United States Environmental

Protection Agency

Office of Water

Washington, DC 20460

EPA-822-R-02-018

March 2002

Methods for evaluating wetland condition

#8 Volunteers and Wetland

Biomonitoring
United States Environmental

Protection Agency

Office of Water

Washington, DC 20460

EPA-822-R-02-018

March 2002

Methods for evaluating wetland condition

#8 Volunteers and Wetland

Biomonitoring

Principal Contributor

University of Massachusetts

Anna L. Hicks

Prepared jointly by:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Health and Ecological Criteria Division (Office of Science and Technology)

and

Wetlands Division (Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds)
United States Environmental

Protection Agency

Office of Water

Washington, DC 20460

EPA-822-R-02-018

March 2002

Notice

The material in this document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

technical review and has been approved for publication as an EPA document. The information

contained herein is offered to the reader as a review of the “state of the science” concerning wetland

bioassessment and nutrient enrichment and is not intended to be prescriptive guidance or firm advice.

Mention of trade names, products or services does not convey, and should not be interpreted as

conveying official EPA approval, endorsement, or recommendation.

Appropriate Citation

U.S. EPA. 2002. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: Volunteers and Wetland

Biomonitoring. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.

EPA-822-R-02-018.

This entire document can be downloaded from the following U.S. EPA websites:

http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/bawwg

ii
iii

Contents

Foreword............................................................................................. v

List of “Methods for Evaluating Wetland

Condition” Modules......................................................................... vi

Summary............................................................................................... 1

Purpose ............................................................................................... 1

Introduction...................................................................................... 1

Volunteers Biomonitoring Wetlands.......................................1

Working with Volunteers..............................................................2

Volunteer Training and Protocols...........................................8

Biological Communities and Volunteer Monitoring........ 10

Study Plans and QAPPs ...............................................................11

Data Generation, Analysis, and Reporting .......................... 12

Recommendations.......................................................................... 13

Case Studies .................................................................................... 13

References ....................................................................................... 18
iv

List of Tables

Table 1: Uses and Users of Volunteer Data..........................4

Table 2: Existing Volunteer Biomonitoring

at the Federal and State Agency Levels .............................. 15

Table 3: Roles of Volunteers and Professional

Scientists in a Cooperative Monitoring Program ............ 16
v

Foreword

In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began work on this series of reports entitled

Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition. The purpose of these reports is to help States and

Tribes develop methods to evaluate (1) the overall ecological condition of wetlands using biological

assessments and (2) nutrient enrichment of wetlands, which is one of the primary stressors damaging

wetlands in many parts of the country. This information is intended to serve as a starting point for States

and Tribes to eventually establish biological and nutrient water quality criteria specifically refined for

wetland waterbodies.

This purpose was to be accomplished by providing a series of “state of the science” modules concerning

wetland bioassessment as well as the nutrient enrichment of wetlands. The individual module format

was used instead of one large publication to facilitate the addition of other reports as wetland science

progresses and wetlands are further incorporated into water quality programs. Also, this modular

approach allows EPA to revise reports without having to reprint them all. A list of the inaugural set of

20 modules can be found at the end of this section.

This series of reports is the product of a collaborative effort between EPA’s Health and Ecological

Criteria Division of the Office of Science and Technology (OST) and the Wetlands Division of the

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW). The reports were initiated with the support

and oversight of Thomas J. Danielson (OWOW), Amanda K. Parker and Susan K. Jackson (OST),

and seen to completion by Douglas G. Hoskins (OWOW) and Ifeyinwa F. Davis (OST). EPA relied

heavily on the input, recommendations, and energy of three panels of experts, which unfortunately have

too many members to list individually:

n Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup

n New England Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup

n Wetlands Nutrient Criteria Workgroup

More information about biological and nutrient criteria is available at the following EPA website:

http://www.epa.gov/ost/standards

More information about wetland biological assessments is available at the following EPA website:

http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/bawwg
vi

List of “Methods for Evaluating Wetland

Condition” Modules

1 ................. Introduction to Wetland Biological Assessment

2 ................. Introduction to Wetland Nutrient Assessment

3 ................. The State of Wetland Science

4 ................. Study Design for Monitoring Wetlands

5 ................. Administrative Framework for the Implementation of a

Wetland Bioassessment Program

6 ................. Developing Metrics and Indexes of Biological Integrity

7 ................. Wetlands Classification

8 ................. Volunteers and Wetland Biomonitoring

9 ................. Developing an Invertebrate Index of Biological

Integrity for Wetlands

10............... Using Vegetation to Assess Environmental Conditions

in Wetlands

11 ............... Using Algae to Assess Environmental Conditions in

Wetlands

12 ............... Using amphibians in Bioassessments of Wetlands

13 ............... Biological Assessment Methods for Birds

14 ............... Wetland Bioassessment Case Studies

15 ............... Bioassessment Methods for Fish

16 ............... Vegetation-Based Indicators of Wetland Nutrient

Enrichment

17 ............... Land-Use Characterization for Nutrient and Sediment

Risk Assessment

18............... Biogeochemical Indicators

19 ............... Nutrient Load Estimation

20 .............. Sustainable Nutrient Loading

Module # Module Title
1

Summary

A

gency staff and other professional wetland

managers are called upon to achieve too

much with too few resources. Well-trained

volunteers have the potential to fill manpower

needs and provide the assistance that will lead to

scientifically sound data that are so urgently

needed to protect the integrity of the nation's

wetlands and to uphold the principles of the Clean

Water Act. Recruitment and management

guidelines, sound volunteer monitoring protocols,

outreach and education programs, training

workshops, volunteer service providers, and

many other resources including a pool of motivated and often experienced volunteers, are

currently available for wetland managers and

State agency personnel to draw upon. The time is

ripe for the formation of committed partnerships

between volunteers and professional agency staff

that will further the common goal of wetland

protection.

Purpose

T

he purpose of this module is to address the

concerns held by many agency personnel,

whether national, State, or regional, in relationship

to volunteer participation in wetland biomonitoring

and the accomplishment of the goals of the Clean

Water Act.

Introduction

E

nvironmental managers are faced with the

need to accurately portray the types and integrity of local wetlands to assist them in their goal

of sound management, yet they have decreasing

resources to spend on data collection and analysis.

Citizen volunteers can help to bridge this gap, especially with the application of biomonitoring. There

are many advantages in combining the technical

expertise of State and Federal environmental agencies with the local knowledge, personal involvement,

and energy of volunteers. This partnership helps to

build the capacity of citizens to become part of the

planning process at the community level, changes

the way volunteers think about wetland resources,

and strengthens local stewardship. Using their newly

acquired knowledge and tools, volunteers get involved in local planning and decisions to improve

water quality, aquatic habitat, and biological communities. Agencies, in turn, are able to monitor more

projects and obtain more data than would otherwise be possible. This partnership also breaks

down some of the old barriers of mistrust and lack

of cooperation.

Volunteers

Biomonitoring

Wetlands

Community-Based Environmental

Protection

At some point the will to conserve our

natural resources has to rise up from the

heart and soul of the people—citizens

themselves taking conservation into

their own hands, and along with the support of their government, making it happen. Mollie H. Beattie, former Director,

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

A growing sector of the public appreciates the

important functions and values provided by wetlands and is concerned about their continuing loss

and degradation in the face of ever-increasing development. Many citizens motivated to do something become involved as volunteers. The pool of

volunteers – trained scientists, retired professionals, schoolteachers and students, conservation commissioners, environmental consultants and lawyers,

as well as professional nonprofit volunteer organizations acting as service providers to willing citizens from all walks of life – is a growing source of
2

willing assistants. Many of these people and groups

already have valuable skills, knowledge, and infrastructure that could be applied in a cost-effective

manner to assist State and Federal agencies working to implement wetland conservation.

Bridging the Gap

Agencies, on the other hand, are being directed

to fulfill the requirements of the Clean Water Act

and provide comprehensive monitoring data under

the various sections of the act. This task conflicts

with the reality of dwindling funding and manpower

resources. A number of agencies are exploring

volunteer participation in government monitoring

programs. There are many issues yet to be resolved,

and mechanisms to be put into place, before the

partnership between volunteers and agencies can

operate smoothly. This module aims to bridge the

gap between the partners by providing a set of

guidelines to facilitate volunteer participation in wetland bioassessment programs.

From the onset, a cooperative wetland

biomonitoring program needs a framework of realistic expectations of respective responsibilities, roles,

and tasks, together with a clear understanding of

the required endpoints.

Working with

Volunteers

Advantages

Education and environmental stewardship

Government agencies, watershed associations,

and nonprofit organizations promote volunteerism

to motivate people to change their attitudes and

become involved in preventing pollution and restoring

water quality. Volunteers usually become involved

through a personal concern for water quality or the

wildlife of a local wetland. By working with scientists and other concerned citizens and attending

workshops or taking academic courses, volunteers

can receive hands-on education about wetland

plants and animals, food chains, ecological principles, watershed management issues, regulations,

and legislation. This experience provides citizens

with valuable tools to use in a nonregulatory approach to protecting local wetland acreage, functions, and values.

Local knowledge

Citizens have intimate local knowledge of water

resources and their environs and can provide an

account of changes over time. Their familiarity with

local land uses also helps to identify potential sources

of point-source (dumpage, spills, unregulated discharges, etc.) and/or nonpoint-source pollution

(flow alterations, habitat alterations, eutrophication,

sedimentation, etc.). As members of the local community, volunteers can often gain access to privately

owned or remote wetland sites.

Local-level assessments, management,

and planning

Many local residents have a natural proclivity to

learn about wetlands, habitats, and biota and are

interested in monitoring water quality and the effectiveness of best management practices. They can

act as public “watchdogs.” Public interest helps to

shape planning policy in local communities. An involved public can advance both scientific research

and good management practices.

Citizens do appreciate wetlands

Most citizens were first introduced to the wonders of aquatic flora and fauna on their first school

outing to examine pond life. Many conservationminded citizens view volunteering as an opportunity to use that fascination as a tool to become actively involved in wetland conservation. A proportionally very high number of listed threatened or

endangered species are wetland dependent, and the

connection between wetland health and biodiversity

is already clearly established in the public arena.
3

Wetlands are also tied to a very personal interest.

In addition, citizens have a financial interest in wetlands through the real estate value of their own property. A healthy wetland within or adjoining a private

property raises the value of that property because

of its aesthetic value and the associated privacy it

provides. Citizens will become actively involved in

protecting these vested interests.

Support and enhance agency efforts

Agency staff can engage volunteers in a variety of

ways, as described below:

n An established volunteer organization with fully

trained team leaders and volunteer crews can

take on some of the monitoring load and associated responsibilities from agency staff and can

produce scientifically acceptable data. In addition, community volunteer activities attract positive press coverage.

n Volunteer-generated data are valuable as they

act as a diagnostic “screen” to pinpoint wetland health problems.

n Several teams of volunteers can be sent into

the field at one point in time, which achieves

widespread sampling within the same period.

This is normally very difficult to achieve under

normal circumstances owing to a lack of personnel.

n Data collected by volunteers can be used by

agencies to support their analysis of biological

or ecological functioning of wetlands, not only

in a utilitarian sense but in a broader context of

wetland condition. Volunteers can be helpful in

tracking whether key indicators of function are

present from year to year. They can record

presence/absence of birds, mammals, plants,

and other biota associated with wetlands. Seasonal and annual changes can be recorded.

n Volunteers provide additional assistance in the

field, in the laboratory, or on the computer keyboard.

n The time and money saved through volunteer

participation can be spent in increasing the number of sites to be monitored and the amount of

data to be collected.

n Many samples retrieved from wetlands are notoriously difficult and time-consuming to sort.

With relatively little training and professional supervision, volunteers can complete this task immediately after sampling.

n Today’s volunteers often include people, especially retirees, with a high degree of professional

expertise in fields associated with both

biomonitoring and wetlands.

Appropriate use of volunteers by government

agencies

Volunteer monitoring can be applied at three

levels:

1. Increase awareness and knowledge of resource values and conditions. Awareness of

water resource values and conditions is a prerequisite for public support to restore, protect,

and maintain water resources. Such awareness

does not require rigorous sampling or complex

analytical methods, so volunteer monitoring programs can meet this goal.

2. Assist with the assessment and management

of wetlands at the community or watershed

level. Decisions at the community or watershed level typically involve municipal and privately owned land. Many volunteer organizations already participate at this level and provide reliable data based on sound Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) that are geared

toward identifying gross problems and measuring changes over time. This form of volunteer

involvement is most important if there is a need

for the continuous monitoring of many wetlands.

It can also provide information on wetland status that would not otherwise be obtainable, such

as the presence of rare or invasive species.
4

 3. Contribute toward the evaluation and assessment programs of State and Federal

agencies. Volunteer monitoring can be used

for many of the Federal and State wetland regulatory programs covered in Module 5: Administrative Framework for the Implementation of

a Wetland Bioassessment Program. A typical

example would be measuring the success over

time of compensatory mitigation projects. Concerns about quality assurance/quality control

(QA/QC) issues and data generated by volunteers can be avoided if the roles of volunteers

are restricted to field assistance and, in the case

of invertebrate biomonitoring, to sorting samples

from debris, and possibly to identify to order

level. The delegation of simple tasks can be of

great assistance to professionals (modified from

Dates et al. 1997).

Unless volunteers are highly trained specialists with

a professional record in biomonitoring of particular

community groups, it is strongly recommended that

volunteers not be used when the quality of data has

to meet legal, regulatory, and scientific peer review

requirements.

4. Other applications of volunteer monitors.

Many opportunities for volunteer participation

exist apart from assisting agencies with data

collection (Table 1). The National Directory of

Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs

(1998) lists 772 water resources monitoring

groups with a wide range in program types. Of

these, 52% monitor macroinvertebrates to assess water quality.

High School Students as

Volunteers

There is an understandable reluctance among

agency scientists to involve students in rigorous

biomonitoring programs that require a high degree

of quality control to be coupled with accurate biota

identification. However, there are agency programs

in which students can act in a volunteer capacity,

particularly under the supervision of teachers who

have attended “train the trainer” workshops. A

number of agencies are developing their own high

school manuals, training videos, and other support

materials to encourage school participation in conservation programs.

One of the most encouraging case studies of school

participation in wetland conservation is student involvement in the vernal pool certification program

in Massachusetts. Colburn (1997), an aquatic

ecologist working with Massachusetts Audubon,

developed a manual, Certified: A Citizen’s Stepby-Step Guide to Protecting Vernal Pools. Clear

Use of Information Types of Users

Education

Establish baseline conditions

Screen for problems

Research

Advocacy and "watchdog" role

Community organizing

Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment

Watershed planning

Restoration projects

Land-use decisions

BMP evaluation

Enforcement

Legislation

State 305(b) reports

Shellfish bed closures

Individual citizen programs

Community organizations and watershed associations

University scientists

Local government

State government

Federal Government

Nonprofit foundations and trusts

Schools and nontraditional education programs

Table 1: Uses and Users of Volunteer Data
5

and simple instructions guide citizens through the

steps necessary to officially certify vernal pools with

the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Once certified, the pool is then protected. Teachers throughout the State were quick to use this manual and

now integrate vernal pool studies into their curricula.

Reading Memorial High School, under the leadership of one teacher, Leo Kenney, has certified more

than 200 local vernal pools. (See Volunteer Monitor, Spring 1998, “Defending the Underdog: Volunteers Protect Vernal Pools.”) To assist with accurate identification of fauna, an excellent field guide

has been developed under sponsorship of the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (Kenney

and Burne 2000).

As agency involvement in wetland restoration and

creation grows, there is an excellent opportunity to

engage teachers and students in habitat enrichment

programs such as removal of invasive species, planting of indigenous species, and monitoring the success of the improvements. Students in turn learn

more about wetland flora and fauna and their importance in wetland ecology and conservation.

Martin (1999), of the Center for Science Education at Portland University, stresses the need to link

student fieldwork with the more theoretical principles of science. In other words, an integrated educational approach of fieldwork and classroom instruction will provide students with a background

in the scientific approach, as well as build sound

ecological attitudes that students will carry into the

future as adults. Students enjoy sharing their experiences with family and friends, thus increasing stewardship and helping to build trust between agencies

and the public.

Addressing Concerns

The reluctance of government agents to involve

volunteers with their programs arises from a number of concerns, including:

n Fear of management pressure to substitute technical staff with volunteers

n Cost of volunteer monitoring programs

n Difficulty in recruiting and keeping effective volunteers

n Finding the time to train, coordinate, and supervise volunteers

n Professional distrust of data collected by volunteers (is it credible? how was it obtained?

how stringent was QA/QC? etc.)

n Volunteers are unreliable in meeting schedules

and deadlines

n Safety and liability issues

The following sections of this module attempt to

address some of these concerns.

Role of Agency Professionals

Volunteers should not replace the work responsibilities of trained agency technicians and scientists.

Agency staff need to generate the study design and

QAPP, conduct training at the appropriate level,

set required level of rigor, supervise volunteer involvement, perform the data analysis, and follow

through with reports and recommendations for management.

Funding

Volunteer monitoring programs produce cost-effective wetland biomonitoring data, but they are not

free. A quality volunteer monitoring program requires funding, either from an agency or an outside

source. At least one salaried person is required to

act as a volunteer coordinator to recruit volunteers;

to organize and coordinate monitoring; to purchase,

distribute, and maintain equipment; to organize meetings and training sessions; to provide support services; to receive records and monitoring data; to

enter and analyze data and possibly write study designs, QAPPs, and reports; and finally, to provide

general administrative assistance. Other consider-
6

ations include costs related to equipment purchase,

transportation, office overhead, photocopying, film

development, and last but not least, “rewards” such

as refreshments to maintain volunteer morale (Millet et al. 1996). Volunteers will provide free labor,

but should not be asked to carry the burden of other

related expenses.

Recruitment

One strategy for recruiting effective, committed

volunteers is to contact established volunteer resources, including community watershed groups and

local environmental organizations already involved

in water resource protection, natural history societies such as Audubon, academic groups (high

schools, colleges, and universities), land trust organizations, and fishing and hunting clubs. Unaffiliated members of the public can be recruited at community meetings and through newsletters, posted

flyers, list servers’ e-mail lists, or announcements

on cable television or radio and in newspapers. A

discussion of benefits and drawbacks of each of

these potential pools is provided by Miller et al.

(1996). It is important to make the volunteer project

attractive and of relevance to the community.

Organization and Leadership

Agency staff already feel taxed with work requirements and are reluctant to take on the additional

responsibilities of recruiting, organizing, training, and

leading a team of volunteers, even though they recognize the long-term benefits. The best solution to

this dilemma is to work through an established volunteer group, usually a watershed association, and

a service provider such as River Watch Network,

Adopt-A-Stream Foundation, New England Region Monitoring Consortium, or Massachusetts

Water Watch Partnership, that provides training

programs, manuals, and support services, and understands the QA/QC requirements associated with

the CWA monitoring and data quality. A trained

and experienced volunteer or volunteer team can

be more quickly incorporated into an agency program and reduce the time required of agency staff.

Maintaining Continuity and

Commitment

Volunteers come and go. Attrition is high. The

Spring 1996 issue of Volunteer is devoted to managing a volunteer monitoring program and discusses

why people volunteer, why volunteers leave, and

what can be done to correct the situation. Florida

Lakewatch offers the following action plan:

Improve feedback

n Hold more meetings – at least one general meeting. These meetings will:

• Give volunteers a sense of connection to a

group or project

• Offer opportunities for staff to deal firsthand

with volunteers’ questions

n Speed turnaround time between data collection and feedback; improve data report formatting (volunteers want simply expressed results,

not statistical rationale)

n Produce a variety of types of feedback (videos, brochures, in-person-presentations, newsletters, Web pages)

n Use regional coordinators to maintain closer

touch with volunteers

Improve screening

n Enroll new volunteers selectively, with long-term

commitment as the primary criterion.

n Hold an initial interview that will:

• Emphasize the benefits of having a long-term

database

• Caution volunteers not to expect that data

alone can solve any particular problem

• Warn volunteers about possible delays in

receiving feedback
7

• Identify and discourage mismatched volunteers

Add new challenges

n Offer veteran volunteers training in new monitoring skills

n Use veteran volunteers in a mentoring/training

capacity with new recruits

n Involve volunteers in the planning stages of a

monitoring program

Provide positive feedback

n Treat volunteers as if they were paid staff

n Respect their opinions and local knowledge

n Provide words of encouragement

n Thank volunteers for their efforts

n Provide rewards—social gatherings with free

refreshments, an outing such as a canoe trip,

tee shirts, caps, mugs, certificates of appreciation, or free copies of photographs showing their

involvement

And finally, conduct regular workshops and refresher courses, because they play an important role

in maintaining a pool of qualified volunteers (Miller

et al. 1996).

Safety/Liability

Wetlands can be hazardous, and biomonitoring

requires intimate contact with potentially dangerous environs such as contaminants; unconsolidated

muddy substrates; sometimes concealed glass, fishing hooks, and tins; allergic reactions from poison

ivy, stinging nettle, poison sumac, or insects;

scratches and cuts from thorned plants and fish

spines; and Lyme disease carried by ticks. A volunteer should always work with another field technician or companion. Issues such as vaccinations,

suitability of clothing, first-aid measures, safety of

sampling sites, training in sampling techniques, and

the handling of equipment must be resolved prior to

taking volunteers into the field. Each team should

have a first-aid kit. Remember, volunteer safety is

always more important than data, and volunteers

should never be put at unreasonable risk to obtain

a measurement or a sample (Dohner et al. 1997).

Dangers associated with preservation solutions and

reagents must also be considered. The team/laboratory leader should outline any hazards associated

with particular preservatives, and the precautionary measures that can be taken prior to the volunteers handling the solutions.

Insurance coverage for volunteer workers has

been highly variable. Laws differ markedly from

State to State. Very few volunteer organizations have

formal liability insurance coverage, and the legal

strength of volunteers signing waivers of responsibility is questionable. Few State and Federal agencies had policies until the Federal Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 was enacted.

The act’s primary purpose is to assist nonprofit

organizations in recruiting and maintaining volunteer

support by limiting their exposure to lawsuits arising from the volunteer activity. The act applies only

for “qualifying organizations,” i.e., an organization

formed for charitable, civic, educational, religious,

welfare, or health purposes; or a tax-exempt organization; or a State or its subdivisions. The protected party must qualify as a “volunteer,” i.e., the

party may not receive compensation for services

(other than reasonable reimbursement or allowance

for expenses actually incurred) or receive any gift in

lieu of compensation exceeding $500. A volunteer

will enjoy protection only if he or she: (1) was acting within the volunteer’s scope of responsibility;

(2) was properly licensed or certified if licensing or

certification is required; (3) did not engage in willful, criminal, reckless, or grossly negligent conduct;
8

or (4) did not cause an injury while operating a motor

vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other vehicle requiring a

license (Riverways Newsletter, Fall 1999).

For further assistance contact the advisory body,

The Nonprofit Risk Management Center, 1001

Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 900, Washington DC

20036, phone 202-785-3891, fax 202-833-5747

(Ely 1996).

Volunteer Training

and Protocols

A good deal of the skepticism about volunteer-collected data stems from the

feeling that data collected by “nonscientists” or “nonprofessionals” cannot be

trusted. The best defense against such

objections is to make sure you give your

volunteers the most comprehensive training possible, then follow up by testing

the volunteers at intervals to document

the fact that they are performing procedures correctly. (Ely 1992)

From the onset, the volunteer wetland

biomonitoring project needs clearly stated goals and

endpoints. Related to these is the level of involvement of volunteers and the intensity or rigor of their

sampling and data collection. If the volunteers do

not have the required skills at the onset, they will

need training.

Who Will Provide That Training?

Training can be provided by an agency, a

biomonitoring scientist, a volunteer service provider,

a land grant university with a volunteer training extension education program, or even private training

organizations such as the Izaak Walton Foundation

and the Institute for Wetland & Environmental Education & Research.

Throughout the New England region there is a

comprehensive infrastructure of interconnected volunteer training organizations that are now providing

training in freshwater wetlands and estuarine salt

marshes. Coordination of the many training organizations is provided by the New England Region

Monitoring Collaborative (NERMC). Members of

NERMC include representatives from EPA

NEBAWWG, New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission (NEIWPC), River Network, Massachusetts Water Watch Partnership

(MWWP), and Massachusetts Executive Office of

Environmental Affairs (EOEA), as well as extension educators from the region’s State universities.

Working as a team the members of NERMC write

standardized training protocols, produce training

videos, run training workshops, provide advisory

services for volunteer organizations, conduct surveys on volunteer needs, and work towards filling

the gaps identified. This is an excellent example of

cooperation and coordination among agencies, educators, and volunteer organizations.

What Protocols Should Be

Considered?

Training manuals, protocols, and teaching materials vary greatly in approach and levels of intensity.

There are two approaches to the selection of protocols: (1) manuals and training protocols should

be selected on the basis of their compatibility with

the goals of the study or (2) nationally standardized

protocols with accompanying training programs that

all volunteers working with government agencies,

regardless of their knowledge or previous experience, should attend. If agencies are not providing

training in their own methods, they need to ensure

that their volunteers have had training that will provide monitoring expertise equivalent to their own,

and if not, to be prepared to fill in the gap. To date

there is no EPA standardized Rapid Bioassessment

Protocol suitable for volunteers working in wetlands.

EPA’s streams and rivers manual (Dohner et al.

1997) is an excellent resource for trainers and volunteers engaged in lotic systems biomonitoring.
9

There are some volunteer training protocols developed by the Biological Assessment of Wetlands

Workshop Group (BAWWG) members. As a

number of these protocols are not published, the

names, phone numbers, and e-mail address of contacts are included.

Freshwater invertebrates

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Draft

Guidance on Sampling and Identifications of

Wetland Invertebrates for Training Citizen Team

Contact: Judy Helgen, (651) 296-7240,

judy.helgen@pca.state.mn.us.

Hicks AL, Nedeau E. 2000. New England

Freshwater Wetlands Invertebrate Biomonitoring

Protocol. Communications Center UMass

Extension, University of Massachusetts, Amherst,

MA.

Contact: Anna Hicks, (413) 253-3180,

anna.hicks@verizon.net.

Saltmarsh invertebrates

Hicks AL. 2001. Draft New England Estuaries

Invertebrate Biomonitoring Protocol. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. Boston, MA.

Contact: Anna Hicks, (413) 253-3180,

anna.hicks@verizon.net

Freshwater plants

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Draft

Guidance on Sampling, Biological Metrics, and

Identification of Wetland Vegetation for Citizen

Teams.

Contact: Mark Gernes, (651) 297-3363,

mark.gernes@pca.state.mn.us.

Birds

Firehock K, Graff L, Middleton JV, Starinchak

KD, Williams C. 1998. Handbook for Wetlands

Conservation and Sustainability. Izaak Walton

League of America, Gaithersburg, MD.

Marine algae

Contact: Sherwood Hall, Washington Seafood

Laboratory, Office of Seafood HFS-426, U.S.

FDA, 200 C St. SW, Washington, DC. (202)

205-4818, shall@bangate.fda.gov. Has a training

video, color pictures of phytoplankton and

additional materials, and provides technical

advice.

Amphibians

King County Department of Natural Resources.

Amphibian Survey Protocols for the King County

Water and Land Resources Volunteer Amphibian

Monitoring Program.

Contact: Klaus Richter, (206) 205-

5622, klaus.richter@metrokc.gov.

Massachusetts Calling Amphibian Survey: North

American Amphibian Monitoring Program:

Procedures and Protocols.

Contact: Scott Jackson, (413) 545-4743,

sjackson@umext.umass.edu.

Fish

Firehock K, Graff L, Middleton JV, Starinchak

KD, Williams C. 1998. Handbook for Wetlands

Conservation and Sustainability. Izaak Walton

League of America, Gaithersburg, MD.

Testing Competency

Once volunteers have finished training and are in

the field sampling, it is essential to make sure they

are collecting and analyzing samples correctly. The

two basic approaches to testing the soundness of

volunteers’ techniques are to (1) bring the volunteers to a central location for periodic QC sessions

and (2) send a professional expert into the field with

the volunteers and perform parallel testing (Ely

1992). Parallel, or side-by-side, testing of data collected by volunteers versus data collected at the

same sampling stations by professionals is conducted for two primary reasons: to assure government agencies that the quality of volunteers’ data is

sufficiently reliable for use by those agencies, and
10

to provide a volunteer program’s staff and participating citizens with a measure of their ability to produce credible data (Ely 1997). Parallel testing also

identifies study design problems, leads to improved

training, and builds volunteers’ confidence in their

abilities.

Biological

Communities and

Volunteer Monitoring

V

olunteers performing biomonitoring in

wetlands are encouraged to wear appropriate footwear (sneakers or waders depending upon

the situation and safety issues) and should always

be accompanied by at least one other team member. Every effort should be made to avoid damage

to the wetlands, wetland habitats, and biota. Identification of amphibian or reptile eggs, for example,

should be done without disturbing them. Typical

skills required of volunteers in addition to data recording are listed below.

Vegetation

n Experience with establishing transects or sampling plots

n Ability to use taxonomic keys

n Ability to identify the local common wetland

plants at least to genus

n Experience with collecting and preserving specimens

Refer to Module 10: Using Vegetation to Assess

Environmental Conditions in Wetlands, and Module 16: Vegetation-Based Indicators of Wetland

Nutrient Enrichment.

Algae

n Experience with sampling, preserving, and diluting procedures

n Ability to use taxonomic keys to species level

n Use of microscope

n Identify specimens to species level

Refer to Module 11: Using Algae to Assess Environmental Conditions in Wetlands.

Invertebrates

n Experience with sampling and preserving procedures

n Ability to use taxonomic keys to family level

n Use of dissecting microscope

n Identify local macroinvertebrates to family level

Refer to Module 9: Developing an Invertebrate

Index of Biological Integrity for Wetlands.

Amphibians

n Knowledge of appropriate seasons for the different organisms

n Identify local frog calls

n Identify egg masses of local frogs, salamanders,

and other amphibians to species level

n Experience in trapping techniques

Refer to Module 12: Using Amphibians in

Bioassessments of Wetlands.

Fish

n Experience in sampling techniques appropriate

to different types of fish

n Ability to use taxonomic keys to species level

n Identify local fish to species level

Birds

n Understanding of appropriate monitoring seasons and times of day
11

n Identify bird calls

n Ability to use bird identification keys

n Identify local birds to species level

Refer to “Birds as Indicators”

Reptiles

n Understanding of appropriate monitoring season and habitat

• Identify eggs to species level

• Experience in trapping methods

• Ability to use identification keys

• Identify reptiles to species level

Not all volunteers will be proficient in identifying

some of these biological groups to species level,

even with careful training. Supervision by a specialist will be necessary for the rigor that will produce

reliable, consistent data among volunteer teams.

When it is not possible to train all volunteers to the

desirable level of skill, volunteers can still accompany experts and act as assistants and recorders.

Study Plans and

QAPPs

One of the most difficult issues facing

volunteer environmental monitoring programs today is data credibility. Potential data users are often skeptical about

volunteer data — they may have doubts

about the goals and objectives of the

project, about how volunteers were

trained, about how samples were collected, handled and stored, or about how

data were analyzed and reports written.

A key tool in breaking down this barrier

of skepticism is the quality assurance

project plan. Geoffrey H. Grubbs, Director, Office of Science and Technology,

U.S. EPA

Refer to Module 4: Study Design for Monitoring

Wetlands.

Who Is Responsible?

If volunteers are to work under the supervision of

agency biomonitors, the agency itself is responsible

for the study design and the preparation of the

QAPP. The QAPP must include the measures that

will be taken to train, supervise, and control the

quality of work performed by volunteers.

If, however, a volunteer organization such as a

watershed association has been awarded a grant to

perform biomonitoring aimed at producing data suitable for agency use, designing the study and preparing the written QAPP is the responsibility of that

organization. No biomonitoring is to be done until

the funding agency has reviewed the submitted

QAPP.

Resources To Assist Volunteers

Volunteer organizations often feel they do not have

the expertise to produce a study design and QAPP

that will meet the rigorous standards of their funding agency. USEPA has provided a set of guidelines for producing a volunteer monitor’s QAPP that

meets their requirements (Hunt et al. 1996). This

guide is available free from EPA on request. Unfortunately, State agencies frequently have QAPP

standards and formatting requirements that vary

from EPA’s, and rarely have these agencies produced similar guidelines for volunteers.

The Fall 1992 issue of The Volunteer Monitor

covers the topics of volunteer study design and

QAPP preparation. Many volunteer organizations

have also structured their own guidelines. The Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Network

(VEMN), with assistance from River Watch Network, produced a Study Design Workbook (Dates

et al. 1997). VEMN holds workshops for volun-
12

teers and the participants leave with a draft study

design for their specific project. They are advised

to seek assistance from their funding agency,

whether Federal or State, in the construction of the

required QAPP.

During the process of writing the QAPP, specific

protocols should be specified, e.g., the degree of

precision in identification of organisms—order, family, genus, or species—must be established. Plants,

fish, amphibians, and birds are usually identified to

species level. Invertebrates and algae are more difficult to identify to the species level and a fully trained

and experienced taxonomic expert is usually assigned that task. Volunteers can be trained to identify to order level, and even to family level with appropriate and simple keys. However, the accuracy

of their work does need to be tested. This can be

done in a number of ways: through a voucher collection that can be verified by an expert taxonomist; or having an expert taxonomist randomly select 10%–20% of the archived samples to verify

the accuracy of the identification and enumeration.

Design and maintain a volunteer database for every biomonitoring project to include name, mailing

address, phone contact, e-mail address, allocated

tasks, and allocated sites, and hold a sample signature on record. Ensure every volunteer has full contact details for their project leader/s, and advise

them of any alterations. These precautionary measures will provide a means of quick exchange if any

serious questions arise or scheduling needs to be

altered.

Data Generation,

Analysis, and

Reporting

A

gency specialists frequently conduct

parallel testing to identify problems and ensure data is sufficiently reliable for regulatory uses.

Of prime importance is the level of accuracy required for the goals of the project. For example, a

group that is monitoring for educational purposes

or performing the first screening assessment of wetland condition does not need as high a level of data

quality as a group that is generating data for a state

305(b) assessment report (Dilley 1991, Ely 1997,

Hannaford and Resh 1995, Penrose 1995, Setzer

1997).

In general, agency staffs use the raw data provided by volunteer monitors to generate a thorough

data analysis for incorporation into government reports. However volunteers are not automatically

eliminated from these processes, and several volunteer manuals provide suitable guidelines for data

analysis and report writing (Schoen et al. 1999,

Laughlin and Rosselli 1994). Analytical methods for

use by volunteers should be designed to reflect

state-of-the-art science (e.g., the multimetric approach), but still be applicable at the nonprofessional level. Volunteer monitoring program managers should carefully assess the information needs of

the agencies and/or individuals who will use the data.

Only volunteers capable of data analysis and report writing should be selected to perform these

demanding tasks, and they should work in close

coordination with the agency staff member in charge

of the project.

All environmental data measurements and analysis procedures should be well documented and be

covered by the QAPP.

Recommendations

T

he following summarized recommendations have been drawn from a large number of

sources, particularly Miller et al. 1996, and the quarterly EPA journal Volunteer Monitor. Many volunteer coordinators and Agency scientists provided

valuable comments at conferences based on their
13

personal experiences in training and supervising

volunteers.

n Develop a selection process for volunteer recruiting. An application process tied to the study

plan will help ensure volunteers meet relevant

requirements. This may take the form of proficiency testing upon the completion of training.

n Outline the study objectives and design to the

volunteers, and explain their role in achieving

overall study goals.

n Match volunteers with the types of tasks for

which they are best suited.

n Try to meet the scheduling needs of the volunteers as closely as possible.

n When there is a mismatch between a project

and a volunteer, it is OK to advise that particular volunteer their assistance will not be required

in the future.

n State short-term volunteer goals, outline responsibilities, and specify time requirements at the

onset of a program.

n Set realistic expectations for fieldwork and other

activities. Ensure these expectations are outlined to all involved and adhered to throughout

a project.

n Establish safety guidelines and legal liability requirements at the outset of a volunteer program.

n Provide regular training programs using appropriate protocols.

n Use piloted and peer-reviewed volunteer manuals and ensure that the protocol will relate to

the goals of the project.

n Apply the appropriate level of training for the

desired rigor of data (QA/QC and testing).

n Have clearly written instructions on procedures

to be conducted in the field, laboratory, data

entry, etc., and be explicit when giving instructions.

n Conduct routine and comprehensive monitoring overview.

n Have a system of collecting data in a set reasonable time frame.

n Validate volunteer data through technical assessments and parallel studies.

n Provide feedback, updates, and rewards to

volunteers.

n Give volunteers the same respect as proficient

paid staff.

Case Studies

T

he case study summarized below provides

an illustration of the application of many of the

principles covered by this module. The table that

follows lists, with a brief description, a number of

other existing volunteer biomonitoring programs

being conducted at the Federal and State agency

level. The EPA journal Volunteer Monitor reports

on many case studies of volunteer biomonitoring

programs, many of which provide data useful to

government agencies.

WHAT (Wetland Health

Assessment Toolbox) Project

Also reported by Eleanor Ely (2000). Volunteer

Monitor 12(2):14-15.

Under the sponsorship of EPA’s Wetlands Division, a pilot volunteer program for estuarine salt

marsh health assessment was developed and implemented on the North Shore of Massachusetts in

1999. This involved formation of a partnership

among Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management,

Mass Bays Program, University of Massachusetts

Cooperative Extension Service, and two citizens’

water protection nonprofit organizations, Salem

Sound 2000 and Eight Towns and the Bay.
14

The major goals of the project were to establish

an estuarine salt marsh assessment training program

for volunteers, and implement volunteer monitoring

programs throughout New England that would:

n Provide high-quality data for assessing estuarine salt marsh health

n Evaluate the success of restoration/creation

projects

n Improve local wetland protection efforts and

stewardship

n Assist with state program efforts for salt marsh

management and protection

This project contains six components of salt marsh

assessment—the nonbiological tools of water chemistry, land use, and tidal influence; and the biological tools of vegetation, invertebrates, and birds. The

training protocols were developed by the specialist

scientists, Bruce Carlisle (MCZM), Jan Smith

(MBP), and Anna Hicks (UMass Extension). A

coordinator/technician, Vivian Kooken, was hired

to administer the training program; to purchase

equipment; to roster, facilitate, and supervise volunteer activities; and to manage volunteer data.

In the first year, 46 volunteers and volunteer leaders participated in the training program, which consisted of 6 individual workshops, one for each of

the assessment procedures. The workshops were

held at different times so that volunteers could

choose to attend more than one, and the respective

specialist scientists provided instruction. On

completion of their training the volunteers monitored

four estuarine marsh sites, three of which were impacted by tidal restrictions and the fourth by intensive urban development. Each of the four project

sites had a corresponding reference site that represented the “best obtainable” condition for the area.

A parallel test (comparing volunteer results with

scientists’ results) was conducted during the monitoring season to help evaluate the success of the

training program and to help the scientists improve

their training protocols. Issues arising from the parallel testing and the volunteer evaluation sheets were

mostly centered on difficulties the volunteers had

with identification of invertebrates and birds. Another problem was the lower number of organisms

sampled by volunteers compared with the scientists, possibly because of their less rigorous sampling techniques. Nevertheless, when the metrics

arising from volunteer data were compared with

those arising from the scientists’ data, there was

encouraging similarity.

A followup meeting with the volunteers and the

scientists was arranged after the monitoring was

concluded and the data had been analyzed. The

agenda was mostly social. The volunteers were presented with certificates of achievement, T-shirts, and

a pizza dinner. A part of the meeting was set aside

for at report on the results of the volunteer monitoring, and an open discussion session to share experiences and generate suggestions for improvements.

The lessons learned in 1999 were transferred to a

successful repeat of the whole program in 2000.

The Department of Environmental Management has

since modified some of the tidal restrictions. The

volunteers are now collecting data to measure the

effect over time of the mitigation efforts. Based on

the WHAT project’s successful history, funding has

been established through the Jessie B. Cox Charitable Trust for 2 more years. The training protocols for each of the assessment tools are currently

being revised in readiness for publication in 2001.

For further information on the WHAT program,

contact Vivian Kooken at Salem Sound 2000, 201

Washington Street, Suite 9, Salem, MA 01970,

phone 978-741-7900, e-mail vivian.kooken

@salemsound.org.

Table 2 lists Federal and State agencies involved

in volunteer biomonitoring.
15

Agency Project Volunteer Involvement

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

Judy Helgen 651-296 -7240

judy.helgen@pca.state.mn.us

Mark Gernes 651-297-3363

mark.gernes@pca.state.mn.us

Minnesota's Wetland Evaluation

Project - Dakota County

Trained volunteers to sample, sort,

identify, and complete metric data sheets

for freshwater depressional wetlands

invertebrates and plants

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management

and Mass Bays Program,

University of Massachusetts

Bruce Carlisle 617-626-1205

Bruce.Carlisle@state.ma.us

Jan Smith 617-626-1231

Jan.Smith@state.ma.us

Anna Hicks 413-545-1884

ahicks@umext.umass.edu

Wetland Health Assessment

Toolbox -North Shore region of

Massachusetts

Trained volunteers to monitor plants,

birds, and invertebrates in estuarine salt

marshes of the North Shore Region of

Massachusetts

Massachusetts Audubon Society

Elizabeth Colburn 781-259-9506

Leo Kenney 617-942-9135

vernalpool@whale.simmons.edu

Certified: A Citizen's Step-by-Step

Guide to Protecting Vernal Pools

Reading Memorial High School Students

sample for fairy shrimp and findings

support the State certification of vernal

pools

Illinois Department of Natural Resource's

Eco Watch Network

Michael Jeffords 217-333-5986

EcoWatch Network

Statewide citizen volunteer monitoring

program that includes wetland

macroinvertebrates, vegetation, and

wetland zones

Maryland Department of the Environment

Chirsti Noble 410-631-8904 Mitigation Banking

Program to train citizens to monitor

mitigation sites. Their manual includes

methods for monitoring vegetation

density, hydrology, and soils

Georgia Environmental Protection Division

Michele Droszcz 404-656-0099 Adopt-A-Wetland

A pilot program for volunteers. Level 1

is simple observational monitoring 4

times a year; levels 2 and 3 are yet to be

developed

U.S. EPA's Wetland Research Program

Mary Kentula 541-754-4478

kentula@mail.cor.epa.gov

Citizen Science: The Oregon

Wetlands Study

Science teachers participate in a largescale monitoring effort paying particular

attention to vegetation

King County Department of Natural

Resources, Seattle, WA

Klaus Richter 206-205-5622

klaus.richter@metrokc.gov

Elissa Ostergaard 206-296-1911

elissa.ostergaard@metrokc.gov

King County Wetland-Breeding

Amphibian Monitoring Program

Trained volunteers counted amphibian

eggs, juveniles, and adults in freshwater

palustrine wetland in King County, WA

Table 2: Existing Volunteer Biomonitoring at the

Federal and State Agency Levels

Table 3 categorizes the various tasks for an integrated biomonitoring project, with the recommended

suitable roles of volunteers and supervising professional scientists. The foundations for this table were

laid during the pilot phase of two programs, the

WHAT Toolbox outlined in the case study, and the

Wells National Estuarine Research Reserve project

reported by Neckles and Dionne (2000).
16

Category Volunteer Volunteer

+Professional

Professional

+Volunteer

Land Use

Preparation of base maps X

O b taining aerial photographs X

Delineating zones of influence X

Mapping land uses X

Field works conducting Land Use Index of

Rapid Assessment X

Ca lculation of wetland evaluation area (WEA) X

Ca lculation of land-use coefficients X

Ca lculation of Land Use Index X

Tidal Influence

a. Reference mark technique

 Establishing benchmark X

 Recording readings X

b. Staff gauge technique

 Installing gauges X

 Recording readings X

 Data analysis and tidal range ratio X

Water Chemistry

a. Ambient water quality for 

 invertebrates with YSI multimeter

 calibration

X

 Monitoring X

 Recording X

b. Salinity

 Establishing transects X

 Constructing wells X

 Installation of wells X

 Monitoring and recording X

Avifauna

Species identification X

Behavior observations X

Recording X

Data analysis to Avifauna Index X

Vegetation

Establishing transects X

Selection of subunit transects X

Laying of quadrates X

Plant identification to genus & species X

Abundance and cover estimates X

Recording X

Data Analysis to Index of Vegetation Integrity X

Table 3: Roles of Volunteers and Professional Scientists

in a Cooperative Monitoring Program
17

Category Volunteer Volunteer

+Professional

Professional

+Volunteer

Invertebrates

Habitat assessment X

S iting of sampling locations X

Recording of field conditions X

Sampling and preservation X

Sorting X

Identification to order level X

Identification to family level X

Counting and recording X

Data Analysis to Invertebrate Community

Index X

Table 3 (continued)
18

References

Bryne RR, Dionne M, Cook RA, Jones J. 1997. Maine

Citizens Guide to Evaluating, Restoring, and Managing Tidal Marshes. Maine Audubon Society,

Falmouth, ME.

Colburn EA. 1997. Certified: A Citizen’s Step-by-Step

Guide to Protecting Vernal Pools. Massachusetts

Audubon Society, Lincoln, MA.

Dates G, Lehrer A, Schoen J, McVoy R. 1997.

Merrimack River Watershed Study Design Workbook.

The Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Network, C/-

Merrimack River Watershed Council, Lawrence, MA.

Dates GA, Schloss J. 1998. Data to Information: A

Guide Book for Coastal Volunteer Water Quality

Monitoring Groups in New Hampshire and Maine.

University of Maine Cooperative Extension and

University of Maine/New Hampshire Sea Grant

Extension.

Dilly MA. 1991. A Comparison of the Results of a

Volunteer Stream Quality Monitoring Program and the

Ohio EPA’s Biological Indices. In: Simon TP, Davis

WS, eds. Proceedings of the 1991 Midwest Pollution

Control Biologists Meeting. Environmental Indicators:

Measurement and Assessment Endpoints.

Dohner E, Markowitz A, Barbour M, Simpson J, Byrne J,

Dates G, Mayio A. Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A

Methods Manual. Office of Water, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Washington, DC. EPA 841-B-97-

003.

Ellett K, Mayio A. 1990. Volunteer Water Monitoring: A

Guide for State Managers. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and

Watersheds. EPA 440/4-90-010.

Ely E. 1992. Training and Testing Volunteers. Volunteer

Monitor 4(2):3-4

Ely E. 1996. Are You Covered? Volunteer Monitor

8(1):22-23.

Ely E. 1997. Parallel Testing – Volunteers Versus

Professionals. Volunteer Monitor 9(1):16-19.

Ely E, Hamingson E. 1998. National Directory of

Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,

Oceans, and Watersheds.

Firehock K, Graff L, Middleton JV, Starinchak KD,

Williams C. 1998. Handbook for Wetlands Conservation and Sustainability. Izaak Walton League of

America, Gaithersburg, MD.

Firehock K, West J. 1995. A brief history of volunteer

biological water monitoring using macroinvertebrates.

J North Am Benthol Soc 14(1):197-202.

Gernes M. 1998. Wetland Vegetation Method for

Wetland Evaluation, Draft Guidance on Sampling,

Biological Metrics and Identification of Wetland

Vegetation for Citizen Teams.

Hannaford MJ, Resh VH. 1995. Variability in

macroinvertebrate rapid-bioassessment surveys and

habitat assessments in a northern California stream. J

North Am Benthol Soc 14(3):430-439.

Helgen J. 1998. Wetland Invertebrate Method for

Wetland Evaluation, Draft Guidance on Sampling and

Identifications of Wetland Invertebrates for Training

Citizen Teams. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

and Minnesota Audubon Council.

Hicks AL. 2001. Draft. New England Estuaries Invertebrate Biomonitoring Protocol. Massachusetts Coastal

Zone Management, Boston, MA.

Hicks AL, Nedeau E. 2000. New England Freshwater

Wetlands Invertebrate Biomonitoring Protocol.

Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Boston,

UMass Extension’s NREC Program, University of

Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Hunt M, Mayio A, Brossman M, Markowitz A. 1996.

The Volunteer Monitor’s Guide to Quality Assurance

Project Plans. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds.

Laughlin L, Rosselli H. 1994. Water Quality Monitoring:

Data to Action. Long Island Sound Taskforce,

Stamford, CT.

Jackson S. 1998. Massachusetts Calling Amphibian

Survey. North American Amphibian Monitoring

Program: Procedures and Protocols. UMass

Extension’s NREC Program, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.
19

Kaynor S. 1997. Bridge Builder: A Guide for Watershed

Partnerships. Facilitator’s Handbook. Conservation

Technology Information Center, Lafayette, IN.

Kenney LP, Burne MR. 2000. A Field Guide to the

Animals of Vernal Pools. Massachusetts Division of

Fisheries and Wildlife, Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program, Vernal Pools Association.

Westborough, MA.

Madison S, Paly M. 1994. A World in Our Backyard: A

Wetlands Education and Stewardship Program. New

England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission. Lowell, MA.

Martin J. 1999. Learning Science Through Restoration.

Volunteer Monitor 11(1):22.

Mayio A, Hunt M, Brossman M, Markowitz A. 1996.

The Volunteer Monitor’s Guide to Quality Assurance

Project Plans. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and

Watersheds, Washington, DC.

Miller T, Bertolotto C, Martin J, Storm L. 1996. Monitoring Wetlands: A Manual for Training Volunteers.

Adopt a Beach, Seattle, WA.

Neckles HA, Dionne M (eds). 2000. Regional Standards

to Identify and Evaluate Tidal Wetland Restoration in

the Gulf of Maine. Wells National Estuarine Research

Reserve Technical Report, Wells, ME.

Penrose D. 1995. Volunteer monitoring of benthic

macroinvertebrates: regulatory biologists’ perspectives. J North Am Benthol Soc 14(1):203-209.

Riverways Newsletter. Fall 1999. A publication of the

Riverways Program, Department of Fisheries, Wildlife

& Environmental Law Enforcement, MA.

Setzer W. 1997. Tips for Statistical Analyses of Parallel

Studies. Volunteer Monitor 9(1):16-20.

Schoen J, Walk M-L, Tremblay ML. 1999. Ready, Set,

Present! A data presentation manual for volunteer

water quality monitoring groups. Massachusetts

Water Watch Partnership, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA.

Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of

Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC.

Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,

Oceans and Watersheds, Washington, DC.

Volunteer Monitor. Fall 2000. Topic: Monitoring Flora.

Volunteer Monitor. Spring 2000. Topic: Monitoring

Fauna.

Volunteer Monitor. Fall 1999. Topic: Youth Projects.

Volunteer Monitor. Spring 1998. Topic: Monitoring

Wetlands.

Volunteer Monitor. Fall 1992. Topic: Building Credibility.

Volunteer Monitor. Fall 1991. Topic: Biological Monitoring.