
122° 49' 45.9" W
45° 26' 29.8" N
122° 37' 19.6" W
45° 30' 55.0" N
122° 49' 68.7' W
45° 27' 47.5" N
122° 50' 06.2' W
45° 31' 94.8" N
122° 49' 57.5" W
45° 26* 38.0" N
122° 49' 12.4" W
45° 22' 56.5" N
122° 44* 14.2" W
45° 26' 27.0" N
122° 49' 41.9" W
45° 36' 17T N
122° 44* 13.3" W
23
-------
Table 5 (cont).
P19
P20
P26
P42
P46
45° 31' 08.3" N
122° 53' 33.1" W
45° 30' 57.1" N
122° 53' 28.0" W
45° 28' 82.7' N
122° 52' 09.2" W
45° 27' 14.2' N
122° 47' 81.0" W
45° 36' 10.0" N
122° 43' 26.3" W
9033
9285
9382
9570
9777
9826
45° 30* 51.7' N
122° 49* 84.3" W
45° 33' 18.1" N
122° 27' 17.7'W
45° 26' 22.8" N
122° 49' 23.5" W
45° 26' 49.5" N
122° 46' 14.8" W
45° 30* 25.3" N
122° 52* 04.9" W
45° 36' 09.3" N
122° 44' 03.3" W
24
-------
Table 6. Reasons for eliminating natural wetlands before and during the field season and
reducing the sample size from 111 sites as originally planned to 48 sites actually sampled.
REASON
NUMBER SITES
OF SITES
Eliminated before sampling
Permission to sample site denied 8
Could not contact owner/owner never replied 5
Owner revealed site was not natural or 5
was impacted
Site did not meet type criteria 13
TOTAL TT
Eliminated after sampling began
Owner changed mind after giving permission 2
Could not recontact owner 3
Access to wetland impossible 4
Wetlands filled 2
Sites dry (no visible wetland hydrology) 3
Hazardous 1
Site did not meet type criteria 2
Wetlands de-selected to reduce sample size 9
Two adjacent sites sampled as one 1
Hydrology altered (e.g., ditched) 5
TOTAL "32
53, 161, 171, 200, 322,
436, 455, 600
11, 30, 54, 92, 453
66, 311, 447, 506, 581
33, 65, 74, 192, 204,
452, 521, 522, 524, 525,
597, 598, P23
126, 288
70, 125, P50
244, 373, 386, 543
589, 590
115, 554, 602
499
470, 614
21, 25, 194, 257, 443,
474, 475, 486, 505
539/540
64, 80, 168, 476, 545
25
-------
Table 7. Reasons for eliminating and adding projects before and during the field season and
reducing the sample size from 51 sites as originally planned to 49 sites actually sampled.
REASON
NUMBER
OF SITES
SITES
Eliminated before sampling
Sites larger than 2 ha
Eliminated after sampling began
Sites did not meet type criteria
Sites larger than 2 ha
Hazardous
TOTAL
Added after sampling began
More than one wetland associated with permit
so wetlands sampled separately
2
3
~12
10
4734, 5077
4379,4382, 8797,9379,
9957
4797, 9797
4777, 4813, 4873
8379, 8797, 8826,
9033, 9285, 9379, 9382,
9797, 9826, 9957
26
-------
followed the list assigned for the week. In retrospect, it would not have been possible for
the crew leaders to pick sites each day. The method devised worked well to ensure that
there was no bias introduced into the sampling order.
The order in which sites were chosen for sampling was based on the wetland's
geographic location and type (project or natural). Wetlands were divided into three groups
based on their locations in the landscape-20 sites were located along the Columbia River,
73 sites in the Tualatin River Basin, and four sites in other locations. We sampled sites
along the Columbia River during weeks two and seven (near the beginning and end of the
field season), sites in other locations during week six, and sites in the Tualatin River Basin
during all eight weeks of field sampling (Figure 1). A second factor considered when
deciding the sampling order was the type of wetland (project or natural). We sampled
49% of the projects and 44% of the natural wetlands during the first four weeks of
sampling and 51% of the projects and 56% of the natural wetlands during the last four
weeks (Figure 1). A third, and much smaller, factor in deciding the sampling order was the
availability of hotel accommodations in the various areas. Fortunately, we were able to
secure lodging in all locations at the desired times. We feel we met our objective to
minimize variability associated with the time of sampling by sampling sites along the
Columbia River at the beginning and end of the field season and by sampling approximately
equal numbers of projects and natural wetlands throughout the eight weeks.
IV.C. Preparation of Site Packets
Site packets were prepared for each wetland prior to the field season. Color-coded
(red for projects and green for natural wetlands), waterproof expandable file folders were
labelled with the site number. Each folder contained:
1. a photograph of the wetland taken during the reconnaissance visits made during
site selection,
2. a copy of the street atlas (Thomas Bros. Maps 1992) page with the location of the
wetland highlighted,
3. Form I (see the Oregon Wetland Study Research Plan and Methods Manual, Magee
et al. 1993a), filled out during site reconnaissance visits and containing directions
to the site and a sketch of the site,
4. a phone contact form identifying the landowner and listing any pertinent
information (e.g., where and what time to meet the landowner),
5. a random number table used to select soil and vegetation OA plots, and
6. information about the site collected from the permit file (e.g., copies of aerial
photographs).
The co-crew leaders checked site packets for the following week during their weeks
in the office to ensure that all six items were included.
27
-------
A.
14
12
I.10
i
? 8
!.
o 6
£
i<
2
12
10
S
I
I
B
k-
H
2
¦ Tualatin Basin Q Columbia Basin BOther areas
¦ Natural wetlands ff Projects
Week
Figure 1. Numbers of sites sampled by week for: A. wetland locations
(Tualatin Basin, Columbia Basin, and other areas) and B. wetland types
(natural wetlands and projects).
28
-------
IV.D. Clearance for Access to Sites
Access to projects was obtained through the Oregon Division of State Lands
(ODSL) in spring 1991. ODSL sent a letter to permit contacts stating that we would be
conducting a study, and their project would be sampled as part of our research effort. We
secured permission to sample approximately 50% of the natural wetlands by contacting
landowners in-person while conducting the 1992 field reconnaissance for site selection.
Access to the remaining 50% was obtained by making phone calls during winter 1992 and
spring 1993 prior to the field season. Property owners of natural wetlands and permit
contacts for projects were contacted a second time by phone several weeks prior to field
sampling to set up a convenient time for sampling their wetland and to arrange for any
unusual circumstances (such as obtaining a key to access a wetland behind a locked gate).
Most attempts to contact the landowner just prior to field sampling were
successful. There were several cases, however, when the second contact was
problematic. For example, the most common difficulty encountered was that the
landowner or contact had changed since our first communication. We had expected this
problem, since all the landowners of projects were contacted during 1991, two years prior
to field sampling, and about half of the landowners of the natural wetlands were contacted
a year before field sampling. Once identified, the present landowners were contacted, and
all allowed us access to their wetland. In addition, several wetlands were dropped from
our study because of information revealed by the landowner (such as, wetlands thought to
be natural were created).
Since the OWS was a large research effort involving many wetlands, it would have
been difficult to avoid the problems encountered while securing permission to sample
sites. Even with the access problems encountered, a surprising 91 % of the landowners of
natural wetlands allowed us to sample the site on their property. We were impressed with
the degree of cooperation given to us by the landowners.
IV.E. Preparation of Field Equipment
In February 1993, the scientists involved in training and field sampling compiled a
list of all equipment and supplies necessary for each sampling task (Table 8). The field
equipment and supplies were purchased through mail order or local suppliers early enough
to allow adequate time for returning incorrect or damaged equipment and evaluating
continuing equipment and supply needs.
Once all equipment had arrived, it was organized for use by the three crews and
loaded into the vans used for transporting the crews to the sampling sites each day. A
laminated equipment list and erasable marker was attached to the back door of each van
so the crew could inventory equipment at the end of each day and at the end of the field
season.
For the most part, the equipment and supplies assembled for the field season were
adequate for sampling. In a few cases, however, either the equipment did not perform
well (Table 9) or there were unforeseen logistical problems which required purchasing
additional items during the field season (Table 10). For example, it became clear that a
29
-------
Table 8. Equipment and supplies used to perform each sampling activity in the field. This
table lists the equipment and supplies used by one crew.
SAMPLING ACTIVITY
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
Transect Establishment
6 - 100-m measuring tapes
1 - 3-lb mallet
13 - wooden stakes
1 - roll flagging tape
Vegetation Sampling
2 - compasses
2 - DBH (diameter breast height) tapes
1 - roll flagging tape
2 - trowels
2 - sharpie pens
2 - rulers
1 - calculator
1 - machete and sheath
2 - break apart quadrats (1m2)
5 - quadrats (1m2)
2 - flag pin carriers
40 - flag pins
1 - ice chest
1 - plant press
2 - hand lens
2 - Zika floras
Nature Conservancy rare plant Ideation
data
collection bags and labels
Surveying
2-100 meter measuring tapes
3 - wooden stakes
2 - walkie talkies
1 - mallet
1 - roll flagging tape
1 - flag pin carrier
2 - compasses
1 calculator
1 - transit and tripod
2 - stadia rods
30
-------
SAMPLING ACTIVITY
EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES
Soil Sampling
2 - sharpshooter shovels
1 - bucket auger
1 - 1-inch soil corer
1 - knife with long blade
2 - Munsell color chart
1 - squirt bottle
1 - cut-off meter stick (50cm)
2 - sharpie pens
1 - box kitchen sized garbage bags
1 - ice chest
plastic core sample liners
Crew Leader and General
1 - 35-mm camera and film
1 - GPS-Global Positioning System Unit
2 - pair chest waders
site Packets
first aid kit
drinking cups
sunscreen
tec-nu poison oak treatment
insect repellent
rubber bands, sharpie pens, pencils
extra batteries
handiwipes
colored pencils
data forms
water jugs for drinking and washing
ice chest for lunches
extra clipboards
plastic garbage bags
transparencies to protect data sheets from
rain
plastic laundry baskets and buckets
31
-------
Table 9. Faulty field equipment.
EQUIPMENT
PROBLEMS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Brunton Cadet Compass
Needle undamped and wobbles
continuously.
Plastic case breaks easily.
Not water-proof.
Replace with reliable damped compass
(e.g., Brunton Pocket Transit or Silva
liquid filled compass).
Walkie talkies (Maxon Hands-Free
Communicators model 49-SX and
model 49-SA, Nady Easy Talk)
Loud and prolonged static.
Picks up surrounding transmissions
(e.g., baby monitors, etc.).
Replace with models such as Realistic
Two-Way Communicator.
Soil Corers (AMS Soil Recovery
Probes)
Outer metal sleeves made sampling
difficult.
Use cross handle alone with plastic
sample liners.
Shovels
Wooden handled shovels flexed
easily, making digging more difficult
than with metal or fiberglass
handled shovels. Also, one wooden
handled shovel broke during use.
Use shovels with metal or fiberglass
handles. Fiberglass is lighter than
metal, making carrying easier.
-------
Table 10. Additional equipment needed to better facilitate field sampling.
EQUIPMENT
JUSTIFICATION
1 additional bucket auger per crew
The most time consuming task was
collecting soil samples; an additional
bucket auger per crew would expedite
this task.
1 large tarp per crew
Needed to keep rain and sun from
damaging supplies and equipment, and
provide crew members with shade on hot
days.
1 pair of chest waders per crew member
Deep water situations occurred often;
time was often wasted waiting for a pair
of chest waders to become available.
Plastic tomato stakes (5 ft.)
The flagged pins were not tall enough to
mark sampling intervals in deep water
conditions; taller stakes were needed.
Patch kits for waders
To repair leaks in waders and boots.
Heavy gloves
Necessary to protect hands when
chopping brambles with a machete.
Additional "write-in-the-rain" paper
The wet weather during the field season
required extra rain proof paper, it was
difficult to find stores that carried it.
33
-------
pair of chest waders should be available to each crew member (with the possible
exception of the transit operator). Sampling was often interrupted as one crew member
waited to use a shared pair of chest waders. Hip waders were not adequate in the many
deep water situations we encountered. Another useful equipment addition was a large
tarp that we used as an awning to shelter people, supplies and equipment from the rain
and sun.
IV. F. Lodging/Accommodations
Because the study sites were located in a metropolitan area, there were few
problems in meeting weekly lodging requirements. Crew leaders stayed in various hotels
each week throughout the field season. The hotels were chosen based on: 1) proximity
to the majority of sites to be visited that week (the hotel was a meeting point for all crew
members); 2) kitchen facilities available in the crew leaders' rooms; and 3) cost of the
rooms was within the allowed range.
The general location of each week's study sites was the most important factor in
choosing lodgings. Lodgings were secured near enough to sites to minimize travel time.
When no accommodations were available near the study sites, we reorganized the
sampling itinerary. Generally problems were minimal and easily remedied, and we
recommend using the same method to coordinate lodging with sampling in future field
efforts.
IV.Q. Recommendations
We recommend spending time prior to the field season to assess the amount of
time required to sample a wetland. Although we field tested the methods, we never
actually sampled a wetland from beginning to end prior to starting field work. Even if the
teachers were not involved, WRP personnel could have conducted several practice
sessions. Having-a more realistic estimation of the time required to sample a wetland
would have allowed us to choose a more reasonable sample size and avoid de-selecting
wetlands.
We also recommend conducting site selection closer in time to field sampling to
minimize the problems encountered when attempting to re-contact landowners and permit
contacts. Because our sample size was very large and our staff was limited, we had to
start site selection two years prior to sampling to visit all potential sites. However, for a
smaller study, we suggest timing final site selection as close as possible to field sampling
to minimize the degree of turnover in landowners and contacts.
V. FIELD & LABORATORY ACTIVITIES
V.A. Summary of Field Data Collection Procedures
Because of the large number of people working in a variety of situations, the
potential for inconsistency in interpreting and discrepancy in applying the field protocols
was large. Nevertheless, the field protocols were adhered to accurately. Although
analysis of the data may bring inconsistencies in sampling activities to light, it is our
34
-------
impression that field methods were followed by the crew members as planned. Also,
given the variety of wetland shapes and sizes encountered, the design for baseline and
transect placement worked remarkably well. Transect establishment procedures were
readily adapted to the range of conditions found on the different sites.
Efficiency in sampling increased as the season progressed. Crew members became
both more proficient and more confident in their abilities to complete tasks, and fell into
rhythms that allowed assisting each other. For example, on the Obligate Crew, the crew
leader assisted the surveyor sampling soils by 1) recording the soil data, 2) helping to dig
or auger pits, and 3) conducting the OA analysis of the soil slab and samples. This
expedited soil sampling and helped the entire crew finish their tasks for the day at about
the same time. Buffers' crew leaders assisted by carrying the stadia rod to relieve a crew
member fatigued from carrying the rod through difficult terrain, reading the transit for a
crew member feeling eye strain because of many long distance "shoots", or helping with
soils. Because of their greater taxonomic expertise, Vanishing Points' crew leaders helped
identify vegetation or filled in similar to the Buffers' crew leaders.
Efficiency was also increased by minor protocol changes. However, in all changes,
care was taken to avoid compromising the data. Efficiency was increased by such
activities as:
o Recorders and surveyors organizing, distributing, and filling out the headings of
forms while travelling to the site each morning. This allowed everyone to begin
their data collection duties immediately upon arrival at the site.
o Organizing the equipment in the van in a certain manner at the end of each day. By
placing the coolers containing soil and plant samples near the back doors, custody
transfers were facilitated. Placing sampling equipment in the same place at the end
of each day allowed each item to be quickly located the next day.
Increasing the number of surveyors from two {as were used during the 1987 and
1988 Pilot Projects), to three definitely improved efficiency in mapping. While one
Surveyor carried the stadia rod, the remaining two worked cooperatively; one person
acting as the transit operator and the other recording the data and drawing the sketch
map. This cooperation allowed the transit operator to work more swiftly. It also allowed
the recorder/surveyor to verify the transit readings, and was especially helpful at the
beginning of the field season, when people were not always confident of the accuracy of
their readings, and when people developed eye fatigue or were having trouble reading the
stadia rod because of distance or obstructions.
Field data collection activities required an average of eight hours per day per
wetland. Time to complete data collection at a wetland ranged from five hours at simple
sites to approximately 12 hours at the more complex sites. Even though some extremely
short and long days did occur, sampling on most sites took between seven and ten hours.
There was no substantial difference in the average sampling time between the crews; the
Vanishing Points averaged 8.8; the Obligates, 8.2; and the Buffers, 8 hours per site. Time
averages are based on approximations provided by the crew leaders of time spent
performing data collection activities each day.
35
-------
Additional hours were spent each day driving to and from the sites and in
organization and preparation. Driving time averaged one hour per day. Crew leaders also
spent about 1.5 hours each evening organizing completed field forms, copying blank field
forms, purchasing supplies, and discussing strategies/problems with other crew leaders.
Therefore, a full day's activities for crew leaders was approximately 10.5 hours; for crew
members, approximately nine hours each day. However, many crew members commuted
long distances or across the metropolitan area, which increased the time they spent daily
in activities related to the OWS to 10-11 hours.
V.fl. Survey Activities
The following sections discuss changes in protocol, and errors and problems that
occurred in mapping and surveying during the field season. Rationales for changes in
protocol, and recommendations for correcting the errors and remedying the problems are
given.
V.B.1. Mapping
The protocol for daily site reconnaissance was changed to have the surveyor
carrying the stadia rod accompany the botanists and crew leader during determination of
site boundaries. It was apparent within the first few days of sampling that the surveyor
needed to participate in this decision making process to understand what site
characteristics defined the site's perimeter. This protocol change ensured that the
surveyor accurately "walked" the boundaries of each site.
The OWS Research Plan (Magee et al. 1993a) explicitly states that "the locations of
major site features such as open water, trees, water courses, patches of monotypic
vegetation, and man-made structures" should be recorded during mapping. However,
surveyors tended to make very simple maps. Some maps contained an insufficient number
of points to accurately portray the shape of the wetland perimeter. There were also a
number of maps that did not indicate precisely the location and shape of open water or the
locations of significant landmarks within the site. Instead, approximate locations of the
open water and landmarks were simply drawn on the field sketches. Although these
problems were discovered early in the season and corrective measures were to have been
implemented, it appears that because lab days were discontinued and the majority of final
maps were not drawn until after the completion of the field season, we did not realize that
surveyors continued to skimp on map data. If the schedule for a field season cannot
accommodate laboratory days on which maps can be made from the field sketches and
map data, there is a high likelihood that this error will occur. Therefore, crew leaders must
be aware of the tendency to simplify maps, and check field forms daily during the mapping
process to ensure that maps will include sufficient detail.
It was discovered after the field season had been completed that many site maps
lacked a permanent benchmark. A permanent benchmark or an elevation reading on a
permanent site attribute such as a culvert, tree or sidewalk corner, is necessary for relating
OWS data to future study needs. For example, the elevations and locations of permanent
landmarks were required to accurately link the OWS data to the placement of the
hydrological monitoring equipment used for Phase II of the OWS. Although inclusion of
36
-------
permanent benchmarks was part of the survey training, it must be more emphatically
stressed during future training. There will, of course, be rare instances where a permanent
benchmark will not be available, however, every effort must be made to locate and use
one.
Transit operators often became frustrated when mapping large sites because of the
difficulty in reading the stadia rod at large distances. Frustration also occurred when the
site contained bushes and trees which often blocked the stadia rod. To keep the sampling
process running smoothly and prevent errors in transit readings, the crew leader must be
prepared to relieve the person at the transit (even when the transit operator protests) or
have the person drawing the map and recording switch with the person reading the transit.
V.B.2. Surveying
Early in the field season, there was confusion about how to fill in the sections of
Form F-10 (see Magee et al. 1993a) that dealt with the ground cover at the point where
the stadia rod was placed in each vegetation plot. The appropriate way to determine
ground cover at the spot was to first check to see if the stadia rod was sitting in any
water, if so, then the depth should be measured to the nearest cm, and the water
examined to determine if it is vegetated. If the stadia rod is placed where there is no
water, determine if the ground is bare or vegetated. This problem could best be resolved
by giving this aspect of field sampling more attention during training.
We encountered a few sites that were very long and narrow, where a sampling
interval different from that used on the Site Characterization Transects (SCTs) was used
on the Wetland Morphology Transect (WMT). For example, a long but narrow site with
diverse vegetation might need a 1 meter sampling interval to sufficiently characterize the
vegetation and obtain the required 40 quadrats. However, because of the extreme length
of the wetland, requiring a 1 meter sampling interval when collecting morphology data
along the WMT was untenable because 1) the WMT data will not be directly linked to the
vegetation or soil sampling points, and 2) it would take an inordinate amount of time to
conduct sampling along the WMT at the smaller interval. In these cases, the sampling
interval along the WMT was increased to one of the larger intervals (i.e., 3, 6, or '9m).
Analysis of the field data should provide guidelines with which to standardize this protocol
when these field conditions are encountered.
Because each crew possessed a limited number of meter tapes, laying out extra
vegetation transects (VEGs; often required pulling up and using a tape that had marked the
location of an SCT. Although people were generally careful to ensure that all sampling had
been completed along an SCT before pulling up the tape, there were a few occasions
when this was done before the soil sampling or morphology measurements had been
completed. Extreme care MUST be taken to avoid prematurely removing meter tapes
because it results in either 1) lost data, or 2) morphology and/or soils data that cannot be
completely correlated with the vegetation data.
37
-------
V.B.3. Recommendations
1. At least one of the crew leaders on each field crew should have surveying
experience. Because neither crew leader for the Vanishing Point crew was able to
participate in the survey training, they were not always aware of problems that
occurred in the maps their surveyors made.
2. If at all possible, surveyors should convert the sketch maps and map data into final
site maps during the field season. Because we were concerned with sampling as
many wetlands as possible, laboratory days were discontinued after the first few
weeks in the field season. Therefore, it was not discovered until after the
completion of the field season that the field sketches and map data did not always
contain enough information to create accurately detailed final site maps. Although
the data quality is probably not compromised because of remedies used to "fudge"
the final maps from the sketch maps and map data, creating the final maps would
have required much less effort and would have provided more accurate and detailed
information if these errors had been caught and corrected during the field season.
3. "Brunton Pocket Transits" or some other reliably accurate compass should be used
for all field sampling. The "Brunton Cadets" purchased for this field season proved
to be very inaccurate because of their non-damped indicator arrow. Compass
accuracy was very important because the transit was calibrated by the compass at
each site and the bearings of all sampling baselines and transects were determined
by the compass. In lieu of purchasing the expensive Brunton Pocket Transits, liquid
filled Silva compasses would be a good choice because they are accurate, easy to
use, inexpensive, and many hikers and backpackers are familiar with them.
4. Transit distance readings should be periodically checked by the transit operator by
comparing the difference between the upper and middle stadia readings with the
difference between the middle and lower stadia readings. If the two differences are
similar, then the stadia readings are accurate. During the OWS; this accuracy
check was very useful when reading the stadia rod at great distances from the
transit.
5. When collecting map data, surveyors must make every effort to use a permanent
object as the benchmark. If this is not possible or extremely inconvenient, then the
minimum acceptable procedure is to take e'9vation and distance readings of some
permanent object within or along the perimeter of the site. The location of a
permanent object is necessary to allow orienting the map to any future research in
the wetland.
6. Surveyors must include more complete-detail of the site when collecting map data.
Approximate locations of landmarks, pathways, open water, etc. drawn on the
sketch map are not sufficient. Stadia readings of the distance from the transit to
these entities are necessary to make a fully detailed site map. Also, surveyors
should note the direction of water flow, if water was stagnant, the names of
nearby streets, and any other information that would help a person unfamiliar with
the site orient themselves accurately.
38
-------
V.C. Vegetation
V.C.1. Field activities
Vegetation data collection activities worked smoothly and no major problems were
encountered with the methodology. See Magee et al. (1993a and b) for sampling -
procedure details.
Occasional logistical difficulties occurred in stretching the transect tape through
shrub patches. Often it was possible to wind the tape through shrubs with moderate
branch sizes and relatively open growth form (e.g., Salix sp.). When shrubs were
impenetrable the tape could frequently be thrown across the shrub patch, however, at
times the tape would catch in branches or twigs (e.g, often in Crataegus and Spirea sp.).
Care should be taken to make sure the tape is tautly stretched to avoid errors in distance
measurements along the transect which could affect plot placement, morphology
measurements, and repeat measurements (OA) of shrub line intercept distances. In
situations with a wide, impassable shrub patch (e.g., Rosa or Rubus spp.), it was
necessary to cut a path with a machete. A sharp machete greatly reduced the time and
effort required to cut a swath for the transect. A dull machete caused the botanist or
recorder using it to become irritable and exhausted, and increased the risk of accident.
Shrub measurements often required extra maneuvering along a transect, so it was
not always possible to observe the anti-trampling protocol described in the methods
manual (Magee et al. 1993a). In drier-end wetlands, the extra walking along the transect
did not appear to negatively affect the sites. However, in saturated or flooded soils,
trampling sometimes caused a deep path, up to 1m wide, of disturbed vegetation and
compacted soils in the vicinity of the shrubs. Trampling damage was also noted on wetter
sites in association with baselines placed inside the wetland boundary due to logistical
constraints or features of the associated landscape.
To minimize trampling, planks raised on short feet at each corner could be
constructed for crew members to stand on (Bosman et al. 1993). Although vegetation
would still be knocked down, the use of raised planks would prevent grinding the
vegetation underfoot and compacting and plowing the soil by foot traffic. Raised planks
could be placed in sensitive areas to minimize sampling impact. This approach should be
tested for effectiveness and feasibility before implementation in the field. Only a few
planks per crew should be made available because 1) storage area is limited in crew vans,
and 2) the addition of more bulky equipment would be difficult for the already heavily
laden crew members. Possibly, use of planks could be restricted to extremely fragile
areas.
V.C.2. Plant specimen collection and handling
Collection, handling, and processing of plant specimens was done well and similar
procedures should be used in future studies. The vegetation teams did a good job of
collecting and labelling unknowns and handling plant specimens. Out of 1413 specimens
only 8 were lost from their newsprint sheets giving a value of 99.4% completeness for
39
-------
plant collection (Table 11). Major steps for collection, handling and processing or
specimens are described below.
1. Vegetation teams collected and pressed specimens for all unknown plant species
occurring in sampling quadrats using the procedures outlined in the Research Plan
and the QAPP (Magee et al. 1993a and b). Great care in labelling the specimens
was taken to ensure they could be related to the data sheets. The specimens were
tagged with a labelled piece of flagging indicating the plant pseudonym, site
number, transect, and plot from which the specimen was collected. When the
plant was pressed, the flagging label and a formal collection label were included in
the newspaper pressing sheet. The date, collectors' names, site, transect, plot
information, and pseudonym were written on the outside of the newspaper for each
specimen.
2. Sherry Spencer (PSU botanist) visited field crews daily to retrieve plant presses and
soil samples. She transported the plant specimens and soil samples to PSU. Plant
presses were placed on a plant drier and soil samples placed under refrigeration.
Once the plant specimens were dry they were removed from the presses by a PSU
work study student and put into herbarium folders labelled by site, then placed in a
specific herbarium cabinet for storage.
3. Sherry Spencer's role as rotating botanist was extremely valuable to the OWS and
facilitated correct identification of species and collection of unknowns, and
bolstered the confidence of the vegetation teams. During the first three weeks of
the field season Sherry visited each crew daily to help vegetation teams with plant
identification and collection. She also brought plants from other sites to illustrate
characteristics of a variety wetland species and to help vegetation teams expand
their knowledge of wetland flora. Less of this on-site teaching was possible than
originally intended due to travel time between sites and the large number of plants
Sherry had to key in the lab.
V.C.3. Plant species identification and data sheet annotation
A high degree of accuracy in species identification was achieved through intensive
collection of unknowns, accurate specimen tracking, and careful species identification and
verification procedures. The vegetation teams collected and, in general, precisely labelled
specimens for all plant species they did not recognize with certainty. Nearly all of the
1413 plant specimens collected during the OWS were identified to species. Two hundred
seventy-five different species were represented in the collection and are listed by family in
Appendix IV. Additional taxa will be included in the final data set because taxa recognized
by the vegetation teams were not collected, although data were gathered for all species.
A small percentage of specimens were identified only to genus due to the phenological
stage or condition of the plant samples. The exact count of specimens with only generic
identification was not tallied but could be extracted from the data should the need arise.
Specimens identified to genus only were typically species in the Poaceae, Cyperaceae,
Juncaceae, Salicaceae, or Potomogetonaceae. Fourteen forb specimens and one shrub
specimen could not be identified to either genus or species and were classified as
40
-------
unknown forbs or unknown shrubs, respectively. A summary, by family, of the numbers
of specimens collected is presented in Table 11.
Identification mistakes were minimized by using a three step process to identify and
verify species determinations. The first two steps were field season activities, and the
final step was conducted post-sampling due to field commitments and time constraints of
the plant ecologist.
1. During field season lab days, the vegetation teams keyed unknown plants and
learned field characteristics for these species. Sherry Spencer or Teresa Magee
verified identifications and the crew members annotated their data sheets with the
correct species names. We intended for vegetation teams to use weekly lab
sessions to 1) learn to recognize more wetland species so fewer specimens would
need to be collected as the season progressed, and 2) replace pseudonyms with
actual species names on their own data sheets. Unfortunately, time demands of
data collection in the field precluded the scheduling of many lab days. Also,
because of the collection volume, it was not possible for Sherry and Teresa to
identify all the specimens prior to the lab sessions. Thus, data sheet annotation
could not be completed during lab time.
2. Sherry Spencer was instrumental in maintaining data quality through accurate plant
identification. Over the course of the field season, she rapidly keyed hundreds of
specimens and made initial species determinations.
3. Following the field season, all the specimens were reviewed by Teresa Magee for
correct identification; particular attention was given to difficult taxa such as species
of Poaceae, Carex, Juncus, Efeocharis, Potomogeton, Polygonum, etc. In addition,
Teresa made initial and final determinations for specimens that were incomplete or
too time consuming (vegetative, escaped cultivars, some difficult aquatic or
Cyperaceae species) for Sherry to handle during the field season.
Once the specimens were identified, Teresa annotated all the data sheets with the
correct species names. Although, data sheets could have been annotated more rapidly by
the individuals who collected the data, the careful attention of the vegetation teams to
labelling and their relatively consistent use of pseudonyms made it possible to accurately
annotate the data sheets following the field season. Several trends in species collection
procedures and record keeping related to botanical expertise or specific crews were
observed during the verification and annotation process. Some practices facilitated, while
others hindered, species verification and data sheet annotation. Major observations are
outlined below.
o Condition of plant specimens. Botanists with greater expertise were more likely to
collect better, more complete (roots, shoots, fruits) specimens than botanists with
less experience. Sometimes incomplete specimens were unavoidable due to limited
or poor quality plant material. However, most poor specimens were the result of
"top snatching". The least experienced botanists were the most likely to include
notes about plant growth form and habit that were useful in identifying incomplete
41
-------
Table 11. Numbers of plant specimens for the OWS listed by family and archive location.
% Specimens identified = species identified to genus or species/total number of species.
Family
EPA-WetJands
Herbarium
PSU Herbarium
Total Number of
Specimens
Alismataceae
8
2
11
Amaranthaceae
1
0
1
Apiaceae
10
0
10
Asteraceae
104
20
124
Balsaminaceae
4
3
7
Boraginaceae
11
6
17
Brassicaceae
15
5
20
Buddlejeaceae
1
0
1
Callitrichaceae
9
3
12
Caprifoliaceae
3
0
3
Caryophyllaceae
6
1
7
Ceratophyllaceae
3
2
5
Chenopodiaceae
1
0
1
Convolvulaceae
4
3
7
Cornacaeae
5
3
8
Cyperaceae
129
40
169
Cupressaceae
1
0
1
Dipsacaceae
2
0
2
Elaeagnaceae
1
0
1
Equisetaceae
10
5
15
Fabaceae
25
11
36
Fagaceae
1
0
1
Gentianaceae
4
3
7
Geraniaceae
4
2
6
Grossulariaceae
2
0
2
Haloragaceae
2
0
2
Hydrocharitaceae
11
4
15
Hypericaceae
3
0
3
42
-------
Family
EPA-Wetlands
Herbarium
PSU Herbarium
Total Number of
Specimens
Iridaceae
3
0
3
Juncaceae
38
22
60
Lamiaceae
14
5
19
Liliaceae
1
0
1
Lythraceae
4
1
5
Malvaceae
2
0
2
Oleaceae
4
0
4
Onagraceae
46
12
58
Plantaginaceae
7
3
10
Poaceae
326
50
375
Polygonaceae
65
6
71
Polypodiaceae
2
0
2
Potomogetonaceae
30
8
38
Primulaceae
8
3
11
Ranunculaceae
15
1
16
Rhamnaceae
2
0
2
Rosaceae
62
11
73
Rubiaceae
8
2
10
Salicaceae
88
18
106
Salvinaceae
1
0
1
Scrophulariaceae
24
8
32
Sparganiaceae
4
0
4
Urticaceae
1
0
1
Unknown forbs
14
0
14
Unknown shrubs
1
0
1
Total
1156
257
1413
Number of lost specimens
8
% Specimens identified
99%
43
-------
specimens. Increasing the quality and completeness of specimens, and including
detailed plant habit notes would greatly speed up plant identification.
o Completeness in collecting unknowns. The most experienced (Master's degree in
botany, much field experience) and the least experienced crew member botanists
(e.g., one taxonomy course or amateur interest) were most likely to collect
everything they did not know, regardless of its condition, on the assumption that it
might be possible for Teresa or Sherry to identify the specimens. Conversely,
persons with moderate background in botany (several courses and some limited
field work) were more likely to assume if a plant was vegetative or in an immature
phenological stage that neither Teresa or Sherry would be able to identify it and
therefore frequently did not collect specimens. This was not a decision that should
have been made in the field because the project botanists were often familiar with
or could identify many wetland species in vegetative or immature condition.
Fortunately when unknowns were not collected they tended to be very low cover
species.
o Record keeping. Sloppy record keeping such as inadvertently transposing site and
plot numbers on the labels or using inconsistent pseudonyms was more common in
data collected by the most experienced botanists. Such practices lengthened the
time required to annotate the data sheets because it was necessary to search for
the transect and plot records corresponding to the necessary corrections. In almost
all cases, given sufficient time, it was possible to identify how a specimen related
to entries on the data sheets. The least experienced botanists kept very accurate
records and used pseudonyms consistently. For example, Vanishing Point
vegetation teams recorded the transect and plot number for the specimen
representing a particular pseudonym every time that pseudonym was listed on the
data sheets. Inclusion of the transect/plot information for the collected specimen
reduced the time needed to confirm that a specific pseudonym actually applied to
all data entries so labelled.
o Recognizable taxonomic units. All botanists, but particularly the least experienced,
tended to split an unknown, highly variable species into two or more recognizable
units, each with its own pseudonym. In only one instance (2 out of 1413
specimens) were two species lumped as one. Splitting versus lumping of unknown
species is desirable because the error of splitting one taxon into several can be
easily remedied by combining the cover values for each under the correct species
name. Thus, no data is lost. However, if two species are lumped together, it is
impossible to separate cover values for the individual taxa. Also, the tendency to
split one taxon into several identifiable units illustrates how carefully the botanists
examined the flora for differences and suggests they would rarely miss a species
within a plot, or assume a newly encountered congeneric taxon was the same
entity as a routinely seen species.
V.C.4. Plant specimen archival
A series of voucher specimens (257) representing most species and families
collected in the 1993 OWS was donated to the PSU herbarium. The remaining 1156
44
-------
specimens are archived in the newly created WRP herbarium at ERL-C. Numbers of
specimens by family that are stored in each herbarium are listed in Table 11. A list of the
species found in the 1993 OWS collection is provided in Appendix IV.
Two half-height herbarium cabinets were acquired to set up the WRP herbarium.
The 1993 and 1987 OWS specimens are housed separately, with the 1993 collection
occupying Cabinets 1A,1B, and 2A and the 1987 collection in Cabinet 2B. Each cabinet
section housing the 1993 OWS specimens has a list of all the plant species it contains
taped to the inside door. Plants are filed alphabetically by family, and by genus within
family. Specimens have not been mounted but are retained in the collection sheets. The
newspaper sheets are labelled with species name, site, transect, plot, collector, and date.
A list of location information keyed to site numbers for the OWS wetlands is taped to the
inside faces of the cabinets so that herbarium users can have easy access to location data
for each specimen.
The 1987 and 1993 collections will eventually be integrated and additional
specimens from future studies will be added to the WRP herbarium. Folders containing
specimens from different studies or from general field collections will have color coded
labels to distinguish specimens by study or location.
A series of specimens, representing both common and difficult taxa will eventually
be mounted on herbarium paper and labelled. Mounting a few high quality specimens will
provide a good reference set of common wetland species that could be handled without
risk of damage to the specimens. Both mounted and unmounted specimens will be useful
training tools in future studies.
V.C.5. Recommendations
Overall vegetation sampling and plant identification procedures used in the OWS
worked extremely well and resulted in the collection of a clean, high quality data set. The
changes suggested below represent ways in which to streamline or enhance sampling and
species identification.
1. Vegetation sampling methodology (cover, line-intercept, dbh) worked well. No
major changes are recommended. However, revisions or additions for alleviating
logistics problems related to stretching the transect tape through shrub patches
should be considered (see Section V.C.1. Vegetation field activities).
2. The inclusion within project staff of a dedicated and skilled person to provide
additional botanical expertise and logistics support (e.g., Sherry Spencer for the
OWS) is crucial to maintaining data quality. However, because the work load is far
too great for one person, we recommend one of the following options:
o Hire two botanists to split the role Sherry Spencer.fulfilled. One would
provide logistics support by retrieving presses, soil samples from field
locations, and "rove" daily between crews to assist with species
identification problems. Also, during site visits this botanist could actively
teach the crew botanists diagnostic field characteristics for newly
45
-------
encountered species. Fresh plant specimens could be obtained at each site
being sampled for the day and taken to subsequent sites visited by the
botanist. Success of teaching activities presupposes that this botanist is
well versed in wetland plant species of the area. The second botanist would
work in the lab identifying pressed specimens, and checking to make sure
that there is a specimen for each unknown recorded for each site, and would
look for any other record keeping problems such as transposition errors or
use of inconsistent pseudonyms. This individual could also make sure
complete specimens were being collected and trouble-shoot for other
potential problems.
o Hire one botanist and one logistics support person to split the role Sherry
Spencer fulfilled. In this case the logistics person would retrieve plant
presses and soil samples and check data sheets for potential problems and
suggest remedies (as above for the second botanist). The botanist would
visit sites only in the first 2-3 weeks of sampling and spend the remaining
time keying plants.
3. One lab day per week to allow the vegetation teams to key out collected
specimens, learn species characteristics, and annotate the data sheets would
decrease the post-sampling work load. Learning more plants would give teachers a
better background in botany, require fewer specimens be collected, and decrease
the time required to identify unknowns and annotate data sheets. Also, it is far
more efficient if the person annotating the data is the person who collected the
data. However, more lab days would require fewer sites be sampled or the addition
of another crew. The later would be expensive and add to OA considerations. The
small number of lab days did not hurt data quality but added large amounts of time
for the project botanist (Teresa Magee) in verification and data sheet annotation.
4. Place greater emphasis on proper collection of specimens throughout the field
season, recording features of missing parts (e.g., taproots, rhizomes, fruits, etc.),
and describing growth habit on the collection labels. Stress to the field botanists
that such information is particularly important for aquatic species, grasses, sedges,
and rushes. Reminding vegetation teams to collect carefully and use good record
keeping skills would help speed up plant identification.
5. Emphasize to the vegetation teams to collect all unknowns (unless too rare), even
vegetative specimens, because the project botanists may recognize or be able to
identify incomplete specimens.
6. Stress more strongly the importance of meticulous record keeping during training
and check periodically during the field season to see that no problems are arising.
Problems we encountered did not negatively affect the data but increased the time
necessary for accurate data sheet annotation. Particularly useful was the practice
of one crew of recording precisely which specimen they were referring to with each
entry of a pseudonym on the data form.
46
-------
V.D. Soil Sampling and Analysis
Describing and sampling soils was an integral part of the field sampling conducted
on OWS wetlands by the Survey Teams in each field crew. Along with mapping each
wetland and characterizing wetland morphology, survey team members were responsible
for describing soils at ten plots on each wetland, and for collecting soil samples at two
depths (0-5 and 15-20 cm) on each plot. In addition, one plot per wetland was identified
as a OA plot, and was to be described independently by two team members and to have
duplicate soil samples collected.
The soils collected by OWS field crews were analyzed to determine organic matter
content, using loss on ignition (LOI) as the method for organic matter determination. At
the start of the field season, an analytical laboratory was established at PSU to receive,
log, store, and process soil samples for LOI. The laboratory was operated by two of the
teachers brought into the project through the EPA/PSU cooperative agreement. The two
lab staff also served as alternate members of the OWS field crews, so on several days
during the field season, one or both of the lab staff were absent from the laboratory while
they worked with field crews. The PSU laboratory operated for the same eight week
period (June 21 to August 13) as the OWS field season. The laboratory staff at PSU
received and logged all soil samples collected during the summer field season, and was
responsible for identifying and reconciling problems with incorrect custody sheets,
improperly labelled or missing samples.
It was originally intended that all soil samples would be processed at the PSU
laboratory during the summer. Because a good estimate of the time required to process
samples was not available at the start of the summer, and because the laboratory staff
spent a significant portion of their time as alternates on field crews, this turned out to be
an optimistic scenario and the PSU laboratory staff were unable to complete all soil
processing. At the end of the summer, the unprocessed samples (and excess material
from samples processed during the summer) were transferred to ERL-C and stored (frozen)
until they could be analyzed. In October, 1993, a laboratory was established at ERL-C,
and three members of the WRP staff at ERL-C processed the remaining soil samples in
November and December, 1993.
This section provides a summary and an evaluation of soil sampling and laboratory
analysis as implemented by field crews and laboratory staff. It notes strengths and
weaknesses in field and laboratory operations, and identifies changes made to procedures
during the OWS, along with recommendations for conducting analogous studies in the
future.
V.D.1. Field sampling
The OWS research plan (Magee et al. 1993a) called for sampling of 15 soil plots
(three on each of five SCT's) on each wetland. During the first week of the field season, it
was recognized that soil sampling/description was the most time-consuming component of
field sampling, and that it was taking a disproportionate fraction of total sampling time.
Concerns were also raised that soil sampling was contributing to severe trampling of
vegetation in small wetlands and at sites with standing water. At the sites with standing
47
-------
water, in which soils were sampled using a bucket auger, it was necessary to go to the
edge of the wetland to process each sample after collection, necessitating several extra
trips along the sampling transects. After the first week of the field season, crew leaders
and the soil scientist met and discussed these concerns, and modified field procedures in
two ways. First, the number of plots to be sampled for soils was reduced from 15 to 10
per wetland (2 on each SCT). In a second change, the task of determining the color of soil
mottles was deleted. This task was time consuming and imprecise (mottles are often too
small for a reliable determination of color, and many soils have mottles with several
colors), and was not considered essential to project goals. It was decided to focus efforts
on. determining the presence/absence of mottles and other indicators of hydric soils.
Following these changes, the proportion of time required for soil sampling decreased
significantly; it remained the single most time-consuming component of field sampling, but
time requirements were compatible with those for other components of sampling. A total
of ten wetlands were sampled using the initial field procedures (i.e., 15 plots per wetland);
the balance of 87 wetlands were sampled at an intensity of ten plots per wetland, and
without determination of color for soil mottles.
Methods used for sampling The research plan for the OWS identified three
procedures that could be used for sampling soils (spade, bucket auger, and corer). The
goal in developing three alternate sampling methods was to maximize the number of plots
that could be sampled. In the research plan and in field crew training, crew members were
instructed to sample soils using a spade if possible, with the bucket auger as second
choice and to use the corer only if the other methods were ineffective. This priority was
defined to maximize the amount of information collected (e.g., soils sampled using the
corer cannot be described in the field) and to maximize the volume of soil collected for
laboratory analysis.
All three of the sampling procedures were extensively used in OWS field sampling,
as shown in Figure 2. Overall, a spade was used for sampling the majority of soil plots
(563 of 1Q02 plots, 56.2%), with alternate sampling equipment used on 429 plots; 287
plots (29 ,j) were sampled by auger, and 152 plots (15%) by corer. The importance of
having alternate sampling methods is shown by the significant fraction of plots sampled by
alternate methods (See recommendation 1 at end of Section V-D). By having alternate
methods for sampling in diverse water regimes and substrates, field crews were able to
sample all but 20 of the 1020 field plots targeted for sampling on the 97 OWS wetlands;
sampling completeness for plots was 98.0%. Table 12 summarizes reasons for non-
sampling of soils on plots. The most common reason for non-sampling of plots was
physical conditions on th3 site; either water was too deep to allow use of sampling
equipment, or the substrate could not be sampled. The latter included sites with rocky
substrates and others with very fluid substrates that could not be held in any of the three
sampling devices. The second most common reason for non-sampling was an artifact of
sample design; in several cases, transects did not have as many plots as were targeted for
sampling (i.e., there was only one plot on the transect). Although one field crew
(Vanishing Points) randomly selected another transect and plot to sample when faced with
this scenario, the research plan did not include a contingency procedure (e.g., selection of
an extra plot on an adjacent transect) that would have allowed for sampling in such cases;
such a contingency should be included in the sampling design for future projects. The
48
-------
All Crews
Buffers
Obligates
Vanishing
Points
FIELD CREW
| |SPADE
AUGER|
CORER
Figure 2. Comparison of methods used by the three field crews, and comparing methods for
natural wetlands (N) and projects (P), for soil sampling on OWS wetlands.
49
-------
Table 12. Reasons for non-sampling of plots for soils on OWS wetlands.
Reason Number of plots*
Couldn't sample because of texture (stony or 9 plots (1 N, 8 P°)
too soupy) and/or deep water
Not enough plots on transect, no alternate 6 (3 N, 3 P)
plot chosen on adjacent transect
Reason not given 3 (0 N, 3 P)
Crew error (flags and tape pulled too soon) 2 (1 N, 1 P)
Numbers in parentheses indicate numbers for natural wetlands (N) and projects (P).
50
-------
frequency of non-sampling due to crew error was low, and did not significantly affect
study results.
There was a considerable difference in the methods used to sample plots between
natural wetlands and projects (Figure 2). A spade was used for sampling almost three
quarters (73%) of plots in natural wetlands, but only for 40% of the plots in projects. An
auger was used on only 16% of plots in natural wetlands, but was the most frequently
used sampler in plots in projects (41 %), and a corer was used almost twice as often in
projects as in natural wetlands (20 vs 11 %). The reasons for these differences are not
known with certainty, but they probably result mainly from differences in hydrologic
conditions occurring in the two groups of wetlands. Consistent with observations during
the Oregon Pilot Study (Kentula et al. 1992), projects sampled during the OWS seem to
have a larger percentage of wetland area covered with standing water than do natural
wetlands, and the standing water is deeper in projects; these conditions preclude use of a
spade for sampling soils.
There were also pronounced differences in soil sampling methods used by the three
OWS field crews (Figure 2). The Buffers sampled using a corer much more often than the
other crews, particularly in projects, where they used a corer for sampling nearly half of
the plots. There was also a very sharp contrast in the use by the Buffers of sampling
methods in natural wetlands and projects; they used a spade to sample 76% of plots in
natural wetlands, but only 21 % of plots in projects. In contrast, the Obligates used a
corer for sampling only 3% (8 of 319) plots sampled during the field season, although they
relied on a bucket auger more extensively than the other two crews. Reasons for the
differences in soil sampling methods among the field crews are not clear; it is likely that it
results in part from differences in substrate and hydrologic conditions in the wetlands
sampled by the crews, but it is also likely that there were differences in the criteria used
by the crews to select sampling methods. A goal in future studies should be to improve
training and oversight by crew leaders to improve consistency in sampling methods
between field crews (See recommendation 2 at end of Section V-D).
Numbers of individual soil samples collected - The OWS research plan (Magee et al.
1993a) called for sampling of 32 soil samples per wetland; a 0-5 cm and a 15-20 cm
sample from each of 15 plots, plus two OA duplicates collected from a randomly selected
plot on each wetland. When the number of sample plots was reduced, the number of
samples planned for collection on each wetland was reduced accordingly. Table 13a
summarizes the number of soil samples planned for collection in OWS wetlands, by sample
type and for natural wetlands and projects.
Numbers of samples actually collected are summarized in Table 13b; overall, a total
of 2069 soil samples were collected in the field during the OWS, representing sampling
completeness of 92.2%. The total included nine samples from O horizons, which were
not included in data in Table 13 and were not included in computation of sampling
completeness. Completeness varied between natural wetlands and projects (95% for
natural wetlands, 89% for projects) and between sampling depths (98% at 0-5 cm, and
87% at 15-20). Several factors affected sampling completeness (Table 14); by far the
51
-------
Table 13. Numbers of soil samples planned for collection in OWS wetlands, and numbers
of samples actually collected. Numbers in parentheses indicate the percentage of planned
samples that were collected.
0-5 cm
15-20 cm
OA duplicates'
Total
A. Planned numbers of samples
Natural wetlands 500 500
Projects 520 520
Total 1020 1020
96
98
194
1096
1138
2234
B. Actual numbers of samples
Natural wetlands
Projects
Total
494
(98.8)
505
(97.1)
999
(97.9)
460
(92.0)
427
(82.1)
887
(87.0)
90
(93.8)
84
(85.7)
174
(89.7)
1044
(95.3)
1016
(89.3)
2060
(92.2)
The expected numbers are based on four wetlands with 15 plots and 44 wetlands
with 10 plots for natural wetlands, six wetlands with 15 plots and 43 wetlands
with ten plots for projects.
Planned number of samples based on two samples per wetland on each of 48
natural wetlands and 49 projects.
Totals do not include nine O horizon samples.
52
-------
Table 14. Reasons for non-collection of individual OWS soil samples.
Reason
Number of Samples*
Couldn't collect a 20-cm sample when using corer
Plot not sampled (see Table 12)
OA duplicate not collected when using corer
Stony substrate, couldn't collect 20 cm sample
No routine sample collected, so no OA duplicate collected
Crew error
Reason not given
105 samples (34 N, 71 P)
40 (10 N, 30 P)
16 (6N.10P)
6 (1 N, 5 P)
4 (0 N, 4 P)
2 (1 N. 1 P)
1 (0 N, 1 P)
Numbers in parentheses indicate numbers for natural wetlands (N) and projects (P).
53
-------
biggest reason for non-collection of individual soil samples (105 of 174 samples) was
inability to get a sample from the 15-20 cm depth interval when sampling with a corer.
Incomplete sampling using a corer was responsible for virtually all of the difference in
sampling completeness between upper and lower sampling depths. Because sampling by
corer was more common in projects than in natural wetlands, this factor also helps explain
most of the difference in sampling completeness between natural wetlands and projects.
Other major factors affecting sampling completeness were non-sampling of plots, and
failure to collect OA duplicates, with the latter usually associated with use of a corer
(samples were not split in the field when a corer was used, and the volume of sample
collected by the corer was too small to allow the material to be split when processed in
the laboratory). In future surveys, duplicate cores should probably be collected to provide
OA field duplicates for plots sampled by corer (See recommendation 3 at end of Section V-
D).
General comments on field sampling - Along with the preceding discussions of
sampling methods and sampling completeness for soils, there are a variety of comments
and observations related to soil sampling that should be noted. These are listed below.
1. The form used for recording soil field data (Form F-11) was very "busy", which
may help explain some of the observed problems with accuracy and completeness
of entries on the form. Data for this form have not yet been reviewed and verified,
but several problems have been noted, including: 1) no field sampling method was
listed for 79 (8%) of the plots sampled during the study; 2) depths to water were
entered incorrectly (e.g., depth = 0 when no water was present in a pit, rather
than depth > x); 3) missing data (e.g., the presence/absence of mottles for
samples collected using a corer) were sometimes marked incorrectly (e.g., by a "0"
or an "N" instead of a line to indicate no data). These kinds of "data" can be
problematic; efforts should be made to minimize them by modifying data forms and
by better training and more thorough oversight and review of forms by crew
leaders (See recommendation 4 at the end of Section V-D).
2. The use of the random number sheets to identify soil plots for routine sampling and
for the OA plot was simple and effective; this or a similar approach should be used
for similar purposes in future projects.
3. Field sampling was modified starting in week 2 to include sampling of discrete 0
horizons if they were > 5 cm thick. Organic horizons were probably
undersampled, as only nine such horizons were sampled during the final seven
weeks of the summer field season. Methods for future projects should be modified
to include better training for recognizing and sampling 0 horizons.
V.D.2. Laboratory Analysis of Soils
Training - Laboratory staff at PSU participated in the same lecture and field training
as members of the OWS field crews, then underwent two additional days of laboratory
training at the start of the summer field sampling season. The laboratory staff were
trained by the WRP soil scientist, Paul Shaffer, with training conducted as a hands-on
activity using samples collected during the first day of field sampling. Training included an
54
-------
explanation of the purpose and nature of the various laboratory activities, including sieving
of soils, weighing them, and then drying and ashing soils to determine their moisture
content and LOI. Training also involved establishing procedures for logging and tracking
the processing of soils, for calibration of equipment, and OA procedures as summarized in
Section VI.F. Training was conducted until: 1) staff felt comfortable conducting all
laboratory activities without supervision, and 2) staff were judged by the soil specialist to
be proficient in all laboratory activities. The nature of training was comparable for WRP
staff working at ERL-C during the fall of 1993, although training was extended over
several days because staff were working only part-time on soil analysis. At the completion
of training, laboratory staffs at PSU and at ERL-C were encouraged to contact the soil
specialist to resolve any questions or problems that arose regarding the soils or their
processing, and there were several phone discussions and follow-up visits to the
laboratory. The soil specialist for the project participated in soil processing and analysis at
ERL-C, and so was immediately available to deal with many of the questions that arose
during work at ERL-C.
Laboratory facilities - Laboratory facilities and equipment required for soil
processing were minimal; required equipment included cold storage space (refrigerator or
walk in cooler, freezer for long-term storage), a drying oven, muffle furnace, and top-
loading balance. The laboratory at PSU was equipped with two Mettler "College 244"
balances, which weighed to 0.01 gram, while the laboratory at ERL-C was equipped with
an Ohaus Galaxy 400D balance that weighed to 0.001 g. Both types of balance were
convenient to use and were adequate for project purposes; the latter type is preferable
because it affords better precision in weight determinations. The Ohaus balance also had
a cover over the weighing pan; if this style of balance is available, its use is recommended
because the cover eliminates the possibility of errors in measurement caused by air
currents.
Space requirements included a sink (for rinsing sieves, spatulas, etc. used for
preparing soils), approximately 20 linear feet of bench space for processing soils, and a
well-ventilated room (i.e., with an exhaust hood) for use of the drying oven and muffle
furnace. Good ventilation was also essential because a significant number of the soils had
objectionable odors. Because the WRP does not have permanent lab space at ERL-C, it
was necessary to identify and "borrow" space, then to briefly relocate to a second
laboratory during sample processing because of replacement of the fan and ductwork for
the exhaust hood (see Recommendation 5 at the end of this section).
Sample handling and storage - Soil samples were collected in the field, stored on
ice, then transferred with a custody sheet to the soil laboratory at PSU. Upon receipt of
soils at PSU, the sample codes on the sample labels were compared to those on custody
sheets, and discrepancies between them (e.g., samples listed on the custody sheet but not
received, samples received but not listed on the custody sheet) were noted and resolved to
the extent possible. Samples were either processed on the day of receipt at the lab, or
were refrigerated until processing and analysis. Following processing of samples, any
remaining soil was bagged, labelled with the sample code (site, transect, plot, depth, and
type) and with a laboratory ID (batch and sample number), and returned to cold storage.
At the end of the summer field season, samples not yet processed and the excess material
from samples processed at PSU were transferred to ERL-C for storage. Samples were
55
-------
frozen during storage at ERL-C; unprocessed samples were removed from the freezer for
processing, then excess material was returned to the freezer after analysis. Excess sample
material will be retained until verification and validation of soil LOI data are completed,
then discarded.
There were very few "mechanical" problems affecting soil sample integrity. No
samples had to be discarded because of damaged containers or missing labels. The label
of one sample was missing when removed from storage for processing, but that label was
sticking to an adjacent sample bag and the sample identification was easily reconciled.
The primary concern with identification and integrity of samples was uncertainty resulting
from incorrect labelling of samples and/or discrepancies between information on sample
bags and on custody sheets. Most of the discrepancies involved mislabelling of the
sample (e.g., wrong transect or plot number), an incorrect listing on the custody sheet, or
omission of sample listings on the custody sheets. These kinds of errors were usually
readily resolved by review of field data sheets and/or discussion with field crew leaders.
In about a dozen cases, however, samples were incorrectly given the same sample code
(i.e., site number, transect and plot number, and sample depth) as another sample from
the same wetland. In eight of these cases, it was not possible to determine which sample
of the pair was correctly/incorrectly labelled. Consequently, the data for these samples
(for both the mislabeled sample and for the correctly labelled sample having the same
number) will be used in characterizing average soil conditions for the wetland, but cannot
be used in any analyses conducted at the plot scale (e.g., evaluation of the relationship
between soils and vegetation). See recommendation 6 at the end of this section.
Laboratory activities - The routine activities in the laboratory were straightforward.
The first step of laboratory processing, sieving of soils (to pass a 2 mm opening), took
anywhere from 1 to 15 minutes per sample depending on sample texture, moisture
content, and the amount of roots and stones mixed with the soil. Material not passing
through the sieve (e.g., roots, stones) was discarded. Sieving was followed by
homogenization of the sieved material. An aliquot of the homogenized sample was then
weighed into a tared aluminum dish, which was then dried overnight at 105°C, reweighed,
ashed for >_ 6 hours at 450°C, and reweighed. All samples were weighed immediately
upon removal from the drying oven or muffle furnace, so storage in a desiccator was not
necessary. Samples were processed in batches of 20 to 50 samples, with each batch
including several QA/QC samples (Section VI.F.). Excess soil was placed in a bag labelled
with the sample code and with the batch and sample numbers, then returned to cold
storage. As processing of each batch was completed, data for audit samples and
duplicates were checked to insure that results were meeting data quality objectives. At
PSU and at ERL-C, two batches per day were commonly processed. Occasionally samples
spilled or were otherwise compromised (e.g., erroneous recording of sample weight, such
that ashed weight was more than dry weight); these soils were reanalyzed in a subsequent
batch if any soil remained after the initial analysis.
Laboratory activities were documented in three notebooks maintained by the
laboratory staffs. One was used as a general daily log of lab activities, which identified
personnel working in the laboratory, listed the number of samples processed, provided a
list of daily laboratory activities, and notes about problems or unusual events occurring in
the laboratory. The second notebook was used to track the receipt and status of soils
56
-------
from each wetland and to track the status of each batch of soils during analysis. The third
notebook was used to record calibration data for balances, etc.
A total of 2069 soil samples were received by the PSU laboratory (including nine 0
horizon samples). 1425 of these samples were processed during the summer at PSU, and
640 samples were processed at ERL-C; four samples were inadvertently discarded prior to
analysis. The soils were processed in 50 batches at PSU, and in an additional 18 batches
at ERL-C. Completeness for the soil analysis was very high. Valid LOI data were obtained
for all but six of the soils received at PSU (99.7% completeness); no valid data were
obtained for the four discarded samples and there were spills of two samples that could
not be reanalyzed because no sample remained following the first analysis. The frequency
of spills and other data problems that necessitated reanalysis (e.g., incorrectly recorded
weight) was low; only 20 samples had to be reanalyzed because of spills or problems with
data.
Laboratory operations generally went smoothly, and methods worked well except
that the lab staff were generally unable to provide descriptions of soils collected in cores,
because of small sample volumes and because the soils were usually fluid and lacked any
semblance of structure when they thawed. The small sample volume of samples collected
using the corer also precluded splitting those samples for use as laboratory duplicates.
The biggest problem encountered by the laboratory staff was mislabelling of samples by
field crew members, including inconsistencies between custody sheets and the labels on
samples received at the laboratory. The inconsistencies were noted in the laboratory log
book and were resolved by laboratory staff to the extent possible, but some problems
could not be resolved until data were processed at ERL-C, when Form F-11 (the soil field
sheet), lab notebooks, custody sheets, and LOI data could be examined concurrently and
crew leaders were available to assist in resolving questions about sampling.
There were no significant problems with laboratory equipment or facilities at PSU.
At ERL-C, the need for space was uncertain at the start of the field season, and while
there was a tentative agreement to provide access to lab space (from Bill Griffis), the
space was in use at the end of the summer and well into the fall, so alternate laboratory
and cold storage space for samples had to be located. The delays were inconvenient, but
did not affect sample integrity or data quality. There were no accidents or injuries in either
the PSU laboratory or at ERL-C, and no problems with crew morale during the summer at
PSU or in the fall at ERL-C. The occasional shift of personnel from the PSU lab to the field
(as substitute members of field crews) slowed laboratory analysis somewhat, but did not
create any problems with sample processing and did not adversely affect data quality.
Quality assurance/quality control - As an integral part of soil laboratory analyses,
several types of quality assurance procedures were implemented, and QA/QC samples
were analyzed to allow an assessment of accuracy and precision of the LOI analyses. An
overview of QA/QC procedures and results is presented in Section VI.F.; this information
will be presented in detail in the OWS Quality Assurance Report. Overall, results indicate
that the precision and accuracy of LOI analyses are high, and that the database is of high
quality.
57
-------
Sample processing time - One problem in scheduling laboratory staff time at the
start of the OWS was that no information was available for estimating the time required
for laboratory activities. At the end of the summer, the rate of sample processing by the
staff at PSU was calculated to be 2.9 samples per hour per staff member. This estimate
included not only the time required for actual processing of soils, but also time for logging
samples, checking and reconciling custody sheets with actual sample ID's, etc. For
samples processed at ERL-C during the fall of 1993, the average rate of sample processing
was estimated to be 3.6 samples per hour. The overall average rate of sample processing
was estimated to be 3.0 samples per hour. The faster rate for sample processing at ERL-C
can presumably be attributed to the fact that sample logging, verification of custody sheet
data, etc., had already been done at PSU, and did not need to be redone at ERL-C.
For planning purposes, it is useful to note that the total number of analyses was
about 20 percent higher than the number of individual field samples processed. The extra
analyses result from inclusion of blanks, audit samples, and duplicates in LOI analyses, and
from reanalysis to replace data lost from spilled samples.
V.D.3. Summary
Field sampling for soils in the OWS generally went smoothly. After early
modifications to sampling protocols to reduce the proportion of field time spent on soil
sampling, sampling went well, and completeness of soil sampling was high. Laboratory
processing of soils also proceeded very smoothly. Methods were straightforward and
effective, and no significant problems were encountered by laboratory staff at PSU or ERL-
C. Completeness of laboratory analysis exceeded 99 percent.
Several problems and concerns related to sampling and laboratory analysis of soils
were noted and discussed in this section, and recommendations are made below to modify
and improve sampling in future projects. Concerns and recommendations focus on four
issues: 1) use of the corer for soil sampling should be minimized, as it resulted in
substantial loss of field data and was the single largest reason for non-collection of soil
samples; 2) several modifications should be made to sampling protocols to increase
sampling completeness; 3) there needs to be a more diligent effort by field crews and crew
leaders to insure that samples are correctly labelled and that custody sheets are correct
and complete; and 4) there needs to be an effort to locate laboratory space for the WRP to
facilitate sampling and analysis of soils at ERL-C. These and other recommendations are
discussed below.
V.D.4. Recommendations
1. The availability of three approaches for sampling soils (spade, bucket auger, corer)
was a critical factor in the high completeness for soil sampling in the diverse soil
and hydrologic conditions occurring in the OWS wetlands. Field crews successfully
sampled 98% of soil plots, with over 40% sampled by one of the alternate (i.e.,
other than spade) procedures. Availability of several sampling approaches is
strongly recommended for future studies; one suggested improvement is to identify
(or develop) a more effective sampler for use in soft or fluid substrates.
58
-------
2. There was substantial variability in the use of the three soil sampling devices by
OWS field crews. Efforts should be made in future surveys to get better
consistency among crews through more rigorous training and more diligent
oversight by crew leaders. There is concern that there was excessive use of the
corer for sampling by one of the crews; a corer is sometimes necessary, but its use
should be minimized because no field descriptions of soils can be made on cores,
and because sampling by corer was the primary reason for non-collection of soil
samples.
3. Several simple modifications can, and should, be made to sampling protocols to
improve completeness of soil sampling. When the QA plot is sampled by corer, a
duplicate core should be collected to provide adequate material for the QA
duplicates. In cases where there is only one plot on a transect, protocols should be
developed for collecting an extra sample on an adjacent transect. If a plot cannot
be sampled (e.g., because of rocky substrate), an alternate plot on the same
transect should be sampled.
4. There were problems with missing or incorrect data on Form F-11. This (and all
other) forms should be reviewed to look for ways to minimize errors in field data
entry. Additional emphasis during training on being accurate and complete in filling
in forms and more careful review of field forms by crew leaders is necessary.
5. An additional bucket auger for each crew would have expedited field sampling of
soils greatly. There were many instances when a second auger could have been
used by crew members already finished with their tasks to assist the soil sampling.
6. Because the WRP does not have dedicated laboratory space at ERL-C, there were
delays in completing the analysis of soils during the fall of 1993. This created a
nuisance for the OWS, but could potentially have compromised the quality of soil
LOI data. Every effort should be made to secure permanent laboratory space for
the WRP, including storage space for soils.
7. There was a substantial problem with identification of OWS soil samples due to
incorrect labelling of samples by field crew members. In most cases,
misidentification of soils was resolved through detective efforts at ERL-C, but there
was a substantial waste of time in correcting labelling problems, and the use of
data for 16 samples (8 pairs) will be limited because of incorrect labels. These
problems need not occur, and could be eliminated by having field crews be more
careful when labelling soils, coupled with more thorough checking of sample ID's
by crew leaders when custody sheets are prepared.
8. Estimates are now available of the time required for processing of soils in the
laboratory; this will allow better planning of laboratory staffing needs if a similar
study is conducted in the future. Similar time estimates should be generated for all
significant field and laboratory aspects of the project.
9. Laboratory analyses went well; no substantive changes are recommended in the
procedures or equipment used. When methods were developed, it was suggested
59
-------
that determination of percent moisture be dropped. As it turns out, these data
were useful in the evaluation of data for audit soils and duplicates, and were
essential for helping sort out the identification of some mislabelled soils.
10. Use of aluminum weighing dishes (instead of a porcelain crucible) was questioned
by QA staff in their reviews of the OWS research plan and QA plan. The aluminum
dishes worked fine; they were convenient to use and didn't change weight during
processing. Based on time and cost/convenience factors, continued use of the
recyclable dishes is recommended.
11. Processing of samples by batch and sample worked well. Continued analysis by
this approach is recommended. Samples are easy to track, and to locate in the
future in the case when batch-specific problems are identified later on.
12. Sample volumes were less than desired for a small fraction of soil samples, leaving
no extra material for reanalysis (if necessary). The volume of material in core
samples is inherently limited, but for samples collected by spade or auger, field
crews should make every effort to collect an adequate amount of soil for laboratory
analysis.
VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE
VI.A. Results of Field Audit by ERL-C QA Staff
At the beginning of the field season, Deborah Coffey, ERL-C QA staff, intended to
conduct a technical systems audit of the OWS within the first two weeks of data
collection, as well as attend the mid-season calibration. She was not able to attend the
mid-season calibration due to other time commitments. A complete technical systems
audit would have included a review of the soil processing and analysis laboratory activities
at PSU and field visits to each of the three field crews. On 29 June 1993, Ms. Coffey
visited the PSU laboratory facilities, but was only able to observe one field crew - the
Obligates, with Stephanie Gwin as crew leader - conduct most sampling tasks. She was
unable to locate the Buffers, with JoEllen Honea as crew leader, because they had gone on
to an alternate site after rejecting the site scheduled for that day's sampling. She
observed Vanishing Point, with Kate Dwire as crew leader, only during baseline set-up and
wrap-up activities. The audit findings of her review of the PSU laboratory and field review
of the Obligates are summarized in an audit report, submitted to Mary Kentula on 8 July
1993 (Appendix V). No significant problems were noted, although several laboratory
issues were identified. These were addressed by Paul Shaffer in a memo to Mary Kentula,
dated 15 August, 1993 (Appendix V), and are summarized in Table 15.
In a follow-up field audit on 28 July 1993, Ms. Coffey observed the Buffers and
Vanishing Point conduct most field data collection activities. She summarized this field
review in an addendum to the audit report, submitted to Mary Kentula on 29 July 1993
(Appendix V).
The objectives of the field audits were to: 1) observe the implementation of the
sampling protocols; 2) compare the crews to each other; 3) review the implementation of
60
-------
Table 15. Summary of issues identified during the June 1993 OA audit of the OWS soil analytical laboratory at Portland State
University, and resolution of those issues by OWS staff. A more detailed discussion of the reconciliation of these concerns is
available in an August 15, 1993 memo from Paul Shaffer to the EPA Project Leader (Mary Kentula), which will also be appended
to the final OWS OA Report.
Audit Recommendation
Action taken
Demonstrate comparability of LOt data from two different
muffle furnaces by conducting an overlap study using audit
samples.
Replace broken thermometer in drying oven.
The muffle furnace purchased for the project was received and put in service at PSU
two days after the field audit. Rather than do a comparison study, the few samples
(fewer than 20) for which LOI had been determined using the old muffle furnace
were reanalyzed.
The thermometer, which broke on June 22, was replaced on June 30.
Obtain thermometers for refrigerators.
Thermometers were obtained and placed in the refrigerator at the end of June.
Maintain temperature charts to record performance of the
drying oven and refrigerators used for sample storage.
Secure more cold storage space at PSU and ERL-C for soil
samples.
Purchase/obtain desiccators to store soil samples after
removal from muffle furnace, to avoid adsorption of
moisture while cooling. Incorporate as an SOP.
Chart accuracy and calculate precision following analysis or
each batch of soils. Compare to project DQO's; report to
project soil specialist if reanalysis is required.
Complete all calculations for each batch of soil before
proceeding to the next batch.
Temperature data for refrigerators were recorded in one of the laboratory log books;
data for the drying oven and muffle furnace has been, and will continue to be
recorded on laboratory data sheets (Form L-1) used for loss on ignition data.
Extra space was obtained at PSU in early July; cold storage space was not a problem
at PSU. Soil samples were transferred to ERL-C in early fall after access to storage
space (a freezer) was secured at ERL-C. Samples were stored in the freezer prior to,
and following processing in the laboratory at ERL-C.
All samples were weighed immediately upon removal from the oven or furnace, so
desiccators were not needed.
These actions were included in the QAPP for the project, and were implemented
throughout the study.
Because it took two days to complete processing of each batch of samples, it was
not practical to implement this recommendation. Loss on ignition data for QA
samples (blanks, audits, duplicates) were calculated and checked against DQO's as
soon as possible upon completion of each batch; I believe this was an appropriate
level of data checking. In any case, it made no sense for Laboratory staff to do
calculations for all samples, since this type of task is better and more accurately
done by computers.
-------
the project QA/QC activities as specified in the QAPP; 4) discuss the project design and
schedule, and 5) discuses data collection, verification, and validation and data
management. With two field visits, these objectives were met.
No significant OA concerns were identified for the field data collection activities,
and Ms. Coffey's over-all impressions and conclusions were highly favorable. In her audit
report, she stated:
o Crew members are well-trained and perform their tasks well with little direction.
Maturation in the performance of assigned tasks was evident in comparison to the
training day observations.
o Crew members are dedicated to completing the project and collecting the most
accurate data possible.
o Crew members help each other constantly with good grace and often humor. The
observed attitudes and dedication are exemplary. In her 29 July 1993 addendum,
Ms. Coffey noted two concerns and made five recommendations. They were
addressed by Kate Dwire in a memo dated 4 August 1993 (Appendix V), and are
listed below:
1. Concern: Influence of Sherry Spencer's changing role on data accuracy and entry
(plant identification). Ms. Coffey noted that Sherry discontinued visiting all crews
in the field, and because one crew (Vanishing Point) left the hotel early in the
morning, they were unable to interact with her when she picked up soil and plant
specimens. The botanists were still collecting unknowns, and the lag time between
collection and keying/identification did not allow time to learn the identity of the
unknown before it is encountered again.
Response: Although Kate/Teresa did not connect with Sherry in the morning, they
left their samples with another crew leader, so the samples could be delivered to
Sherry. Time permitting, Sherry continued to visit the field crews at the wetland
sites, and discuss identification of plants. Sherry's identification of unknown plant
species improved the accuracy of the vegetation data (replacing designated
unknowns on the data sheets with a species name), and expedited data entry (the
more unknowns identified, the sooner the vegetation data could be entered).
Although unknowns continued to be collected, the number decreased as the
botanists learned more plants. The number of unknowns collected at a site
depended largely on the complexity of the wetland.
2. Concern: The vegetation data sheets cannot be given to the data entry person until
the unknowns are identified. This is a.bottleneck in the sampling process.
Response: The resolution of plant species identification on the vegetation data
sheets caused a bottleneck in the data entry process, not the sampling process.
We anticipated that verification of plant species identification would be a lengthy
process. It is critical to the accuracy of the vegetation data.
62
-------
3. Recommendation: Other crews should consider incorporating "refinement" of field
activities tried by other crews. For example, the Buffers used a tent awning to
protect data sheets, field crew members, and gear from the rain. Other crews
should consider buying inexpensive 9' X 12' tarps for this purpose.
Action taken: Each crew worked independently. Although crew leaders discussed
activities, labor saving techniques and devices, each crew continued to sample
wetlands in their own style (it did not rain much after week 6). Additional
equipment has been recommended for future studies (Table 10).
4. Recommendation: Final data assessments need to address sampling design
(number of transects and plots) for future application of this protocol to
characterize wetlands of various sizes. Another analysis should focus on the level
of detail required (for say, vegetation characterization) to characterize a site. What
measures actually evaluate wetland function to allow comparison between natural
and created wetlands?
Action Taken: The suggested analyses have been proposed as part of the data
analysis phase of the project.
5. Recommendation: A statistician accustomed to handling large databases and
summarizing difficult ecological data is needed on staff.
Action Taken: The recommendation has been presented and discussed with the
EPA Project Leader.
6. Recommendation: A QC report summarizing the results of the OA plots, the mid-
season calibration check, and suggestions for future studies is needed.
Action Taken: Results of training, the mid-season calibration check, and
suggestions for future studies (regarding training and field implementation) are
presented in this report. A final OA report, described in the QAPP, will include the
results of the OA plots.
7. Recommendation: The teachers should be asked at the conclusion of field sampling
for their input concerning the appropriateness of the protocols for meeting project
objectives.
Action Taken: An end-of-season questionnaire was developed by the project leader
and crew leaders, and mailed to all teachers in August, 1993. Responses are
summarized in Section VII of this report.
VI.B. Description of Proficiency Criteria
Individual and team proficiency in the execution of field sampling methods was
observed throughout training by the crew leaders. At the end of training, proficiency was
assessed using the internal quality control checks listed in Table 16. Crew leaders initially
intended to test individual proficiency with laboratory "practicals" for plant identification
63
-------
Table 16. Internal quality control checks for assessment of individual and team proficiency in executing sampling methods.
METHOD
TEAM PROFICIENCY
COMPARABILITY & CALIBRATION
of INDIVIDUALS & TEAMS
Site: Surveying
End-of-training practical for overall surveying methods.
Accuracy & precision of stadia rod readings estimated
against "standard" at end-of-training.
Individual and team proficiency checklists.
End-of-training and weekly crew leader discussions
Veaetation:
Species Identification
Species Abundance - % cover
of herbaceous species,
shrubs, trees;
% bare ground;
% standing water
End-of-training practical.
Accuracy of spedes identifications and cover
measurements, and precision of cover measurements
estimated against "standard" at end-of-training and mid-
season in OA quadrats.
Individual and team proficiency checklists.
End-of-training and weekly crew leader discussions.
Discussions among botanists and crew leaders to
"calibrate" cover estimates.
End-of-training and mid-season "calibration" (precision
and accuracy checks) in QA quadrats.
Soils:
Color
Horizon thickness
Presence of mottles, gleying,
concretions, oxidized root
channels, H2S
Soil sample processing.
Soil organic matter.
End-of-training practical.
Accuracy and precision of subjective measurements
estimated at end-of-training and mid-season against
"standard" measures on QA soil plots.
Hands-on training; first batches processed with, and
protocols observed by the soil scientist.
Accuracy and precision estimated with QC check
samples (audits, blanks, duplicates).
Individual and team proficiency checklist.
End-of-training and weekly crew leader discussions.
Discussions among soil scientist and crew leaders to
"calibrate" subjective measurements.
End-of-training and mid-season "calibration" (precision
and accuracy checks).
Consultation with soil scientist regarding any
questions/difficulties.
Audit samples, blanks, laboratory duplicates.
Hvdroloav:
Depth of standing water.
Depth in soil pit to standing
water, free water, saturated
soil.
Accuracy and precision estimated at end-of-training and
mid-season against "standard" on "QA soil plots".
-------
and soil description variables, as described in the QAPP (Magee et al., 1993b). However,
it was decided that field evaluation of methods was more practical and realistic.
Proficiency checklists were prepared by the WRP crew leaders, and listed all steps
in the sampling protocols for collection of survey, soils, and vegetation data. The
checklists noted tasks of individuals as well as teams. On 22 May 1993 (training day 6),
the checklists were used by the crew leaders to evaluate the proficiency of the individual
trainees in conducting the research methods during the "dry run" wetland sampling.
Following the "dry run", the crew leaders discussed methods that needed clarification, and
tasks or sampling steps that required standardization or more careful implementation.
Individual proficiency of surveyors using the transit was checked by a trainer taking
repeat readings approximately every 5th reading, for a combination of close and distant
readings. This was done throughout training, during the "dry run" sampling, and during
the first several weeks of field sampling. Surveyors' readings must be within .±.1 cm of
the Trainer's readings; any discrepancies were discussed and resolved immediately.
Individual pioficiency of surveyors for soil profile description was checked through end-of-
training and mid-season calibration activities (discussed below in Section VI.C). Individual
proficiency of botanists for vegetation cover estimates was evaluated by discussing cover
in certain plots with Sherry Spencer, Teresa Magee, and Kate Dwire during the training
sessions, and through end-of-training and mid-season calibration activities (discussed
below in Section VI.C).
Crew proficiency, i.e., the ability of crews to work together in sampling the
wetland, was also observed on 22 May, 1993. Using the proficiency checklists, Mary
Kentula, WRP Project Leader, and Deborah Coffey, ERL-C OA staff, observed the three
crews and crew leaders implement the sampling activities. The objectives of the field visit
were to: 1) observe implementation of field methods by the three field crews; 2) observe
OWS training methods; 3) qualitatively assess consistency of crew leaders in
implementation of field methods, assessment of individual and team proficiency, and
answering questions. Ms. Coffey's observations were summarized in her trip report
(Appendix V). She noted that the crew members worked cooperatively, were competent
in executing the methods, and that field crew interactions and dedication were
exceptional. In addition, she made a number of recommendations. Observations and
recommendations made by Mary Kentula and Deborah Coffey were discussed with the
crew leaders before initiation of field sampling.
The proficiency checklists were very useful for the crew leaders, who were also
learning some of the field methods, both during training and the first weeks of sampling.
The checklists were developed by the individual(s) responsible for teaching a particular
method, and their preparation required careful consideration of each step in each method.
They served as reminders of the sequence of sampling tasks, the fine points of method
implementation, facilitated evaluation of proficiency, and alerted crew leaders (and
trainees) of which individuals had difficulties with certain methods, and which individuals
were particularly adept at certain methods.
65
-------
VI.C. Summary of Training Results, End-of-Training Calibration
VI.C.1. Plant identification and cover estimates
The project botanists (Teresa Magee and Sherry Spencer) and six vegetation teams
worked towards increasing plant identification skills and consistency in making cover
estimations during the last three training sessions. On 22 May 1993, week 6, an initial
calibration session was conducted at the Bryant Woods training site. The purpose of
calibration was to assess vegetation team proficiency and consistency in implementing the
vegetation sampling methods, accuracy of plant identification, and between-team precision
in estimation of cover values. The project botanists set up and sampled 10 quadrats at
Bryant Woods in the morning prior to the arrival of the vegetation teams; their estimates
served as "standards". Ideally, each vegetation team would correctly identify all plant
species found in a given quadrat and record cover values for each species that were
consistent (within ±_ 15%) with the "standards" determined by the project botanists.
Later that day, each vegetation team sampled 2-3 of the designated quadrats, filling out
Form F-7 data sheets as they would during actual sampling. Following calibration, plant
identification and cover estimates were discussed briefly and the data sheets were
collected. Most members of the vegetation teams were not comfortable with their plant
identifications skills, and felt that they needed more practice in cover estimation.
Calibration results of each vegetation team were compared to the "standards" and
to the estimates of the other vegetation teams. Although the vegetation teams had
recorded cover values that were within the _±. 15% data quality objective for
approximately 75% of the species, three botanists assigned very high cover values to
certain grass species (20-65% higher than the project botanists), and one botanist
assigned low cover values (20-30% lower than the project botanists) to forb species. It
appeared that the cover values were complicated by plant identification issues, especially
for grass species that looked very similar. Each of the vegetation teams failed to record
one or more species listed by the project botanists. However, three vegetation teams
found species that had not been recorded by the project botanists.
These calibration results were discussed with the project leader, and an additional
calibration session was scheduled for 22 June 1993. The second calibration session was
also conducted at Bryant Woods, with Kate Dwire assisting in the establishment and
sampling of the "standard" quadrats. Following calibration, the vegetation teams
themselves calculated the difference between their estimates and those of the project
botanists. Results improved somewhat over the first calibration; cover estimates of the
vegetation teams were within _±. 15% of the project botanists for >80% of the plant
species. However, cover values for some species were still quite different from the project
botanists. The plant species and cover values for each quadrat were then discussed with
the vegetation teams and project botanists. Although there was frustration regarding the
subjective nature of assigning cover values, this discussion made crew botanists and
project botanists more aware of individual tendencies to assign "too high" or "too low"
cover values. Some of the teachers were still uncomfortable with their plant identification
skills and felt that they needed more group discussion regarding cover estimation;
however, time did not permit reconciliation of all questions.
66
-------
The vegetation calibration results were difficult to interpret because they did not
distinguish between plant identification problems and cover estimation. During field data
collection, the accuracy of plant identification was ensured through plant collection and
recording of all unknown species, as described in Section V.C.2. of this report. The
teachers were encouraged to discuss and ask questions regarding estimation of plant
cover with each other and the project botanists. In general, the teachers and the project
botanists felt that the vegetation teams were prepared for field sampling, and by the end
of the first week, the vegetation teams felt confident estimating plant cover values.
Recommendations for improved assessment techniques are presented below.
VI.C.2. Soil description
The WRP soil scientist (Paul Shaffer) and the surveyors worked towards increasing
soil profile description skills and consistency in discussing horizons and hydric soil features
during the last three training sessions. On 22 May 1993, week 6, the survey team
members were calibrated for soil profile description at Bryant Woods. The purpose of
calibration was to assess survey team proficiency and consistency in describing wetland
soils. Prior to the calibration session, Paul Shaffer sampled and described hydric soil
pedons from Sunset Park and Walnut Park, both located in Corvallis. Paul wanted to
expose the teachers to a greater range of hydric soil features than those available at
Bryant Woods, and brought the Sunset Park and Walnut Park pedons to the calibration
session. He also sampled and described a pedon from a soil pit at Bryant Woods. Paul's
descriptions served as the "standard values" for all variables on the Form F-11
Soil/Hydrology Characterization data sheet. Ideally, the survey team members would
identify color, mottles, concretions, and oxidized root channels, and determine horizon
depths, the presence of an organic layer, gleying, or hydrogen sulfide in a manner
consistent with the "standard values". Two soil horizons from each of three soil pedons
were described by each surveyor. Following calibration, the soil pedons were discussed
briefly and the data sheets were collected. A major point of discussion was that the
teachers were not comfortable with individual soil description, and preferred to describe
soils by consensus, which is how they had been trained and how data were collected in
the field.
Calibration results were compared to the "standards" and to the estimates of the
other survey team members. For horizon depth, all values were within the ±2cm DQO
for the Bryant Woods soil pedon. However, the DQO was exceeded by 100% of the
values for the Sunset Park pedon, which had very subtle and uneven horizon boundaries,
and by 30% of the values for the Walnut Park pedon. This indicated the importance of
working with different soils during the training. Presence/absence data for three of the
hydric soil diagnostic features - mottles, root channels, and Fe concretions in the lower
horizon - were within the 90% agreement DQO; however, data for presence/absence of
mottles and root channels in the upper horizon exceeded the DQO. There was good
consensus for soil color, except for systematic biases by one surveyor.
Below are Paul Shaffer's general comments on the results of the calibration, and
suggestions to the surveyors for field sampling:
67
-------
1. Results of the calibration were generally good. People worked quickly, and came to
similar descriptions for most soil features.
2. Disagreements on diagnostic features occurred because some individuals didn't see
something that most others did. The biggest discrepancies were failure to identify
diagnostic features in horizons with only a few mottles, concretions, and/or root
channels.
3. There was some variability in assignment of color, but results were generally good,
especially given time limits. Surveyors are reminded to look at several pages and
colors in the Munsell Soil Color book, before assigning a color.
4. For horizon depth and description of features, it was important to remember what
differentiates horizons from each other - color, texture, and presence/absence of
mottles. Surveyors were advised to look carefully at each slab and describe what
they see. During calibration, some surveyors recorded a horizon break that others
did not, while others did not make breaks that some recorded. Differences that
mav indicate a horizon break should be described.
5. Things that surveyors were to remember during field sampling:
o Always check carefully for presence of H2S; all surveyors missed it as they
dug pits.
o Watch for and record presence of organic horizons. Two of the three teams
recognized its presence in determining horizon depths, but none recorded its
presence on the data form. If there is an 0 horizon that is J> 2 cm thick,
describe it on the field form.
o In determining horizon depths, watch for presence of mottles and root
channels. There was variability on the descriptions for the Walnut Park and
Sunset Park soils pedons. Some of this occurred because of variability
within the soil (e.g., depth for first horizon break varied from 5 to 15 cm), so
be certain to look at the whole slab, and look at several places within each
horizon for mottles,"concretions, root channels, etc.
The points above were discussed with the surveyors before field sampling was
initiated. There was no second calibration for description of soil features before field
sampling began.
VI.D. Mid-season Calibration
Maintaining high comparability in data collected by the three different crews over
the entire field season was essential in the OWS. Estimation of subjective values, such as
plant cover and descriptive soil features, are known to "drift" over the duration of a
sampling season. A mid-season training review and calibration session was held during
the fifth week of field sampling (21 July 1993). The purpose of the mid-season session
was to bring the three crews together, review and discuss any questions about field
68
-------
sampling, and evaluate between crew precision and consistency in executing the
vegetation and soil sampling methods. Like the end-of-training calibration session, Teresa
Magee and Sherry Spencer set up and sampled 5 quadrats at Bryant Woods, and their
cover estimates served as "standards". However, before sampling, each Vegetation Team
conducted a field reconnaissance of all plant species, as they had been doing during
sampling of the research wetlands. They listed the species present, and agreed on
designations for unknown species. This procedure prevented the difficulties with species
identification which had muddied the results from the end-of-training calibration sessions.
In addition, the vegetation teams felt more comfortable with this approach, and considered
it to be a more straightforward evaluation of their ability to estimate plant cover.
Calibration results of each team were compared to the "standards" and to the
estimates of the other vegetation teams. Although a few high cover values (20 - 65%
higher than the project botanists) were recorded for one grass species, the vegetation
teams estimated cover values that were within the ±_ 15% data quality objective for
approximately 90% of the species.
The mid-season calibration for soil profile description consisted of describing two
soil pedons. Prior to the calibration session, Stephanie Gwin and Cindy Holland extracted
two hydric soil pedons from Bryant Woods, split each pedon into two slabs, and brought
them to PSU. Stephanie and Cindy's descriptions served as the "standard values" for all
variables on the Form F-11 Soil/Hydrology Characterization data sheet (see Magee et al.
1993a). Four soil horizons were described by each survey team. Calibration results were
compared to the "standards" and to the estimates of the other survey team members. For
most variables, results were quite consistent and within project DQOs. One shortcoming
of this calibration session is that the teachers were familiar with the Bryant Woods soils,
and were not challenged by unusual or difficult soil features like those they were
encountering in the field. A more instructive and representative calibration session would
have included different soils (discussed below).
VI.E. Field Remeasurement Data
Repeat sampling of approximately 10% of the vegetation quadrats and soil profiles
was conducted at each site to evaluate within-crew precision for vegetation and soils
description data. This data is part of the OWS database, and will be analyzed and reported
according to the OWS project schedule. Although results of the repeat sampling are not
yet available for vegetation data, the value of collecting the remeasurement data is
important to note in this report. Before leaving each site, botanists summarized their data
for the OA transects (i.e., they calculated differences in cover estimates). They discussed
any notable differences (> _±. 15%). The comparison and discussion at the end of each
day helped the two vegetation teams on each crew to estimate plant cover values
consistently. It also reinforced plant identification skills.
Repeat sampling of soils was generally discussed by the two people sampling soils.
Again, this repeat measurement fostered discussion of difficult descriptions, and minimized
systematic biases by individuals for certain variables. The collection and discussion of
remeasurement data continued to "calibrate" the members on each crew.
69
-------
VI.F. Quality Assurance Evaluation of Soil Samples
As part of the field and laboratory activities conducted in the OWS for sampling
and analysis of soils for organic matter content, as determined by loss on ignition (LOI), a
variety of activities were undertaken to insure data quality. Each batch of soil samples
included several QA/QC samples, including: 1) a blank (empty weighing dish); 2) twD audit
samples with known organic matter contents; 3) at least two pairs of field duplicate
samples (i.e., a sample split to two bags at the time of collection); and 4) at least two
pairs of laboratory duplicate samples. As analysis of each batch was completed, LOI data
for the audit and field/lab splits in each batch were checked to verify achievement of data
quality objectives (DQO's). Results of QA/QC analyses are summarized below; there were
no significant deviations from DQO's, and no reanalysis of samples was necessary. As
described in Section VI.A., a QA audit of the PSU laboratory was conducted on June 29,
1993 as part of the OWS QA activities. No significant problems were noted, although
several issues were identified by the auditor and resolved by OWS staff as summarized in
Table 15.
In addition to analysis of QA/QC samples, several routine activities were conducted
at PSU and ERL-C to verify performance of equipment. Laboratory balances were checked
daily using standard weights, and measured weights were recorded in a laboratory
notebook. Balances met DQO's (all measured weights within ± 0.01 g of the true weight)
in all cases, and no recalibration of balances was necessary at PSU or ERL-C laboratories.
The temperature of the drying oven (checked by thermometer) and of the muffle furnace
(recorded from the digital display on the furnace, verified using Tempilstiks) was checked
and recorded with each batch of soil samples. These data will be included in the OWS
Quality Assurance Report. No problems occurred with temperatures of the drying oven or
muffle furnace. As an aside, it should be noted that the Operator's Manual for the Fisher
Brand muffle furnace used for LOI analyses states that the furnace should be operated only
on 120 or 240 volt circuits, not at 208 volts. Because ERL-C laboratories have 120 and
208 volt, but not 240 volt, circuits, rewiring was planned prior to use of the furnace at
ERL-C, but a Fisher service representative told Frank Gecina of TEAM that it was OK to
run the furnace at 208 V, as long as the furnace wasn't running at the high end of the
temperature range. The furnace was used on a 208 volt circuit for all analyses at ERL-C,
and no problems were encountered with furnace operation.
To check the accuracy of LOI measurements, two previously characterized soils
were used as audit soils (an 0 horizon and a B horizon soil) for-OWS laboratory analyses.
Control limits for these samples were set at the start of the summer, based on data from
ten replicate analyses made by the Central Analytical Laboratory at Oregon State
University. The control limits based on the OSU analysis were very tight (± 2 standard
deviations was 3.9 and 4.8% of the mean LOI value for the B and O horizon soils,
respectively), in part because all of the analyses were run in one batch. It was recognized
at the start of the summer that control limits based on the OSU analyses might be
unrealistically tight for OWS analyses, in which there would be some batch-to-batch
variability, but the OSU data were used to set at least interim control limits. As it turned
out, most of the PSU and ERL-C analyses met the rigorous control limits defined by the
OWS data (Figure 3). There were not significant differences in the mean LOI between
OSU and OWS analyses, nor between OWS analyses at PSU and at ERL-C (Table 17).
70
-------
UCL
38-
UWL
36-
E
O)
c 35-
O
₯
mean
X
LWL
(0
CO
O
34-
*
LCL
33-
70
30 40
Analysis Batch #
20
UCL
15-
UWL
c
o
c
C
D)
C
O
CO 14-
CO
mean
LWL
LCL
30 40
Analysis Batch #
Figure 3. Control charts showing data for audit soils analyzed for loss on ignition for the
OWS. Data for the O horizon (black) soil are shown in A, the B horizon (brown) soil in B. The
upper and lower warning limits (UWL and LWL) are two standard deviations from the mean,
the upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL) are three standard deviations.
71
-------
Table 17. Comparisons of audit soil organic matter content (loss on ignition) as
determined by analyses at Oregon State University (OSU) and by analyses at PSU and ERL-
C for the OWS.
OWS
(@ PSU)
OWS
<@ ERL-C) '
OWS
(all)
OSU
B horizon (brown) soil
n
54
25
79
10
Mean
14.40
14.37
14.39
14.40
std. dev.
0.51
0.37
0.47
0.28
minimum
13.44
13.40
13.40
13.95
maximum
15.27
15.25
15.27
14.92
0 horizon (black) soil
n
52
23
75
10
Mean
35.62
35.47
35.57
36.03
std. dev.
1.03
1.00
1.02
0.86
minimum
33.33
33.17
33.17
34.63
maximum
37.90
37.24
37.90
37.33
72
-------
The precision of OWS lab analyses, as determined by analysis of duplicate field and
laboratory samples, was well within the DQO's stated in the OWS QAPP (Magee et. al.
1993b). DQO's set at the start of the project were for the measured LOI of the field and
laboratory duplicate samples to have standard deviations of 0.5% or less, and/or to have a
relative standard deviation (RSD) of less than 15% of the average LOI. Precision data for
analyses of LOI at PSU and at ERL-C are presented in Figure 4 and Table 18. These data
show that median standard deviations and RSD's for both field and laboratory duplicates
were within the DQO's, and that the DQO's were achieved for 95% of field duplicates and
99% of laboratory duplicates. A more thorough evaluation of precision data for OWS soil
samples will be reported in the final OWS Quality Assurance Report.
As a final check on data quality, to evaluate whether the LOI of soils changed
during storage, 41 soil samples analyzed as part of five batches during the summer at PSU
were reanalyzed at ERL-C in November, 1993. Results, shown in Figure 5, show that
there has not been any systematic change in LOI during storage; on average, LOI
decreased by 0.08 (± 0.80) percent. Data describing completeness of soil sampling and
laboratory analyses were presented in Section V-D, and showed that overall the
completeness of sampling was high (92% of soil samples were collected, including 98% of
samples from the 0-5 cm sampling interval). Completeness of laboratory analysis was
very high, with valid LOI analyses obtained for 99.7% of the soils received at the PSU
laboratory.
VI. G. Recommendations
For the most part, the methods used for calibration of field staff, evaluation of
proficiency, and estimation of data quality worked well. Below are our recommendations
for future studies. These are based on ERL-C QA reviews, discussions among crew
leaders about what worked well, and input from the teachers:
1. Development of proficiency checklists. The proficiency checklists were useful for
the crew leaders and external reviewers for assessment of staff proficiency in
executing the sampling methods at the end of training. Their development, which
required careful consideration of each step in each method and documented the
fine points of method implementation, is highly recommended for future studies.
2. Improving assessments of plant species cover calibration, plant species
identification, and field recognition of plant species. Some difficulties arose in
assessing crew member skill in cover estimation and species identification. These
assessments were used both for end-of-training evaluation of vegetation team skills
and later for QA calibrations during the field season. Problems are described in
Sections VI.A and VI.C. We recommend enhancing and separating assessments
for cover and species identification. Deficiencies in the procedure for evaluating
cover estimates were noted at the end-of-training calibration and were revised to be
more effective at the mid-season calibration. Species identification accuracy was
not directly assessed in either session. However, many steps for insuring correct
species identification during data collection were included in training and in the
standard sampling protocols (see Magee et al. 1993a, 1993b) The following
73
-------
s
DQO
1 5
05 1
Standard Deviation (% LOI)
A A ~ i
10 15 20
Rel. Std. Deviation (%)
x
V
£
0
2
CO
1
3
E
3
o
05 1 15
Standard Deviation (% LOI)
i
x
V
o 08
CE
cr
CD
0 6
«D 0 4
>
^ 0 2
3
o
o
Field Dups Lab Splits
DQO
10 15 20
Rel Std. Deviation (%)
25
30
Figure 4. Frequency distributions and cumulative distributions for precision data for OWS laboratory analyses of field and
laboratory duplicate soils for loss on ignition. Data for standard deviation is shown in A and B; data for relative standard deviation
in C and D.
-------
Table 18. Summary of precision data for field and laboratory soil OA duplicate samples
analyzed for loss on ignition in the Oregon Wetlands Study.
A. Summary statistics
Field duplicates Laboratory duplicates
Statistic
STD_DEV
RSD(%)
STD_DEV
RSD (%)
minimum
0.003
0.11
0.001
0.02
in
o
Q.
0.011
0.23
0.005
0.08
p25
0.068
1.28
0.049
0.71
median
0.152
2.52
0.106
1.50
average
0.325
4.12
0.151
2.43
p75
0.278
4.49
0.196
3.01
p95
0.895
15.05
0.452
7.32
maximum
1.846
28.24
1.755
27.11
percentile of the distribution, in this case the 5th
B. Attainment of data quality objectives
1. Field duplicates
pairs meeting STD_DEV and/or RSD DQO 162 / 170(95.3 %)
pairs meeting STD_DEV DQO 143/ 170 (84.1 %)
pairs meeting RSD DQO 162 / 170 (95.3 %)
2. Laboratory duplicates
pairs meeting STD_DEV and/or RSD DQO 169 / 170 (99.4 %)
pairs meeting STD_DEV DQO 166 / 170(97.6 %)
pairs meeting RSD DQO 168 / 170 (98.8 %)
75
-------
o>
35
30
CO
">> 25
(0
c
< 20
(0
15
10
5 10 15 20 25 30
LOI (%), Summer Analysis
35
BATCH 6
a
BATCH 13
~
BATCH 30
x
BATCH 43
¦
BATCH 48
Figure 5. Comparison of measured soil organic matter content (loss on ignition) for soils analyzed during the summer of 1993
at Portland State University and reanalyzed at ERL-C in November, 1993.
-------
improvements and additions in assessments of cover calibration and accuracy of plant
identification are suggested:
a. Cover calibration - All vegetation teams (botanist and recorder) will make cover
estimates for all plant species occurring in a series of plots (5-10) for which the
project botanists have developed consensus cover values. Crew member
botanists will be given a species list for the series of plots and shown any
species they do not know. These procedures allow assessment of cover
estimation differences between vegetation teams and project botanists only,
and the cover estimates are not confounded by species misidentifications.
b. Species identification - Provide a series of common wetland species for
identification in a lab setting to assess how accurately vegetation teams
identify wetland species. Ask the vegetation teams to sight recognize each
species to determine the level of expertise (e.g., percentage correctly
identified). Ask crew members to key several difficult taxa and assess
accuracy in keying. Accuracy in keying is less important than in sight
recognition because a project botanist should be verifying all unknown
specimens. Species that are recognized with certainty by the vegetation teams
are not collected, so it is imperative that sight recognitions are accurate. It
should be stressed that if there are any doubts about species identification, a
collection is made.
c. Field recognition of plant species - Project botanists examine a series of plots
and record all species encountered. Vegetation teams view the same plots and
record all species they encounter and collect all species they do not recognize.
Assessment includes comparison of number of species correctly identified by
vegetation teams compared to project botanists, percentage of unknowns
collected, and percentage of species misidentified.
3. Improving assessments of field soils characterization. A variety of soils, showing a
range of horizon depths and hydric soil features, should be used during training. If
fresh soils cannot be obtained, then slides or photos of soil features should be shown
and discussed. Results from the end-of-training calibration session using three soil
pedons indicated that exposure to a range of soil conditions is important for training
and consistency in soil description.
A mid-season calibration is strongly recommended, but should be done with
two or more different soils, preferably ones that the field staff have not seen before.
In hindsight, a preferable alternative to the OWS mid-season calibration would have
been for each of the crews to extract a soil pedon from the wetland they sampled on
the day prior to the calibration session. The pedons could have been refrigerated or
stored in moist conditions overnight. Each crew's field description (real data
collected at the wetland site) of their pedon could have served as the 'standard"
description for that soil. Each crew would then describe the two pedons brought in
by the other crews. Results would provide a true evaluation of between-crew
comparability, and foster discussion of how to consistently describe questionable soil
features.
77
-------
4. Use of quality control check samples for evaluation of analytical data. The use of
audit samples and of field/laboratory duplicate samples were essential for
determining the accuracy and precision of LOI analyses, and in this study
documented the high quality of laboratory data. Use of similar audit samples and of
duplicates is strongly recommended for similar studies in the future.
The laboratory methods used for analysis of soils for LOI were straightforward
and were effective in generating data of high quality. No fundamental changes in
these methods are required for future studies.
5. Collection of remeasurement data. Repeat sampling of a predetermined portion of
the vegetation quadrats and soil profiles is highly recommended for evaluating
within-crew precision, and reinforcing the need for consistent data collection. For
vegetation data, repeat sampling helped the two vegetation teams on each crew to
estimate plant cover values consistently, and reinforced plant identification skills.
For soil profile description, repeat measurement fostered discussion of difficult soil
features, and minimized systematic biases by individuals for certain variables. During
data analysis, remeasurement data will allow an assessment of repeatability for
subjective measures over a range of field conditions.
VII. SUMMARY & OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall, training, field sampling and laboratory procedures worked very well, and
resulted in high levels of sampling completeness and data of high quality. The sampling
design and methods were very adaptable to field conditions, and allowed consistent
sampling in a variety of terrains, wetlands, and site situations. Although improvements
and modifications have been discussed throughout this report, they should be considered
as fine tuning - changes to the overall OWS approach are not necessary. In the following
sections, we summarize our general recommendations for future studies. In the last
section, Section VII.G., we present the teachers' perspectives, which were obtained
through an end-of-season questionnaire.
VILA. Training
1. Increase training time in the field or lab by adding one or two training days, or
restructuring the daily agenda (see Section III.C.2). It may be logistically difficult to
have more total hours devoted to training, but time could be used more efficiently by
shortening morning classroom sessions to provide more time to develop and practice
field and laboratory skills. The OWS Training Agenda was better than the many
small blocks of time proposed in the original schedule, but even so, too many things
were squeezed into a day (too much breadth, not enough depth).
2. Surveyors would benefit from longer blocks of time in the field during the first few
weeks of training (e.g., whole afternoons on either soils or morphology/mapping/
buffers). More training in plant identification and more time to practice data
collection techniques and consistency in plant cover estimation would increase skill
levels of the botanists and recorders prior to the field season. .
78
-------
3. Teachers indicated that they wanted to see the whole sampling process at the
beginning of training to understood how activities fit together and develop a context
for each sampling activity. There wasn't time to show them the entire process, but
it might have helped to take an hour the first day to talk through the sampling
procedures, using slides and overheads as illustrations to explain what would be
done and how. Another option for future studies would be to produce a video
illustrating all the sampling steps.
4. Several teachers commented that they would like to have seen and worked in more
than one wetland during training. This request is endorsed. The trip to visit a
variety of wetlands on the last afternoon of training was informative, but it would
have been more valuable to have spent the time training at another site; one with
vegetation, soils, and terrain different from that of Bryant Woods (probably during
week 5, and perhaps even for proficiency testing/intercalibration in week 6).
VII.B. Overall Field Sampling
1. In some cases, we sampled pieces of large natural wetland mosaics and defined the
wetland boundaries based on the limits of the sampling protocol. In future studies,
looking at how sample sites relate to neighboring wetlands and fit into the
landscape, and evaluating historical disturbance would provide a more accurate
background for interpreting data.
2. We recommend that a "senior crew leader" spend the first week rotating among field
crews, answering questions, checking for adherence to sampling protocols, checking
consistency among crews, and verifying that field forms are completely and
accurately filled out, etc. A roving crew leader may have minimized problems such
as discrepancies among crews in soil sampling methods and inconsistencies in
procedures for sampling buffers around wetlands.
VII.C. Mapping
1. Each map must contain a permanent reference point. This need not be the
benchmark, but some permanent entity (a culvert, a tree, telephone pole, etc.)
should be located, and the elevation determined at least once during sampling.
Without such a reference point, there is no way to accurately locate equipment in
the wetland, relative to the map, or to link water levels in the wetland during
sampling to conditions at a future time (e.g.. Phase II hydrologic monitoring).
2. Hydrologic conditions in, and adjacent to, each wetland should be more completely
recorded on the map. Inlets and outlets should be located accurately and the
direction and nature of flow (i.e., perennial flow, culvert is only a stormwater inlet,
etc.) should be indicated.
3. Access information should be provided. Note the location of any paths and which
one leads to the access point. Indicate the name and location of nearby streets and
creeks. If access is across private land, indicate where the landowner lives relative
to the wetland.
79
-------
4. Crew leaders need to carefully check maps for errors and adequate detail. One of
the final OWS maps had the north arrow pointing south, and the direction of the
north arrow on several others was off by 30° or more.
VII.D. Vegetation
1. Improve techniques for laying transect tape through dense shrubbery and avoid
excess trampling in saturated soils.
2. Hire an additional logistics support person or botanist. Sherry Spencer provided
critical support to the crew leaders and crew botanists, and safeguarded the integrity
of plant specimens and soil samples. However, there was more work than one
person could handle.
3. Consider increasing the number of laboratory days for crew members to verify plant
species and annotate data sheets, as this would reduce the amount of post-sampling
time required for these activities. Also, increasing the number of laboratory days
would allow the crew members to learn a greater number of plant species and collect
fewer unknowns during sampling.
4. Emphasize throughout training and data collection the importance of collecting
complete plant specimens and meticulous record keeping. Greater attention to such
details will reduce the time required to identify plant species and annotate the data
sheets.
5. Emphasize the importance of collecting all, except extremely rare, unknown plant
species, even if in vegetative or immature condition. Stress that the project botanist
is likely to be able to identify such specimens.
VII.E. Soils
1. The availability of three approaches for sampling soils (spade, bucket auger, corer)
was critical to the high completeness for soil sampling in the diverse soil and
hydrologic conditions occurring in the OWS wetlands. Availability of several
sampling approaches is strongly recommended for future studies; one suggested
improvement is to identify (or develop) a more effective sampler for use in soft or
fluid substrates.
2. Efforts should be made in future surveys to get better consistency among crews in
selection of soil sampling methods, through more rigorous training and more diligent
oversight by crew leaders. In particular, use of a corer should be minimized.
3. Several simple modifications should be made to sampling protocols to improve
completeness of soil sampling. When the OA plot is sampled by corer, a duplicate
core should be collected to provide adequate material for the OA duplicates. In
cases where there is only one plot on a transect, protocols should be developed for
collecting an extra sample on an adjacent transect. If a plot cannot be sampled (e.g.,
80
-------
because of rocky substrate), an alternate plot on the same transect should be
sampled.
4. Form F-11 (Soils Field Data Form) should be reviewed to look for ways to minimize
errors in field data entry. There apparently needs to be additional emphasis in
training on being accurate and complete in filling in forms, and more careful review
of field forms by crew leaders.
5. Every effort should be made to secure permanent laboratory space for the WRP,
including refrigerated storage space.
6. Field crews need to be more diligent when labelling soils, to minimize mislabelling,
and crew leaders need to more thoroughly check sample ID's when preparing
custody sheets.
VII. F. Assessing Proficiency and Data Quality
1. Continue use of proficiency checklists for assessment of staff proficiency in
executing the sampling methods. Use checklists throughout training and during the
first few weeks of sampling to assure that methods are being carefully implemented.
2. Separate assessments for crew member skill in estimation of plant cover and
identification of plant species. Calibration of crew members for cover estimation is
critical, and should not be confounded by difficulties in species identifications.
During calibration, discuss species present in the test quadrats or provide crew
members with a list of species present.
3. Use two or more soils, preferably ones that the crew members have not seen before,
for assessing proficiency and consistency in soils description.
4. Continue to conduct a mid-season calibration session. Between-crew comparability
is essential and should be checked at least once during the field season.
5. Continue to use quality control check samples for determination of accuracy and
precision of laboratory data. In the OWS, we used laboratory blanks, field and
laboratory duplicate samples, and audit samples with known LOI values as quality
control checks.
6. Continue to collect remeasurement data, particularly for subjective measures such as
plant cover and soil characteristics. Repeat sampling at each site allows evaluation
of within-crew precision in a variety of field situations, and reinforces the need for
consistent data collection during sampling.
VII.G. End-of-Season Questionnaire - Teacher's Perspectives
Recommendations made by the teachers, both verbally and in the end-of-season
questionnaire, have been incorporated into other sections of this report. More detailed
81
-------
results of the end-of-season questionnaire are presented here to provide the teachers'
perspective of the OWS.
The questionnaire was prepared by the WRP crew leaders to obtain input from the
teachers on the OWS field activities and an end-of-season evaluation. The questionnaire
(Appendix III) consisted of 38 questions about the training and field scheduling, efficiency
of field methods and equipment, crew structure, effectiveness of the crew leaders, and
general impressions of the OWS experience. The questionnaires were mailed to the
teachers in late August, 1993. A month later, 17 of the 23 questionnaires had been
returned. Because the questionnaires were (mostly) filled out anonymously, it was not
known which teachers had not returned them. Another copy of the questionnaire was
sent out in October 1993, with a cover memorandum requesting completion and return.
Two more questionnaires were sent in, bringing the total number of responses to 19 out of
23.
Results of ranking-type questions are summarized in Table 19. As with the end-of-
training questionnaire, everyone did not answer every question. The number of total
responses for each question is noted in the last column of Table 19. Overall, the
responses were extremely favorable, indicating that the teachers enjoyed the challenge,
camaraderie, and overall field experience of participating in the study. Most teachers (68-
84%) felt "reasonably" to "very prepared" for the field sampling, and "adequately
forewarned" about the rigors of field sampling. The field sampling methods were rated as
"very" to "exceptionally efficient" by 67 - 80% of the respondents, and 78% of the
teachers indicated that the wetlands were "very well" to "exceptionally well" characterized
by the sampling design and methods. Although suggestions were made for equipment
improvements, 100% of the respondents found the equipment to be "adequate" for
sampling. All respondents rated the crew leaders as being "very" to "exceptionally"
effective. The teachers were unanimous in their positive (YES!) responses to the
questions: Was it a good use of time? Would you do it again?
A number of the questions were open-ended, requesting additional comments and
suggestions for improvement. Because these responses provided informative feedback, all
comments were recorded, and are summarized in Appendix III, Table 1. In Appendix III,
Table 1, the responses are sorted by position held during the field season. The major
themes from both the ranking-type and open-ended questions that have not been
presented elsewhere in this report are:
1. Working for the OWS was a rewarding, challenging, eye-opening experience. A
great deal of cooperation and camaraderie developed amongst the people on each
crew.
2. Major benefits derived from working on the study included contacts with other
teachers and professional wetland ecologists, hands-on field research experience to
translate into classroom activities, a wealth of new ideas, and increased knowledge
of wetlands and research methods.
3. The wetland features that the teachers considered to be least effectively sampled
were soils (22%), morphology/mapping (17%), and buffers (11%). Vegetation was
82
-------
Table 19. Teachers' perspective. Summary of the end-of-season questionnaire. (NA = not applicable).
Question
Response Frequency
Total
Responses
Training and
Scheduling
Somewhat
forewarned
Reasonably
forewarned
Very
forewarned
Exceptionally
forewarned
Rate degree of forewarning
regarding ngors of field work
2
4
9
4
19
Rate adequacy of preparation
following training
Somewhat
prepared
3
Reasonably
prepared
12
Very prepared
4
Exceptionally
prepared
19
Week dunng field season when
you become comfortable with
assigned jobs
Week 1
2
Week 2
11
Week 3
5
Week 4
1
19
Did you use training materials
dunng field season
Yes, (Methods manual)
10
Yes
7
No
1
18
Field Methods &
Equipment
Rate efficiency of field
sampling:
Overall site characterization
Vegetation sampling
Surveying
Soils
Reasonably
efficient
5
4
3
5
Very
efficient
11
12
10
11
Exceptionally
efficient
3
2
2
IS
18
15
16
Rate straightforwardness of
methods to implement
Reasonably
straightforward
5
Very straightforward
9
Exceptionally
straightword
4
18
Rate consistency of methods
implementation over the field
season
Reasonably
consistent
5
Very
consistent
8
Exceptionally
consistent
6
19
Rate comparability of data
collected in week 2 and week 8
Not
comparable
1
Somewhat
comparable
1
Reasonably Very
comparable comparable
7 7
Exceptionally
comparable
3
19
83
-------
Table 19. Teachers' perspective. Summary of the end-of-season questionnaire. (NA = not applicable).
Question
Response Frequency
Total
Responses
lo genera], was field equipment
adequate for sampling''
Yes
19
No
Usually
19
Were any data forms difficult to
undentand/fill out
1-soils (F)
1-QA1
9
11
Did sampling strategy allow
flexibility for sampling different
site conditions?
15
3
18
Rate effectiveness of sampling
design and Held methods in
characterizing wetlands
Reasonably characterized
2
Very well characterized
12
Exceptionally well
characterized
4
18
Which wetland features were
most effectively sampled''
All Vegetation
2 13
Surveying Mapping
3 3
Soils
7
18
Which wetland features were
least effectively sampled''
1
1
2 2 (buffers)
1 (environ
impacts)
4
18
Which measures best
characterized the wetlands
sampled?
13 5
1 1
2
19
Crew Structure
Rate equitability of sampling task
distribution among crew members
Somewhat Reasonably
fairly fairly
2 4
Very fairly Exceptionally fairly
8 5
19
Would you have preferred
rotation of sampling tasks?
Regular rotation
4
Occasional rotation
10
No rotation
4
18
Would you have preferred
rotation of people among crews?
2
4
11
16
84
-------
Table 19. Continued
Question
Response Frequency
Total
Responses
Crew Leaders
Rate consistency of decision-
making by alternating crew
leaders
Somewhat
consistent
3
Reasonably Very
consistent consistent
6 5
Exceptionally
consistent
NA
3
17
Rate consistency of decision
making by crew leaders)
throughout the field season
7 5
5
1
18
Rate effectiveness of crew
leaders)
Somewhat
effective
Reasonably Very
effective effective
11
Exceptionally
effective
7
NA
1
18
Did your crew leader(s)
Exhibit good leadership skills?
Make good decisions?
Consult appropriate crew
members when making
decisions?
Pay adequate attention to health
& safety concerns7
Effectively resolve
problems/disagreement?
Answer questions satisfactorily?
Assist when help was needed?
Help create a cooperative &
enjoyable work atmosphere?
Yes
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
No
Did you have difficulty adjusting
to different crew leader style?
Yes
1, at first
No
6
NA
4
11
How well did the van transport of
crews to the study sites work out7
Excellent/
great
3
Well/fine
7
OK
1
11
General
How did your summer field
experience compare to your
expectations?
Reasonably
as expected Very much as expected
7 10
Exceptionally close
to as expected
2
19
85
-------
Table 19. Continued
Question
Response Frequency
Total
Responses
Did you have opportunity to
Yes
No
Somewhat
12
formulate ideas for classroom and
8
3
1
field activities for your students?
How was your morale affected
Positive
No effect
throughout the field season by
length of the field season
3
11
18
the weather
9
6
18
interactions with crew memben
17
17
interactions with crew leaders
17
17
Was spending the summer
Yes
No
sampling wetlands for the OWS a
good use of time7
17
17
Would you do it again''
17
17
recommend it to coworkers7
17
17
86
-------
considered to be the most effectively sampled by 72% of the respondents. Several
teachers noted that they were somewhat uncomfortable describing soils throughout
the field season.
4. While the teachers provided mixed feedback on preferences for task and personnel
rotation, most indicated that they preferred some rotation of tasks so they could
learn the different sampling methods.
87
-------
LITERATURE CITED
Bosman, A.R., P.C. van der Molen, R. Young, and A.M. Cleef. 1993. Ecology of a paramo
cushion mire. Journal of Vegetation Science 4(5):633-640.
Brown, M.T. 1991. Evaluating Created Wetlands Through Comparisons with Natural
Wetlands. EPA/600/3-91/058. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Gwin, S.E. and M.E. Kentula. 1990. Evaluating Design and Verifying Compliance of
Wetlands Created Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act in Oregon. EPA/600/3-
90/061. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory;
Corvallis, OR.
Kentula, M.E., R.P. Brooks, S.E. Gwin, C.C. Holland, A.D. Sherman, and J.C. Sifneos.
1992. An Approach to Improving Decision Making in Wetland Restoration and Creation.
Edited by A.J. Hairston. EPA/600/R-92/150. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Magee, T.K., S.E. Gwin, R.G.Gibson, C.C. Holland, J.E. Honea, P.W. Shaffer, J.S. Sifneos
and M.E. Kentula. 1993a. Research Plan and Methods Manual for the Oregon Wetlands
Study. Document production by K. Miller. EPA/600/R-93/072. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Magee, T.K., K.A. Dwire, S.E. Gwin, R.G.Gibson, C.C. Holland, J.E. Honea, P.W. Shaffer,
J.S. Sifneos and M.E. Kentula. 1993b. Quality Assurance Project Plan for the Oregon
Wetlands Study. Document production by K. Miller. EPA/600/R-93/221. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Mitsch, W.J. and J.G. Gosselink. 1986. Wetlands. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company
Inc., New York, NY.
Owen, C.R. 1990. Effectiveness of Compensatory Wetland Mitigation in Wisconsin.
Technical Report to the Wisconsin Wetlands Association, The Lake Michigan Federation,
The American Clean Water Project. University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wl.
Thomas Bros. Maps. 1992. The Thomas Guide: 1993 Portland Metropolitan Area.
Irvine, CA.
88
-------
APPENDIX A: OREGON WETLANDS STUDY TRAINING AGENDA
-------
Appendix A
Oregon Wetlands Study Training Agenda
Note: Crew Members need to read through "Research Plan and Methods Manual for the
Oregon Wetlands Study" before the first training session
General Format
Reading Assignment - to be done prior to each class session
Lecture if 1
BREAK
Lecture # 2
LUNCH - Brown bag and conversation
Field Work
Laboratory Work
April 10 - Week 1
WRP staff present: Dwire, Gwin, Holland, Honea, Kentula, Magee, Shaffer
Reading assignment: Read: Chapters 1-3 in Decision Making
Review: Study Overview & Site Selection Sections in Research Plan
9:30-9:45 a.m. Introduction: Teacher Internships for the Oregon Wetlands Study,
(Becker, Maine,)
t
9:45-10:30 a.m. Overview: Educational goals and course strategy for reaching them
(Becker, Maine)
10:30-10:45 a.m. BREAK
10:45-11:30 a.m. Oregon Wetlands Study: Overview of the Science (Kentula)
Overview of wetland science, wetland regulation (EPA's interest), and its relation to
the study.
Overview of Oregon Wetland Study-objectives, overall design including site
selection and team organization, variables to be measured and why, and expected
results.
Use of texts--how they were produced; differences in perspective presented.
What EPA can provide and what it wants from you-Provide a real life research
experience; emphasis will be on getting the highest quality data. A lot of practice
in the field techniques will be necessary.
90
-------
11:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. LUNCH
12:00-5:15 p.m. LABORATORY OR FIELD
Group 1. Soil/survey activities
12:00-1:00 p.m. Overview presentations (Shaffer and Gwin) in laboratory
1:00-1:30 p.m. Travel to Bryant Woods, split into two groups
1:30-3:00 p.m. Group A -- mapping; Group B - soils/hydrology
3:00-3:15 p.m. Break
3:15-4:45 p.m. Group A -- soils/hydrology; Group B -- mapping
4:45-5:15 p.m. Pack up and return to laboratory
The goal for the first week is to provide an overview and hands-on introduction to
field activities; what kinds of activities will be performed and why, and initial
familiarization with sampling equipment. Activities will include: (1) set-up and use
of transit, stadia rods, concepts of determining compass bearing, elevations and
distances, etc.; (2) experience with digging and describing soils (e.g., presence of
gleying and mottles color determination); and (3) introduction to project data forms
In case of heavy rain - alternate activities will be conducted in the laboratory: look
at and describe soils brought from the field, determine Munsell color, fill out forms;
use compasses and transit in laboratory, start the example mapping exercise using
existing data.
Group 2. Botanical activities
12:00-5:15 p.m. Laboratory session (Magee and Spencer)
Introduction: importance of accurate plant identification,
review terminology, definitions, and use of taxonomic
keys (we will be using Hitchcock and Cronquist, (1973)
"Flora of the Pacific Northwest")
Practice keying a forb, grass, and sedge
Overview of differences between major groups of
wetland plants
April 24 - Week 2
WRP staff present: Dwire, Gwin, Holland, Honea, Kentula, Magee, Shaffer
Reading assignment: Review: Soils and Hydrology Section in Research Plan
Read: ECOLOGY-Chapter 2, Chapter 1, optional
9:30-10:25 a.m. Learning What Ecologists "DO"/Using an Ecological Framework for
Study and Educational Planning (Maine)
91
-------
10:25-10:40 a.m. BREAK
10:40 - 11:30 am Sampling Soils/Hydrology: Why and How (Shaffer)
11:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. LUNCH
12:00-5:15 p.m. LABORATORY OR FIELD
Group 1. Botanical activities
Importance of accurate plant identification, terminology, use of a taxonomic key,
overview of differences among major groups of wetland plants, practice
identification of major plant groups
Group 2. Soil/survey activities
Soil/survey activities, using the same schedule as Group 1 from week 1
Mav 1 - Week 3
WRP staff present: Dwire, Gwin, Holland, Honea, Magee, Shaffer
Reading assignment: Review: Overview of Field Activities, Transect Establishment, and
Vegetation in Research Plan
Read: ECOLOGY-Chapter 3-The Ecosystem
9:30-10:25 a.m. Science as Problem-Solving: Allowing Students to "DO" Science
(Becker-Maine)
10:25-10:40 a.m. BREAK
10:40-11:30 a.m. Sampling Vegetation: Why and How (Magee)
11:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m. LUNCH
12:00-3:00 p.m. FIELD
12:00-12:30 p.m. Travel to Bryant Woods; split to three groups
12:30-1:45 p.m. Group A - mapping and elevations
Group B - soils/hydrology, describe soils and fill out data
forms
Group C - botany - sampling methods, cover estimates
1:45-3:00 p.m. Rotate groups (A to soils/hydrology, etc.)
3:00-3:15 p.m. Break
3:15-4:30 p.m. Rotate groups
4:30-5:15 p.m. Pack up and return to PSU
92
-------
Field activities this week will include set-up and use of equipment, sampling
procedures and familiarization with data forms. Mapping activities will focus on
using equipment to map a wetland perimeter and run elevation transects, and on
filling out data forms. Soils/hydrology work will focus on selecting and using the
proper equipment, and on examining soils and learning terminology to fill out data
forms. Botanists will learn and practice field sampling procedures (plots for '
herbaceous vegetation, transects for shrubs and trees).
Mav 8 - Week 4
WRP staff present: Dwire, Gwin, Holland, Honea, Magee, Shaffer
Reading assignment: Review: Site Selection Section in Research Plan
Read: ECOLOGY-Chapter 4, Energetics, Chapter 4 in Decision
Making, Quality Assurance handout
9:30-10:25 a.m. Classroom Project Selection: Wetland Study Project-Some Options
(Maine)
10:25-10:40 a.m. BREAK
10:40-11:30 a.m. Sample Design and Quality Assurance: Or How Do You Know That
You Measured the Right Thing in The Right Way? (Dwire)
11:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m. EXTENDED LUNCH -time for chatting and questions
12:00-5:15 p.m. Laboratory
Soil/survev activities (in laboratory)
12:30-2:45 p.m. Mapping - process field mapping and basin morphology data;
make maps and determine datum to define elevations for
transects
2:45-3:00 p.m. Break
3:00-5:15 p.m. Soil analysis - laboratory preparation of soils (e.g., process
cores, sieve to remove coarse material); weigh and process
soils to determine loss on ignition (LOI); process data to
compute LOI
Botany activities (in laboratory)
12:30-5:15 p.m. Plant identification - work on keying skills, learning family
characteristics, and sight identification of dominant species
93
-------
Mav 15 - Week 5
WRP staff present: Dwire, Gwin, Holland, Honea, Magee
Reading assignment: Review: General Site Data, Wetland Morphology, and Existing Data
Sections in Research Plan
Read: Chapters 5 and 6 in Decision Making
9:30-10:25 a.m. Working with Community Resources and Resource Specialist (Maine-
Becker)
10:25-10
10:40-11
11:30-12
40 a.m. BREAK
30 a.m. Evaluating Wetland Project Design (Gwin)
30 a.m. LUNCH
12:30-5:15 p.m. FIELD
Work as field teams for the first time; Survey Teams work on calibration of
elevation measurements. Vegetation Teams work on calibration of plant species
cover estimates; begin to develop cohesion in organizing at sites and setting up and
implementing field activities as teams. Practice field activities appropriate individual
crew members sampling responsibilities.
Mav 22 Week 6
WRP staff present: Dwire, Gwin, Holland, Honea, Magee, Kentula, Shaffer
9:30-10:00 a.m. Overview of field activities. Field Crew assignments
10:00 a.m.-5:15 p.m.
Survey Teams: Sampling buffers, calibration of crew members for soil
descriptions
Vegetation Teams: Measuring diameter at breast height (DBH) of trees, using a
compass for transect establishment, calibration of crew plant
species cover estimates.
Work as 3 field crews and sample a portion of a wetland as it will be done in the
study. Include end-of-sampling-day activities. Mary Kentula and ERL-C OA staff
perform an informal OA review of crews and crew leaders and provide feedback.
June 5 - Week 7
WRP staff present: Dwire, Gwin, Holland, Honea, Kentula, Magee, Shaffer
94
-------
Reading assignment: Review: Overview of Field Activates in Research Plan
ECOLOGY-Chapter 5-Materials Cycles and Physical Conditions of
Existence
9:30-10:25 a.m. Evaluate to Determine Needs of Group (Classroom Project Design)
10:25-10:40 am BREAK
10:40 a.m.-12:00 p.m. FIELD - Review of data and activities from Week 6, final
practice of all field activities
12:00-12:30 p.m. LUNCH
12:30-5:15 p.m. Visit several sites to identify wetland boundaries, baseline locations,
and discuss transect establishment procedures.
95
-------
96
-------
APPENDIX B: OREGON WETLANDS STUDY END-OF-TRAINING QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
Oregon Wetlands Study
End-of-Training Questionnaire
June 25, 1993
Job for field season:
Surveyor Botanist Recorder Soils Lab
We are interested in your comments on the OWS training, and how well you feel the
training prepared you for the field and laboratory research activities. Please complete the
following questionnaire.
Note: This questionnaire is for purposes of evaluating the training as presented by EPA and
ManTech staff, not the Portland State University science education component.
I. Structure of Training
1. Was the combination of morning lectures/presentations followed by afternoon field
and/or laboratory activities an effective way for you to learn the OWS methods?
yes no somewhat
If no or somewhat, what are your suggestions for a different training structure?
2. How would you rate the use of time allotted for:
Lectures/presentations? too little too much OK
Field activities? too little too much OK
Laboratory activities? too little too much OK _
I. How would you rate the following classroom presentations for clarity and relevance
to project ? (Circle one)
not clear/ somewhat clear/ reasonably clear/ very clear/ exceptionally clear/
relevant relevant relevant relevant relevant
1 2 3 4 5
Overview of the Science (Mary Kentula) 1 2 3 4 5
Sampling Soils/Hydrology: Why and How (Paul Shaffer) 1 2 3 4 5
Sampling vegetation: Why and How (Teresa Magee) 1 2 3 4 5
Sample Design and Quality Assurance (Kate Dwire) 1 2 3 4 5
Evaluating Wetland Project Design (Stephanie Gwin) 1 2 3 4 5
98
-------
4. How would you rate the following laboratory practical activities for clarity and field
season preparation? (Circle one for each type of laboratory activity).
not clear somewhat clear reasonably clear very clear exceptionally clear
poor prep OK prep reasonable prep good prep excellent prep
1 2 3 4 5
Analysis of Soils 1 2 3 4 5
Plant Identification and Collection 1 2 3 4 5
Map Making 1 2 3 4 5
5. How would you rate the field presentations/activities for clarity and field season
preparation? (Circle one; same rating scale as question 4)
Sampling Soils/Hydrology 1 2 3 4 5
Sampling Vegetation 1 2 3 4 5
Surveying Techniques 1 2 3 4 5
6. Did the sequence of presentation of the different sampling techniques provide an
effective way for you to learn the OWS methods?
yes no somewhat
If no or somewhat, what are your suggestions for a different training sequence?
II. Training Materials
7. How helpful have you found the Research Plan and Methods Manual to be in
explaining the research methods? (Circle one).
not helpful somewhat helpful reasonably helpful very helpful essential
1 2 3 4 5
8. How helpful have you found the handouts prepared by the trainers? (Using the same
scale as question 7, circle one).
1 2 3 4 5
99
-------
9. Which handouts have been particularly helpful?
10. Have you actually read the handouts that pertain to your position?
all most some none
11. Do you think that you will continue to use the handouts as references:
During data collection? yes no
Comments/brief explanation:
Later, for your own information or for future classroom use?
yes no
Comments/brief explanation:
12. Do you have suggestions for any additional training materials that would have
helped you learn the research methods?
m. Evaluation of Proficiency
13. How well do you think the field checking activities (Surveyors - weeks 5 and 6) and the
calibration activities (Surveyors, Botanists, and Recorders - week 6) served as an evaluation of
your proficiency in implementing the research methods?
poor OK reasonable good excellent
evaluation evaluation evaluation evaluation evaluation
1 2 3 4 5
100
-------
14. Do you have suggestions for other ways of evaluating proficiency?
15. Overall, do you feel confident that you can implement the OWS research
methods for your position?
yes no somewhat
16. Now that you have sampled a few wetlands or processed a few soil samples, how well
do you think the training prepared you for the field and laboratory work? (Please
circle one).
poor prep OK prep reasonable prep good prep excellent prep
1 2 3 4 5
IV. Training Goals and Study Objectives
We realize that we stressed learning the OWS research methods during training.
However, we also hoped to convey the OWS study objectives and the reasons for collecting data
in a particular way. Your answers to the following questions will assist us in evaluating
achievement of the training goals. Please answer these questions using the following scale:
no somewhat clear reasonably clear very clear exceptionally clear
1 2 3 4 5
17. Were the training goals made clear to you? 1 2 3 4 5
18. Were the objectives of the study made clear to you?
In the reading (Research Plan)? 1 2 3 4 5
In the presentations by the trainers? 1 2 3 4 5
19. Were the connections between the study objectives and the data being collected
made clear to you?
In the reading (Research Plan)? 1 2 3 4 5
In the presentations by the trainers? 1 2 3 4 5
101
-------
20. Was the significance of data quality (especially comparability) and quality
assurance (QA) in meeting study objectives adequately explained?
In the reading (Research Plan)? 1 2 3 4 5
In the presentations by the trainers? 1 2 3 4 5
V. General
21. Did the training provide you with an understanding of the nature and puipose
of tasks other than those you will be doing in your position?
Circle one.
no under- some under- reasonable good under- excellent
standing standing understanding standing understanding
1 2 3 4 5
22. Were you given ample opportunity to interact with peers?
Comments?
23. Were any data forms particularly difficult to fill out or hard to understand.
If so, which one(s)?
24. In general, did the classroom presentations, laboratory practical
activities, and field presentations/activities increase your understanding
of wetland ecosystems?
no increased increased increased greatly
slightly reasonably considerably increased
1 2 3 4 5
25. Any additional comments or thoughts on the training (specific or general)?
Thank you!
102
-------
Table B-l. Teachers' comments, summarized from the end-of-training questionnaire (bot =
botanists & recorders (n = 12); sur = surveyors (n=9); lab = lab assistants (n=2))
I. Structure of Training
~ increase field time; (2 bot, 3 sur)
~ increase lab plant I.D. time; use of keys, discussing plant characteristics; (4 bot);
increase soil and botany labs for surveyors; (2 sur)
~ decrease lecture time (2 bot)
~ conduct field training at more than one site (1 bot, 1 sur)
~ from beginning, let us know what equipment is necessary, where we will go, etc. (1 bot)
~ appreciated flexibility in schedule - example: spent afternoon in the plant lab rather than
field (which was scheduled) because it seemed to be most efficient use of time (1 bot)
~ good exposure to all phases of sampling (1 bot)
~ have trainers demonstrate the entire sampling sequence first, then break sampling into
separate tasks. Maybe repeat the entire sequence at the end of training(3 bot; 6 sur; 1
lab)
~ structure in more time for participant response - questions, discussion of issues (1 bot)
~ more practice recording data in the lab and field (1 lab)
~ "just more time"(2 bot)
n. Training Materials
~ handouts summarized the research material well (1 lab)
I
Most Helpful/Useful Handouts:
~ botany /plant identification handouts (2 bot, 2 sur);
~ handouts from [OWS Research] plan on sequence of field activities (1 bot)
~ plant list from 1987 (5 bot)
~ plant terms; schematic plant part diagrams (2 bot)
~ handouts that show examples of data collection techniques, e.g. tree & shrub data
collection (2 bot)
~ sheets comparing Poaceae, Cyperaceae, and Juncaceae (2 bot)
~ soils cheat sheet (2 sur); soils/hydrology sampling (2 sur; 1 lab)
~ QA summary (1 lab)
~ none - mostly repetitions of information available in texts
~ during classroom presentation (mornings), notes to follow along speaker helped (1 sur)
How will you use the handouts?
~ personal reference during field season and beyond (4 bot; 2 sur)
~ will use in projects with students (esp. picture keys) with modifications (3 bot; 3 sur)
103
-------
Suggestions:
~ identify (key out) plant specimens in lab with the whole group; present common wetland
plants by genus (Poas. Phalaris. etc.);
~ have identified species for us to look at a & key out backwards (to clarify terms used in
the keys, esp. grasses (2 bot); more time learning how to use Hitchcock
~ could have used a general overview handout of plant taxonomy, including main families,
groupings as introduction to specific lab activities
~ 2 handouts of plant parts should be consolidated into one handout, and organization of
handout made more clear
~ plant picture books and/or more herbarium specimens showing wetland plants (2 bot).
~ more examples of soil types, concretions, and mottles (2 sur).
~ visual reference (slides, prints, text illustrations) showing sample horizons , gleying,
mottle size and abundance (1 sur)
~ step-by-step outline of activities on a typical survey day, with good diagrams (overview,
not a lot of detail) (1 lab)
m. Evaluation of Proficiency
~ calibration took too long (1 bot)
~ calibration was confusing (inconclusive) at the end of the sessions (2 bot); issues
regarding sampling of percent cover are not totally resolved (3 bot);
~ the 2 calibrations were redundant (same site, same situation, close in time) (1 bot)
~ need more time on species identification, less time on calibrating cover estimates (1 bot)
~ training staff was patient/helpful/understanding (3 bot);
Suggestions:
~ [vegetation] allow discussion to identify plant species, as in site reconnaissance, then
calibrate for percent cover estimates only (3 bot); discuss results following calibration
to address questions/clarify issues (1 bot)
~ [vegetation] have trainers "model" standards, then lead group to arrive at consensus on
cover values
~ conduct calibration like QA vegetation transects art wetlands, but include all teams to test
between-team differences (1 bot)
~ allow more calibration time with all vegetation teams (1 bot)
~ [soils] more consensus work, less individual work
~ for calibrating soils, use a slide presentation, record judgements, then compare and
discuss as everyone observes the slide (1 sur)
~ [soils] check after first week of field work - allow time to get used to procedures (1 sur)
~ written test (1 lab, 1 sur)
104
-------
V. General
Peer Interaction - Was enough time allowed?
~ Yes, although more time was needed to discuss plant identification (2 bot) and soils (1
sur) during calibration
~ No, there was not enough time for discussion of research methods, or implementing what
we've learned in our classrooms (2 bot, 3 sur, 1 lab)
~ Although more time would have been helpful/valuable/nice, we are getting to know each
other (3 bot, 3 sur);
~ working in crews has fosters interaction, good group work (1 lab, 2 sur)
~ have everyone introduce themselves on the first day (2 sur); allow longer lunch breaks
during weeks 1 & 2 (1 sur)
Data forms:
~ keeping up with revisions to forms sometimes caused minor problems (1 bot)
~ because data sheets were collected immediately after each activity, they were not
available as references or review tools (1 bot)
~ although the data sheets seemed difficult to understand at first, they're ok after some
experience (2 sur)
~ format of the soils data sheet could be improved - writing in one direction only (without
having to turn the page) (1 sur)
Comments:
~ Botanists need more training in plant identification (2 bot)
~ Surveyors need more training in soils description (1 sur), and more practice doing soils
interpretation (1 sur)
~ would be helpful if more clear beginning and quitting times were determined (not
shortening, but definite stopping time be set) (1 bot)
~ appreciate trainers' patience, understanding, dedication, communication and interaction,
willingness to help (5 bot, 2 sur), willingness to revise data sheets (1 bot)
~ training was well organized, presented (1 lab); good combination of staff and activities
(1 sur)
~ enjoyed training (1 sur, 1 bot)
105
-------
106
-------
APPENDIX C: OREGON WETLANDS STUDY END-OF-SEASON QUESTIONNAIRE
-------
Oregon Wetlands Study
End-of-Season Questionnaire
August, 1993
Thank you for all your dedication, enthusiasm and hard work throughout the Oregon
Wetland Study field season. Without you, we could not have attempted a project of such
large scope. Because you were an integral part of the data collection effort, we would like
your input for our end-of-season evaluation. Your input will be seriously considered in our
efforts to improve our approach and methods for the next time around (by us or others).
Therefore, we ask that you complete the following questionnaire and return it in the enclosed
addressed, stamped envelope.
Note: The puipose of this questionnaire is to evaluate the field experience of data and
sample collection and laboratory processing of soil and plant samples. We are not assessing
the Portland State University science education component.
Job for field season:
Surveyor Botanist Recorder Soils Lab
I. Training/Scheduling
1. Did you feel sufficiently forewarned/advised of the rigors of field work prior to the
field season?
Not forewarned / Somewhat forewarned / Reasonably forewarned / Very forewarned
/ Exceptionally forewarned
If less than reasonably forewarned, what additional preparation could have been
provided?
2. From the responses to the end-of-training questionnaire, we noted concerns about
soils description and plant identification. Having now gone through the field season,
do you feel the training adequately prepared you for your sampling responsibilities?
Not prepared / Somewhat prepared / Reasonably prepared / Very prepared /
Exceptionally prepared
Why?
108
-------
3. At what point during the field season did you become comfortable with your assigned
jobs?
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6
Week 7 Week 8 NEVER!
4. Did you use any of the training materials (methods manual, handouts) during the field
season or since then? If so, were they helpful?
5. Please describe additional/alternate training or activities that might have made you
feel more comfortable at the beginning of sampling and lab work, or that would have
helped you throughout the field season. Please be as specific as possible.
o For Vegetation:
o For Surveying & Mapping:
o For Soils:
6. Do you feel that visiting all sites scheduled (whether sampled or not) was valuable?
Not valuable / Somewhat valuable / Reasonably valuable / Very valuable /
Exceptionally valuable
Why or why not?
n. Field Methods and Equipment
7. Do you feel that the field sampling was conducted in an efficient manner:
Overall site characterization?
Not efficient / Somewhat efficient / Reasonably efficient / Very
efficient I Exceptionally efficient
109
-------
Vegetation sampling?
Not efficient / Somewhat efficient / Reasonably efficient / Very
efficient / Exceptionally efficient
Surveying?
Not efficient / Somewhat efficient / Reasonably efficient / Very
efficient / Exceptionally efficient
Soils?
Not efficient / Somewhat efficient / Reasonably efficient / Very
efficient / Exceptionally efficient
If less than reasonably efficient, how could any component of sampling have been
improved?
8. Given the range of field conditions that you encountered, do you feel that the methods
were straightforward to implement? Was there any component of the sampling
methods that were most or least straightforward?
Not straightforward / Somewhat straightforward / Reasonably straightforward
/ Very straightforward / Exceptionally straightforward
Comments:
9. Were methods implemented consistently over the field season (except for the
reduction in the number of soil samples collected)?
Not consistent / Somewhat consistent / Reasonably consistent / Very
consistent / Exceptionally consistent
If methods implementation was not at least reasonably consistent, please state
probable reasons for the inconsistencies.
110
-------
10. Do you feel that the data you collected in week 2 is comparable to the data you
collected in week 8?
Not comparable / Somewhat comparable / Reasonably comparable / Very comparable
/ Exceptionally comparable
If less than reasonably comparable, can you give probable reasons?
11. In general (with the exception of the compasses), do you feel that the field equipment
was adequate for field sampling?
yes no for the most part
12. What additional or different field equipment would have made sampling more
efficient?
13. Were any data forms particularly difficult to understand or fill out? If so, which
one(s)?
14. In general, do you feel that the sampling design and field methods effectively
characterized the wetlands sampled?
Did not characterize / Somewhat characterized / Reasonably characterized /
Very well characterized / Exceptionally well characterized
15. Which wetland features do you feel were most effectively characterized or sampled?
16. Which wetland features were least effectively characterized or sampled?
Ill
-------
17.
In your opinion, which measures best characterized the wetlands sampled? All
measures combined? Vegetation? Surveying?
Mapping? Soils?
18. Did the sampling strategy allow your crew leaders) adequate flexibility to make good
decisions depending on site conditions?
HI. Crew Structure
19. Do you think the field sampling activities were fairly and equitably distributed among
crew members?
Not fairly / Somewhat fairly / Reasonably fairly / Very fairly /
Exceptionally fairly
If less than reasonably fairly distributed, please suggest a more equitable/efficient
manner for distributing tasks.
20. Would you have preferred regular (or occasional?) rotation of tasks, so that you could
have become familiar with all sampling methods?
regular occasional no rotation
Why or why not?
21. Would you have preferred some rotation of people among crews, so that you could
have had the opportunity to with woik with another crew?
regular occasional no rotation
Why or why not?
112
-------
22. Do you have suggestions for more effective ways of structuring the crews (other than
two 2-member Vegetation teams and one 3-member Survey team)?
23. How do you feel about the composition of your crew (crew dynamics)?
IV. Crew Leaders
24. In your opinion, what was the most important role played by the crew leader?
Was/were your crew leader(s) successful at this role?
25. If you had alternating crew leaders, were they consistent in judgement - i.e. did they
make similar decisions regarding baseline placement and length, sampling interval,
rejecting or sampling a particular site, etc.?
Not consistent / Somewhat consistent / Reasonably consistent /
Very consistent / Exceptionally consistent
26. Did you have any difficulty adjusting to a different crew leader style on a weekly
basis?
27. Were your crew leaders) consistent in judgement throughout the field season i.e.,
did they make decisions at the end of the field season similar to those they made at
the beginning?
Not consistent / Somewhat consistent / Reasonably consistent /
Very consistent / Exceptionally consistent
113
-------
28. How do you think the process of transporting crews to the study sites by van each
day worked out?
29. Overall, do you feel that your Crew Leader was effective?
Not effective / Somewhat effective / Reasonably effective / Very
effective / Exceptionally effective
Did your crew leader(s):
o exhibit good leadership skills? Yes No
o make good decisions? Yes No
o consult appropriate crew members when making decisions? Yes No
o pay adequate attention to health and safety concerns (eg. drop dangerous sites,
make certain that crew members had breaks and plenty of fluids on hot days,
etc.)? Yes No
o effectively resolve problems/disagreements? Yes No
o answer questions satisfactorily? Yes No
o assist when help was needed? Yes No
o help create a cooperative and enjoyable work atmosphere?
Yes No
V. General
30. Looking back over the field season, what is your overall impression of the Oregon
Wetland Study?
31. How did your summer field experience compare to your expectations? Was it close
to expectations or very different?
Not as expected / Somewhat as expected / Reasonably as expected /
Very much as expected / Exceptionally close to as expected
If less than reasonably close to expectations, please state why.
114
-------
32. If your students asked you to write an essay on "How I spent my summer vacation",
what would you write? What adjectives best summarize your experience?
33. What was the most important thing you learned this summer?
34. Did you have opportunity to formulate ideas for classroom and field activities for
your students?
35. Did you have opportunity to discuss or set up cooperative projects with other teachers
or to arrange continued communication on wetland topics?
36. How was your morale throughout the field season? Was it affected, either positively
or negatively by:
o the length of the field season? Positive Negative No effect-
o the weather? Positive Negative No effect
o interactions with crew members? Positive Negative No effect
o interactions with your crew leader(s)? Positive Negative No effect
37. What was the best part of the field experience for you?
38. What was the worst part of the field experience?
115
-------
39.
Was spending the summer sampling wetlands for the OWS a good use of your time?
If the opportunity arose, would you work on this or a similar project again? Would
you recommend it to co-workers?
40. Have you any additional comments or thoughts on the OWS experience (specific or
general)?
Thank you for completing the questionnaire and, again, for all your hard work. Your
contribution has helped to make this project unique among research studies. We greatly
appreciate the opportunity and experience of working with you.
116
-------
Table C-l. Summary of teachers' comments; end-of-season questionnaire.
Please Note: The following comments were taken directly from the end-of-season
questionnaire. They are responses to open-ended questions from the 19 (out of 23) returned
questionnaires. All comments, except those dealing with PSU, are recorded here. Major
themes from the questionnaire responses (open-ended questions and rating questions) are
discussed elsewhere in the OWS Field Operations Report. The questions have been
paraphrased slightly for this summary - please see the questionnaire for complete wording of
all questions.
I. Training/Scheduling
Did you feel sufficiently forewarned/prepared for the field work?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ felt reasonably prepared, but "could have spent more time on plant ID".
~ felt reasonably prepared; "The first 2 lab days helped and I just didn't sweat not
being able to identify things and just collected unknowns".
~ "Botanists could have used more training, I think."
~ "As a recorder, I felt prepared. However, if I had not been with an excellent
botanist, I would not have felt at all prepared to take over in the eventuality of his
absence. I was trained as a soils/survey person until crews were formed. I realize
this can't always be foreseen. However, even after work in the field I felt the whole
group of botanists/recorders needed more time with plant ID and calibration for
cover."
~ "Would have liked more focused time on field ID of grasses".
~ "There were several questions that only actual field experience could have answered.
By the end of the summer (actually after the first 2 weeks), I felt very prepared."
~ "Since most of the botany crew did not have an extensive education in the field, we
should have realized this and not nerved out when we could not exclusively identify
everything every time. There was not "time" to give us more training and I'm
grateful I was given "chances" to learn!!"
~ "I reviewed the procedures in the plan directly before the season began - that was
helpful. I also carried the quick handouts on protocol for shrubs and trees -1
referred to it in the field - it was helpful. I also carried the shrub list of plants seen
in the previous study - that was helpful."
~ "Plant collection system acted as good support back-up. Informal morning contact
with Sherry or Teresa helped"
~ "Teresa and Sherry did a great job of monitoring our plant ID progress. My only
frustration is that the lab days were dropped, thus depriving us of some valuable
learning potential."
117
-------
~ "We learned how to key. Sherry and Teresa were there to help most of the time
when we needed them".
~ suggest: "For this year particularly, advise about the need for chest waders would
have been helpful".
* suggest "Perform a whole simulated day of mapping and ID'ing".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants
~ "would have liked to see more of a variety of soil types and more review of sH the
forms"
~ "You can't anticipate everything about field conditions. Some things are better
learned through experience"
~ "For the most part, soil description is still up for debate. Mottles and concretions
were not fully defined and consequently surveyors saw things differently (only
occasionally, of course)"
~ "For the most part, I felt able to determine horizon locations, matrix color, mottles,
etc..., What I feel was lacking was more soil variety during training in order to be
better prepared for QA correlation. As I suggested earlier - even slides could have
been utilized to increase both precision and accuracy. I felt less-than-prepared for
complex soils (ex: marbling, indiscrete mottles contradiction in terms?)) etc.,"
~ "Soils description was the most difficult for me, needed more practice in the field
before hand"
~ "We had a chance to practice the skills needed for our jobs. In the field, the crew
leader was always available when any questions arose".
~ "I read and re-read the soil lab procedures and found the methods manual very
helpful"
~ suggest "additional mention of long days"
Suggestions for Additional/Alternate Training:
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "More feedback, or at least more frequent feedback about how we were doing on
plant ID. Would have substantially increased out performance. The lab days initially
gave us this feedback".
~ "keying in the field during our training time"
~ "looked at more identified species; keyed out known species backwards".
~ "more time on [vegetation/plant ID training]"
~ "As before, a whole session together in the field. Soup to nuts prep."
~ "I think it would have been useful to have a handout outlining some of the main field
characteristics of plants we were likely to encounter. Some species were easy to
identify in the field once you knew specific characteristics. Other species could only
be positively identified in the lab. We collected whenever there was a question of
I.D., but I always felt a little uneasy when we identified and named a plant that we
118
-------
had been seeing all along. I always wondered if there was another species that was
similar that we were unaware of."
~ "More time spent calibrating cover & discussion of what to do. For me, more time
with plants, microscope, and flora to become more comfortable. What helped me
most was recording as things were identified and then asking questions and looking it
up later."
~ for vegetation: "looking at an alternative site: Bryant woods and another; focus on
field ID of grasses, sedges, rushes"
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants
~ "conferring with all crew leaders on custody sheet organization - it would have been
simpler if all sheets were filled out in a uniform way".
~ "more variety of soil types; practice with non-normal situations, i.e. doing turns and
re-setting".
~ "visiting and working at 2 or 3 additional sites with different soil types and terrain"
~ "We should have sampled a wetland during training".
~ for soils, "more time in the field with experienced professional matching observations
to definitions"
~ "Soil description with all surveyors at once to make sure we all got the same
information. More practice on a variety of types of soils (including auger) from
different sites."
~ "As I mentioned in an earlier evaluation, it would have been helpful to observe/help
staff £Q a small site at the beginning in order to have a broad design and order in
place. In other words, work from WHOLE to PART".
~ "Soils: more practice"
~ Surveying, mapping & soils: "a little more "hands-on" practice"
Value of visiting all sites scheduled?:
Note: There was some confusion in the interpretation of this question. The intent was to
assess how the crew members felt about visiting all sites, and subsequently rejecting
(deciding not to sample) some. Several crew members interpreted the question to mean the
value of visiting a variety of sites during the last day of training.
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "We had to visit them to decide whether to sample or not - we always learned
something."
~ [very valuable] "to get an idea of overall condition of wetlands".
~ "Up to you. We were not being used to sample at rejected site. If that was good for
your project, O.K.. It seemed wasteful to me."
~ "We sampled all but 2 of the sites we visited. We rejected those sites because of a
lack of enough wetland vegetation."
119
-------
~ "yes, because it gave a wider understanding of how diversified sites can be and what
possibilities there are to create even tiny sanctuaries".
~ "If I understand the question, visiting the sites we eventually chose not to sample
gave us a better understanding of what fit the criteria and what did not."
~ reasonably valuable; "look at diversity of sites and what made these particular - sites
acceptable".
~ Question unclear - "site had to be visited to be delineated; not necessary to visit sites
randomly eliminated - we saw plenty."
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "It helped me narrow definition of palustrine emergent wetland with specific
examples"
~ "It was valuable to understand the reasons for accepting a site or not, but driving to
and analyzing a site & then deciding not to sample it was quite time consuming".
~ "Some sites visited wasted a great deal of time"
n. Field Methods and Equipment
Do you feel that field sampling was conducted in an efficient manner?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "In our group of "chatty bossies" (tsk), we tended to try being the chief or tried to
influence the Chief more than necessary. One way may have been more efficient in
attacking a site and in gathering samples". '
~ "sometimes the reconnaissance by stadia rod person, botanists, and crew leader
resulted in others standing around (especially at large sites), but this seems
inevitable".
~ "Good prep always helps. A person who visited sites just before a team could do a
lot of weeding of the bad ones".
~ suggest "More survey equipment so that more people could get involved when
surveyors were taking too much time".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "Yes, with changes made after week 1"
~ "Yes, except that botanists finished (usually) quite a bit ahead of surveyors - although
I don't see any way around this".
~ "Seems that botanists/surveyors had different boundary concepts too often. We
continually worked at getting better at this - but it seemed to come up right until the
end".
120
-------
Do you feel that the sampling methods were straightforward to implement? Which
methods were the least straightforward?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "I wasn't involved in doing buffers, but there seemed to be some uncertainty about
how to do them".
~ There were individual differences in deciding where to delineate sites and how to
most adequately characterize the site.
~ "Soils and surveying seemed cut and dried as to procedures. Botany sampling - what
to gather and what not to gather seemed too ambiguous (what was enough or
necessary?")
~ "I suppose because of the number of varieties of any given species, inconsistencies in
identification will happen "in the field", but perhaps a more clear-cut method of
gathering herbarium samples could be made at the start of a season ????"
~ "I wish we would have done a better job at collecting. We relied too much on our
expert (at times)."
~ "Boundary determination was often very arbitrary. I'm not sure I could determine
boundaries now. Also, interval seemed to be chosen based on what would give us 40
plots. We never did "ring around the pond" so that method is unknown to me".
~ "Any special cases were discussed among crew members and crew leader; QA -
going over plant species first then veg team 2 does QA"
~ data collected consistently over the field season: "There were individual differences in
deciding where to delineate sites and how to most adequately characterize the site.
Percent cover issues were also discussed - may have 'evolved' somewhat - plant i,d.s
improved".
~ data not comparable week 2/week 8- reason: "I.D. of plants improved beyond my
wildest dreams! Learning to spell correctly & quickly was HELPFUL".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ data somewhat comparable week 2/week 8: "more practice ~ knew more"
~ "some confusion over buffers description and the mapping to "top of slope" - some
were several hundred meters to top of slope"
~ "buffers were not consistent - either all estimate, or include as part of mapping of the
site"
~ "All soils and survey work was very straightforward"
~ "Least straightforward: establishing boundaries. Seemed quite arbitrary at times.
Less straightforward: characterizing complex soils. Most straightforward surveying
methodologies".
~ "When I was in the field, the crews followed the procedures as we practiced them at
Bryant Woods. Positioning the transit for surveying led to the most variety in
sampling procedures".
121
-------
What additional or different field equipment would have made sampling more efficient?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ suggest; "Survey tapes which had a handle that locked in the open position - like the
DBH tapes. The small shovels were useless".
~ "If everyone had chest waders, sampling may have been faster at a few sites."
~ suggest: "Recorders - nail apron to hold tools, etc.; lots of write-in-the-rain-paper".
~ "Tapes were showing wear, we were losing flags, some quadrats were starting to
break - nothing major".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "All 3 transits the same, so we didn't fight over the 2 that were good; enough chest
waders".
~ "More write-in-the-rain paper; floats to float tapes on the water"
~ "One more stadia rod".
~ suggest: "Better compasses and shovels."
Were any data forms difficult to fill out?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "not after some use"
~ "Not difficult"
~ "No, however, QA-1 had 1 less space for species than F-7".
~ "Some confusion about QM\ form"
~ "No, but I only occasionally recorded".
~ "They were fine".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants
~ "The forms were easy to understand, although the hydrology part of the soils form
was a little confusing at first".
~ "All were fine. Pre-numbering of soil labels and sheets would help."
~ "The soil form was cumbersome"
~ "I think mapping details could be improved, but to what end, I don't know"
~ "No problem"
122
-------
Did sampling design/Held methods characterize the wetlands sampled?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ [wetland features least effectively sampled]:"Degree of disturbance to a "natural"
wetland. Many of the natural sites sampled had in the past or were currently being
severely impacted by agricultural activities. I hope that a "Phalaris" site will not be
given equal weight with a site that has had much less disturbance".
~ "We usually saw a number of species of plants that did not show up in the plots"
~ "Sinuosity of sites due to generalized mapping; placement of some sites which were
part of a larger wetlands complex. "
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants
~ least effectively characterized and sampled: "Soils, only because information seemed a
little inconsistent".
~ least effectively characterized and sampled: "Some patches of isolated/concentrated
differing plant types might be not characterized effectively in spite of careful
baseline/SCT placement - but this would be statistically very small percentages" >
~ "I feel that within the chosen features of the study, the wetlands were well
characterized realizing that perhaps there is a lot more to such a complex system than
the chosen areas for sampling".
~ "Surveying was sometimes not as successful in effectively characterizing a wetland as
soils and vegetation".
IQ. Crew Structure
Do you think the field sampling activities were fairly distributed among crew members?
Botanists and Recorders:
"Note; we all helped to do each others jobs when there was any "slack"
~ "The lag for mappers and soils was difficult. Often, botanists finished and did a
good chunk of the other jobs and that was ok - and tiring".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "All our crew pitched in and helped where needed. As a crew, we had a job to do
and we got it done. None were finished until all were finished"
~ [tasks very fairly distributed], "although botanists frequently became surveyors";
"given the flexibility of team members to step in and help whenever needed".
~ "Veg teams helped a great deal with soils and mapping"
123
-------
Botanists:
~ [tasks somewhat fairly distributed]:"Felt that soils and survey often was too time
consuming".
~ [tasks reasonably fairly distributed]: "The soils /survey crew seemed to have the most
physically demanding jobs. However, the vegetation team was always there to help
when they finished (Perhaps 2 people on soils and 2 on morphology at every site
would help".
Would you have preferred rotation of tasks or some rotation of people among crews?
Botanists and Recorders:
Prefer no task rotation:
~ "It took several weeks to become proficient at your task. Rotation would have
guaranteed that we never became proficient".
~ "Felt very comfortable after several weeks. Also the quality of data improved with
specialization".
~ "less efficient".
Prefer occasional task rotation:
~ "We occasionally/often helped other teams like with recording or running the stadia
rod - would have liked to do more".
~ "I was happy with my task [recorder]. It didn't bother me not to rotate. I had a
chance to be familiar with other methods whenever botanists finished early".
~ "Change of pace. Learning more about other aspects of sampling so I would be
better prepared to take more back to the classroom."
~ "If rotation is too much, then it slows down efficiency of crew"
» "Our crew did rotate when our initial duties were completed. To introduce
WETLANDS to our students, we need to see the whole picture"
~ "I really liked my job and felt I got a lot of exposure to the other jobs. However, I
don't have confidence in my ability to dig a pit (since I did not) and I'd like to have a
refresher on mapping".
Prefer regular or occasional rotation of tasks:
~ "As a recorder, I would dig or record mapping or stadia as needed if plants were
done - it was great."
Prefer no rotation of people:
~ "too much re-adjustment to each others' styles and procedures"
124
-------
~ "We got very efficient and used to working together; rotating would have reduced
efficiency".
~ "I enjoyed the people I was with - hope to see and maybe work with them again".
~ "The same teams build a routine and more efficient method of completing the task".
~ "I felt our team learned about each other and were therefore eager to help each other
out when needed".
~ "I liked my crew "a lot!"
Prefer occasional rotation of people:
~ "why - it would be fun/why not - throws off the efficiency of working with regular
crew".
~ (maybe):"I enjoyed working with my crew. It might have been interesting to work
with another group, but it didn't bother me uo| to."
~ "Only if there were significant QA/reproducibility concerns".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants
Prefer regular rotation of tasks:
~ "would feel more secure when doing with class".
"As a lab person, I got to do almost every job (except botanists, thank goodness!),
and found this to be very interesting".
Prefer occasional rotation of tasks:
~ "I would have liked the opportunity to learn more botany by working with the
botanists".
~ "however, it would affect the data quality"
~ "I wanted to learn more about the vegetation"
~ "It is nice to continue regularly with a task for proficiency and consistency, but
botany (recording) experience would have been interesting"
~ "Variety is the spice of life".
Prefer regular rotation of people among crews:
~ "Rotation would keep people "on their toes" and more likely to do their best work"
~ prefer no rotation of crew members; "People knew what was expected of them -
worked more efficiently".
Prefer no rotation of crew members:
~ because "it takes time to develop as a team"
~ "unless the crew was not functioning well"
125
-------
~ because "better continuity"
~ because "I REALLY enjoyed working and developing relationships with my crew, i
enjoyed meeting others but really appreciate solid long term friendships that are
developed through good and bad times".
~ "Hard to rotate from surveying to sampling plants because of the experience with
plants"
Prefer occasional or no rotation of crew members:
» because "A stable crew develops a pace that is not always maintained when members
are absent - but the opportunity to work with other crews would have broadened our
own crew's approach, I think".
~ because "I enjoyed the "family" aspect of being with my crew and getting to know
them better. Of course, I had a great team to work with. What if I hadn't? Maybe
I'd have wanted to move...."
Suggestions for more effective ways of structuring crews:
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "Continue the cross training so that when one group is finished they can pick up
another task."
~ "Nope. It seemed to work well".
~ "no"
~ "No - as long as recorders can 'float' to help".
~ "perhaps an additional person - "jack of all trades" (but crew leaders helped to do
this) to be a go-fer and pick up the slack"
~ "No. At many sites, it worked great. At botanically diverse sites, we could have
used another veg team or with training the surveyors could have helped. At sites that
were essentially monocultures, we botanists finished first and helped with finishing up
surveying or soils.
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "The member on stadia rod frequently was also wanted as recorder for soils
frequently at the same time. One more person would have sped up the job often".
~ "One more person to help with survey would speed things up considerably"
~ none
How do you feel about the composition of your crew (crew dynamics)?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "Great".
126
-------
~ "Very good."
~ "I thought it was great"
~ "Our crew is AWESOME. It was an amazement how well personalities were
matched, we worked really well together."
~ "Very good - developed a sense of team ethos"
~ "We had a blast".
~ "Patience/tolerance and focusing on the work is what it takes. It worked fine".
~ "They were great! We plan on woridng together via electronic networking all year."
~ "I liked everyone."
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "We worked well together. Teachers are task -oriented and work to complete
tasks/goals."
~ "EXCELLENT! Whoever did it should be commended!"
~ "It had all the joys, frustrations, sharing, disagreements, camaraderie, comedy, etc.,
of a family. It's what I expected - even better!"
~ "Great people!"
~ "As the season went on, the veg team members pitched in and helped with the stadia
rod and soil pits, so that everyone worked as a 7 member team"
~ "Our 2 person lab crew was great!"
~ "Excellent"
IV. Crew Leaders
In your opinion, what was the most important role played by the crew leader?
Was/were your crew leader(s) successful?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "They kept the crew functioning smoothly by disseminating information and filling in
where needed".
~ "Making sure we had the necessary equipment to do our job; helping us make
decisions on baseline placement, boundaries, size, etc."
~ "Setting direction".
~ "Maintain procedures/standards re: protocols - communicate between teams, make
decisions re: the best way to accomplish something - support and correct. Usually
successful." ~Ultimate decision-making/ very successful
~ "Guidance, patience and willingness to work. Our crew leader was great at all
three!"
~ "Understanding our needs as employees and fellow workers. Teresa did better than
Kate."
~ "Both crew leaders helped by helping to fill in where needed and to allow the team to
make most of the decisions on how to deal with the site"
127
-------
~ "Driving (OK); having QA transects and plots figures out when we needed to know
them (OK); being decisive about doing a site and deciding on the baseline at difficult
sites (Cindy was good; JoEllen was OK); Getting out of the way when we were ready
to roll (OK); Helping out when needed (Cindy was great; JoEllen was OK)".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "Overseeing the tasks of the crew members, and troubleshooting when necessary. Yes
[crew leaders were successful at this]".
~ "The crew leader set the tone for the crew by leading by example. The successful
crew leaders were in the middle of the work, not back at the van. The crew leaders I
worked with were usually successful, that is, right out in the middle of the action".
~ "I worked with 5 different crew leaders as a sub and all experiences were similar".
~ "I think crew leaders had more confidence in the crew's decision-making abilities as
the season wore on."
~ "Organization and to pitch in to get the job done, and to go get donuts. Exceptional
crew leaders"
~ "Decision making - time was lost by not being able to make quick decisions
occasionally"
~ "Decision/direction"
~ "Making on the spot decisions, helping out where needed, answering all of our stupid
questions. Yes, Stephanie was excellent and very successful at fulfilling this role."
~ "Stephanie's most important role was - THE GIVER OF ANSWERS. When there
was a question... Stephanie provided... ANSWERS.
~ "Decision making - most of the time".
~ "From an outsider's point of view [lab assistant], the most important role was helping
out whenever possible".
~ "Deciding if wetland was what was expected"
Did you have difficulty adjusting to a different crew leader style on a weekly basis?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ [crew leaders] "seemed to rely on one person without realizing that there are others
that can do the job"
~ "No, both were very similar"
~ "Not after becoming familiar with them".
~ "No"(2).
~ "At times, I felt less sure of what Kate wanted".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "Somewhat. However, we knew what to expect and the adjustments did not affect
data."
128
-------
~ "Very difficult"
~ "I couldn't ask for a more informed, responsible, and dedicated crew leader"
~ "At first-
How do you think the process of transporting crews to the study sites by van every day
worked out?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "It worked well with one big exception: One additional staff person should have been
hired for the express purpose of locating sites ahead of time and marking them. My
biggest frustration all summer was the hours of wasted time our team spent trying to
find sites."
~ "Pretty good - saved a lot of extra driving and getting lost by people in individual
cars.
~ "Worked fine - some time wasted but may be unavoidable".
~ "Good, convenient but flexible".
~ "Good idea"
~ "In most cases, this worked out well; but there was flexibility to drive your own
vehicle to the site if need be".
~ [worked] "OK"(2) .
~ [worked] "well"
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
» "It gave the crews a chance to develop a camaraderie which translated into more
effective field work".
~ "Flexibility is very important when people have long commutes to make"
~ "fine"(l sur; 1 lab)
~ "Great. The van added to the camaraderie and comic relief".
~ "Just fine! One of the best ways to start a day! Especially when well stocked with
goodies!"
~ "Fine - as long as there was flexibility for special circumstances"
~ "well" (1 bot)
~ "Excellent"
V. General
Overall impression of OWS?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "It was an exceptionally well designed study that made good use of our skills and
provided us with a good learning opportunity".
129
-------
~ "Would love to do another one. This was very well organized - the best I've seen,
really, i was really impressed."
~ "I learned a lot of botany and worked hard".
~ "I really enjoyed the opportunity to do field research and learn a lot about a
significant resource I hadn't given much thought to before".
~ "I'm impressed with the organization, leadership, enthusiasm, and vision of the
project."
~ "It seemed to be a well-designed plan. We were able to do the work and the data
should be very useful and interesting."
~ "Positive"
~ "Very positive."
~ "We had a successful/fun Held season - trained well/woiked well/ learned a lot".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "Exciting and enjoyable".
~ "I was impressed with the professional way the crew members approached their
work. The data gathered seemed to me to be precise and accurate".
~ "It was a great experience! I felt honored being part of the dedicated group of
educators. It really has me excited about incorporating this type of science teaching
in my school".
~ "A positive learning experience"
~ "A "watershed" experience. Pushed/inspired me to try to base root my classwork on
fieldwork!"
~ "A great experience"
~ "I'm proud to have been part of this study. I feel that our data will support wetland
conservation efforts"
~ "Terrific"
~ "One of the best summers I've ever experienced. The hard work, laughs, and friends
made will have a lasting effect"
How did your summer field experience compare to your expectations?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "passed my expectations"
~ "better than expected"
~ "felt it might be more difficult".
~ "I expected to be physically uncomfortable a lot more than I actually was - probably
due to cool weather most of the time."
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "I didn't realize I'd have so much fun!"
130
-------
~ "I thought I would learn more. After mastering my job(s) (about the fourth week), I
felt like a worker bee gathering data...."
If your students asked you to write an essay on "How I spent my summer vacation",
what would you write? What adjectives best summarize your experience?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "Challenging, difficult, camaraderie, interesting".
~ "Intense, interesting, fun, frustrating, sweaty, stinky".
~ "See Byron's video. Fun, interesting, educational".
~ "Fun, exciting".
~ "Hard work, days in the field, good binding, lots of sampling, focused, exhaustive,
phalarised".
~ "Informative and personally rewarding"
~ "I was paid well to do careful/high quality work with other professionals. The places
were unique, the people fun, I learned a lot and enjoyed it".
~ "scary, invigorating, messy, entertaining, difficult, learning, mind expanding;
slogging through swampy wetlands (sometimes over my waders), I spent my summer
learning about nature's way of healing itself, how we can help or hurt our
environment, and how important it is to allow lowlands as they are."
~ "interesting, informative, professional growth, value of teams, mucky, beautiful, wet,
rewarding"
~ "Real science for real people"
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "Active, fulfilling, exhilarating, fun".
* "I spent my summer helping the EPA learn more about wetlands. It was educational,
enjoyable, and profitable."
~ "I would wear the Obligates T-shirt and explain the drawing. Adjectives:fun, hard
work, smelly, interesting, challenging".
~ "Great experience! Field research can be fun!"
~ "Wet, squishy, dirty, hot, deep .... my summer was the swamp thing -
companionship, teamwork, fun, challenging"
~ "Exciting, challenging, inspiring"
~ "Humorous, dirty, informative, hard work, occasionally frustrating, collaborative,
interesting, motivating"
~ Fun, enriching, physical, dirty, 10YR3/2, 100% Phalaris, inspiring, van vines,
Obligates, the great Gordoni"
~ "Hot, dry, challenging"
131
-------
Most important thing learned in summer 1993:
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "To quickly delineate wetlands and how many different forms they can take".
~ "Importance of quality assurance."
~ "Wetlands are severely degraded parts of our community.
~ "How to delineate a wetland. Also, how much area around Portland was wetland,
and how much human influence and attitude changes areas".
~ "I don't have to load tnicks in the summer".
~ "The importance, diversity, and abundance of wetlands in the metro area"
~ "Everyone can be part of preserving our natural environment. We all can have an
effect on what we save or destroy".
~ "I don't know if its the most important, but the most satisfying was to learn some of
the plants I'll be spending a lot of time with this year".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "All"
~ "The importance of organizing lab procedures so that time is used most effectively".
~ "wetland characterization"
~ "how important real life data collection is to learning/teaching science"
~ "what a nutria turd looks like. The incredible importance of a natural wetland. How
to work effectively in yet another group".
~ "I really couldn't pick one thing as "most important". The whole opportunity pushed
me to a new threshold as far as my expectations for teaching"
~ "The value of wetlands to the earth"
~ "teaching students to become citizens through science"
Did you have opportunity to formulate ideas for classroom and field activities for your
students? Did you have opportunity to discuss or set up cooperative projects with other
teachers?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "Yes, primarily after the field season was over."
~ "Some"
~ "Yes. Cindy and Teresa were especially helpful in figuring some ideas for some
monitoring that I want to do."
~ "[Yes] With people on my crew. I would have liked more time to talk with other
crew members".
~ "No. I gave it very little thought throughout the summer. I still don't know what I
am going to do, but at least I have a better understanding of wetlands now".
132
-------
~ "Yes, I will use modified field techniques to help students do "real" science" ; "Yes,
in the field and the few lab days".
~ Yes, along with my own observations and plans. I was fortunate to have a crew who
could share their thoughts and add to one another's plans and activities."
»- "Definitely! I've refined some of what I've been doing and added important
components that I'm glad to know about. I've already spent time revising forms and
making plans about how to carry out specific projects. Though our plans are not
final, we have determined to get together frequently. I'm sending out the first issue
of a newsletter which I hope will start some communication. We'd like to find funds
to set up an electronic database between sites".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "Some, would have liked more".
~ "I am still working on that".
»- "Yes, I had many hours to contemplate this topic and to preplan some activities"
~ "Yes, and I hope to have additional opportunity"
~ "Yes, marginally"; "Yes, in very general terms"
~ "Yes, and the process is already happening"
~ "Yes, and it is proving to be quite helpful"
~ "Yes, though not as much formal time as I would have liked"
~ "Yes, but more time needed"
~ "Not enough time to really sit and think about it, but am on my way".
Best part of field experience?:
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "The ecological knowledge gained and the relationships developed".
~ "Working with a great group of people".
~ "Learning lots of plants."
~ "Experiencing the learning about plants"
~ "Meeting the other crew members".
~ "Being in the field".
~ "Working with other professionals in a new challenging way".
~ "Being able to sight ID grasses with confidence".
~ "Learning new plant names and how to differentiate the varieties, and being part of a
positive group of teachers with vision for students' learning"
~ "Being with a team of dedicated, hardworking folks in a pleasant environment (most
of the time), learning about plants and other interrelated parts of wetlands".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
» "All"
133
-------
~ "Working as part of a team to accomplish the research goal of the project"
~ "The camaraderie of our crew and being in the field every day".
~ "Companionship and team interactions"
~ "Seeing the many sites in & around Portland - learning more every day".
~ "Van rides, movies at the Baghdad, the wildlife, the suntan, [my fellow crew
members]"
~ "working outdoors all summer with good people on an important task learning new
skills"
~ "getting to know fellow crew members"
~ "Meeting the teachers and staff and developing a base group for networking about
wetlands projects, grants, etc."
Worst part of field experience?:
Botanists:
~ "Wasting time finding sites and then getting home late".
~ "Chest waders in 90+F weather; duck shit".
~ "Waiting for the van to show up when we arranged to meet the group at the site".
~ "Not being or feeling completely prepared".
~ "Some late days".
~ "filling out evaluation forms".
~ [most difficult part]:"adjusting to others working styles".
~ "Phalaris arondinacea"
~ "Feeling like we needed more time in the lab to complete plant ID and fix forms
AND not being involved in the analyzing and synthesizing of the data".
~ "None"
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "None"
~ "97° F. I'm glad I was only that warm once!"
~ "hard soils with 5 horizons"
~ "The first week -15 soil pits - as Byron said"On a small site, we will have the entire
site in the soil cooler""
~ last day - soils like cement"
~ "100° in chest waders"
~ "Compasses (cheap, inaccurate, difficult to read, falling apart); walkie-talkies (cheap,
difficult to hear, breaking apart); leaky waders; writing in the rain on any kind of
paper"
~ "Wasting time through indecision"
~ "Walking in a pond, waist-high, with nutria hor d'oeuvres floating nearby"
134
-------
Was spending the summer sampling wetlands for the OWS a good use of your time?
Would you work on a similar project again? Recommend it to co-workers?
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "Yes and yes. I would do it again, anytime.
~ "Yes."
~ "Yes, (but 6 weeks would have been better), yes, yes."
* "I would do this again "at the drop of a hat". This type of work helps me to relate
science experiences to my students"
~ "Yes, yes, yes"
* "I feel very lucky to have woiked on this project. I would be very happy to do it
again - I'd like to do it again or similar projects. However, its not for everyone.
Some of my colleagues would not get into it".
~ "Yes [call me to work on a similar project, day or night, name and phone number
given]".
~ "Yes".
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "Excellent! I would do it again and recommend it!"
~ "Yes! Yes! Yes!"
~ "Yes! Yes! Yes!"
~ "Yes, Yes, Yes. In fact, I've already started thinking about next summer. This
program has helped me see the [potential for the classroom."
~ "YES, YES, YES"
~ "Yes, would do it again in a heartbeat!"
~ "Yes, am very glad I was part of this project. I would be willing to work on another
project if I would be given other responsibilities. I would definitely recommend this
project [to co-workers]".
~ I'm glad I took part in the OWS. I'm not sure I would do another 8 week project,
but a shorter one would be fme. I would recommend it to other teachers.
~ "Yes, Yes, yes".
Additional comments:
Botanists and Recorders:
~ "Thank you for creating the opportunity to learn and operate as scientists - to be able
to share this with students"
~ "Thanks for all your hard woric".
~ "I was thrilled to be part of the data collection. I'd love to do this kind of work
every summer. But to have a rounded experience with science as a career, I'd like to
135
-------
participate in the analyzing, synthesizing, and report writing. Thanks for a great
summer!"
~ "I hope the work we did was good and that it will be of use - because I enjoyed
doing it".
~ "I am very interested in seeing how the data we collected is used".
~ "Very positive and interesting way to spend a summer. I volunteer to do anything
like this again - sign me up."
Surveyors and Laboratory Assistants:
~ "There is a mass of talented, professional scientists available to you in the form of
teachers. I know similar studies could also be accomplished using this work force".
~ "It was wonderful. Making it six weeks rather than eight would have left more time
to catch our breath before school began, but all in all I loved it."
~ "An excellent summer due to the dedication of ManTech staff, PSUCSE and team
members. Without the interest and commitment of everyone, we would have never
been as successful -happy- as we were (are).
~ "I felt a tinge of jealousy when we were shown a videotape about teachers who did
some field work but got to choose their own problems to investigate. I think that it
would have added an exciting dimension to our work if we could have identified an
additional area of study/research for our crew to engage in. I realize this could raise
all kinds of difficulties - but insurmountable? I think this could be especially
important as we remain outsiders in the "big picture" of the research we conducted.
We became, as I've said, merely "worker bees" collecting data that we would not be
involved in analyzing. If one of our goals was to have us "do" science - we missed
out on the most important parts:identifying problems of significance - and finding
meaning in our observations"
~ "Thanks to the staff for all of their hard work and support. It was a great
experience".
~ "I appreciate all the hard work of the ManTech staff. Without your leadership, the
project would not have been a success.
136
-------
APPENDIX D: PLANT SPECIES COLLECTED DURING THE 1993 OREGON WETLAND
STUDY
-------
Appendix D
Plant Species Collected During the 1993 Oregon Wetland Study
Alismataceae
Alisma plantago-aquatica
Sagittaria la tifolia
Amaranthaceae
Amaranthus albus
Apiaceae
Daucus carota
Hydrocotyle ranculoides
Oenanthe samentosa
Asclepiadaceae
Asclepias speciosa
Asteraceae
An them is cotula
Aster subspicatus
Bidens cemua
Bidens frondosa
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum
Cichorum intybus
Circium arvense
Circium hallii
Circium vulgare
Circium sp.
Crepis setosa
Cnaphalium palustre
Cnaphalium purpureum
Helenium autumnale
Hypochaeris radicata
Lactuca sp.
Lapsana communis
Leontodon nudacaulis
Madia gracilis
Madia sativa
Madia sp.
Senecio jacobea
Senecio vulgaris
Solidago canadensis
Solidago occidentalis
Sonchus asper
Sonchus oleraceous
138
Sonchus sp.
Tanacetum vulgare
Balsaminaceae
Impatiens capensis
Betulaceae
Alnus rubra
Betula sp. 1planted)
Corylus cornuta
Boraginaceae
Myosotis laxa
Myosotis micranthus
Plagiobothrys scouleri
Symphytum officinale
Brassicaceae
Capsella bursa-pastoris
Cardamine occidentalis
Rhaphanus rhaphinistrum
Rhaphanus sativa
Rorripa curvisilqua
Rorripa islandica
Rorripa nasturtium-aquatica
Buddlejaceae
Buddleja davidii
Callitrichaceae
Call'triche stagnalis
Caprifoliaceae
Symphoricarpos albus
Caryophyllaceae
Cerastium natans
Sagina apetella
Spergularia rubra
Stellaria longifolia
Ste/laria crassifolia
-------
Ceratophyllaceae
Ceratophyllum demersum
Chenopodiaceae
Chenopodium ambrosioides
Convolvulaceae
Convolvulus arvensis
Convolvulus sepium
Cornaceae
Cornus stolonifera
Cyperaceae
Carex amplifolia
Carex athrostachya
Carex cusickii
Carex densa
Carex deweyana
Carex feta
Carex laeviculmis
Carex lanuginosa
Carex lenticularis
Carex obnupta
Carex pachystachya
Carex scoparia
Carex stipata
Carex tumicola
Carex unilateralis
Carex utriculata
Carex vulpinoidea
Carex sp.
Cyperus arista tus
Cyperus sp.
E/eocharis acicufaris
Eleocharis ovata
Eleocharis palustris
Scirpus americanus
Scirpus microcarpus
Scirpus validus
Cupressaceae
Thuja plica ta
Dipsaceae
Dipsacus sylvestris
Eaeagnaceae
Elaeagnus commutata
Equisetaceae
Equisetum arvense
Equisetum hymale
Equisetum palustre
Equisetum telmateia
Equisetum sp.
Fabaceae
Lotus micranthus
Lotus purshiana
Lupinus polyphyllous
Trifoiium dubium
Trifolium hybridum
Trifoiium pra tense
Trifoiium sp.
Vicia cracca
Vicia hirsuta
Vicia sativa
Vicia tetrasperma
Fagaceae
Quercus sp.
Gentianaceae
Centaurium umbellatum
Geraniaceae
Geranium dissectum
Geranium molle
Grossulariaceae
Ribes sanguineum
Haloragaceae
Myriophyllum spicatum
Hydrocharitaceae
Elodea canadensis
Hydrocharitaceae continued
Elodea densa
Vallisneria americana
139
-------
Hypericaceae
Hypericum anagalloides
Hypericum formosum
Hypericum perforatum
Iridaceae
Iris pseudocorus
Sisirhychium angustifolium
Juncaceae
Juncus acuminatus
Juncus articulatus
Juncus bufonius
Juncus effusus
Juncus ensifolius
Juncus oxymeris
Juncus patens
Juncus tenuis
Juncus sp.
Lamiaceae
Lycopus americanus
Lycopus uniflorus
Melissa officinalis
Mentha arvensis
Mentha pulegium
Mentha rotundifolia
Mentha spicata
Prunella vulgaris
Stachys cooleyae
Stachys rigida
Liliaceae
Allium vineale
Lythraceae
Lythrum hyssopifolia
Lythrum salicaria
Malvaceae
Sidalcea campestris
Oleaceae
Fraxinus lati folia
Onagraceae
Boisduvalia densiflora
Lugwigia palustris
140
Epilobium paniculatum
Epilobium watsonii
Plantaginaceae
Plantago lanceolata
Plantago major
Poaceae
Agrostis alba
Agrostis exarata
Agrostis howellii
Agrostis tenuis
Agrostis sp.
Agropyron caninum
Agropyron repens
Aira caryophyllea
Alopecurus aequalis
Alopecurus geniculatues
Alopecurus pratensis
Alopecurus sp.
Anthoxanthum odoratum
Beckmania syzigachne
Bromus commutatus
Bromus mollis
Cynosurus cristatus
Dactylis glomerata
Danthonia califomica
Deschampsia danthanoides
Deschampsia elongata
Digitaria sanguinalis
Echinochloa crusgallii
Festuca arundinacea
Festuca bromoides
Festuca megalura
Festuca occidentalis
Festuca rubra
Festuca sp.
Glyceria borealis
Glyceria elata
Glyceria grandis
Glyceria leptostachya
Glyceria occidentalis
Ho/cus mollis
Hordeum brachyantherum
Hordeum geniculatum
Hordeum sp.
Leersia oryzoides
Lolium perenne
-------
Lolium multiflorum
Panicum capillare
Phalaris arundinacea
Phleum pra tense
Poa annua
Poa palustris
Poa pratensis
Poa trivia/is
Poa sp.
Puccinellia paucif/ora
Unknown Poaceae
Polemoniacae
Navarretia intertesta
Polygonaceae
Polygonum amphibium
Polygonum avicu/are
Polygonum coccineum
Polygonum hydropiper
Polygonum hydropiperoides
Polygonum lapathifolium
Polygonum persicaria
Polygonum polystachyum
Polygonum punctatum
Polygonum sp.
Rumex acetosella
Rumex conglomeratus
Rumex crispus
Rumex salicffolius
Rumex sp.
Polypodiaceae
Athyrium felix-femina
Potomogetonaceae
Potomogeton berchtoldii
Potomogeton crispus
Potomogetonaceae continued
Potomogeton epihydrous
Potomogeton filiformis
Potomogeton foliosus
Potomogeton pectinatus
Potomogeton sp.
Portulacaece
Montia dichotoma
Primulaceae
Anagallis arvensis
Centunculus minimus
Lysimachia nummularia
Ranunculaceae
Ranunculus arbortivus
Ranunculus flammula
Ranunculus glaberrimus
Ranunculus occidentalis
Ranunculus repens
Ranunculus sclera tus
Rhamnaceae
Rhamnus purshiana
Rosaceae
Crataegus Columbiana
Crataegus douglasii
Crataegus monogyna
Crataegus sp.
Fragaria vesca
Geum macrophyllum
Oemleria cerasiformis
Potentilla gracilis
Potentilla pacifica
Prunus sp.
Rosa canina
Rosa eglanteria
Rosa gymnocarpa
Rosa nutkana
Rosa pisocarpa
Rubus ursinus
Spirea douglasii
Rubiaceae
Galium aparine
Galium parisense
Galium trifidum
Galium sp.
Salicaceae
Salix fluviatilis
Salix geyeriana
Salix lucida ssp. lasiandra
Salix piperi
Salix rigida
Salix scouleriana
141
-------
Salix sessilifolia
Salix sitchensis
Salix sp.
Salvinaceae
Azol/a mexicana
Scrophulariaceae
Cratiola neglecta
Lindernia dubia
Mimulus moschatus
Parentucellia viscosa
Verbascum blatteria
Veronica americana
Veronica peregrina
Veronica scuttelata
Veronica serpyliifolia
Solanaceae
Solanum dulcamara
Sparganiaceae
Sparganium emersum
Sparganium eurycarpum
Sparganium sp.
Urticaceae
Urtica dioica
Unknown Forbs
Unknown Shrubs
-------
APPENDIX E
RESULTS OF ERL-C OA REVIEWS
Contents:
Trip Report by Deborah Coffey, dated 22 May 1993. Summarizes review of crew leaders
and training of volunteers during training week #6 at Bryant Woods.
Audit Report prepared by Deborah Coffey, dated June 1993, submitted to Mary Kentula.
Summarizes 29 June 1993 audit of Portland State University (PSU) laboratory facilities,
and field activities of the Obligates, Stephanie Gwin, Crew Leader.
Memorandum from Paul Shaffer to Mary Kentula, dated 5 August 1993. Addresses OA
concerns identified during Deborah coffey's 29 June, 1993 audit of PSU laboratory
facilities.
Addendum to Audit Report, prepared by Deborah coffey, dated 29 July 1993, submitted
to Mary Kentula. Summarizes 8 July 1993 audit of two field crews - the Buffers, with
JoEllen Honea, Crew Leader, and Vanishing Point, with Kate Dwire, Crew Leader.
Memorandum from Kate Dwire to Deborah Coffey, dated 4 August 1993. Addresses OA
concerns and recommendations identified during Deborah Coffey's 8 July 1993 audit of
field data collection activities.
-------
TRIP REPORT
Name: Deborah Coffey Dates of travel: 22 May 1993
Organization: OA Trip Number: 540383
PURPOSE OF TRIP: Review field crew leaders and training of volunteers at week #6 for
the Oregon Wetland Study (OWS) at Bryant Woods training site near Lake Oswego, OR.
During the review become familiar with the OWS methods and requirements (a training for
the OA auditor).
ITINERARY: 11:00 a.m. from Philomath, OR to Bryant Woods
5:15 p.m. return to Philomath, OR
Contacts: Field crew leaders - Wetland #1 - Kate Dwire and Teresa Magee
Wetland #2 - Stephanie Gwin and Paul Shaffer
Wetland #3 - JoEllen Honea and Cindy Holland
Crews consisted of (25) teacher volunteers participating in the course sponsored by
Portland State University: 3 surveyors (2 to sample soils), and 2 vegetation teams
(botanist + recorder) - a total of 7 crew members plus alternates.
Deborah Coffey (METI) conducted the review accompanied by Mary Kentula, EPA Project
Officer. During the OA review Deborah Coffey and Mary Kentula visited each crew
numerous times to observe and evaluate field crew leader comparability (primarily) and
teacher volunteer implementation of methods (secondarily) as each similar team (within a
crew) conducted the same tasks in the different wetlands.
Activities:
At 1:45 p.m. all three crews went to their vans to unload equipment, simulating actual
arrival. Field Crew Leaders- #2 reviewed equipment list before going to the wetland site.
Other (Field Crew Leaders- #1 and #3) reviewed equipment at the site. It is recommended
that equipment be checked at the van to avoid leaving necessary items behind. By 2:15
p.m. all three crews were surveying, and botanists were performing reconnaissance. By
3:30 all crews were well into their assigned tasks with little confusion about what to do.
Field crew leaders were able to evaluate the proficiency of the vegetation sampling and
surveying teams. Each crew was able to sample at least one soil pit in the allotted time.
Field crew leaders were not able to check the proficiency of soil sampling and hydrology.
By 5:15 most everyone was back to the vans.
Some problems occurred (e.g., in Wetland #1 vegetation transects converged, the field
crew leader traced the problem to misreading the compass ring to obtain the correct
bearing to follow), but were corrected. Field crew leaders primarily performed assigned
tasks, checked transit readings (proficiency checks), provided assurance and answered
questions. Most crew leaders kept a list of concerns (changes to be made on forms,
144
-------
necessary equipment to add). Volunteers demonstrated that they were well trained and
will be able to complete the procedures without direct field crew leader supervision. One
field crew leader per team of 7 is a good ratio.
Field crew members worked cooperatively, helping each other remember procedure and
providing each other with positive feedback and gentle corrections. Field crew interactions
and dedication were exceptional.
Training on soil horizon delineation and characteristics seemed very complete. As field
crews applied the criteria, it was possible to see them mentally work through the criteria
needed to differentiate horizons.
Because of the demonstrated competence of the field crew members, the role of the field
crew leaders will not be essential to successful data collection. All field crew leaders
should be able to interact effectively with crew members even if their areas of expertise
are different. Field crew leaders will be able to concentrate on ensuring that quality
assurance (QA)/quality control (QC) activities are completed.
Observations:
Comments from the QA review are the following (remember only portions of the
day were reviewed, comments may or may not accurately reflect what was done most
often):
Everyone needs to be reminded to stay to the left of the baseline. On the
other hand, everyone did a good job of staying to the left of the transects.
Stakes numbering the transects need to be flagged so the transect number is
obvious. Not all were.
The wetland morphology transect may affect the integrity of the vegetation
transects if it is marked and walked before botanists can transverse their
lines. Wetland morphology might be better done at the end.
The checklist for surveyors (#18) should include a check for verifying that
the transit is level (checking the bubble). Some crews did this routinely
before each measure, others not at all (perhaps because it is so stable, but it
still needs to be checked).
Each crew needs 2 stadia rods.
Some crews used their walkie-talkies a lot to inform the surveyor with the
Stadia rod about the progress of the crew, keep the surveyor involved, and
provide positive feedback. Crew # 1 felt the static was annoying (reported
headaches). Hopefully with fewer walkie-talkies in use in one location,
static will not be a problem.
Soil samplers should unhook the tape from the stake when entering the
wetland along the transect so the tape can be rolled up. They could holler
back to the other surveyor or the botanists, but that is not most efficient.
Q: Can a mottle color be described from a color page other than the mottle
page or must the mottle page be used exclusively?
145
-------
Recommend that field equipment be flagged whenever possible so if it is set
down in deep vegetation, it may be found. Also recommend that equipment
and samples be inventoried before leaving the field site.
Recommend that each team be encouraged to take a 5-minute break in the
morning and afternoon to eat something and more importantly, drink water
to avoid dehydration. Poor decisions are made when people begin to
experience sunstroke.
A very positive feature of this project is that all forms and procedures can be
modified as training progresses to incorporate changes as they are identified. The data
sheet for elevation measures and wetland mapping seemed to need a number of
modifications. The soil sampling data sheet (F-11) seemed to be OK. It was not clear if
the vegetation survey sheets (F-7) were adequate.
Field crew leaders have their own list of comments which is probably more
detailed.
Follow-up Activities: Provide trip report to Kate Dwire and Mary Kentula. Expect to
review the field activities of each of the 3 crews during the week of 21 June 1993.
Expect to perform a mid-season "calibration" review of all 3 field crews during the week of
12 July 1993.
cc: Lackey Kentula Dwire Pettit
WP5.1 /AUDITREPORTS#7/OWSCREW.LDR
146
-------
MEMORANDUM
To:
Mary Kentula
Through: Robert Lackey
ERL-C OA Officer
From:
Deborah Coffey
METI OA Staff
Date:
8 July 1993
Subject: Audit Report for Review of Oregon Wetland Study Field Crews and
Soil Processing Laboratory on 29 June 1993
I am forwarding the audit report to you from my visit to review the three Oregon
Wetland Study field crews and the soil processing laboratory on 29 June 1993. There
were few OA concerns identified during the audit. Overall, project staff have a high
degree of awareness about OA and the need to collect comparable data among all project
staff and across all sites. Because all crews were not visited as planned (see report), the
objective to assess comparability among the three field crews was not met. A mid-season
calibration audit is scheduled for 15 July 1993. However, this may be cancelled in favor
of visiting the three field crews conducting routine sample collection activities during the
last week of July 1993.
It is your responsibility to forward the audit report to the field crew leaders and the
field crew members. I have discussed my findings with Kate Dwire and Paul Shaffer.
Kate provided me with comments on a draft of this report. Audit reports are most useful
when received soon after the visit. Please contact me if there are questions about the
review or the report.
147
-------
Audit Report for
In-House and Extramural Research
with Portland State University
Under Cooperative Agreement - CR 820520,
"Teacher Internships for
The Oregon Wetland Study"
Submitted to:
Mary Kentula, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97333
Prepared for:
Robert Lackey
OA Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97333
Prepared by:
Deborah Coffey
ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97333
June 1993
WP5.1 /REPORT #8/OWS 1 .REP
Audit Report for
In-House and Extramural Research
with Portland State University
Under Cooperative Agreement - CR 820520,
"Teacher Internships for
The Oregon Wetland Study"
148
-------
INTRODUCTION
It is the policy of the Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon (ERL-C)
to conduct periodic reviews of extramural research projects to:
familiarize project staff with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) quality
assurance (OA) requirements and procedures;
evaluate the implementation of the OA activities specified in the quality
assurance project plan (QAPP), and to determine if the QAPP requires
revision;
provide assistance in attaining the objective to collect data of known and
documented quality.
A laboratory audit and field review for the Oregon Wetland Study (OWS) was
conducted on 29 June 1993. A mid-season calibration audit is scheduled for 15 July
1993. However, this may be cancelled in favor of visiting the three field crews
conducting routine sample collection activities during the last week of July 1993. The
laboratory at Portland State University (PSU), Portland, OR was visited (8:30 a.m. - 9:45
a.m.). The three field sampling crews were scheduled to be visited. The first crew
rejected the chosen field site (602) and traveled to an alternate site (4621). This
information was conveyed through Sherry Spencer before the auditor left the laboratory.
When the auditor arrived at the alternate site («= 11:00 a.m.), the crew was just beginning
to set up. It was decided that time would be better utilized by proceeding to the second
site. On arrival at the second site (4797) a note was found indicating that this site had
been rejected and the crew was proceeding to an alternate site (423). The auditor did not
have directions to this site, but contacted METI staff for directions. Unfortunately, the
crew was not located. The third crew was visited from 2:15 p.m. - 3:15 p.m. at the
designated site (9285). Soil sampling and the last of the surveying were just being
completed. The auditor arrived back at the first site about 4:00 p.m. All activities were
completed by 4:30 p.m.
This research supports Project 15 (M0972) within ERL-C's Wetlands Program. The
EPA Project Officer is Mary Kentula. The project is both an ERL-C in-house research effort
and funded through a cooperative agreement with PSU (CR 820520). Field crew leaders
are provided through ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc. (METI). Field crew
members are teachers participating in an on-going education course offered by PSU and
William Becker, the principal investigator (PI). Two teachers work in the soil processing
and analysis laboratory at PSU. Sherry Spencer (PSU) provides expert plant identification
in the field and the laboratory. She is assisted by Wes Dubbs who is responsible for
unloading plant presses, drying collected plants, and preparing plant presses for the next
day's use.
The objectives of the laboratory audit were to: (1) review soil processing including
oven drying and soil sieving, (2) review the loss on ignition method, and (3) evaluate
calibration and performance of equipment and facilities. The planned objectives of the
149
-------
field crew visits were: (1) to observe the completion of the sampling protocols, (2) to
compare the crews to each other, (3) to review the implementation of the project QA/QC
activities as specified in the QAPP, (4) to discuss the project design and schedule, and (5)
to discuss data collection, verification, and validation and data management. Because all
crews were not visited as planned, these objectives were not met. Objectives were met
for the review of the soils laboratory. - An attempt will be made to revisit the first and
second crews. Another audit is scheduled, and all attempts will be made to ensure that
the objectives are met. The auditor now has the car phone number for Sherry Spencer and
Sherry will be utilized as the point of contact because she has a complete set of maps to
selected and alternate sites.
Personnel contacted*:
Name
Laboratory
Bill Becker
Ken Krause
Deborah Suing-Cassell
Plant Processing
Sherry Spencer
Wes Dubbs
Field Crews
#1 - Kate Dwire
Alternate - Teresa Magee
Position
Principal Investigator
Laboratory Technician
Laboratory Technician
Botanist
Assistant
Crew Leader
#2 - JoEllen Honea
Alternate - Cindy Holland
Crew Leader
#3 - Stephanie Gwin
Alternate -Paul Shaffer
Crew Leader
* Field crew members are not listed individually. Crews consist of 3 surveyors (2 to
sample soils), and 2 vegetation teams (botanist + recorder) - a total of 7 crew members.
Audit Team:
Deborah Coffey
ManTech Environmental
Technology, Inc. (METI)
OBJECTIVES
Senior OA Coordinator,
ERL-Corvallis
The data obtained from this study are expected to add to basic knowledge about
wetlands, and provide wetland regulators with information that can improve management
strategies and facilitate the implementation of a "no net loss" policy. Project objectives
are the following:
150
-------
Objective 1: Determine the amount and cause of direct loss of freshwater
wetlands from sites dominated by open water to those dominated by
emergent vegetation.
Objective 2: Evaluate the relationship between surrounding land uses and
the attainable quality of freshwater wetlands from sites dominated by open
water to those dominated by emergent vegetation.
Objective 3: Evaluate the replacement potential of freshwater wetlands
from sites dominated by open water to those dominated by emergent
vegetation to aid in the development of performance criteria.
Objective 4: Evaluate how project design and implementation affect the
replacement potential of freshwater wetlands from sites dominated by open
water to those dominated by emergent vegetation to aid in the development
of design guidelines.
The date collected during this study will be used in several ways:
1. To provide baseline characterizations of projects and natural wetlands, by
describing the condition and attributes of existing wetland resources.
2. To provide assessments of attainable wetland quality in specific land use
settings.
3. To aid in development of performance criteria and monitoring schedules for
projects.
4. To aid in improving project design.
5. To improve decision making in permit evaluations.
6. To document trends in direct loss of wetlands.
7. To document compliance of as-built projects with permit specifications. As-
built projects are projects that actually appear on-site, which may or may not
be consistent with permit specifications.
AREAS REVIEWED
Quality Assurance Project Plan:
The quality assurance project plan was revised extensively during training activities.
At the conclusion of the study, improvements and modifications will be documented. Two
items on the field equipment list were identified as problems - the walkie-talkies purchased
have not operated properly. This is of concern because they are needed at sites near
airports, where there is heavy nearby road traffic, and when the transects are long or
151
-------
cross open water. Field crew members expressed concern that higher quality compasses
are needed.
Laboratory
Soil Analyses
Prior to the laboratory audit, Kate Dwire prepared a series of questions for the
laboratory staff that might be asked. Those questions are attached (Attachment 1) and
were used as the audit protocol. (Thanks Kate!) Sample preparation (sieving, rebagging
and labelling), percent moisture determination, and percent organic matter content
processes were reviewed. The plant identification process conducted by Sherry Spencer
(plant drying, identification, archiving) was also reviewed.
A new high-sample capacity muffle furnace (Fisher Scientific) was purchased to
replace the low-capacity furnace (Blue M). Initial samples were processed using the small-
capacity furnace (those done from 22-25 June 1993), while those processed after that
were done using the new furnace. Since no overlap studies were initiated, we determined
that the audit sample analyzed in each batch would be used to evaluate comparability.
Laboratory staff have no instructions on making this calculation. It is recommended that
Paul Shaffer be assigned responsibility for demonstrating comparability between batches
analyzed for organic matter content using different muffle furnaces. If the data are not
comparable, it is recommended that an overlap study be implemented to define the
relationship between samples analyzed by both muffle furnaces.
It is recommended that temperature charts (see Attachment 2) be used to record
the performance of the refrigerators used for sample storage and the drying oven. During
the audit it was noted that the thermometer used for the drying oven had broken and
needed to be replaced. Bill Becker was in the process of setting up an account with the
Chemistry Stockroom so that this thermometer could be replaced and two more obtained
to monitor refrigerator temperatures.
There was discussion concerning the availability of back-up refrigerators for storing
completed samples and field samples before processing. Bill Becker has stated that
addition space is available at PSU and Paul Shaffer has indicated that METI can also
provide space. It is recommended that specific plans be made to secure extra space
because laboratory technicians perceive that this space will eventually be needed.
After the audit, it was recognized that soil samples were being removed from the
muffle furnace and weighed. Standard practice is to place samples in a desiccator
immediately from the muffle furnace to avoid moisture absorption as the samples cool,
effectively increasing the measured weight. It is recommended that desiccators be
ordered and used. This was not discussed with the laboratory technicians at the
conclusion of the audit.
A review of the data sheet, L-3 (?different from the data sheet in the QAPP),
showed two concerns. One concern is that sample duplicate precision is not being
calculated by the laboratory technicians as a quality control (QC) check. Duplicates are
152
-------
identified on the data sheet, but the technicians seem not to have been instructed to make
this calculation and were unaware of the data quality objective (DQO) for field and
laboraxory duplicate sample precision (the larger of ±_ 0.5% (absolute) or Jt. 15%). The
DQO for accuracy is provided on a control chart (prepared from analysis of the audit
sample with warning and control limits) which was discussed. Technicians knew the
values of the audit samples analyzed to date, but had not plotted them on the control
chart because they had been too busy. It is recommended that it be stressed that both
accuracy and precision checks need to be made and compared to project DQOs as samples
are analyzed, to determine if reanalysis is needed.
Laboratory technicians had not completed % dry weight and % organic matter
content calculations because of time. It is recommended that all calculations from each
batch be completed before proceeding to the next batch.
The laboratory technicians seemed very comfortable with the required sample
processing and analyses. They have developed a routine that will allow them to process
40-50 samples/day. Initially it was estimated that laboratory technicians would work Zi
day. It has been recognized that full days are required to keep up with the sample load.
This has been recognized by Bill Becker and appointments and stipends will be modified.
The number of recommendations above in no way reflect on the performance of the
laboratory technicians, rather these recommendations were made to improve processes
and document data quality.
Plant Processing/Identification
The initial estimate of the effort required by the botanist, Sherry Spencer, to visit
field crews and help with field plant identification, press and archive collected plants,
identify unknowns and provide new plant presses each day was underestimated. Wes
Dubbs was hired at 0.25 FTE to help until the need for an extra hand decreases which is
expected as the number of unknowns decreases. Wes is responsible for unloading plant
presses, drying collected plants, and preparing plant presses for the next day's use. In
addition, to the tasks above, Sherry will be the point of contact for communicating crew
locations and revised locations for persons visiting crews throughout the day. All vans
and Sherry now have car phones to facilitate communication.
FIELD CREWS
Because only one crew was observed in action, one crew was never located, and
one crew had completed most tasks, so that only data sheets could be reviewed, a
complete audit was not conducted. Overall impressions from my observations and
observations made by Sherry Spencer who visits all crews daily indicate the following:
Crew members are well-trained and perform their tasks well with little
direction. Maturation in the performance of assigned tasks was evident in
comparison to the training day observations.
Crew members are dedicated to completing the project and collecting the
most accurate data possible.
153
-------
Crew members help each other constantly with good grace and often humor.
The observed attitudes and dedication are exemplary.
In general, data sheets appeared to be complete and legible.
Hopefully a way can be found to observe all crews in action so a comparison can be made.
Field crew leaders are encouraged to complete all OA data sheets. In one case,
only two required transit reading checks were completed, instead of the five required.
For the next field review, the auditor will make the following day available to
continue the audit, so that all crews can be visited. Sherry Spencer will be used as the
point of contact throughout the day to register site changes and provide site directions.
SUMMARY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Laboratory
It is recommended that Paul Shaffer be assigned responsibility for
demonstrating comparability between batches analyzed for organic matter
content using different muffle furnaces by evaluating the overlap data from
the analysis of the audit samples.
It is recommended that temperature charts (see Attachment 2) be used to
record the performance of the refrigerators used for sample storage and the
drying oven. Thermometers need to be obtained for this purpose. The
broken thermometer for the drying oven requires replacement.
It is recommended that specific plans be made to secure extra space at both
PSU and in Corvallis because the laboratory technicians perceive that this
space will eventually be needed.
It is recommended that the standard practice of placing soil samples in a
desiccator immediately from the muffle furnace to avoid moisture absorption
as the samples cool, effectively increasing the measured weight, be adopted
It is recommended that desiccators be ordered and used.
It is recommended that it be stressed that both accuracy and precision
checks need to be made and compared to project DQOs as samples are
analyzed, to determine if reanalysis is needed.
It is recommended that all calculations from each batch be completed before
proceeding on to the next batch.
154
-------
Attachment 1
Oregon Wetland Study
Quality Assurance Technical Review
June 29, 1993
Soil Organic Matter Content Analysis (Portland State University)
Below is a list of topics and questions that are likely to be covered during Deborah
Coffey's technical review of the laboratory facilities, and research and OA methods. The
list was prepared by Kate Dwire; Deborah Coffey may have additional questions.
Facilities:
Where and under what conditions are samples stored prior to processing?
Are facilities (cold room, refrigerator) adequate to accommodate numerous samples if they
get backed up?
How, where, and for how long is "extra" (not used in analysis) soil sample material saved?
Please demonstrate calibration of the balances using standard weights. How frequently
are balances calibrated?
How are calibration results recorded?
How and at what frequency is the performance of the drying oven checked?
How and at what frequency is the performance of the muffle furnace checked?
What safety precautions are taken in using (loading, unloading, general use) the muffle
furnace?
Are instruction manuals for the balances, drying oven and muffle furnace accessible?
Laboratory Methods:
How is sample identification tracked through the process of sample preparation and
analysis, i.e. how do you assure that a final loss on ignition (LOI) value is for a sample
taken at a particular location and depth?
Please explain the steps in sample tracking.
Please explain/ demonstrate how samples are processed, including data recording and
precautions taken to avoid contamination or mixing of sample material.
What QC samples are routinely included in each sample batch?
How are the QC sample results summarized and used?
155
-------
What are the data quality objectives (DQOs) for LOI?
Precision
Accuracy
Completeness
How will the DQOs be assessed?
Precision
Accuracy
Completeness
What laboratory notebooks are maintained? Is there a record of what samples get
processed and analyzed each day?
How do the two Laboratory Technicians work together - share the tasks, divide the tasks,
take turns with different tasks?
If questionable samples (samples that may be hard to process) come in, how do the
Laboratory Technicians deal with them? Are they encouraged to use their best judgement
or contact someone for guidance/suggestions?
Please explain.
Do the Laboratory Technicians have any questions about the research methods as
described in the Research Plan and Methods Manual for the Oregon Wetlands Study
(problems with interpretation, methods not fully described, etc.?)
Is a reference copy of the Research Plan and Methods Manual for the Oregon Wetlands
Study accessible? Relevant parts of the OA Plan?
Note: In addition to the above questions, Ms Coffey will be observing the general
appearance of the laboratory (organization, cleanliness). Be careful to keep food and
beverages away from the samples processing area.
156
-------
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Responses to comments related to the Soil Laboratory for Deborah Coffey's
OWS audit of June 29, 1993
FROM: Paul Shaffer
TO: Mary Kentula
DATE: August 5, 1993
Attached are my responses to comments from Deborah's June 8 audit report to Bob
Lackey summarizing observations from her June 29 audit of the OWS field and laboratory
activities. Comments are provided, with a brief response to each immediately following.
1. It is recommended that Paul Shaffer be assigned responsibility for demonstrating
comparability between batches analyzed for organic matter content using different
muffle furnaces by evaluating the overlap data from the analyses of the audit
samples.
Response: The new muffle furnace was put in service on Friday, June 25
(the fourth day of lab operation); because of the time required to process soil
samples and the small size of the muffle furnace originally present in the lab,
only 20 samples were processes in the old furnace. Rather than do a
comparison study of the furnaces, these samples will be reprocessed using
the new furnace.
2. It is recommended that temperature charts be used to record the performance of
the refrigerators used for sample storage and the drying oven. Thermometers need
to be obtained for this purpose. The broken thermometer for the drying oven needs
to be replaced.
Response: The thermometer in the drying oven was replaced on June 30.
Per recommendation, thermometers have been placed in the refrigerators and
temperatures in them will be checked and logged on a daily basis, along with
those for the drying oven and muffle furnace.
3. It is recommended that specific plans be made to secure extra space (for storage of
soil samples at 4° C) at both PSU and ERL-Corvallis because laboratory technicians
perceive that this space will eventually be needed.
Response: Cold room space was secured at PSU in early July, and has been
used to store accumulated soil samples. The soils lab at PSU will be closed
down the third week of August; at that time soils will be returned to ERL-C
157
-------
(if cold space has been identified) or maintained at PSU until cold storage
space can be secured at ERL-C.
4. It is recommended that the standard practice of placing soil samples in a desiccator
immediately after removal from the muffle furnace, to avoid moisture adsorption as
sample cool, effectively increasing the measured weight, be adopted. It is
recommended that desiccators be ordered and used.
Response: We agree with the intent of this recommendation, but did not
implement it. We were unable to locate a desiccator (of adequate size to
hold a complete batch of samples) at ERL-C or at PSU, and the lag time to
order one after getting this recommendation would have resulted in not
getting the desiccator until near the end of the project. To minimize the
potential for moisture problems, lab personnel have been weighing soil
samples as soon as they have been removed from the oven and furnace and
transported to the Laboratory. Also, we have tracked data for audit samples
carefully, but have not seen indications of low computed organic content
that would result if samples were adsorbing significant amounts of moisture
during the brief period of time between removal from the oven and weighing.
5. It is recommended that it be stressed that both accuracy and precision checks need
to be made and compared to project DQO's as samples are analyzed, to determine
if re-analysis is needed.
Response: OWS lab staff have been computing accuracy data for audit
samples as they complete analyses for each batch; precision data for
duplicates has been checked weekly as data sheets are delivered to me.
Precision results for soils (determined from field and lab splits) have generally
been very good (see attached sheet); accuracy data also generally look good,
although we are considering the need to reanalyze one or two batches.
6. It is recommended that all calculations from each batch be completed before
proceeding to the next batch.
Response: I disagree. It takes two days to complete the two-stage drying
and weighing of samples, so it is not practical to complete and do
calculations for one batch before starting another. The laboratory staff are
calculating loss on ignition for the audit samples and duplicates in each
batch as soon as sampled are ashed and weighed; I believe this is an
appropriate level of checking. I see no need for the lab staff to do all
calculations in any case; this is the sort of job better and more efficiently
done by computers than by people.
158
-------
MANAGEMENT
TECHNOLOGY MET!
MEMORANDUM
To: Mary Kentula
Through: Robert Lackey
ERL-C QA Officer
From: Deborah Coffey
METI QA Staff
Date: 29 July 1993
Subject: Addendum to Audit Report for Review of Oregon Wetland
Study Field Crews and Soil Processing Laboratory
On 28 July 1993 I visited the field crews that were not audited during the
June 1993. The attached addendum summarizes this review. Unfortunately rain
played a part in this visit. I caught JoEllen Honea's crew for their arrival at the
site, wetland delineation, baseline placement, transect placement and sampling
interval selection, initiation of vegetation transects, and surveying. During the visit
with JoEllen's crew, it only drizzled. When we reached Kate Dwire's crew, they
had completed wetland delineation, baseline placement, transect placement and
sampling interval selection, initiation of vegetation transects, and had begun
surveying. The rain changed from a drizzle to nice, big drops and forced everyone
to take a lunch break, hoping for the rain to let up. I had a commitment in
Corvallis in the early afternoon, so I could not wait it out. In the previous survey, I
reviewed the completed data sheets for Kate's crew and observed their end-of-day
activities.
I was accompanied on my visit by Paul Kirai, an environmental manager
from Nirobi, Kenya. Joan Baker is coordinating his 3-week visit to ERL-C through
an Oregon State University program for international scientists.
It is your responsibility to forward the addendum to the field crew leaders
and the field crew members. I have briefly discussed my findings with Kate Dwire
and JoEllen Honea. Audit reports are most useful when received soon after the
visit. Please contact me if there are questions about the review or the report.
WP5.1 /REPORT#8/OWS2.REP
159
-------
Addendum to
Audit Report for
In-House and Extramural Research
with Portland State University
Und.er Cooperative Agreement - CR 820520,
"Teacher Internships for
The Oregon Wetland Study"
Submitted to:
Mary Kentula, Project Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97333
Prepared for:
Robert Lackey
QA Officer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97333
Prepared by:
Deborah Coffey
ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, OR 97333
June/July 1993
WP5.1 /REPORT#8/OWS2.REP
160
-------
Addendum to
Audit Report for
In-House and Extramural Research
with Portland State University
Under Cooperative Agreement - CR 820520,
"Teacher Internships for
The Oregon Wetland Study"
INTRODUCTION
A laboratory audit and field review for the Oregon Wetland Study (OWS)
was conducted on 29 June 1993. Only one of the crews was reviewed in
adequate detail, one crew was not located, and one crew was visited at the end of
their data collection day. A mid-season calibration audit was scheduled for 15 July
1993. However, the audit of the mid-season calibration was cancelled in favor of
visiting the two field crews conducting routine sample collection activities during
the last week of July 1993.
On 28 July 1993 Deborah Coffey visited the field crews that were not
audited during the 29 June 1993 review. This addendum summarizes the 28 July
1993 review. The planned objectives of the field crew visits were: (1) to observe
the completion of the sampling protocols, (2) to compare the crews to each other,
(3) to review the implementation of the project QA/quality control (QC) activities
as specified in the QAPP, (4) to discuss the project design and schedule, and (5) to
discuss data collection, verification, and validation and data management.
Unfortunately rain played a part in the follow-up visit. JoEllen Honea's crew
for crew was visited for their arrival at the site (181), wetland delineation, baseline
placement (a curved baseline was required), transect placement and sampling
interval selection, initiation of vegetation transects, and surveying (8:30 a.m. -
10:15 a.m.). Completed data sheets, soil sampling, buffer and wetland
morphology transect descriptions were not evaluated. During the visit with
JoEllen's crew, it only drizzled. When we reached Kate Dwire's crew (Site 5027)
at 11:00 a.m., they had completed wetland delineation, baseline placement,
transect placement and sampling interval selection, initiated sampling vegetation
transects, and had begun surveying. The rain changed from a drizzle to nice, big
drops and forced everyone to take a lunch break, hoping for the rain to let up. I
had a commitment in Corvallis in the early afternoon, so could not wait it out.
During the June visit, I reviewed the completed data sheets for Kate's crew and
observed their end-of-day activities.
161
-------
The following comments are based on the objectives of the audit:
Plant Processing/Identification
Kate Dwire's crew leaves for the site at 7:00 p.m., earlier then the other
crews. Sherry Spencer connects with the other field crew leaders at their hotel
each morning to discuss plant identification concerns, but Kate (or Teresa when
she is the alternate) does not participate in this discussion. Sherry Spencer no
longer visits JoEllen's crew daily in the field. She sometimes visits Kate's crew.
She has needed to spend her time in the laboratory, identifying unknowns. This
may or may not affect data accuracy or entry. The botanists are still collecting
many unknowns at each site. The delay in identifying unknowns and the lag time
between collection and keying, does not allow the botanists to learn an unknown's
name in time to integrate this information into future activities. As a result, the
vegetation data sheets can not be given to the data entry person until the
unknowns are identified. This is a bottleneck in completing the sampling process.
Field Crews
1. Sampling Protocols
All crews appear to be implementing the sampling protocols as written,
except that the color determination for mottles has been eliminated because it was
too time consuming. The field crew leaders require flexibility in fitting the wetland
physiography and unique character to the sampling protocols; this is done at the
discretion of the field crew leaders. They are documenting those decisions and are
aware that sometimes the protocols don't provide an exact approach for the
situation encountered. Effort should be made to summarize unique situations and
solutions to determine if some obvious modifications to the written protocols
emerge.
JoEllen's crew has a tent awning to protect data sheets, field crew
members, and gear from the ever-present rains encountered. All crews should
consider buying inexpensive 9' X 12' tarps for this purpose.
JoEllen's crew is still using their walkie-talkies, unlike the other two crews.
Admittedly, they pick up cellular telephone conversations and baby monitors, but
still feel that the ability to communicate during surveying is worth the annoyance.
162
-------
The project compasses again received poor marks from the field crew
members.
2. Comparison of the Crews to Each Other
Observations made during the July 28 1993 review confirmed the following
observations made only on Stephanie Gwin's crew:
Crew members are well-trained and perform their tasks well with little
direction. Maturation in the performance of assigned tasks was
evident in comparison to the training day observations.
Crew members are dedicated to completing the project and collecting
the most accurate data possible.
Crew members help each other constantly with good grace and often
humor. The observed attitudes and dedication are exemplary.
In general, data sheets appeared to be complete and legible.
3. Review the Implementation of the Project QA/QC Activities (as specified in the
QAPP
Required QA/QC are completed as required. QA transects and comparison
of soil sampling are used to calibrate crew members and seem to provide positive
opportunities to ensure that comparable data within crews are being collected.
The quantitative evaluation of the mid-season calibration was not provided
at the time of the second field review, but the results were discussed. It appears
that among-crew-variability is within the 20% data quality objective.
There is still some discomfort related to the field audits. Crew members are
apprehensive about being observed. Hopefully the results of the audit can be used
to demonstrate the high caliber of the three field crews and each individual
member and EPA's appreciation for their participation. In addition, the videos will
undoubtedly show the crew members commitment to the project even under
adverse conditions.
163
-------
4. Discuss the Project Design and Schedule
The project is proceeding on schedule, but no more rain days or days in the
Portland State University (PSU) laboratory can be scheduled if all sites are to be
sampled as planned.
5. Discuss Data Collection, Verification, and Validation and Data Management
Data are being collected and verified by field crew members and field crew
leaders as specified in the QAPP. As discussed above, release of vegetation data
sheets is slow due to the need to verify the identification of unknown plants. Final
data sheets (e.g. site maps) were completed during rain or laboratory days. The
absence of these days from the schedule may delay completion of data sheets for
data entry. A person (Ty Hildreth) to enter data was recently hired through METI.
There is presumably a backlog of data to be entered. There is no indication of how
fast this will proceed (number of sites entered per day) or how site information will
be entered.
Discussion of data analysis was a focus of the visit with Kate Dwire. Final
data assessments will need to address the number of transects and plots needed in
future applications of this protocol to characterize wetlands of various sizes.
Another analysis should focus on how detailed the vegetation descriptions need to
be to characterize the site. I consulted a statistician to discuss approaches for
vegetation plot data analysis. He suggested creating histograms of species
occurrence for all plots within each wetland and determining how the plot data can
be classified (e.g., summed for all plots across uplands, at equal elevations, open
water; are the five most frequent species within a plot adequate to characterize the
plot and therefore, the wetland). What measures actually evaluate wetland
function to allow comparison between natural and created wetlands?
The next focus of the QA staff will be on the statistical analysis of this very
large data set. Data reduction to meet project objectives is of concern. A
statistician accustomed to handling large databases and summarizing difficult
ecological data is needed on staff.
A QC report summarizing the results of the QA plots, the mid-season
calibration check, and suggestions for future studies is needed.
The teacher volunteers should be asked at the conclusion of field sampling
for their input concerning the appropriateness of the protocols for meeting project
objectives. Example questions might include:
164
-------
Specifically, what do they believe is needed to characterize the
population of the wetlands actually sampled - how many transects,
how many plots per transect (1' intervals? 3' intervals, etc.), how
may QA plots?
Should animal presence be evaluated as an indicator of wetland
function?
What measures are important?
What measures provide no information?
What worked well?
What didn't work well.
What 3 (4, or 5) things would you change and how?
Audits
Ideally, a full day should be spent auditing each crew. Unfortunately, this
results in a lot of down time because repetitive tasks are carried out for long
periods. But, each task should be reviewed. Travel time among sites and crews is
too long, and limits the time spent with crews. Three days devoted to auditing
one project is excessive for QA staff to dedicate, but if the project officer or field
crew leaders this is necessary, this should be requested for future projects and
added to the QAPP. The observed caliber of field crew performance (due in my
opinion to the effort spent selecting the teacher volunteers and the time spent
training the volunteers to implement the protocols) resulted in nearly problem-free
data collection activities.
165
-------
To: Deborah Coffey
From: Kate Dwire
Date: 4 August 1993
RE: Addendum to Audit report for Review of Oregon Wetland Study Field Crews
and Soil Processing Laboratory
cc: Mary Kentula
Robert Lackey
I have the following comments on the "Addendum to Audit report for
Review of Oregon Wetland Study Field Crews and Soil Processing Laboratory"
dated 29 July 1993. My comments clarify a few points that I feel are important to
the Oregon Wetland Study field effort, and summarize my thoughts on some of
your recommendations. I have also made comments directly on the report
(attached).
(1) page 2; Plant Processing/Identification. Sherry Spencer visits the hotel each
morning to pick up the soil samples and plant specimens collected on the previous
field day. Although Kate/Teresa may not connect with her, they leave their
samples with another crew leader, so they can be delivered to Sherry. Time
permitting, Sherry discusses plant identification with the Botanists.
(2) page 2; Plant Processing/Identification. Sherry's identification of unknown
plant species will improve the accuracy of the vegetation data (replacing
designated unknowns on the data sheets with a species name), and expedite data
entry (the more unknowns identified, the sooner the vegetation data can be
entered).
(3) page 2; Plant Processing/Identification. Although unknowns are still being
collected, the number has decreased as the botanists have learned more plants.
The number of unknowns collected at a site depends largely on the complexity of
the wetland.
(4) page 2; Plant Processing/Identification. The resolution of plant species
identification on the vegetation data sheets causes a bottleneck in the data entry
process, not the sampling process.
166
-------
(5) page 4; Data Collection, Verification, Validation, and Data Management; 2nd
paragraph. I agree that data assessments should include evaluation of the
sampling approach, including number of transects, and vegetation and soil plots.
Vegetation data was not collected across uplands.
(6) page 4; Data Collection, Verification, Validation, and Data Management; 4th
paragraph. I agree that an end-of-season questionnaire for the teacher volunteers
would be instructive, but prefer the following types of questions to those
suggested:
~ Which measures do you feel best characterize the wetlands?
~ What methods were the most straightforward to implement?
~ What methods/equipment worked best?
A questionnaire will be developed by the project leader and crew leaders,
and mailed to the teacher volunteers following the field season.
167
------- |