Three Ways to Monitor a Wetland For five years, the Minnesota Audubon Council coordinated a Wetland Watch network, in which citizens reviewed and commented on wetland permits. The step from monitoring permits to monitoring actual wetlands was a natural one, and one that, for Audubon, was spurred by the new practice of "compensatory mitigation"-that is, creating or restoring wetlands to replace wetlands destroyed by development. Cheryl Miller, Wetlands Program Director for Minnesota Audubon, recalls that in the early 1990s a number of wetland scientists published technical papers on newly enacted "no net loss" policies and the concept of mitigation. The papers raised questions about the feasibility of recreating a high quality wetland ecosystem and stressed the importance of monitoring these projects to remedy problems that developed. At the same time, they acknowledged that short-staffed federal regulators had little time to oversee the construction, much less monitor the long-term survival, of these new, often experimental wetlands. For Audubon, the situation presented an intriguing opportunity for volunteers to step in and fill the gap. Audobon approached EPA Region 5 with a proposal to investigate this opportunity. With EPA support, Audubon spent the next four years working with numerous government agencies and academics to develop field monitoring programs for volunteers. In all, three different approaches were developed. The first project: Focus on mitigation --"In some ways, our first project was really public policy research," says Miller. The monitoring focused on the local Corps's compensatory mitigation program and was designed to find out (a) whether mitigation projects were being built at all; (b) if so, whether they generally conformed to permit requirements; and (c) whether any problems were evident at the sites. Volunteers made a single visit to 42 mitigation projects, bringing with them a copy of the permit specifying what thecreated wetland was supposed to look like--its size, the slope of the shoreline, waterdepth, type of vegetation cover, and so forth. Volunteers spent about three hours comparing what they saw on the ground to what was written in the specifications. Records of their observations, including problems that needed remedial action, were presented to the Corps, EPA, and any interested permittees. Miller says, "The study raised questions in our minds--as it has in many others’--about compensatory mitigation. What we saw ran the gamut from beautifully contoured wetlands that fit well with their surroundings to 12-foot gravel pits surrounded with enormous piles of dirt. Some of the more promising sites were where abandoned forest roads had been removed to allow revegetation by the forest." Although the study was limited by the "snapshot-in-time" approach--a single visit made within 1 or 2 years after construction--Miller says it was very effective in bringing several failing projects to the attention of responsible agencies. The project may also have caused the Corps to increase its own vigilance over mitigation projects. For Audubon members, the study vastly increased their ability to comment intelligently on mitigation proposals. The second project: Broader, more ecology-based -- After two seasons, the Council decided to broaden its approach. Instead of simply asking, How does the site compare to the permit specifications?, the second project investigated a larger question: How does a restored wetland recolonize with wildlife and vegetation? Audubon started by calling government agencies that had created or restored wetlands (some for mitigation purposes, others voluntarily restored) and asking for permission to visit the sites. The response was positive: "We were astounded by how many people wanted our volunteers to come out and look at their projects," says Miller. For this project Audubon recruited "expert volunteers"--experienced birders and members of native plant societies. "One of our main objectives was to bring volunteers with real expertise together with landowners," says Miller. Volunteers visited each site several times each season for two years. They photographed the site, measured water levels, censused bird use and assessed vegetation composition and abundance. "It's surprising how little monitoring of big restoration and mitigation projects is being done," says Miller. "Surely more could be learned if expert volunteers were recruited to help." The third project: Rigorous science, quantitative data -- The third project, termed the Wetland Evaluation Project (WEP), took a major step in the direction of rigorous, quantitative methodology. This shift reflected increased involvement by Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) scientists, who were independently developing bioassessment methods for natural wetlands. These bioassessments were adapted for use by the volunteers. Because of MPCA's involvement, the focus of Audubon's volunteer monitoring turned to natural systems, although some mitigation and restoration sites from the previous study were included. The bioassessments demanded a high level of expertise from the citizens, who had to master-among other things-the identification of different types of leeches and the difference between grasses and sedges. Accordingly, high school biology teachers were recruited to serve as team leaders for the volunteer teams. In addition to the bioassessments, the volunteers conducted frog and toad call surveys (adapted from Long Point Bird Observatory's Marsh Monitoring Program) and a vernal pool survey (based on Leo Kenney's work in Massachusetts). Volunteers spent many days in the field, and after the monitoring season ended they spent several evenings developing a presentation for local government officials. It was a hefty investment of time--yet, according to Miller, "They saw it through. Their dedication was amazing." The WEP generated quantitative data that could be used to identify the biological consequences for wetlands of different land and water management practices, or BMPs (best management practices). This information, in turn, can be used by cities or watersheds to evaluate whether certain BMPs--such as stormwater inputs or buffers--should be changed. The tradeoff was that the bioassessments were time-consuming. "There are many, many wetlands in Minnesota," says Miller. "The trick will be to figure out how to target the monitoring to get the biggest payoff, and that--very likely--will be in monitoring the effect of different BMPs on valuable wetlands." Minnesota Audubon’s Council’s direct involvement in citizen monitoring of wetlands ended--at least for the time being--in December 1997. The torch has passed to the county, which is sponsoring a continuation and expansion of WEP and plans to enroll 100 volunteers to monitor 30 wetlands in summer 1998. Meanwhile, Miller is taking stock of what was learned in the three projects. Each had its own particular advantages and challenges, but one thing is certain--each was valuable. Each generated information that could be used, be it to fix a problem in a specific wetland, to work with landowners adjoining a wetland, to provide public education, or to plan future projects. And each brought community members in contact with local wetlands. "No one goes into wetlands," said Helgen. "When we did the monitoring project, it was a mindblower for citizens and local officials to actually see the plants and animals living there." Observing these livings things helped the community to, in Miller’s words, "replace the ‘wasteland’ perception of wetlands with wonderment and pride."   (Reprinted from "The Volunteer Monitor", Volume 10, No. 1, Spring, 1998) For more information, contact Cheryl Miller at the Minnesota Field Office of National Audobon Society, 26 East Exchange St., Suite 207, St. Paul, MN 55101; 612/225-1830; cmiller@audubon.org.