Logistics Quality Project Control Plan Template

United States Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
EPA 843-R-15-008
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016

Quality Assurance Project Plan
Version 1.0, February 2016
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016 Quality Assurance Project Plan
Version 1.0, February 2016 Page iii of xii
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN

REVIEW & DISTRIBUTION ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND
COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT
FOR
NATIONAL WETLAND CONDITION ASSESSMENT 2016
I/We have read the Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and the methods manuals for the
National Wetland Condition Assessment listed below. Our agency/organization agrees to abide
by its requirements for work performed under the National Wetland Condition Assessment.
Please check the boxes for the appropriate documents.
Quality Assurance Project Plan □

Field Operations Manual □
Site Evaluation Guidelines □
Laboratory Operations Manual □
Field Crew leads: I also certify that I attended an NWCA 2016 training and that all members of
my crew have received training in NWCA protocols □
Print Name
Title
(Cooperator’s Principal Investigator)
Organization
Signature Date
Field Crews: Please return the signed original to the Logistics Contractor. The Logistics Contractor will
ensure all parties have signed the QA forms, compile them and submit to the EPA Project QA
Coordinator. Send your forms to: Chris Turner, cturner@glec.com. Great Lakes Environmental Center,
Inc.; 739 Hastings Street; Traverse City, MI 49686.
Labs and others: Please return the signed original to Kendra Forde who will ensure all parties have
signed the QA forms, compile them, and submit them to the EPA QA Coordinator. Send your forms to:
Kendra Forde, forde.kendra@epa.gov. US EPA; 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (4503T); Washington, DC
20460.
Retain a copy for your files.

Version 1.0, February 2016 Page iv of xii
NOTICE
The objective of the National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016 (NWCA 2016) project is to describe
the ecological condition of the nation’s wetlands and stressors commonly associated with poor
condition. The complete documentation of overall project management, design, methods, and
standards is contained in companion documents, including:
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Field Operations Manual (EPA 843-R-15-007)
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Laboratory Operations Manual (EPA 843-R-15-009)
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Site Evaluation Guidelines (EPA 843-R-15-010)
This document (Quality Assurance Project Plan) contains elements of the overall project management,
data quality objectives, measurement and data acquisition, and information management for NWCA
2016. Methods described in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to NWCA. All
Project Cooperators should follow these guidelines. Mention of trade names or commercial products in
this document does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. More details on specific
methods for site evaluation, field sampling, and laboratory processing can be found in the appropriate
companion document(s).
The suggested citation for this document is:
USEPA. 2016. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA-843-
R-15-008. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
Version 1.0, February 2016 Page vi of xii
VERSION HISTORY
QAPP Version Date Approved Changes Made

1.0 2/19/2016
Version 1.0, February 2016 Page vii of xii
DISTRIBUTION LIST
This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and associated manuals or guidelines will be distributed to
the following: EPA, States, Tribes, universities, and contractors participating in NWCA 2016. EPA
Regional Coordinators are responsible for distributing the QAPP to State and Tribal Water Quality
Agency staff or other cooperators who will perform the field sampling and laboratory operations. The
Quality Assurance (QA) Officers will distribute the QAPP and associated documents to participating
project staff at their respective facilities and to the project contacts at participating laboratories, as they
are determined.
National Project Coordinators

U.S. EPA Office of Water
Gregg Serenbetz serenbetz.gregg@epa.gov
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
NWCA Project Manager 202-566-1253
Washington, DC
Chris Faulkner Faulkner.chris@epa.gov
NWCA Alternate Project 202—566-1185
Washington, DC

Margarete Heber heber.margarete@epa.gov
OWOW Quality Assurance Officer 202-566--1189
Washington, DC

Rebecca Dils Dils.rebecca@epa.gov
WD Quality Assurance Coordinator 202- 566-1378
Washington, DC
U.S EPA, ORD
Mary Kentula Kentula.mary@epa.gov
Western Ecology Division
EPA ORD Technical Leader 541-754-4478
Corvallis, OR
U.S EPA, ORD
Teresa Magee Magee.teresa@epa.gov
Western Ecology Division
EPA ORD Technical Advisor 541-754-4385
Corvallis, OR
Sarah Lehmann lehmann.sarah@epa.gov
NARS Team Leader 202-566-1379
Washington, DC
Colleen Mason mason.colleen@epa.gov
NWCA Logistics Coordinator 202-343-9641
Washington, DC
Marlys Cappaert, SRA International Inc. cappaert.marlys@epa.gov
Computer Science Corporation
NARS Information Management 541-754-4467
Corvallis, OR 9733
Coordinator 541-754-4799 (fax)
Chris Turner cturner@glec.com Great Lakes Environmental Center
Contract Logistics Coordinator 715-829-3737 Traverse City, MI
Regional Monitoring Coordinators (MC) and Wetland Coordinators (WC)
faber.tom@epa.gov U.S. EPA - Region I
Tom Faber, Region 1 MC
617-918-8672 North Chelmsford, MA
Alafat.beth@epa.gov U.S. EPA - Region I
Beth Alafat, Region 1 WC
617-918-1399 Boston, MA
adams.darvene@epa.gov U.S. EPA - Region II

Darvene Adams, Region 2 MC
732-321-6700 Edison, NJ
Drake.kathleen@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region II
Kathleen Drake, Region 2 WC
212-637-3817 New York, NY
richardson.william@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region III
Bill Richardson, Region 3 MC
215-814-5675 Philadelphia, PA
Petrow.carol@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region III
Carol Petrow, Region 3 WC
Version 1.0, February 2016 Page viii of xii
Poeske.regina@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region III

Regina Poeske, Region 3 WC
Smith.elizabeth@Epa.gov U.S.EPA - Region IV
Elizabeth Smith, Region 4 MC
404-562-8721 Atlanta, GA
Woods.diana@Epa.gov U.S.EPA - Region IV
Diana Woods, Region 4 WC
404-562-9404 Atlanta, GA
nord.mari@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region V

Mari Nord, Region 5 MC
312-353-3017 Chicago, IL
Jackson.peter@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region V
Pete Jackson, Region 5 MC
312-886-3894 Chicago, IL
Elston.sue@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region V
Sue Elston, Region 5 WC
312-886-6115 Chicago, IL
Cook.robert@Epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region VI
Rob Cook, Region 6 MC
214-665-7141 Dallas, TX
Kitto.alison@Epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region VI
Alison Kitto, Region 6 WC
214-665-7482 Dallas, TX
Chamberlain.Eliodora@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region VII

Eliodora Chamberlain, Region 7 MC/WC
913-551-7945 Lenexa, KS
Johnson.tom@Epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region VIII

Tom Johnson, Region 8 MC
303-312-6226 Denver, CO
Bunch.William@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region VIII

Billy Bunch, Region 8 WC
303-312-6412 Denver, CO
fleming.terrence@epa.gov U.S.EPA – Region IX

Terry Fleming, Region 9 MC
415-972-3462 San Francisco, CA
Jones.Paul@epa.gov U.S.EPA – Region IX

Paul Jones, Region 9 WC
415-972-3470 San Francisco, CA
hayslip.gretchen@epa.gov U.S. EPA - Region X,

Gretchen Hayslip, Region 10 MC
206-553-1685 Seattle, WA
Thiesing.Mary@epa.gov U.S. EPA - Region X,

Mary Anne Thiesing, Region 10 WC
206-553-6114 Seattle, WA
Version 1.0, February 2016 Page ix of xii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................ 1

1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Organization ........................................................................................................................ 3
1.2.1 Project Schedule...................................................................................................................... 8
1.3 Scope of Quality Assurance Project Plan ......................................................................................... 8
1.3.1 Overview of Field Operations.................................................................................................. 8
1.3.2 Overview of Laboratory Operations...................................................................................... 14
1.3.3 Data Analysis and Reporting ................................................................................................. 16
1.3.4 Peer Review ........................................................................................................................... 16
2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................ 19
2.1 Data Quality Objectives for the National Wetland Condition Survey............................................ 19
2.2 Measurement Quality Objectives .................................................................................................. 19
2.2.1 Laboratory Reporting Level (Sensitivity) ............................................................................... 20
2.2.2 Sampling Precision and Bias .................................................................................................. 21
2.2.3 Taxonomic Precision and Accuracy ....................................................................................... 24
2.2.4 Completeness ........................................................................................................................ 24
2.2.5 Comparability ........................................................................................................................ 25
2.2.6 Representativeness ............................................................................................................... 25
3 SAMPLING DESIGN AND SITE SELECTION ........................................................................................... 27
3.1 Probability-Based Sampling Design and Site Selection .................................................................. 27
3.1.1 Target Population .................................................................................................................. 27
3.1.2 Sample Frame........................................................................................................................ 27
3.1.3 Selection of Sampling Locations............................................................................................ 28
3.1.4 Revisit and Resample Sites .................................................................................................... 29
3.2 Handpicked Candidate Reference Site Selection ........................................................................... 30
4 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................... 31
4.1 Roles and Responsibilities.............................................................................................................. 31
4.1.1 State/Tribe-Based Data Management .................................................................................. 33
4.2 Overview of System Structure ....................................................................................................... 34
4.2.1 Data Flow .............................................................................................................................. 34
4.2.2 Simplified Description of Data Flow ...................................................................................... 34
4.2.3 Core Information Management Standards ........................................................................... 35
4.2.4 Data Formats ......................................................................................................................... 36
4.2.5 Public Accessibility ................................................................................................................ 36
4.3 Data Transfer Protocols ................................................................................................................. 37
4.4 Data Quality and Results Validation .............................................................................................. 38
4.4.1 Design and Site Status Data Files .......................................................................................... 38
4.4.2 Sample Collection and Field Data.......................................................................................... 39
4.4.3 Laboratory Analyses and Data Recording ............................................................................. 40
4.4.4 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Activities ............................................................. 42
4.5 Data Transfer ................................................................................................................................. 44
4.5.1 Database Changes ................................................................................................................. 44
4.6 Metadata........................................................................................................................................ 44
4.6.1 Parameter Formats ............................................................................................................... 44
4.6.2 Standard Coding Systems ...................................................................................................... 45
4.7 Information Management Operations .......................................................................................... 45
Version 1.0, February 2016 Page x of xii
4.7.1 Computing Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 45

4.7.2 Data Security and Accessibility.............................................................................................. 45
4.7.3 Life Cycle ............................................................................................................................... 45
4.7.4 Data Recovery and Emergency Backup Procedures.............................................................. 45
4.7.5 Long-Term Data Accessibility and Archive ............................................................................ 46
4.8 Records Management .................................................................................................................... 46
5 INDICATORS ........................................................................................................................................ 47
5.1 Vegetation...................................................................................................................................... 48
5.1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 48
5.1.2 Sampling Design and Methods.............................................................................................. 48
5.1.3 Quality Assurance Objectives ................................................................................................ 48
5.1.4 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations ...................................................................... 48
5.1.5 Quality Control Procedures: Laboratory Operations ............................................................ 49
5.1.6 Data Management, Review, and Validation ......................................................................... 50
5.2 Soils ................................................................................................................................................ 51
5.2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 51
5.3 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................................... 56
5.3.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 56
5.3.4 Quality Control Procedures ................................................................................................... 57
5.4 Water Chemistry (including chlorophyll-a).................................................................................... 58
5.4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 58
5.4.6 Data Reporting, Review, and Management .......................................................................... 64
5.5 Microcystin .................................................................................................................................... 64
5.5.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 64
5.6 Buffer Characterization .................................................................................................................. 68
5.6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 68
6 FIELD AND LABORATORY QUALITY EVALUATION AND ASSISTANCE VISITS ........................................ 70
Version 1.0, February 2016 Page xi of xii
6.1 National Wetland Condition Assessment Field Quality Evaluation and Assistance Visit Plan ...... 70
6.1.1 Preparation Activities ............................................................................................................ 70
6.1.2 Field Day Activities ................................................................................................................ 71
6.1.3 Post Field Day Activities ........................................................................................................ 72
6.1.4 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 72
6.2 National Wetland Condition Assessment Laboratory Quality Evaluation and Assistance Visit Plan
73
6.2.1 Remote Evaluation/Technical Assessment ........................................................................... 73
6.2.2 Water Chemistry Laboratories .............................................................................................. 74
6.2.3 Assistance Visits will be used to: ........................................................................................... 75
6.2.4 NWCA 2016 Document Request Form Chemistry Laboratories ........................................... 75
6.2.5 NWCA 2016 Document Request Form Biology Laboratories ................................................ 76
7 DATA ANALYSIS PLAN ......................................................................................................................... 79
7.1 Data Interpretation Background .................................................................................................... 79
7.1.1 Scale of assessment............................................................................................................... 79
7.1.2 Selecting the best indicators ................................................................................................. 79
7.1.3 Defining least impacted reference condition........................................................................ 79
7.1.4 Determining thresholds for judging condition ...................................................................... 79
7.2 Geospatial Data.............................................................................................................................. 80
7.3 Datasets Utilized for the Report .................................................................................................... 80
7.3.1 Ecological integrity ................................................................................................................ 80
7.3.2 Stressor Status / Extent ......................................................................................................... 80
7.4 Vegetation Data Analysis ............................................................................................................... 80
7.5 Soils, Hydrology, Water Chemistry, and Buffer Data Analysis ....................................................... 81
7.6 Relative Extent, Relative Risk and Attributable Risk Evaluation .................................................... 81
8 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 82
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Critical logistics elements (from Baker and Merritt, 1990)........................................................ 11
Table 1-2. Peer review schedule ................................................................................................................. 18
Table 2-1. Important variance components for aquatic resource assessments......................................... 23
Table 3-1. NWCA Target Wetland Types and cross-walk with US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Status &
Trends (S&T) wetland categories and USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland classes. ......... 28
Table 4-1 Summary of IM responsibilities. ................................................................................................. 31
Table 4-2 Summary of software .................................................................................................................. 37
Table 4-3 Summary sample and field data quality control activities: sample tracking .............................. 40
Table 4-4 Summary laboratory data quality control activities ................................................................... 41
Table 4-5 Data review, verification, and validation quality control activities ............................................ 43
Table 5-1. Description of indicators and collection locations ..................................................................... 47
Table 5-2. Measurement data quality objectives for vegetation indicator ................................................ 48
Table 5-3. Laboratory quality control activities for vegetation indicator. .................................................. 49
Table 5-4. Data validation quality control for vegetation indicator. .......................................................... 51
Table 5-5. Soil indicator field and laboratory measurements and analyses. .............................................. 52
Table 5-6. Measurement quality objectives for soil indicator .................................................................... 53
Table 5-7. Field quality control for soil indicator ........................................................................................ 54
Table 5-8. Lab analysis quality control for soil indicator ............................................................................ 55
Table 5-9. Data validation quality control for soil indicator ....................................................................... 56
Version 1.0, February 2016 Page xii of xii
Table 5-10. Field measurement methods for hydrology indicator. ............................................................ 56

Table 5-11. Measurement quality objectives for hydrology indicator. ...................................................... 57
Table 5-12. Data quality control for hydrology indicator. .......................................................................... 57
Table 5-13. Required quality control activities for water chemistry and chlorophyll-a samples. .............. 59
Table 5-14. Data validation quality control for water chemistry indicator. ............................................... 64
Table 5-15. Data reporting criteria for water chemistry indicator. ............................................................ 64
Table 5-16. Measurement quality objectives for microcystin. ................................................................... 65
Table 5-17. Field quality control for microcystin. ....................................................................................... 66
Table 5-18. Required quality control activities for microcystin samples. ................................................... 66
Table 5-19. Sample receipt and processing quality control for microcystin. ............................................. 68
Table 5-20. Data validation quality control microcystin. ............................................................................ 68
Table 5-21. Data reporting criteria for microcystin. ................................................................................... 68
Table 5-22. Measurement data quality objectives for buffer characterization.......................................... 69
Table 6-1. Equipment and Supplies – Field Evaluation and Assistance Visits ............................................. 71
Table 6-2. Summary of Field Evaluation and Assistance Visit Information ................................................ 72
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. Relationship between the goals and objectives of the National Wetland Condition
Assessment and the long-term goals of EPA's current strategic plan (EPA FY 2014-2018).......................... 3
Figure 1-2. NWCA Project Organization ........................................................................................................ 7
Figure 1-3. Timeline of NWCA Activities ....................................................................................................... 8
Figure 1-4. Site verification activities for wetland field surveys ................................................................. 13
Figure 3-1. NWCA 2016 survey design summary map................................................................................ 29
Figure 4-1. Conceptual model of data flow into and out of the master SQL .............................................. 35
Figure 5-1. Analysis Activities for Water Chemistry Samples ..................................................................... 63
Version 1.0, February 2016 Page 1 of 86
1 PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

1.1 Introduction
Several recent reports have identified the need for improved water quality monitoring and analysis at
multiple scales. In 2000, the General Accounting Office (USGAO, 2000) reported that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, and tribes collectively cannot make statistically valid
inferences about water quality (via 305[b] reporting) and lack data to support key management
decisions. In 2001, the National Research Council (NRC, 2000) recommended EPA, states, and tribes
promote a uniform, consistent approach to ambient monitoring and data collection to support core
water quality programs. In 2002, the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the
Environment (Heinz Center, 2002) found there are inadequate data for national reporting on fresh
water, coastal and ocean water quality indicators. The National Association of Public Administrators
(NAPA, 2002) stated that improved water quality monitoring is necessary to help states and tribes make
more effective use of limited resources. EPA’s Report on the Environment 2003 (USEPA 2003) says that
there is insufficient information to provide a national answer, with confidence and scientific credibility,
to the question, “What is the condition of U.S. waters and watersheds?”
The most commonly cited and scientifically valid sources of national-scale wetland information are the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Wetlands Status and Trends Reports (S&T Report), which have
documented trends in wetland acreage since the 1950’s. The most recent report, published in 2011,
documented a decline of 62,300 wetland acres from 2004-2009. While the report noted gains for some
wetland types, such as freshwater ponds, it found continued declines in area of forested wetlands and
salt marshes (Dahl 2011). Companion reports focused specifically on wetlands in coastal watersheds
(Dahl and Stedman 2013) and the prairie pothole region (Dahl 2014) also found wetland area is
decreasing in these areas. It is vitally important for wetland managers to understand the causes and
sources of this loss to inform implementation of appropriate management measures. While the S&T
Report is an invaluable source of information on trends in wetland acreage and class, it does not provide
data on wetland condition.
In response to these needs, EPA Office of Water (OW), in concert with EPA’s Office of Research and
Development (ORD), the 10 EPA Regions, states and tribes has begun a program to assess the condition
of the nation’s waters via a statistically valid approach. The current assessment, the National Wetland
Condition Assessment 2016 (referred to as NWCA 2016 throughout this document), builds upon the
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2011, as well as other National Aquatic Resource Surveys
(NARS) such as the National Coastal Condition Assessment (NCCA), the National Lakes Assessment (NLA),
and the National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA). The NWCA 2016 effort will provide important
information to states and the public about the condition of the nation’s wetland resources and key
stressors on a national and regional scale.
EPA developed this Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) to support project participants and to ensure
that the final assessment is based on high quality data and information. The QAPP contains elements of
the overall project management, data quality objectives, measurement and data acquisition, and
information management for NWCA. EPA recognizes that states and tribes may add elements to the
Survey, such as supplemental indicators, that are not covered in the scope of this integrated QAPP. EPA
requires that any supplemental elements are addressed by the states, tribes, or their designees, in a
separate approved QAPP. This document covers all core NWCA 2016 QA activities. The NWCA 2016
participants have agreed to follow this QAPP and the protocols and design laid out in this document, and
its associated documents – the NWCA 2016 Field Operations Manual (FOM), Laboratory Operations
Manual (LOM), and Site Evaluation Guidelines (SEG).
This cooperative effort between states, tribes, and federal agencies makes it possible to produce a
broad-scale assessment of the condition of the Nation’s wetlands with both a known confidence and
scientific credibility. Through this survey, states and tribes have the opportunity to collect data that can
be used to supplement their existing monitoring programs or to begin development of new programs.
The NWCA 2016 has three main objectives:
1. Produce a report that describes the ecological condition of the Nation’s wetlands, ranks the
predominant stressors associated with poor wetland condition, and evaluates change between
2011 and 2016.
2. Assist states and tribes in the implementation of wetland monitoring and assessment programs
that will guide policy development and aid project decision-making.
3. Advance the science of wetlands monitoring and assessment to support management needs.
Through the framework of its goals and objectives, the NWCA addresses the long-term goals outlined in
the Agency’s current strategic plan (USEPA, 2014) to improve the Nation’s water quality and to protect,
sustain, and restore the health of critical natural habitats and ecosystems, including wetlands (Figure 1-
1).
Figure 1-1. Relationship between the goals and objectives of the National Wetland Condition Assessment and
the long-term goals of EPA's current strategic plan (USEPA, 2014)
1.2 Project Organization

The responsibilities and accountability of the various principals and cooperators are described here and
illustrated in Figure 1-2. The overall coordination of the project will be provided by EPA's Office of Water
(OW) in Washington, DC, with support from EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD). Each EPA
Regional Office has identified Regional EPA Coordinators to provide the critical link with state and tribal
partners. State and Tribal Cooperators will work with their Regional EPA Coordinator to address any
technical issues. A comprehensive quality assurance (QA) program has been established to ensure data
integrity and provide support for the reliable interpretation of the findings from this project. Technical
Experts Workgroups will be convened to provide EPA with support for determining the most appropriate
approaches for key technical issues, such as: (1) the selection and establishment of reference conditions
based on least-disturbed sites and expert consensus for characterizing benchmarks for assessment of
ecological condition; (2) selection and calibration of ecological endpoints and attributes of the biota and
relationship to stressor indicators; (3) a data analysis plan for interpreting the data and addressing the
objectives in a nationwide assessment; and (4) a framework for the reporting of the condition
assessment and conveying the information on the ecological status of the nation’s wetlands.
Contractor support is provided for all aspects of this project. Contractors will provide support ranging
from implementing the survey, sampling and laboratory processing, data management, data analysis,
and report writing. Cooperators will interact with their Regional EPA Coordinator and the EPA Project
Leader regarding contractual services.
The primary responsibilities of the principals and cooperators are as follows:
Project Manager – Gregg Serenbetz, OW

 Provides overall coordination of the project and makes decisions regarding the proper
functioning of all aspects of the project.
 Makes assignments and delegates authority, as needed to other parts of the project
organization.
 Leads the NWCA Steering Committee and established needed technical workgroups.
 Interacts with EPA Project Team on technical logistical, and organizational issues on a regular
basis.
Alternate Project Manager – Chris Faulkner, OW

 Assists EPA Project Manager with coordination and assumes responsibility for certain aspects of
the project, as agreed upon with the EPA Project Manager.
 Serves as primary point-of-contact for project coordination in the absence or unavailability of
Project Manager.
 Serves on the Technical Experts Workgroup and interacts with Project Manager on technical,
logistical, and organizational issues on a regular basis.
EPA Field Logistics Coordinator – Colleen Mason, OW

 EPA employee who functions to support implementation of the project based on technical
guidance established by the EPA Project Manager and serves as point-of-contact for questions
from field crews and cooperators for all activities.
 Tracks progress of field sampling activities.
 Coordinates all field and laboratory quality assistance visits.
EPA Project QA Lead – Sarah Lehman, OW

 Provides leadership, development and oversight of project-level quality assurance for NARS.
 Assembles and provides leadership for NWCA 2016 QA Team.
 Maintains official, approved QAPP.
 Maintains all training materials and documentation.
 Maintains all laboratory accreditation files.
EPA Technical Advisor – Mary Kentula, ORD Western Ecology Division (Teresa Magee, alternate)
 Advises the Project Manager on the relevant experiences and technology developed within ORD
that are to be used in this project.
 Facilitates consultations between NWCA personnel and ORD scientists.
EPA Laboratory Review Coordinator – Kendra Forde, OW

 Ensures participating laboratories have the appropriate technical competencies to process
samples.
 Ensures participating laboratories complete sample analysis following Laboratory Operations
Manual.
 Ensures participating laboratories follow QA activities.
 Ensures laboratory data is submitted within specified timelines.

 Coordinates activities of individual lab Task Order Project Officers to ensure methods are
followed and QA activities take place.
Information Management Coordinator – Marlys Cappaert, SRA International Inc.

 A contractor who functions to support implementation of the project based on technical
guidance established by the EPA Project Manager and Alternate EPA Project Manager.
 Oversees all sample shipments and receives data forms from the Cooperators.
 Oversees all aspects of data entry and data management for the project.
EPA QA Officer – Margarete Heber, OW

 Functions as an independent officer overseeing all QA and quality control (QC) activities.
 Responsible for ensuring that the QA program is implemented thoroughly and adequately to
document the performance of all activities.
Wetlands Division QA Coordinator – Rebecca Dils, OW

 Functions as an independent officer overseeing all QA and quality control (QC) activities.
Regional EPA Coordinators

 Assist Project Manager with regional coordination activities.
 Serve on the NWMAWG and interact with Project Manager on technical, logistical, and
organizational issues on a regular basis.
 Serve as primary points-of-contact for the Cooperators.
Study Design Manager – Tony Olsen, ORD

 Coordinates w/ Project Manager and Field Implementation Coordinator to develop and manage
the Sampling Frame, select sampling locations, and track field evaluation and site
reconnaissance.
Steering Committee (Technical Experts Workgroup) – States, EPA, academics, other federal agencies
 Provides expert consultation on key technical issues as identified by the EPA Project
Management team and works with Project Lead to resolve approaches and strategies to enable
data analysis and interpretation to be scientifically valid.
Cooperator(s) – States, Tribes, academics, other federal agencies, contractors

 Under the scope of their assistance agreements, plan and execute their individual studies as part
of the cross jurisdictional NWCA, and adhere to all QA requirements and standard operating
procedures (SOPs).
 Interact with the Regional EPA Coordinators, Field Implementation Coordinator and EPA Project
Manager regarding technical, logistical, organizational issues.
Field Sampling Crew Leaders

 Functions as the senior member of each Cooperator’s field sampling crew and the point of
contact for the Field Logistics Coordinator.
 Responsible for overseeing all activities of the field sampling crew and ensuring that the Project
field method protocols are followed during all sampling activities.
National Laboratory Task Order Managers

 Responsible for managing activities of the national contract laboratories.
 Provide direction to national and state laboratories on methods, timelines and QA activities to
ensure all actions are followed.
 Provide updates to EPA Laboratory Review Coordinator on the sample processing status of the
laboratory and any questions or concerns raised by participating laboratories regarding
timelines and deliverables.
Field Logistics Coordinator – Chris Turner, Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC)
 A contractor who functions to support implementation of the project based on technical
guidance established by the EPA Project Manager and Alternate EPA Project Manager serves as
point-of-contact for questions from field crews and cooperators for all activities.
 Tracks progress of field sampling activities.
 Tracks progress of lab activities.
Project Management
Project Manager– Gregg Serenbetz, EPA OW OWOW QA
Alt. Project Mgr.– Chris Faulkner, EPA OW Oversight and Review
Project QA – Sarah Lehman, EPA OW Margarete Heber, EPA OW
Technical Advisors – Mary Kentula and Teresa
Magee, EPA ORD
Study Design Field Protocols

Tony Olsen, EPA ORD Steering Committee
(NWMAWG), EPA ORD,
EPA OW
Field Logistics
EPA and Contractor Field Logistics Coordinators
Training
EPA OW, EPA ORD, EPA Regions, Contractors
Field Implementation
EPA OW, EPA Regions, States, Tribes,
Contractors
Sample Flow
Vegetation Soil Chemistry / Bulk Density Water Chemistry / Chlorophyll a
Hydrology Field Observations (stressors) Microcystin
NWCA Project and Quality Team
Information Management
EPA WED/SRA – Marlys Cappaert
Data Archiving
Web, STORET/WQX-OW
Assessment
EPA OW – Lead
EPA ORD, EPA Regions, States, Tribes, Federal
Partners, Cooperators
Figure 1-2. NWCA Project Organization

1.2.1 Project Schedule
Training and field sampling will be conducted in spring/summer of 2016. Sample processing and data
analysis will be completed by December 2017 to support a published report in 2018. Figure 1-3 gives an
overview of the major tasks leading up to the final report.
2014 2015 2016 2016-17 2018

research design field lab / data report
survey planning -
pilot studies -
select indicators
design frame
select sites
implementation
manuals
field training
sampling season
sample processing
data analysis
draft report
peer review
final report
Figure 1-3. Timeline of NWCA Activities
1.3 Scope of Quality Assurance Project Plan

This QAPP addresses the data acquisition efforts of the NWCA, which focuses on the 2016 sampling of
wetland sites in the conterminous United States. Analysis of data from approximately 1000 sites
(selected with a probability design) will provide a comprehensive assessment of the nation’s wetlands.
Companion documents to this QAPP that are relevant to the overall project include:
 National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Site Evaluation Guidelines (EPA 843-R-15-010)
 National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Field Operations Manual (EPA 843-R-15-007)
 National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Laboratory Methods Manual (EPA 843-R-15-009)
1.3.1 Overview of Field Operations
Field measurements and samples are collected by trained teams. Typically, each Field Crew is comprised
of 4 members, divided into the Vegetation (Veg) Team and the Assessment Area and Buffer (AB) Team.
The number and size of crews depends on the duration of the sampling window, geographic distribution
of sampling locations, number and complexity of samples and field measurements, and other factors.
The two teams will work closely with each other, and coordinate sampling activities.
1.3.1.1 Field Crew Duties and Qualifications
The NWCA Veg Team is composed of a Botanist/Ecologist and a Botanist Assistant. Primary
responsibilities for the Veg Team include:
1. Laying out the Assessment Area (AA) and vegetative plots;

2. Collecting high quality plant ecological data (including species identities, presence and cover of
individual species, presence and cover of vertical vegetation strata, and counts of larger trees);
3. Collecting other information related to vegetation condition; and
4. Collecting and processing plant specimens.
The Veg Team carefully follows protocols to make onsite decisions regarding layout and set-up of the
vegetation plots within the assessment area and to collect ecological data. Accurate plant species
identification is critical to data quality. Careful descriptions of diagnostic characteristics, habitat, and
plant associations will be documented. Plant specimens must be collected for all unknown taxa and
quality assurance taxa, which will be later identified by expert taxonomists. Careful attention to
providing tracking information for all specimens is essential.
In addition, NWCA will provide Veg Team members with training on study goals, vegetation sampling
methods, field protocols, and plant collection requirements. Training will prepare the Team to
accurately complete data and specimen collection tasks.
In addition to the skills developed in the training, the Botanist/Ecologist will have the following
minimum qualifications:
 Understanding of basic wetland plant ecology.

 Familiarity with regional flora and proficiency in identifying common wetland plant species:
o capable of sight recognition of often dominant species to the level of genus and species,
provided plants are at the proper phenological stage; or
o capable of sight recognition of dominant species to the family, and proficiency in keying in
the field.
 Proficiency in keying many unknown plants (e.g., forbs, shrubs, trees) to species using regionally
appropriate floras and diagnostic keys.
 Ability to distinguish difficult graminoid taxa as Poaceae (grasses), Juncaceae (rushes), and
Cyperaceae (sedges, bulrushes, spikerushes), and to distinguish unknown species within these
families or genera from one another.
 College course-work in plant taxonomy or systematics that included field identification of plant
species; and/or excellent references regarding proficiency in botanical identification.
 Previous experience conducting botanical or ecological field work, including the collection and
preservation of plant specimens.
All Botanist/Ecologist applicants will send their Curriculum vitae and references to the Regional EPA
Coordinators and Project Manager, who will review and verify the qualifications of all applicants prior to
the applicants joining a Field Crew. If a State is unable to identify a Botanist/Ecologist, EPA will work with
the State to identify a Botanist/Ecologist.
The NWCA AB Team is composed of two crew members, one of whom will ideally have background and
experience sampling wetland soils. Primary responsibilities for the AB Team include:
1. Collecting high-quality soils, hydrology, water chemistry, biological (e.g.,% vegetative cover), and
stressor data following the FOM protocols,
2. Collecting and processing soil, water chemistry, chlorophyll-a, and microcystin specimens.
The AB team carefully follows protocols in the FOM to make onsite decisions regarding the collection of
ecological data. All samples (soil, water chemistry, chlorophyll-a, and microcystin) must be carefully
collected, preserved, packed and catalogued for tracking.
AB Team members should have the following skills/abilities:
 Previous experience conducting ecological field work

 Ability to recognize evidence of human (or natural) landscape disturbance from the present or
recent past
 Ability to use common field equipment (compass, GPS, laser rangefinder, etc.)
 Experience measuring or describing basic physical characteristics of soil
 Knowledge of regional hydric soil indicators
 Knowledge of hydrogeomorphic classification
In addition, NWCA will provide AB Team members with additional training on study goals, biological and
physical sampling methods, field protocols, and soil collection requirements. Training will prepare the
Team to accurately complete data and tracking tasks.
1.3.1.2 Field Crew Training
Each Field Crew Leader and field personnel who will lead the Veg Team (Botanist/Ecologist) and AB
Team, if not the overall Field Crew Leader, must be trained at an EPA-sponsored training session prior to
the start of the field season, along with as many crew members as possible. The training program
stresses hands-on practice of methods, comparability among crews, collection of high quality data and
samples, and safety. Training will be provided in nine central locations for cooperators and contractors.
Project organizations responsible for training oversight are identified in Figure 1-2. Training
documentation will be maintained by the Project QA Officer.
1.3.1.3 Field Operations Timeline
Field data acquisition activities are implemented for the NWCA (Table 1-1), based on guidance
developed for earlier Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) studies (Baker and
Merritt 1990).
Table 1-1. Critical logistics elements (from Baker and Merritt, 1990)
Logistics Plan Component Required Elements
Project Management Overview of Logistic Activities Staffing and Personnel
Requirements Communications
Access and Scheduling Sampling Schedule and Site Access Reconnaissance
Safety Safety Plan
Waste Disposal Plan
Procurement and Inventory Control Equipment, Supplies, and Services Requirements
Procurement Methods and Scheduling
Training and Data Collection Training Program
Field Operations Scenario
Laboratory Operations Scenarios
Quality Assurance
Information Management
Assessment of Operations Field Crew Debriefings
Logistics Review and Recommendations
1.3.1.4 Pre-Field Visit Activities
Survey preparation is initiated with selection of the sampling locations by EPA’s Office of Research and
Development (WED in Corvallis). The list of sampling locations is distributed to the EPA Regional
Wetland Monitoring Coordinators and cooperators. With the sampling location list, State and Tribal
cooperators can decide to what level they wish to participate (vs. requesting in-kind or Associated
Program Support assistance). Participating State and Tribal Field Crews can then begin site
reconnaissance on both the primary sites and alternate/replacement sites (known as base and
oversample locations, respectively) and begin work on obtaining access permission to each site1.
Field Crews need to acquire permission to access sites on private property, as well as permits to access
and sample federally protected or managed land. The Field Crew Leader should begin contacting private
property owners (and the appropriate federal agency in the case of federally protected land) as early as
2015. As a general rule, and because the design requires repeat visits to selected sites, it is important for
the Field Crews to do everything possible to maintain good relationships with landowners. This includes
prior contacts, respect of special requests, closing gates, minimal site disturbance, and removal of all
materials including flagging and trash. More details on the timing and acquisition of property access
permissions and permits are found in the NWCA 2016 Site Evaluation Guidelines (USEPA 2016c).
In addition to the initial list of base and oversample sampling locations, Cooperators conducting field
operations (i.e., States and Tribes that decide to conduct field operations themselves, and contractors
performing in-kind support) will develop Site Packets for the base locations. Each Site Packet should
contain the following applicable information:
1
Specific procedures for evaluating each sampling location and for replacing target sites are documented in the
NWCA 2016: Site Evaluation Guidelines (USEPA, 2016).
 Applicable site maps, aerial photos, and other Imagery

 USDA-NRCS Soil Survey information
 Land ownership status, requirements and permissions for access
 Permits
 Information for accessing the site
 Site evaluation notes
 Driving and hiking routes to the site
 Preliminary plan for Assessment Area (AA) and Buffer Plot establishment
 Any other site specific information useful to the Field Crew
EPA will provide site maps for states if requested.
1.3.1.4.1 Equipment Use during NWCA Field Activities
The timely receipt, proper use (including inspection and calibration), and maintenance of equipment are
important contributors to acquiring quality data.
The Field Crews will use standard field equipment and supplies provided by EPA and contractors, as well
as equipment and supplies provided by the crews themselves (e.g., Global Positioning Devices, soil
augers, regional flora field guides). The Field Logistics Coordinator will work with Regional EPA
Coordinators, Cooperators, States, Tribes and Contractors to make certain the Field Crews have the
required equipment and supplies provided by EPA in a timely fashion. Detailed lists of equipment and
supplies required for each field protocol are provided in the NWCA 2016 Field Operations Manual
(USEPA 2016a).
Also, some sampling locations require teams to hike to them, transporting all equipment in backpacks.
For this reason, ruggedness and weight are important considerations in the selection of equipment and
instrumentation. In addition, Field Crews may need to camp out at the sampling location, and if this is
the case then they must be equipped with the necessary camping equipment.
The Field Crews will be responsible for the inspection, maintenance, and calibration of the equipment
they use. Detailed information (including guidance) on equipment inspection, maintenance, and
calibration, are contained in the NWCA 2016 Field Operations Manual (USEPA 2016a).
1.3.1.5 Field Visit Activities
The site verification process is shown in Figure 1-4. Upon arrival at a site, the POINT location is verified
by a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. Samples and measurements for various indicators are
collected according to step-by-step procedures described in the NWCA 2016 Field Operations Manual
(USEPA 2016a). The manual also contains detailed instructions for completing documentation, labeling
samples, any field processing requirements, and sample storage and shipping. Any revision of methods
must be approved in advance by the EPA Project Leader. Field communications will be available through
Field Coordinators, regularly scheduled conference calls, a Communications Center, or an electronic
distribution.
Locate POINT on map Select alternate POINT
Conduct preliminary
evaluation
(desktop/office)
Is POINT in or No
near a target
wetland?
Yes / Maybe Permission to access

denied
Yes / Maybe
Permission to access Is POINT No
granted accessible? Logistical and safety
constraints prevent
sampling
No Can POINT be No
POINT Verification Is POINT
relocated to
(on-site) sampleable? target wetland?
Yes
Yes
Sample POINT
Figure 1-4. Site verification activities for wetland field surveys
Standardized field data forms are provided to the Field Crews as the primary means of data recording.
On completion, the data forms are reviewed by a Field Crew member other than the person who initially
entered the information. Prior to departure from the field site, the Field Crew Leader reviews all forms
and labels for completeness and legibility and ensures that all samples are properly labeled and packed.
Each site has a unique identifier provided by the design. All samples from a site must be labeled with
this unique identifier.
Post-Field Visit Activities

Upon return from a field sampling site (either to the Field Crew’s home office or to a motel), completed
data forms are sent to the Information Management Staff at WED for entry into a computerized data
base. At WED, electronic data files are reviewed independently to verify that values are consistent with
those recorded on the field data form or original field data file (refer to section 4.4 of this document for
more information).
Samples are stored or packaged for shipment in accordance with instructions contained in the Field
Operations Manual. Samples which must be shipped are delivered to a commercial carrier. The recipient
is notified to expect delivery; thus, tracing procedures can be initiated quickly in the event samples are
not received. Bills of lading and chain-of-custody forms are completed for all transfers of samples
maintained by the labs, with copies also maintained by the field team. The Logistics Coordinator
maintains a centralized tracking system of all shipments.
The field operations phase is completed with collection of all samples or expiration of the sampling
window. Following completion of all sampling, a debriefing session will be scheduled (see Table 1-1).
These debriefings cover all aspects of the field program and solicit suggestions for improvements.
1.3.2 Overview of Laboratory Operations
Holding times for samples vary with the sample types and analytes. Field crews begin some analytical
measurements during sampling (e.g., in situ soil profiles) while others are not initiated until sampling has
been completed (e.g., water chemistry, microcystin, soil chemistry). Analytical methods are summarized
in the NWCA 2016 Laboratory Operations Manual (LOM). When available, standard methods are used
and are referenced in the LOM. Where experimental methods are used or standard methods are
modified by the laboratory, these methods are documented in the laboratory methods manual by EPA
or in internal documentation by the appropriate laboratory. The Laboratory Review Coordinator will
work with appropriate experts to describe them in Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) developed by
the analytical laboratories.
Contractor and/or cooperator laboratories will perform chemical, physical, or biological analyses.
National contract laboratories will process most samples. Where those laboratories are currently in
place, EPA has identified them here. A national contract laboratory, PG Environmental, will analyze
water chemistry and chlorophyll-a samples. A national contract laboratory, Enviroscience, will analyze
unknown and QA plant specimens. The USDA NRCS Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory will analyze soil
chemistry and bulk density samples. The USGS Kansas Water Laboratory will analyze water samples for
microcystin. Additionally, EPA anticipates that pre-approved state laboratories may opt to analyze
samples for the water chemistry, chlorophyll a, microcystin, and vegetation indicators.
Laboratories providing analytical support must have the appropriate facilities to properly store and
prepare samples and appropriate instrumentation and staff to perform analyses and produce data of
the required quality within the time period dictated by the project. Laboratories are expected to
conduct operations using good laboratory practices. General guidelines for analytical support
laboratories:
 A program of scheduled maintenance of analytical balances, water purification systems,

microscopes, laboratory equipment, and instrumentation.
 Verification of the calibration of analytical balances using class "S" weights which are certified by
the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
 Verification of the calibration of top-loading balances using NIST-certified class "P" weights.
 Checking and recording the composition of fresh calibration standards against the previous lot.
Acceptable comparisons are 2 percent of the theoretical value. (This acceptance is stricter than
the method calibration criterion.)
 Recording all analytical data in bound logbooks in ink, or on standardized recording forms.
 Verification of the calibration of uniquely identified daily use thermometers using NIST-certified
thermometers.
 Monitoring and recording (in a logbook or on a recording form) temperatures and performance
of cold storage areas and freezer units (where samples, reagents, and standards may be stored).
During periods of sample collection operations, monitoring must be done on a daily basis.
 An overall program of laboratory health and safety including periodic inspection and verification
of presence and adequacy of first aid and spill kits; verification of presence and performance of
safety showers, eyewash stations, and fume hoods; sufficiently exhausted reagent storage units,
where applicable; available chemical and hazardous materials inventory; and accessible material
safety data sheets for all required materials.
 An overall program of hazardous waste management and minimization, and evidence of proper
waste handling and disposal procedures (90-day storage, manifested waste streams, etc.).
 If needed, having a source of reagent water meeting American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Type I specifications for conductivity (< 1 μS/cm at 25 °C; ASTM 1984) available in
sufficient quantity to support analytical operations.
 Appropriate microscopes or other magnification for biological sample sorting and organism
identification.
 Approved biological identification and taxonomic keys/guides for use in biological identification
(plants) as appropriate.
 Labeling all containers used in the laboratory with date prepared, contents, and initials of the
individual who prepared the contents.
 Dating and storing all chemicals safely upon receipt. Chemicals are disposed of properly upon
expiration.
 Using a laboratory information management system to track the location and status of any
sample received for analysis.
 Reporting results using standard formats and units compatible with the information
management system.
All laboratories providing analytical support to the NWCA 2016 must adhere to the provisions of this
integrated QAPP and LOM. Laboratories will provide information documenting their ability to conduct
the analyses with the required level of data quality before analyses begin. EPA provides different
requirements based on the type of analysis being completed by the laboratory (i.e., chemistry vs.
biological analyses).
Laboratories will send the documentation to the EPA Project QA Coordinator and the Laboratory Review
Coordinator at EPA Headquarters (or other such designated parties). Such information may include the
following, depending on the evaluation by the Project QA Officer.
 Signed Quality Assurance Project Plan by the laboratory performing analysis;
 Signed Laboratory Form;
 Valid Accreditation or Certification;
 Laboratory's Quality Manual and/or Data Management Plan;
 Method Detection Limits (MDL);
 Demonstration of Capability;
 Results from inter-laboratory comparison studies;
 Analysis of performance evaluation samples; and
 Control charts and results of internal QC sample or internal reference sample analyses
to Document achieved precision, bias, accuracy.
Other requirements may include:
 Participation in calls regarding laboratory procedures and processes with participating
laboratories;
 Participation in a laboratory technical assessment or audit;
 Participation in performance evaluation studies; and
 Participation in inter-laboratory sample exchange.
See Section 6 of this QAPP and the LOM for additional information related to laboratory certification. All
qualified laboratories shall work with the NARS IM Center to track samples as specified by the NARS
Information Management Lead.
1.3.2.1 Chemistry Lab Quality Evaluation
Participating laboratories will send requested documentation to the NWCA 2016 QA Team for
evaluation of qualifications. The NWCA 2016 QA Team will maintain these records in the project QA file.
1.3.2.2 Biological Laboratory Quality Evaluation
The NWCA 2016 QA Team will review the past performance of biological laboratories. The biological
laboratories shall adhere to the quality assurance objectives and requirements as specified for the
pertinent indicators in the LOM.
1.3.3 Data Analysis and Reporting
A technical data analysis and reporting workgroup convened by the EPA Project Leader is responsible for
developing a data analysis plan that includes a verification and validation strategy. These processes are
summarized in the indicator-specific sections of this QAPP.
Data from laboratories is transferred to the appropriate member of the NWCA 2016 QA Team, including
Task Order managers, for review. The QA Team transfers validated data to the central National Aquatic
Resource Surveys (NARS) surface waters information management system at WED-Corvallis and
managed by Information Management Staff. Information management activities in support of this effort
are discussed further in Section 4. Data in the database are available to Cooperators for their own use
upon completion of the final verification and validation. All validated measurement and indicator data
from the NWCA will eventually be transferred to EPA’s Water Quality Exchange (WQX) and then the
National STORET warehouse.
1.3.4 Peer Review
The NWCA 2016 report will undergo a thorough peer review process, where the scientific community
and the public will be given the opportunity to provide comments. Cooperators have been actively
involved in the development of the overall project management, design, methods, and standards
including the drafting of four key project documents:
 National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Quality Assurance Project Plan (EPA 843-R-15-
008)
 National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Site Evaluation Guidelines (EPA 843-R-15-010)
 National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Field Operations Manual (EPA 843-R-15-007)
 National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Laboratory Methods Manual (EPA 843-R-15-009)
Outside scientific experts from universities, research centers, and other federal agencies have been
instrumental in indicator development and will continue to play an important role in data analysis.
The EPA will utilize a three-tiered approach for peer review of the Survey: (1) internal and external
review by EPA, states, other cooperators and partners, (2) external scientific peer review (when
applicable), and (3) public review (when applicable).
Once data analysis is complete, cooperators will examine the results at regional meetings. Comments
and feedback from the cooperators will be incorporated into the draft report. The NWCA 2016 Project
Team will follow Agency and OMB requirements for public and peer review. External scientific peer
review and public review will be initiated for new analyses or approaches. Additionally, following
applicable guidance, other aspects of NWCA may undergo public and scientific peer review.
Below are the proposed measures EPA will implement for engaging in the peer review process:
1. Develop and maintain a public website with links to standard operating procedures, quality
assurance documents, fact sheets, cooperator feedback, and final report
2. Conduct technical workgroup meetings composed of scientific experts, cooperators, and EPA to
evaluate and recommend data analysis options and indicators
3. Hold national meeting where cooperators will provide input and guidance on data presentation
and an approach for data analysis
4. Complete data validation on all chemical, physical and biological data
5. Conduct final data analysis with workgroup to generate assessment results
6. Engage peer review contractor to identify external peer review panel
7. Develop draft report presenting assessment results
8. Conduct regional meetings with cooperators to examine and comment on results
9. Develop final draft report incorporating input from cooperators and results from data analysis
group to be distributed for peer and public review (when applicable)
10. Issue Federal Register (FR) Notice announcing document availability and hold scientific/peer
review and 30-45 day public comment periods (when applicable)
11. Consider scientific and public comments and produce a final report (when applicable)
The proposed peer review schedule is provided below in Table 1-2 and is contingent upon timeliness of
data validation, schedule availability for regional meetings and experts for data analysis workshop as
well as final decisions on what reviews are required.
Table 1-2. Peer review schedule

Proposed Schedule Activity
May 2016 - December 2017 Data validation
March 2018 Data analysis workshop
May - August 2018 Internal peer review meetings with states,
cooperators, participants
October, 2018 Draft released for external peer review
December, 2018 Draft released for public review
2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES

It is a policy of the U.S. EPA that Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) be developed for all environmental data
collection activities following the prescribed DQO Process. DQOs are qualitative and quantitative
statements that clarify study objectives, define the appropriate types of data, and specify the tolerable
levels of potential decision errors that will be used as the basis for establishing the quality and quantity
of data needed to support decisions (USEPA 2006a). Data quality objectives thus provide the criteria to
design a sampling program within cost and resource constraints or technology limitations imposed upon
a project or study. DQOs are typically expressed in terms of acceptable uncertainty (e.g., width of an
uncertainty band or interval) associated with a point estimate at a desired level of statistical confidence
(USEPA 2006a). The DQO Process is used to establish performance or acceptance criteria, which serve
as the basis for designing a plan for collecting data of sufficient quality and quantity to support the goals
of a study (USEPA 2006a). As a general rule, performance criteria represent the full set of specifications
that are needed to design a data or information collection effort such that, when implemented,
generate newly-collected data that are of sufficient quality and quantity to address the project’s goals
(USEPA 2006a). Acceptance criteria are specifications intended to evaluate the adequacy of one or
more existing sources of information or data as being acceptable to support the project’s intended use
(USEPA 2006a).
2.1 Data Quality Objectives for the National Wetland Condition Survey
Target DQOs established for the NWCA relate to the goal of describing the current status in the
condition of selected indicators of the condition of wetlands in the conterminous U.S. and ecoregions of
interest.
The formal statement of the DQO for national estimates is as follows:
 Estimate the proportion of wetlands (± 5%) in the conterminous U.S. that fall below
the designated threshold for good conditions for selected measures with 95%
confidence.
For the ecoregions of interest the DQO is:
 Estimate the proportion of wetlands (± 15%) in a specific ecoregion that fall below
the designated threshold for good conditions for selected measures with 95%
confidence.
For estimates of change nationally, the DQOs are:
 Estimate the proportion of the nation’s wetlands (± 7%) that have changed
condition classes for selected measures with 95% confidence.
2.2 Measurement Quality Objectives

For each parameter, performance objectives (associated primarily with measurement error) are
established for several different data quality indicators (following EPA Guidance for Quality Assurance
Plans, USEPA 2002a). Specific measurement quality objectives (MQOs) for each parameter are
presented in the indicator section of this QAPP and in the LOM. The following sections define the data
quality indicators and present approaches for evaluating them against acceptance criteria established
for the program.
2.2.1 Laboratory Reporting Level (Sensitivity)
For chemical measurements, requirements for the method detection limit (MDL) are typically
established. The MDL is defined as the lowest level of analyte that can be distinguished from zero with
99 percent confidence based on a single measurement (Glaser et al., 1981). USGS NWQL has developed
a variant of the MDL called the long-term MDL (LT-MDL) to capture greater method variability (Oblinger
Childress et al. 1999). Unlike MDL, it is designed to incorporate more of the measurement variability
that is typical for routine analyses in a production laboratory, such as multiple instruments, operators,
calibrations, and sample preparation events (Oblinger Childress et al. 1999). Because the LT-MDL
addresses more potential sources of variability than the MDL, the NWCA uses the LT-MDL.
The LT-MDL determination ideally employs at least 24 blanks and spiked samples prepared and analyzed
by multiple analysts on multiple instruments over a 6- to 12-month period at a frequency of about two
samples per month (USEPA 2004). The LT-MDL uses “F-pseudosigma” (Fσ) in place of s, the sample
standard deviation, used in the EPA MDL calculation. F-pseudosigma is a non-parametric measure of
variability that is based on the interquartile range of the data (USEPA 2004). The LT-MDL is calculated
using either the mean or median of a set of long-term blanks, and from long-term spiked sample results
(depending on the analyte and specific analytical method). The LT-MDL for an individual analyte is
calculated as:
Equation 1a LT  MDL  M  t0.99,n1  F 

where:
M = the mean or median of blank results
n = the number of spiked sample results
Fσ = F-pseudosigma, a nonparametric estimate of variability calculated as:
Equation 1b Q3  Q1
F 
1.349
where:
Q3 = the 75th percentile of spiked sample results
Q1 = the 25th percentile of spiked sample results
LT-MDL is designed to be used in conjunction with a laboratory reporting level (LRL; Oblinger Childress
et al. 1999). The LRL is designed to achieve a risk of ≤1% for both false negatives and false positives
(Oblinger Childress et al. 1999). The LRL is set as a multiple of the LT-MDL, and is calculated as follows:
LRL = (2 x LT–MDL)/fractional spike recovery
Where fractional spike recovery is the mean or median recovered spike concentration divided by the
expected spike concentration. For example, at 50% recovery, LRL is 4 times the LT-MDL.
Therefore, multiple measurements of a sample having a true concentration at the LRL should result in
the concentration being detected and reported 99 percent of the time (Oblinger Childress et al. 1999).
All laboratories will develop calibration curves for each batch of samples that include a calibration
standard with an analyte concentration equal to the LRL. Estimates of LRLs (and how they are
determined) are required to be submitted with analytical results. Analytical results associated with LRLs
that exceed the objectives are flagged as being associated with unacceptable LRLs. Analytical data that
are below the estimated LRLs are reported, but are flagged as being below the LRLs.
2.2.2 Sampling Precision and Bias
Precision and bias are estimates of random and systematic error in a measurement process (Kirchmer,
1983; Hunt and Wilson, 1986, USEPA 2002a). Collectively, precision and bias provide an estimate of the
total error or uncertainty associated with an individual measurement or set of measurements. Precision
and bias MQOs are developed for lab measurements. Precision, bias, and accuracy of field
measurements will not be monitored during the NWCA2.
2.2.2.1 Laboratory Measurements
Systematic errors are minimized by using validated methods and standardized procedures across all
laboratories. Precision is estimated from repeated measurements of samples. Net bias is determined
from repeated measurements of solutions of known composition, or from the analysis of samples that
have been fortified by the addition of a known quantity of analyte. For analytes with large ranges of
expected concentrations, MQOs for precision and bias are established in both absolute and relative
terms, following the approach outlined in Hunt and Wilson (1986). At lower concentrations, MQOs are
specified in absolute terms. At higher concentrations, MQOs are stated in relative terms. The point of
transition between an absolute and relative MQO is calculated as the quotient of the absolute objective
divided by the relative objective (expressed as a proportion, e.g., 0.10 rather than as a percentage, e.g.,
10%).
Precision based on duplicate measurements (e.g., from revisited POINTs) is estimated based on the
range of measured values (which equals the difference for two measurements). The relative percent
difference (RPD) is calculated as:
 A B 
Equation 2  
RPD     100
 A  B 
 2 
Where:
A = the first measured value
B = the second measured value.
Bias in relative terms (B[%]) is calculated as:
2
Bias, for example, cannot be determined directly, since the “true” values at any particular site are not known.
Equation 3 x T
B%  100
T
Where:
x = the mean value for the set of measurements
T = the theoretical or target value of a performance evaluation sample.
Precision and bias within each laboratory are monitored for every sample batch by the analysis of
internal QC samples. Samples associated with unacceptable QC sample results are reviewed and re-
analyzed if necessary. Precision and bias across all laboratories will be evaluated after analyses are
completed by using the results of performance evaluation (PE) samples sent to all laboratories (3 sets of
3 PE samples, with each set consisting of a low, moderate, and high concentration sample of all
analytes).
2.2.2.2 Field Measurements
Since precision, bias, and accuracy of field measurements will not be monitored during the NWCA 2016,
a revisit site approach will be taken to ensure the quality of data. The survey design incorporates a plan
for repeated sampling of a subset of sites. Data from these repeat visits provide estimates of important
components of variance to evaluate the performance of ecological indicators. These variance
components are presented in Table 2-1. If estimates of these components are available from other
studies, they are used in conjunction with the project requirements to evaluate alternative design
scenarios (Larsen et al. 1995, 2001, 2004). Status estimates are influenced most by the interaction (if
multiple years are required to complete sampling) and residual variance components. Residual variance
is composed of temporal variance within a sampling period confounded with measurement error of
various types. If the magnitude of residual variance is sufficiently large to impact status estimates (see
above), then relative magnitudes of the interaction variance and various components of residual
variance are examined to determine if any reduction can be achieved in the future. Interaction variance
can only be reduced by increasing the sample size. Index variance can be reduced by either increasing
the number of sites, increasing the number of times a site is visited within a year, reducing the length of
the index period, or by reducing measurement error. Trend detection is evaluated using the equation to
determine the variance in the slope of the trend (Table 2-1). In this model, residual variance also
includes the interaction component. For multi-site networks such as the national aquatic resource
assessments, trend detection is most sensitive to coherent year variance, which can only be reduced by
extending the time period for monitoring (Larsen et al. 1995, 2001, 2004). If residual variance is large
relative to the coherent year variance, then trend detection within a fixed time period can be improved
by increasing the number of sites sampled each year, increasing the number of times each site is
sampled within a year, or by reducing measurement error.
Table 2-1. Important variance components for aquatic resource assessments

Model for status estimation Model for trend detection
and
and
Components in parentheses represent “extraneous” variance

Variance
Component Description
Observed variance among all sites sampled over multiple-year sampling cycle.
If sites are revisited across years, this effect can be eliminated
Coherent variance across years that affects all sites equally, due to regional-scale
factors such as climate or hydrology
Principal effect on trend detection, reduced only by increasing number of years
“Interaction” variance occurring at each site across years that affects each site
independently.
Principal effect on status, reduce by increasing number of sites
“Residual” variance: Includes temporal variance at each site within a single index
period (σ2within-year) confounded with measurement error (σ2error) due to acquiring the
data from the site (e.g., sample collection and analysis)
Principal effect on status,
If σ2index >> σ2error reduce by increasing number of sites or altering index period
If σ2error is large relative to σ2index, then modify sampling and analysis procedures
For the NWCA, approximately ten percent of all sample sites will receive repeat visits to determine if
differences exist in field data collection on different days. Revisit sites will be sampled at least 2 weeks
apart to ensure that we are assessing temporal variability. Control measures to minimize measurement
error among crews and sites will be employed. These control measures include the use of standardized
field protocols provided in the Field Operations Manual (FOM), consistent training of all crews, field
assistance visits to all crews, and availability of experienced technical personnel during the field season
to respond to site-specific questions from field crews as they arise.
Each Field Crew Leader and Botanist/Ecologist must be trained at an EPA-sponsored training session
prior to the start of the field season, along with as many crew members as possible. The training
program stresses hands-on practice of methods, comparability among crews, collection of high quality
data and samples, and safety. A 3.5 day training course will be provided in nine central locations for
cooperators and contractors. Project organizations responsible for training oversight are identified in
Figure 1-2. Training documentation will be maintained by the Project QA Officer.
Evaluation and assistance visits will be conducted with each Field Team early in the sampling and data
collection process, and that corrective actions will be conducted in real time. These visits provide a basis
for the uniform evaluation of the data collection techniques, and an opportunity to conduct procedural
reviews to minimize data loss due to improper technique or interpretation of program guidance. The
field visits evaluations will be based on the uniform training, plans, and checklists. For more information
on field assistance visits, see section 6 of this document.
2.2.3 Taxonomic Precision and Accuracy
Taxonomic precision can be evaluated by comparing whole-sample identifications completed by

independent taxonomists or laboratories. For the NWCA, five known plant specimens (QA plant
vouchers) from each assessed sampling site will be randomly-selected for re-identification by a second
botanist (“verifying botanist”), independent of the field botanist who initially identified the plant
specimens. In addition, all unknown plant specimens sent to a State or National Plant Laboratory for
initial identification will also be subject to quality assurance. Of these unknown specimens, 10% will be
randomly selected for re-identification by a second verifying botanist, independent of the botanist who
initially identified the unknown specimens. Comparison of the results of whole-sample re-identifications
allows Percent Taxonomic Disagreement (PTD) to be calculated using the following equation:
  comp pos 
Equation 4 PTD  1    100
  N 
Where:
comppos = the number of agreements

N = the total number of individuals in the larger of the two counts.
The lower the PTD, the more similar taxonomic results are and the overall taxonomic precision is better.
A specific MQO will not be established for taxonomic precision for NWCA 2016. The NWCA QA Team will
monitor differences in the taxonomic identification of plant specimens between the botanists providing
the initial identification (in the field or lab in the case of unknown specimens) and the verifying botanists
providing the independent re-identifications. Substantial disagreements between the two will be
investigated and reasons for the discrepancies examined and corrected.
Taxonomic accuracy is evaluated by having individual specimens representative of selected taxa

identified by recognized experts. Samples will be identified using the most appropriate technical
literature that is accepted by the taxonomic discipline and reflects the accepted nomenclature. The
USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov/) will be used to verify nomenclatural validity and
spelling.
2.2.4 Completeness
Completeness requirements are established and evaluated from two perspectives. First, valid data for
individual parameters must be acquired from a minimum number of sampling locations in order to make
subpopulation estimates with a specified level of confidence or sampling precision. The objective of this
study is to acquire valid data at 95% or more of the sampled sites. Percent completeness is calculated
as:
Equation 5
%C  V 100
T
Where:
V = the number of measurements/samples judged valid
T = the total number of planned measurements/samples.
Within each indicator, completeness objectives are also established for individual samples or individual
measurement variables or analytes. These objectives are estimated as the percentage of valid data
obtained versus the amount of data expected based on the number of samples collected or number of
measurements conducted. Where necessary, supplementary objectives for completeness are presented
in the indicator-specific sections of this QAPP.
The completeness objectives are established for each measurement per site type (e.g., probability sites,
revisit sites, etc.). Failure to achieve the minimum requirements for a particular site type results in
regional population estimates having wider confidence intervals. Failure to achieve requirements for
revisit samples (10% of sites visited) reduces the precision of estimates of index period and annual
variance components, and may impact the representativeness of these estimates because of possible
bias in the set of measurements obtained.
2.2.5 Comparability
Comparability is defined as the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another (USEPA
2002a). A performance-based methods approach is being utilized for water chemistry analyses that
define a set of laboratory method performance requirements for data quality. Following this approach,
participating laboratories may choose which analytical methods they will use for each target analyte as
long as they are able to achieve performance requirement criteria established by EPA as described in the
Laboratory Operations Manual. For all parameters, comparability is addressed by the use of
standardized sampling procedures and analytical methods by all sampling crews and laboratories.
Comparability of data within and among parameters is also facilitated by the implementation of
standardized quality assurance and quality control techniques and standardized performance and
acceptance criteria. For all measurements, reporting units and format are specified, incorporated into
standardized data recording forms, and documented in the information management system.
Comparability is also addressed by providing results of QA sample data, such as estimates of precision
and bias, conducting methods comparison studies when requested by the grantees and conducting
interlaboratory performance evaluation studies among state, university, and NWCA contract
laboratories.
2.2.6 Representativeness
Representativeness is defined as "the degree to which the data accurately and precisely represent a
characteristic of a population parameter, variation of a property, a process characteristic, or an
operational condition" (USEPA 2002a). At one level, representativeness is affected by problems in any or
all of the other data quality indicators.
At another level, representativeness is affected by the selection of the target wetlands, the location of
sampling sites within that wetland, the time period when samples are collected, and the time period
when samples are analyzed. The probability-based sampling design should estimate the condition of
wetland resource populations that are representative of the region. The individual sampling programs
defined for each indicator attempt to address representativeness within the constraints of the response
design, (which includes when, where, and how to collect a sample at each site). Holding-time
requirements for analyses ensure analytical results are representative of conditions at the time of
sampling.
3 SAMPLING DESIGN AND SITE SELECTION

The overall sampling program for the National Wetland Condition Assessment project requires a
randomized, probability-based approach for selecting wetlands where sampling activities are to be
conducted. Details regarding the specific application of the probability design to surface waters
resources are described in Paulsen et al. (1991) and Stevens (1994). The specific details for the collection
of samples associated with different indicators are described in the indicator-specific sections of this
QAPP.
3.1 Probability-Based Sampling Design and Site Selection

3.1.1 Target Population
The target population for NWCA 2016 is tidal and nontidal wetlands of the conterminous U.S., including
certain farmed wetlands not currently in crop production. The wetlands have rooted vegetation and,
when present, open water less than 1 meter deep. A wetland’s jurisdictional status3 under state or
federal regulatory programs does not affect a site’s status as target.
3.1.2 Sample Frame
The sample frame from which sites were selected for the NWCA included two components: 1) the most
current National Wetland Status and Trends (S&T) assessment sample frame, obtained from the USFWS
(Dahl and Bergeson 2009, Dahl 2011) and 2) USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) digitized maps of
wetland types and locations (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands). The S&T sample frame consists of all
polygons mapped based on remote sensing information for over 5,048 four square-mile plots across the
48 states. The S&T plots were used as the base data layer for the NWCA sample frame because they are
the most consistent and current source of mapped wetlands on a national scale. The digitized NWI
maps were used to increase the number of wetlands in the NWCA sample frame. Several other
attributes incorporated into the sample frame were the boundaries for states, the boundaries for the
five aggregated Omernik Level III ecoregions used in reporting the assessment results (NWCA
Ecoregions), and designations of sites to one of twelve NWCA Survey Design Groups which are
combinations of NWCA Ecoregions and NWCA Target Wetland Types. Table 3-1 below provides
descriptions of the NWCA Target Wetland Types.
3
Impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources are regulated under the Clean Water Act when an aquatic
resource is determined to be a “Water of the United States”. Jurisdictional Determinations are made on a case-by-
case basis according to the definition found in 40 CFR 230.3(s). For more information please visit the website:
http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/guidance/CWAwaters.html.
Table 3-1. NWCA Target Wetland Types and cross-walk with US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Status & Trends
(S&T) wetland categories and USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland classes.
NWCA Target
Wetland NWCA Target Wetland S&T Wetland Included NWI Classes:
Type Code Type Categories*1, Systems/Subsystems2
EH Estuarine Emergent E2EM -Estuarine Emergent and Aquatic Bed Classes in
Intertidal Emergent Estuarine/Intertidal Subsystems
EW Estuarine Shrub/Forest E2SS - Estuarine Forested and Scrub-Shrub Classes in
Intertidal Forest or Estuarine/Intertidal Subsystems
Shrub
PRL-EM Palustrine, Riverine, and PEM - Palustrine Emergent Classes in Palustrine Systems;
Lacustrine - Emergent Emergent Shallow Riverine/Tidal, Lower Perennial,
Upper Perennial, or Intermittent
Subsystems; and Shallow
Lacustrine/Littoral Subsystems
PRL-UBAB Palustrine, Riverine, and PUB - Palustrine Unconsolidated Bottom, Aquatic Bed
Lacustrine - Unconsolidated Unconsolidated Shore, Rock Bottom,
Unconsolidated Bottom and Rocky Shore Classes in Palustrine
Bottom/Aquatic Bed Systems; Shallow Riverine/Tidal, Lower
PAB - Palustrine Perennial, Upper Perennial, or
Aquatic Bed Intermittent Subsystems; and Shallow
PRL-f Palustrine, Riverine, and Pf - Palustrine Farmed Modifier in Palustrine Systems;
Lacustrine - Farmed farmed Shallow Riverine/Tidal, Lower Perennial,
PRL-SS Palustrine, Riverine, and PSS - Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Classes in Palustrine
Lacustrine -Shrub/Scrub Shrub Systems; Shallow Riverine/Tidal, Lower
Perennial, Upper Perennial, or
Intermittent Subsystems; and Shallow
PRL-FO Palustrine, Riverine, and PFO - Palustrine Forested Classes in Palustrine Systems;
Lacustrine - Forested Forested, Shallow Riverine/Tidal, Lower Perennial,
*IMPORTANT NOTE: Status and Trends (S&T) category names DO NOT precisely equate to National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) Codes for wetland type. S&T categories often aggregate multiple NWI types.
1Dahl TE and Bergeson MT (2009) Technical procedures for conducting status and trends of the Nation's wetlands. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Services, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Washington, D.C., p 74.
2US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetland Classification Codes.
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Wetland Codes.html. Accessed December 2014.
3.1.3 Selection of Sampling Locations
Sites were randomly selected from the NWCA sample frame using a spatially balanced Generalized
Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) survey design for an area resource, with each point having a
known probability of being sampled (Stevens and Olsen 2004). The GRTS design ensures the sample is
representative of wetland resources at national and regional scales. Using this approach, EPA selected
904 wetland assessment locations from across the conterminous US, consisting of 239 resampled sites
from 2011 and 665 new sites and with 96 of the 904 sites to be sampled twice to quantify variability in
sampling. In addition, a pool of oversample sites are included for use as replacements if any of the 904
assessment locations are not sampleable. The selected sites are distributed across seven target wetland
types defined for the NWCA (Table 3-1) and five NWCA Ecoregions. In addition, some states invested
additional resources to supplement the NWCA survey design to add sites to allow state-scale reporting
of wetland quality.
Figure 3-1. NWCA 2016 survey design summary map
3.1.4 Revisit and Resample Sites
Of the sites visited in the field and found to be target sites, approximately 10% will be revisited and
sampled again during the NWCA 2016 sampling season. Two revisit sites are designated by EPA for each
state. The primary purpose of this revisit set of sites is to allow variance estimates on the extent to
which the population estimates may vary if sampled at a different time.
In addition, 239 NWCA 2011 sites will be resampled during the 2016 sampling season to assist in the
evaluation of change.
3.2 Handpicked Candidate Reference Site Selection

EPA selected a set of potential reference sites to sample in NWCA 2016. This handpicked set of
candidate sites comes from various sources. First, the EPA NWCA team applied a screening process to
identify reference lakes from NLA and reference rivers and streams from WSA and NRSA. These
reference sites were then mapped and compared to National Wetland Inventory maps to determine if
wetlands were co-located with these sites. Second, EPA solicited recommendations from States and
other partners for potential reference sites based on their own wetland monitoring and assessment
programs. EPA assembled a panel to examine aerial maps and select sites with the least amount of
disturbance based on land cover, road networks, and hydrologic features observed on the maps.
Although crews will sample these potential reference sites during the field season, the final set of
reference wetlands (i.e., those that EPA will use in the assessment), will be determined after the
complete set of data is returned. At this point, EPA will run a set of screening criteria similar to that used
in NWCA 2011. This screening approach can be found in the NWCA 2011 Technical Report
(http://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/national-wetland-condition-assessment-2011-
draft-technical-report).
4 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Environmental monitoring efforts that amass large quantities of information from various sources
present unique and challenging data management opportunities. To meet these challenges, the NWCA
2016 employs a variety of well-tested information management (IM) strategies to aid in the functional
organization and ensured integrity of stored electronic data. IM is integral to all aspects of the NWCA
2016 from initial selection of sampling sites through the dissemination and reporting of final, validated
data. And, by extension, all participants in the NWCA 2016 have certain responsibilities and obligations
which also make them a part of the IM system. This “inclusive” approach to managing information helps
to:
 Strengthen relationships among NWCA 2016 cooperators;
 Increase the quality and relevance of accumulated data; and
 Ensure the flexibility and sustainability of the NWCA 2016 IM structure.
This IM strategy provides a congruent and scientifically meaningful approach for maintaining
environmental monitoring data that will satisfy both the scientific and technological requirements of the
NWCA 2016.
4.1 Roles and Responsibilities

At each point where data and information are generated, compiled, or stored, the NWCA 2016 IM team
must manage the information. Thus, the IM system includes all of the data-generating activities, all of
the means of recording and storing information, and all of the processes that use data. The IM system
also includes both hardcopy and electronic means of generating, storing, organizing and archiving data,
and the effort to achieve a functional IM process is all encompassing. To that end, all participants in the
NWCA 2016 play an integral part within the IM system. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the IM
responsibilities identified by NWCA 2016 group. Specific information on the field crew responsibilities
for tracking and sending information is found in the FOM.
Table 4-1 Summary of IM responsibilities.
NWCA 2016 Contact Primary Role Responsibility
Group
Field Crews State/tribal Acquire in-situ Complete and review field data forms and sample tracking forms
partners and measurements and for accuracy, completeness, and legibility.
contractor or prescribed list of Ship/fax field and sample tracking forms to NARS IM Center so
other field biotic/abiotic information can be integrated into the central database.
crews (regional samples at each site Work with the NARS IM Center staff to develop acceptable file
EPA, etc.) targeted for the structures and electronic data transfer protocols should there be
survey a need to transfer and integrate data into the central database.
Provide all data as specified in FOM, SEG or as negotiated with
the NWCA Project Manager.
Maintain open communications with NARS IM Center regarding
any data issues.

Group
Analytical State/tribal Analyze samples Review all electronic data transmittal files for completeness and
Laboratories partners and received from field accuracy (as identified in the QAPP).
contractors crews in the Work with the NARS IM Center staff to develop file structures and
manner appropriate electronic data transfer protocols for electronically-based data.
to acquire Submit completed sample tracking forms to NWCA 2016 IM
biotic/abiotic Center so information can be updated in the central database.
indicators/measure Provide all data and metadata as specified in the laboratory
ments requested. transmittal guidance section of the LOM, with specific templates
for each indicator or as negotiated with the NWCA Project
Manager.
Maintain open communications with NWCA 2016 IM Center
regarding any data issues.
IM Center staff USEPA ORD Provides support Develop/update field data forms.
NHEERL and guidance for all Plan and implement electronic data flow and management
Western IM operations processes.
Ecology related to Manage the centralized database and implement related
Division- maintaining a administration duties.
Corvallis, central data Receive, scan, and conduct error checking of field data forms.
Contractors management Monitor and track samples from field collection, through
system for NWCA shipment to appropriate laboratory.
2016 Receive data submission packages (analytical results and
metadata) from each laboratory.
Run automated error checking, e.g., formatting differences, field
edits, range checks, logic checks, etc.
Receive verified, validated, and final indicator data files (including
record changes and reason for change) from QA reviewers.
Maintain history of all changes to data records from inception
through delivery to WQX.
Organize data in preparation for data verification and validation
analysis and public dissemination.
Implement backup and recovery support for central database.
Implement data version control as appropriate.
Project Quality USEPA Office Lead QA Team to Monitor quality control information.
Assurance Of Water review and evaluate Evaluate results stemming from field and laboratory audits.
Manager the relevancy and Investigate and take corrective action, as necessary, to mitigate
quality of any data quality issues.
information/data Issue guidance to NWCA 2016 Project Manager and IM Center
collected and staff for qualifying data when quality standards are not met or
generated through when protocols deviate from plan.
the NWCA 2016
surveys.
Steering NWCA Project Provide technical Provide feedback and recommendations related to QA, data
Committee Manager and recommendations management, analysis, reporting and data distribution issues.
other team related to data Review and comment on QA and information management
members, EPA analysis, reporting documentation (QAPP, data templates, etc.).
Regional and and overall
ORD staff, implementation
States, tribes,
other federal
agencies

Group
Data Analysis USEPA Office Provide the data Provide data integration, aggregation and transformation support
and Reporting of Water, ORD analysis and as needed for data analysis.
Team WED, Partners technical support Provide supporting information necessary to create metadata.
for NWCA 2016 Investigate and follow-up on data anomalies using identified data
reporting analysis activities.
requirements Produce estimates of extent and ecological condition of the target
population of the resource.
Provide written background information and data analysis
interpretation for report(s).
Document in-depth data analysis procedures used.
Provide mapping/graphical support.
Document formatting and version control.
Develops QA report for management.
Data TBD Provides data Prepare NWCA 2016 data for transfer to USEPA public web-
Finalization librarian support server(s).
Team Generate data inventory catalog record (Science Inventory
Record).
Ensure all metadata is consistent, complete, and compliant with
USEPA standards.
4.1.1 State/Tribe-Based Data Management

Some state and tribal partners will be managing activities for both field sampling and laboratory
analyses. While the NARS program encourages states and tribes to use these in-house capabilities, it is
imperative that NWCA 2016 partners understand their particular role and responsibilities for executing
these functions within the context of the national program. If a state or tribe chooses to conduct these
activities, the state or tribe must perform all of the functions associated with the following roles:
 Field Crew—including shipping/faxing of field data forms to the IM Coordinator (NWCA 2016
paper or electronic field forms must be used and the original field forms must be sent to the
NARS IM Center as outlined in the NWCA 2016 FOM).
 Laboratory Quality Assurance including responding to the NWCA 2016 QA Team questions
after submitting data.
 Submission of data from the state or tribe to the Laboratory Review Coordinator or other
designated member of the QA Team and then to the NARS IM Center. Typically, the state or
tribe will provide a single point of contact for all activities related to NWCA 2016 data.
However, it may be advantageous for the Laboratory Review Coordinator to have direct
communication with the state or tribe participating laboratories to facilitate the transfer of
data, a point that may be negotiated between the primary state or tribal contact, the EPA
Regional Coordinator and the NWCA Laboratory Review Coordinator.
 Data transfers to the NARS IM Center must be timely. States and tribes must submit all
initial laboratory results (i.e., those that have been verified by the laboratory and have
passed all internal laboratory QA/QC criteria) in the appropriate format to NARS IM Center
by May 2017, in order to meet NWCA 2016 product deadlines.
 Data transfers must be complete. For example, laboratory analysis results submitted by a
state or tribe must be accompanied by related quality control and quality assurance data,
qualifiers code definitions, contaminant/parameter code cross-references/descriptions, test
methods, instrumentation information and any other relevant laboratory-based
assessments or documentation related to specific analytical batch runs.
 The state or tribe will ensure that data meet minimum quality standards and that data
transfer files meet negotiated content and file structure standards.
The Laboratory Review Coordinator communicates the necessary guidance for data management and
submission requirements (i.e. data templates).
4.2 Overview of System Structure

In its entirety, the NARS IM system includes site selection and logistics information, sample labels and
field data forms, tracking records, mapping and analytical data, data validation and analysis processes,
reports, and archives. NARS IM staff provides support and guidance to all program operations in
addition to maintaining a central database management system for the NWCA data.
The central repository for data and associated information collected for use by NWCA 2016 is a secure,
access-controlled server located at WED-Corvallis. This database is known as the NARS IM. Data are
stored and managed on this system using the Structured Query Language (SQL). Data review (e.g.,
verification and validation) and data analysis (e.g., estimates of status and extent) are accomplished
primarily using programs developed in either Statistical Analysis System (SAS) or ‘R’ language software
packages.
4.2.1 Data Flow

The NWCA 2016 will accumulate large quantities of observational and laboratory analysis data. To
manage this information appropriately, it is essential to have a well-defined data flow model and
documented approach for acquiring, storing, and summarizing the data. This conceptual model (Figure
4-1) helps focus efforts on maintaining organizational and custodial integrity, ensuring that data
available for analyses are of the highest possible quality.
4.2.2 Simplified Description of Data Flow

There are several components associated with the flow of information, these are:
 Communication between the NARS IM Center, the NWCA 2016 QA Team and the various
data contributors (e.g., field crews, laboratories and the data analysis and reporting team) is
vital for maintaining an organized, timely, and successful flow of information and data.
 Data are captured or acquired from four basic sources: field data transcription, laboratory
analysis reporting, automated data capture, and submission of external data files (e.g.,
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data) encompassing an array of data types (site
characterization, biotic assessment, sediment and tissue contaminants, and water quality
analysis). Data capture generally relies on the transference of electronic data, e.g., optical
character readers and email, to a central data repository. However, some data must be
transcribed by hand in order to complete a record.
 Data repository or storage provides the computing platform where raw data are archived,
partially processed data are staged, and the “final” data, assimilated into a final, user-ready
data file structure, are stored. The raw data archive is maintained in a manner consistent
with providing an audit trail of all incoming records. The staging area provides the IM Center
staff with a platform for running the data through all of its QA/QC paces as well as providing
data analysts a first look at the incoming data. This area of the data system evolves as new
data are gathered and user-requirements are updated. The final data format becomes the
primary source for all statistical analysis and data distribution.
 Metadata—a descriptive document that contains information compliant with the Content
Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) developed by the Federal Geographic
Data Committee (FGDC).
Figure
Figure 4-2.
4-1. Conceptual
Conceptualmodel
modelof data flowflow
of data into and
intoout
andof the
outmaster
of theSQL database
master SQLfor the NCCA
The following sections describe core information management standards, data transfer protocols, and
data quality and results validation. Additionally, Section 4.4 describes the major data inputs to the
central database and the associated QA/QC processes used to record, enter, and validate measurement
and analytical data collected.
4.2.3 Core Information Management Standards

The development and organization of the NARS IM system is compliant with current EPA guidelines and
standards. Areas addressed by these policies and guidelines include, but are not limited to, the
following:
 Taxonomic nomenclature and coding;
 Locational data;
 Sampling unit identification and reference;

 Hardware and software; and
 Data catalog documentation.
NWCA 2016 is committed to compliance with all applicable regulations and guidance concerning
hardware and software procurement, maintenance, configuration control, and QA/QC. To that end, the
NWCA 2016 team has adopted several IM standards that help maximize the ability to exchange data
within the study and with other aquatic resource surveys or similar large-scale monitoring and
assessment studies (e.g. NARS, past EMAP and R-EMAP studies). Specific information follows.
4.2.4 Data Formats
4.2.4.1 Attribute Data
 SQL Tables;
 SAS Data Sets;
 R Data Sets4; and
 American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) Files: Comma-Separated
values, or space-delimited, or fixed column.
4.2.4.2 GIS Data
 ARC/INFO native and export files; compressed .tar file of ARC/INFO workspace; and
 Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS; FGDC 1999) (format available upon request).
4.2.4.3 Standard Coding Systems
 Sampling Site: (EPA Locational Data Policy; USEPA 1991);

 Coordinates: Latitude and Longitude in decimal degrees (±0.002);
 Datum: NAD83;
 Chemical Compounds: Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS 1999) (http://www.cas.org/) ;
 Species Codes: Integrated Taxonomic Information System when possible; and
 Land cover/land use codes: Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics; National Hydrography
Dataset Plus Version 1.0 (NHDPlus 2005).
4.2.5 Public Accessibility

While any data created using public funds are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), some
basic rules apply for general public accessibility and use. Briefly, those rules are:
 Program must comply with Data Quality Act before making any data available to the public
and person generating data must fill out and have a signed Information Quality Guidelines
package before any posting to the Web or distribution of any kind.
 Data and metadata files are made available to the contributor or participating group for
review or other project-related use from NARS IM or in flat files before moving to an EPA-
approved public website.
4
R is a freely available software programming language and a software environment for statistical computing and
graphics. The R language is widely used among statisticians and data miners for developing statistical software and
data analysis.
 Data to be placed on a public website will undergo QA/QC review according to the approved
QAPP.
 Only “final” data (those used to prepare the final project report) are readily available
through an EPA-approved public website.
As new guidance and requirements are issued, the NARS IM staff will assess the impact upon the IM
system and develop plans for ensuring timely compliance.
4.3 Data Transfer Protocols

Field crews are expected to send in hard copies of field forms or use the provided electronic field forms
containing in situ measurement and event information to the NARS IM Center defined in the FOM for
submission. Laboratories will submit electronic data files to either the EPA Task Order Manager
(contractors) or the Laboratory Review Coordinator (states and tribes) or as otherwise agreed to by the
EPA Project Manager and the laboratory. Field crews and laboratories must submit all sample tracking
and analytical results data in electronic form using a standard software package to export and format
data. Data submission templates for laboratories are included in the LOM. Examples of software and the
associated formats are given in Table 4-2:
Table 4-2 Summary of software
Software Export Options (file extensions)
®
Microsoft Excel xls, xlsx, csv, formatted txt delimited
Microsoft Access® mdb, csv, formatted txt delimited
SAS® csv, formatted txt delimited
R csv, formatted txt delimited
All electronic files must be accompanied by appropriate documentation (e.g., metadata, laboratory
reports, QA/QC data and review results). This documentation must contain sufficient information to
identify field contents, field formats, qualifier codes, etc. It is very important to keep EPA informed of
the completeness of the analyses. Labs may send files periodically, before all samples are analyzed, but
EPA must be informed that more data are pending if a partial file is submitted. All data files sent by the
labs must be accompanied by text documentation describing the status of the analyses, any QA/QC
problems encountered during processing, and any other information pertaining to the quality of the
data. Following is a list of general transmittal requirements each laboratory, state, or tribal based IM
group should consider when packaging data for electronic transfer to the IM Center:
 Provide data in row/column data file/table structure – see Appendix C in LOM for templates.
All cooperators and contractors should further consider the following:
a. Include NWCA site and sample ID provided on the sample container label in a field
for each record (row) to ensure that each data file/table record can be related to a
site visit.
b. Use a consistent set of column labels.
c. Use file structures consistently.
d. Use a consistent set of data qualifiers.
e. Use a consistent set of units.
f. Include method detection limit (MDL) as part of each result record.
g. Include reporting limit (RL) as part of each result record for water chemistry.
h. Provide a description of each result/QC/QA qualifier.
i. Provide results/measurements/MDL/RL in numeric form.
j. Maintain result qualifiers (e.g., <, Not Detected (ND)) in a separate column.
k. Use a separate column to identify record-type. For example, if QA or QC data are
included in a data file, there should be a column that allows the IM staff to readily
identify the different result types.
l. Include laboratory sample identifier.
m. Include batch numbers/information so results can be paired with appropriate
QA/QC information.
n. Include “true value” concentrations, if appropriate, in QA/QC records.
o. Include a short description of preparation and analytical methods used to analyze
samples (where appropriate) either as part of the record or as a separate
description for the test(s) performed on the sample. For example, EPAxxxx.x,
ASTMxxx.x, etc. Provide a broader description (e.g., citation) if a non-standard
method is used.
p. Include a short description of instrumentation used to acquire the test result (where
appropriate). This may be reported either as part of the record or as a separate
description for each test performed on the sample. For example, GC/MS-ECD, ICP-
MS, etc.
q. Ensure that data ready for transfer to NARS IM are verified and validated, and
results are qualified to the extent possible (final verification and validation are
conducted by EPA).
r. Data results must meet the specified requirements for each indicator found in the
LOM as specified by contract or agreement.
s. Identify and qualify missing data (why are the data missing?).
t. Submit any other associated quality assurance assessments and relevant data
related to laboratory results (i.e., chemistry, nutrients). Examples include summaries
of QC sample analyses (blanks, duplicates, check standards, matrix spikes) standard
or certified reference materials, etc.), results for external performance evaluation or
proficiency testing samples, and any internal consistency checks conducted by the
laboratory. For requirements, please see specific indicator sections of this QAPP and
LOM.
The Laboratory Review Coordinator will work with the NARS IM Coordinator to establish a data load
process into NARS IM.
4.4 Data Quality and Results Validation

Data quality is integrated throughout the life cycle of the data. This includes development of appropriate
forms, labels etc. for capturing data as well as verifying data entry, results, and other assessments.
Indicator workgroup experts, the data analysis and reporting team submit any recommended changes to
the Project QA Coordinator who recommends and submits any changes (deletions, additions,
corrections) to the NARS IM data center for inclusion in the validated data repository. All explanation for
data changes is included in the record history.
4.4.1 Design and Site Status Data Files

The site selection process described in Section 3 produces a list of candidate sampling locations,
inclusion probabilities, and associated site classification data (e.g., target status, ecoregion, etc.). The
Design Team provides this file to the NWCA 2016 Project Manager, who in turn distributes to the IM
staff, and field coordinators. Field coordinators determine ownership and contacts for acquiring
permission to access each site, and conduct site evaluation and reconnaissance activities. Field Crews
document information from site evaluation and reconnaissance activities following the SEG and the
FOM. The site evaluation spreadsheets are submitted to the Logistics Field Coordinator by the field
crews. The Logistics Field Coordinator and NARS IM Center compile all information such as ownership,
site evaluation, and reconnaissance information for each site into a “site status” data file. Any missing
information from the site status data file is identified and a request is made by the Field Logistics
Coordinator to the field crew (or site evaluator) to complete the record. Revised information is then
submitted to the NARS IM Center.
4.4.2 Sample Collection and Field Data

Field crews record sampling event observational data in a standard and consistent manner using field
data collection forms (Appendix B of the NWCA 2016 FOM). Prior to initiation of field activities, the
NARS IM staff works with the indicator leads and analytical support laboratories to develop standardized
field data forms and sample labels. Adhesive labels, completed by the field crews, have a standard
recording format and are affixed to each sample container. Field protocols include precautions to ensure
that label information remains legible and the label remains attached to the sample.
NWCA 2016 provides two options for completing field forms: electronic data entry using pre-developed
e-forms or “traditional” paper. Paper forms are printed for field crews on water resistant paper. Copies
of the field data forms and instructions for completing each form are documented in the NWCA 2016
FOM. Recorded data whether through e-forms or paper are reviewed upon completion of data
collection and recording activities by the Field Crew Leader. Field crews check completed data forms and
sample labels before leaving a sampling site to ensure information and data were recorded legibly and
completely. Errors are corrected by field crews if possible, and data considered as suspect are qualified
using a flag variable. The field sampling crew enters explanations for all flagged data in a comments
section. Field crews transmit e-forms to the NARS IM Staff by selecting the “submit” button as described
in the FOM. Alternately, field crews, ship completed paper field data forms to the NARS IM staff for
entry into the central database management system.
All samples are tracked from the point of collection. Tracking of samples refers to the documentation of
the specified location of each sample in the centralized NARS IM Center database. This is done by
requiring that field crews ensure that copies of the shipping and custody record accompany all sample
transfers; other copies are transmitted to the IM Center. Each sample has a custody record that
laboratory manager is required to enter into NARS IM Center upon receipt of sample. The IM Center
tracks samples to ensure that they are delivered to the appropriate laboratory, that lost shipments can
be quickly identified and traced, and that any problems with samples observed when received at the
laboratory are reported promptly so that corrective action can be taken, if necessary. Detailed
procedures on shipping and sample tracking can be found in the FOMs.
Procedures for completion of sample labels and field data forms and use of personal computers (PCs)
are covered extensively in training sessions. General QC checks and procedures associated with sample
collection and transfer, field measurements, and field data form completion for most indicators are
listed in Table 4-3. Additional QA/QC checks or procedures specific to individual indicators are described
in the LOM.
Table 4-3 Summary sample and field data quality control activities: sample tracking
Quality Control Activity Description and/or Requirements
Contamination All containers for individual site sealed in plastic bags until use; specific contamination
Prevention avoidance measures covered in training
Sample Identification Pre-printed labels with unique ID number on each sample
Data Recording Data recorded on pre-printed forms of water-resistant paper; field sampling crew
reviews data forms for accuracy, completeness, and legibility
Data Qualifiers Defined qualifier codes used on data form; qualifiers explained in comments section on
data form
Sample Custody Unique sample ID and tracking form information entered in LIMS; sample shipment
Records and receipt confirmed
Sample Tracking Sample condition inspected upon receipt and noted on tracking form with copies sent
to NWCA Field Logistics Coordinator and/or IM
Data Entry Data entered using customized entry screens that resemble the data forms; entries
reviewed manually or by automated comparison of double entry
Data Submission Standard format defined for each measurement including units, significant figures, and
decimal places, accepted code values, and required field width
Data Archival All data records, including raw data, archived in an organized manner. For example,
following verification/validation of the last submission into the NARS database, it is
copied to a terabit external hard drive and sent to the Project Leader for inclusion in
their project file, scheduled as 501, permanent records.
Processed samples and reference collections of taxonomic specimens submitted for
cataloging and curing at an appropriate museum facility
4.4.3 Laboratory Analyses and Data Recording

Upon receipt of a sample shipment, analytical laboratory receiving personnel check the condition and
identification of each sample against the sample tracking record. Each sample is identified by information
written on the sample label. The laboratory reports any discrepancies, damaged samples, or missing
samples to the NARS IM staff and NWCA 2016 Project Manager electronically.
Most of the laboratory analyses for the NWCA 2016 indicators, particularly chemical and physical analyses,
follow or are based on standard methods. Standard methods generally include requirements for QC
checks and procedures. General laboratory QA/QC procedures applicable to most NWCA 2016 indicators
are described in Section 5. Additional QA/QC procedures specific to individual indicator and parameter
analyses are described in the LOM and the FOM. Biological sample analyses are generally based on current
acceptable practices within the particular biological discipline. Table 4-4 provides a summary of the lab
data QC activities for NWCA 2016.
Table 4-4 Summary laboratory data quality control activities

Instrument Maintenance Follow manufacturer’s recommendations and specific guidelines in methods;
maintain logbook of maintenance/repair activities
Calibration Calibrate instruments according to manufacturer’s recommendations for each
specific indicator; recalibrate or replace before analyzing any samples
QC Data Maintain control charts, determine LT-MDLs and achieved data attributes; include
QC data summary (narrative and compatible electronic format) in submission
package
Data Recording Use software compatible with NARS IM system. Check all data entered against the
original bench sheet to identify and correct entry errors.
Review other QA data (e.g., condition upon receipt, etc.) for possible problems
with sample or specimen.
Data Qualifiers Use defined qualifier codes; explain all qualifiers
Data Entry Automated comparison of double entry or 100% manual check against original
data form
Submission Package Includes:
 Letter by laboratory manager
 Data
 Data qualifiers and explanations
 Electronic format compatible with NARS IM
 Documentation of file and database structures
 Metadata: variable descriptions and formats
 Summary report of any problems and corrective actions implemented
A laboratory's IM system may consist of only hardcopy records such as bench sheets and logbooks, an
electronic laboratory information management system (LIMS), or some combination of hardcopy and
electronic records. Laboratory data records are reviewed at the end of each analysis day by the
designated laboratory onsite QA coordinator or by supervisory personnel. Errors are corrected by
laboratory personnel if possible, and data considered as suspect by laboratory analysts are qualified
with a flag variable. All flagged data are explained in a comments section. Private contract laboratories
generally have a laboratory Quality Assurance Protection Plan and established procedures for recording,
reviewing, and validating analysis data.
Once analytical data have passed all of the laboratory's internal review procedures, the lab prepares and
transfers a submission package using the prescribed templates in the LOM. The contents of the
submission package are largely dictated by the type of analysis (e.g., physical, chemical, or biological).
Remaining sample material and voucher specimens may be transferred to EPA’s designated laboratory
or facilities as directed by the NWCA 2016 Project Lead. All samples and raw data files (including
logbooks, bench sheets, and instrument tracings) are to be retained by the laboratory for 3 years or until
authorized for disposal, in writing, by the EPA Project Leader. Deliverables from contractors and
cooperators, including raw data, are permanent as per EPA Record Schedule 258
(http://www.epa.gov/records/policy/schedule/sched/258.htm). EPA’s project records are scheduled 501
(http://www.epa.gov/records/policy/schedule/sched/501.htm) and are also permanent.
4.4.4 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Activities

Raw data files are created from entry of field and analytical data, including data for QA/QC samples and
any data qualifiers noted on the field forms or analytical data package.
4.4.4.1 Paper Forms
The NARS IM Center either optically scans or transcribes information from field collection forms into an
electronic format (sometimes using a combination of both processes). During the scanning process,
incoming data are subjected to a number of automated error checking routines (e.g., entry and
character reading errors). Obvious errors are corrected immediately at the time of scanning. Suspected
errors that cannot be confirmed at the time of scanning are qualified for later review by someone with
the appropriate background and experience (e.g., a chemist or aquatic ecologist). The process continues
until the transcribed data are 100% verified or no corrections are required.
4.4.4.2 Electronic Forms
The NARS IM Center directly uploads information from the electronic field collection forms into their
database. During the upload process, incoming data are subjected to a number of automated error
checking routines. Omissions and errors are automatically noted in an email message to the field crew
lead.
4.4.4.3 Additional Review
Additional validation is accomplished by the NARS IM Center staff using a specific set of guidelines and
executing a series of programs (computer code) to check for: correct file structure and variable naming
and formats, outliers, missing data, typographical errors and illogical or inconsistent data based on
expected relationships to other variables. Data that fail any check routine are identified in an “exception
report” that is reviewed by an appropriate scientist for resolution.
The NARS IM Center brings any remaining questionable data to the attention of the EPA Project QA
Officer and individuals responsible for collecting the data for resolution. The EPA Project QA Officer
evaluates all data to determine completeness and validity. Additionally, the data are run through a
rigorous inspection using SQL queries or other computer programs such as SAS or R to check for
anomalous data values that are especially large or small, or are noteworthy in other ways. Focus is on
rare, extreme values since outliers may affect statistical quantities such as averages and standard
deviations.
The EPA Project QA Officer examines all laboratory quality assurance (QA) information to determine if
the laboratory met the predefined data quality objectives - available through the QAPP. Some of the
typical checks made in the processes of verification and validation are described in Table 4-5.
Automated review procedures may be used. The primary purpose of the initial checks is to confirm that
each data value present in an electronic data file is accurate with respect to the value that was initially
recorded on a data form or obtained from an analytical instrument. In general, these activities focus on
individual variables in the raw data file and may include range checks for numeric variables, frequency
tabulations of coded or alphanumeric variables to identify erroneous codes or misspelled entries, and
summations of variables reported in terms of percent or percentiles. In addition, associated QA
information (e.g., sample holding time) and QC sample data are reviewed to determine if they meet
acceptance criteria. Suspect values are assigned a data qualifier. They will either be corrected, replaced
with a new acceptable value from sample reanalysis, or confirmed suspect after sample reanalysis. For
biological samples, species identifications are corrected for entry errors associated with incorrect or
misspelled codes. Errors associated with misidentification of specimens are corrected after voucher
specimens have been confirmed and the results are available. Files corrected for entry errors are
considered to be raw data files. Copies of all raw data files are maintained in the centralized NARS IM
System. Any suspect data will be flagged for data qualification.
The NARS IM staff, with the support of the NWCA 2016 QA Team, correct and qualify all questionable
data. Copies of the raw data files are maintained in NARS IM, generally in active files until completion of
reporting and then in archive files. Redundant copies of all data files are maintained and all files are
periodically backed up to the EPA HQ shared G drive system.
Table 4-5 Data review, verification, and validation quality control activities
Review any qualifiers associated with variable Determine if value is suspect or invalid; assign
validation qualifiers as appropriate
Determine if Measurement Quality Objective (MQOs) and Determine potential impact on achieving research
project DQOs have been achieved and/or program objectives
Exploratory data analyses (univariate, bivariate, Identify outlier values and determine if analytical
multivariate) utilizing all data error or site-specific phenomenon is responsible
Confirm assumptions regarding specific types of statistical Determine potential impact on achieving research
techniques being utilized in development of metrics and and/or program objectives
indicators
In the final stage of data verification and validation, exploratory data analysis techniques may be used to
identify extreme data points or statistical outliers in the data set. Examples of univariate analysis
techniques include the generation and examination of box-and-whisker plots and subsequent statistical
tests of any outlying data points. Bivariate techniques include calculation of Spearman correlation
coefficients for all pairs of variables in the data set with subsequent examination of bivariate plots of
variables having high correlation coefficients. Multivariate techniques have also been used in detecting
extreme or outlying values in environmental data sets (Meglen, 1985; Garner et al., 1991; Stapanian et
al., 1993).
The QA Team reviews suspect data to determine the source of error, if possible. If the error is
correctable, the data set is edited to incorporate the correct data. If the source of the error cannot be
determined, the QA Team qualifies the data as questionable or invalid. Data qualified as questionable
may be acceptable for certain types of data analyses and interpretation activities. The decision to use
questionable data must be made by the individual data users. Data qualified as invalid are considered to
be unacceptable for use in any analysis or interpretation activities and will generally be removed from
the data file and replaced with a missing value code and explanatory comment or flag code. After
completion of verification and validation activities, a final data file is created, with copies transmitted for
archival and for uploading to the centralized IM system.
Once verified and validated, data files are made available for use in various types of interpretation
activities; each activity may require additional restructuring of the data files. These restructuring
activities are collectively referred to as "data enhancement." In order to develop indicator metrics from
one or more variables, data files may be restructured so as to provide a single record per site.
4.5 Data Transfer

Field crews may transmit data electronically; hardcopies of completed data and sample tracking forms
are sent via express courier service. Copies of raw, verified, and validated data files are transferred from
the QA lead to the IM staff for inclusion in the central IM system. All transfers of data are conducted
using a means of transfer, file structure, and file format that has been approved by the EPA IM Project
lead. Data files that do not meet the required specifications will not be incorporated into the centralized
data access and management system.
4.5.1 Database Changes

The NARS IM Center staff complete data corrections at the lowest level to ensure that any subsequent
updates will contain only the most correct data. The NARS IM Center sends back laboratory results
found to be in error to the originator (e.g., analysis laboratory) for correction. After the originator makes
any corrections, the entire batch or file is resubmitted to the NARS IM Center. The NARS IM Center uses
these resubmissions to replace any previous versions of the same data.
The NARS IM Center uses a version control methodology when receiving files. This methodology is
explained in the following discussion. Incoming data are not always immediately transportable into a
format compatible with the desired file structures. When this situation occurs, the IM staff creates a
copy of the original data file, which then becomes the working file in which any formatting changes will
take place. The original raw data will remain unchanged. This practice further ensures the integrity of
the data and provides an additional data recovery avenue, should the need arise.
All significant changes are documented by the NARS IM Center staff. The NARS IM Center includes this
information in the final summary documentation for the database (metadata).
After corrections have been applied to the data, the NARS IM Center will rerun the validation programs
to re-inspect the data.
If requested by the NARS Project QA Officer, the NARS IM Center will implement database auditing
features to track changes.
4.6 Metadata
All metadata will be kept according to the Federal Geographic Data Committee, Content standard for
digital geospatial metadata, version 2.0. FGDC-STD-001-1998 (FGDC 1998).
4.6.1 Parameter Formats

The following parameter formats will be used:
 Sampling Site (EPA Locational Data Policy (USEPA 1991)
 Latitude and Longitude in decimal degrees (+/- 7.4), Negative longitude values (west of the
prime meridian),
 Datum: NAD83;
 Date: YYYYMMDD (year, month, day)
 Hour: HHMMSS (hour, minute, second), Greenwich mean time, Local time
 Data loaded to STORET will take on the STORET formats upon loading.
4.6.2 Standard Coding Systems

The following standard coding systems will be used:
 Chemical Compounds: Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS 1999)
 Species Names: USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database (USDA-NRCS 2016)
 Land cover/land use codes: Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC 1999)
4.7 Information Management Operations

4.7.1 Computing Infrastructure
Electronic data are collected and maintained within a central server housed at WED using a Windows
Server 2003 R2 (current configuration) or higher computing platform in SQL native tables for the primary
data repository and SAS® native data sets or R datasets for data analysis. Official IM functions are
conducted in a centralized environment.
4.7.2 Data Security and Accessibility

The NARS IM Center ensures that all data files in NARS IM are protected from corruption by computer
viruses, unauthorized access, and hardware and software failures. Guidance and policy documents of
EPA and management policies established by the IM Technical Coordination Group for data access and
data confidentiality are followed. Raw and verified data files are accessible only to the NWCA 2016
collaborators. Validated data files are accessible only to users specifically authorized by the NWCA 2016
Project Leader. Data files in the central repository used for access and dissemination are marked as
read-only to prevent corruption by inadvertent editing, additions, or deletions.
Data generated, processed, and incorporated into the IM system are routinely stored as well as archived
on redundant systems by the NARS IM Center. This ensures that if one system is destroyed or
incapacitated, IM staff can reconstruct the databases. Procedures developed to archive the data,
monitor the process, and recover the data are described in IM documentation.
Data security and accessibility standards implemented for NWCA 2016 IM meet EPA’s standard security
authentication (i.e., username, password) process in accordance to EPA’s Information Management
Security Manual (1999; EPA Directive 2195 A1) and EPA Order 2195.1 A4 (2001). Any data sharing
requiring file transfer protocol (FTP) or internet protocol is provided through an authenticated site.
4.7.3 Life Cycle

Data may be retrieved electronically by the NWCA 2016 team, partners and others throughout the
records retention and disposition lifecycle or as practicable (Section 4.4).
4.7.4 Data Recovery and Emergency Backup Procedures

The NARS IM Center maintains several backup copies of all data files and of the programs used for
processing the data. Backups of the entire system are maintained off-site by the NARS IM Center. The
IM process used by the NARS IM Center for NWCA 2016 uses system backup procedures. The NARS IM
Center backs up and archives the central database according to procedures already established for EPA
Western Ecology Division and NARS IM. All laboratories generating data and developing data files are
expected to establish procedures for backing up and archiving computerized data.
4.7.5 Long-Term Data Accessibility and Archive

All data are transferred by OW’s Water Quality Exchange (WQX) team working with the NARS IM Team
to EPA’s agency-wide WQX data management system for archival purposes. WQX is a repository for
water quality, biological, and physical data and is used by state environmental agencies, EPA and other
federal agencies, universities, and private citizens. Data from the NWCA 2016 project will be run through
an Interface Module in an Excel format and uploaded to WQX by the WQX team. Once uploaded, states
and tribes and the public will be able to download data (using Oracle software) from their region. Data
will also be provided in flat files on the NARS website.
4.8 Records Management

Removable storage media (i.e., CDs, USB Drives) and paper records are maintained in a centrally located
area at the NARS IM Center. Paper records will be returned to OW once the assessment is complete. The
IM Team identifies and maintains files using standard divisional procedures as established by EPA
Western Ecology Division. Records retention and disposition comply with U.S. EPA directive 2160
Records Management Manual (July, 1984) in accordance with the Federal Records Act of 1950.
5 INDICATORS
This section of the QAPP provides summary information on laboratory and field performance and quality
control measures for the NWCA 2016 indicators. Additional details are described in the NWCA 2016
Field Operations Manual and Laboratory Operations Manual. A description of the NWCA 2016 indicators
is found in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Description of indicators and collection locations

Indicator Description Location of Sample Collection
Vegetation Measurements of composition Five 100-m2 Vegetation Plots
and abundance of plant species systematically placed across the
used to evaluate biological Assessment Area.
integrity.
Soil Measurements of physical and Collected in a 3- meter
chemical properties to evaluate diameter Soil Plot co-located
the health and condition of soil. with one of the Vegetation
Plots.
Hydrology Measurements include an Collected from Assessment
assessment of hydrologic Area.
sources and connectivity,
observation of hydrologic
indicators, and documentation
of hydrologic alterations or
stressors.
Water Chemistry Measurements used to Collected from location with
determine general surface standing water in Assessment
water conditions, various Area.
chemical analytes, and evidence
of disturbance.
Chlorophyll a Measurement used to Collected from location with
determine algal biomass in the standing water in Assessment
water. Area.
Microcystin Measurement used to Collected from location with
determine the harmful algal standing water in Assessment
bloom biomass in the water. Area.
Buffer Characterization Measurements used to Thirteen 100-m2 Buffer Plots
physically characterize the area systematically placed on
surrounding the Assessment cardinal transects (3 in each
Area. direction and one at the center
of the AA).
5.1 Vegetation
5.1.1 Introduction
Wetland plant species 1) represent diverse adaptations, ecological tolerances, and life history strategies,
and 2) effectively integrate environmental conditions, species interactions, and human-caused
disturbance. Data describing plant species composition and abundance and vegetation structure are
powerful, robust, and relatively easy to gather. They can be used to derive myriad metrics or indicators
that are useful descriptors of ecological integrity or stress (e.g., Lopez and Fennessy 2002, USEPA 2002b,
Pino et al. 2005, Bourdaghs et al. 2006, Quétier et al. 2007, Magee et al. 2008, Magee et al. 2010, Mack
and Kentula 2010). NWCA collects data on plant species composition and abundance, on vegetation
structural attributes, and on ground surface attributes within in vegetation plots at each sample site.
This vegetation data collected by field crews is later used during analysis to calculate numerous metrics
in a variety of categories that inform the development of Vegetation Multimetric Indices that serve as
indicators of wetland vegetation condition. Thus, the vegetation data collected in the field by the
Vegetation Team is central to the key descriptors of ecological condition for the NWCA. The field data
and metrics can also be used to characterize wetland vegetation across the NWCA target population or
subpopulations.
5.1.2 Sampling Design and Methods
Detailed sample collection and handling procedures are described in the NWCA 2016 Field Operations
Manual.
5.1.3 Quality Assurance Objectives
As mentioned above in section 2.2.2 (Precision, Bias, and Accuracy), precision of field measurements will
not be monitored during the NWCA. Previous plant identification experience or class work will be
valuable for Veg Team members, but mandatory NWCA training will prepare the crew to accurately
complete vegetation data collection tasks according to the standardized field protocols.
MQOs are given in Table 5-2. General requirements for comparability and representativeness are
addressed in Section 2. The MQOs given in Table 5-2 represent the maximum allowable criteria for
statistical control purposes. Precision is determined from results of revisits (field measurements) taken
on a different day at least two weeks apart.
Table 5-2. Measurement data quality objectives for vegetation indicator

Taxonomic
Variable or Measurement Precision Completeness
Disagreement
Field Measurements and Observations ±10% ≤ 15% 90%
5.1.4 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations
Control measures to minimize measurement error among crews and sites include the use of
standardized field protocols, consistent training of all crews, field assistance visits to all crews, and
availability of experienced technical personnel during the field season to respond to site-specific
questions from field crews as they arise. In addition, quality assurance audits will be conducted at least
once during the field season for each Field Crew to ensure that the protocols are being implemented
consistent with training.
Upon completion of sampling, the Botanist/Ecologist reviews all vegetation forms for completeness,
legibility, and for any errors (e.g. spelling) in species names. The Botanist/Ecologist checks the voucher
collection record on the Vascular Plant Species Presence and Cover Form (FOM Vegetation Chapter) for
all taxa with pseudonyms to ensure that specimens have been collected for all unknown species.
Additionally, the Botanist/Ecologist and Botanist Assistant collect five known plant species (randomly
selected from species identified from the 100-m2 vegetation plots) as QA plant voucher specimens.
These QA voucher specimens are sent to a QA taxonomist (“verifying botanist”) for re-identification. The
NWCA QA Team will monitor differences in the taxonomic identification of plant specimens between the
Botanist/Ecologist (“identifying botanist”) and the verifying botanist. Substantial disagreements
between the two will be investigated and logged for indication of error patterns or trends, but all values
will generally be considered acceptable for further analysis, unless the investigation reveals significant
problems.
Other controls include audits and revisits. Quality assurance audits are conducted of each Field Crew at
least once during the field season, to ensure the protocols followed are consistent with training. Ten
percent of all sites will receive repeat sampling visits to be sampled by a Field Crew to determine the
extent to which the population estimates might vary if they were sampled at a different time (revisit
sites must be sampled at least two weeks apart).
5.1.5 Quality Control Procedures: Laboratory Operations
A subset of plant samples collected as unknown specimens and later identified by a State or National
Plant Laboratory botanist (“identifying botanist”) will be verified by a QA taxonomist (“verifying
botanist”) for additional quality assurance. The lab will randomly select 10% of the identified unknown
samples for re-identification by another experienced taxonomist who did not participate in the original
identifications. The NWCA QA Team will evaluate differences in the taxonomic identification of plant
specimens between the identifying and verifying botanists. Substantial disagreements between the two
will be investigated and logged for indication of error patterns or trends, but all values will generally be
considered acceptable for further analysis, unless the investigation reveals significant problems.
Quality control procedures associated with sample handling and processing at laboratories handling
NWCA QA and unknown plant vouchers are summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Laboratory quality control activities for vegetation indicator.
Quality Control
Activity Frequency Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action
Demonstrate Once Demonstration of past EPA will not approve any
competency for experience relevant to laboratory for NWCA voucher
identifying samples identifying plants collected identifications if the laboratory
to meet the from wetlands cannot demonstrate
performance competency. In other words,
measures EPA will select another
laboratory that can
demonstrate competency.
Quality Control
Activity Frequency Acceptance Criteria Corrective Action
Verify that plant All vouchers The condition must allow for Lab will consult immediately
voucher has arrived positive identification with EPA TOCOR if voucher does
in acceptable not arrive in acceptable
condition condition.
Sample Log-in All vouchers Plant vouchers logged into Discrepancies, damaged or
NARS IM system within 24 missing samples are reported to
clock hours of receipt. EPA Project Manager and
Laboratory Review Coordinator.
Store sample All vouchers Vouchers must be treated to EPA expects that the laboratory
appropriately kill potential contaminants will exercise every effort to
and properly stored dry in a maintain vouchers in proper
condition that prevents storage conditions.
contamination by detritivores,
molds, and pests (typically in
herbarium cabinets or
sealable plastic containers).
Use widely / All identifications Full citations for floras and Lab will provide explanation and
commonly accepted field guides used in plant discuss deviances with EPA
taxonomic identification must be TOCOR.
references and provided and;
reconcile to USDA- identifications must be
NRCS PLANTS reconciled to the taxonomic
taxonomic nomenclature of the USDA-
nomenclature NRCS PLANTS database
Identification by When field plant ID Identification by lab plant ID Replace field crew’s “unknown”
laboratory specialist cannot specialist (who must be a identification with
identify specimen different individual than the determination by lab
field plant ID specialist)
Unknowns QC Approximately 10% of PTD ≤ 15% If PTD > 15%, review data for
all unknown vouchers possible explanations;
independently otherwise, insert data qualifier
identified in the lab for laboratory identifications
Conduct assistance EPA may choose to Visit conducted using checklist Performance and any
visit visit any laboratory recommended improvements
described in debrief with
laboratory staff
5.1.6 Data Management, Review, and Validation
The Botanist and Field Crew Leader are responsible for the validity of all field-generated data (i.e.
measurement and observation data) up to the point it is sent to EPA. The Botanist and Field Crew Leader
are likewise responsible for the proper labeling, storage, and delivery for shipping of all voucher
samples, and for informing ORD/Corvallis when samples have been shipped. Laboratory SOPs (see
Section 1 for details) will be followed to ensure that data generated and delivered to EPA are valid. Once
data have been delivered to EPA, data quality procedures will be followed to ensure the validity of data
in storage, analysis, reporting and archiving. All raw data (including all standardized forms and logbooks)
are retained permanently in an organized fashion in accordance with EPA records management policies.
Other checks made of the data in the process of review and verification are summarized in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4. Data validation quality control for vegetation indicator.
Activity or Procedure Requirements and Corrective Action
Range checks, summary statistics, and/or exploratory Corrective reporting errors or qualify as suspect or invalid
data analysis (e.g., box and whisker plots)
Review data from QA plant vouchers Determine impact and possible limitations on overall
usability of data
5.2 Soils
5.2.1 Introduction
Soils data will be collected in a 3 m diameter Soil Plot and will include a soil profile description and
collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis of physical and chemical properties. Soils cycle
nutrients, mediate groundwater movement and storage, and serve as a growth medium or habitat for
plants, microbes, and macroinvertebrates. Soil physical and chemical characteristics can be indicative of
hydrology, past and present land uses, and the health and condition of the soil (which impacts its ability
to perform important ecosystem services).
There are two components to collecting soil information: The first component involves field
measurement and description of soil morphological properties (e.g., texture, color). The second
component involves collecting soil samples for laboratory analysis of various physical characteristics and
chemical constituents. Detailed sample collection and handling procedures are described in the NWCA
2016 Field Operations Manual and Lab Operations Manual. A summary of the field measurements and
laboratory analyses are given in Table 5-5.
Table 5-5. Soil indicator field and laboratory measurements and analyses.
Analysis Method Analyte(s) Measured
Field Measurements
Soil Profile Description Soil Morphological Properties:
description/identification of horizon
boundaries and designations, soil texture, rock
fragment volume, root volume, matrix color,
redoximorphic features, masked sand grains,
organic features, and mottles
Hydric Soil Field Indicator Identification of Hydric Soil Field Indicators (if
present)
Depth to Water Table Depth to water table
Laboratory Analyses
Particle Size Distribution Analysis (PSDA), < 2mm, air dry Clay, Silt, Sand
Calcium Carbonate Equivalent, < 2mm CaCO3
Calcium Carbonate Equivalent, < 20 mm CaCO3
Total Carbon, Nitrogen, and Sulfur C, N, S
pH 1:1 H2O, 1:2 0.01 M CaCl2
Cation Exchange Capacity and Base Cations CEC, Ca2+, K+, Mg2+, Na+
Ammonium Oxalate Extraction Al, Fe, Mn, P, Si
Electrical Conductivity EC
Dithionite-Citrate Extraction Al, Fe, Mn
Olsen Phosphorus P
Mehlich Phosphorus P
Trace Elements Ag, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Mo, Ni,
P, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Sr, V, W, Zn
Bulk Density Dbf
As mentioned above in section 2.2.2, precision of field measurements will not be monitored during the
NWCA. Previous soils experience or class work will be valuable for AB team members, but mandatory
NWCA training will provide an understanding of basic soil processes, soil description methods, and
sampling techniques. This training will prepare the crew to accurately complete soil data collection tasks
according to the standardized field protocols.
addressed in section 2. The MQOs given in Table 5-6 represent the maximum allowable criteria for
statistical control purposes. Precision is determined by the comparison of field measurements from two
visits to the same site; the revisit is at least two weeks after the first visit. Due to the high level of
disturbance caused by the soil sampling methods, it is not appropriate for the soil protocols to be
completed in the same location twice. During the second sampling event the AB team will locate the Soil
Plot as close as possible, but not overlapping the original Soil Plot to avoid the area disturbed during the
first sampling event. This will ensure that the soil data collected are as similar to the original data as
possible.
Table 5-6. Measurement quality objectives for soil indicator
Variable or Measurement Precision Accuracy Completeness
Field Measurements and Observations ±10% NA 90%
NA = not applicable in most cases. This would apply if the field auditor did a separate assessment and compared
the results to the crews.
standardized field protocols, consistent training of all crews, and availability of experienced technical
personnel during the field season to respond to site-specific questions from field crews. Additionally,
field crews will apply a consistent labeling convention across all samples (see the NWCA 2016 FOM, Soils
Chapter for details on info to include on labels).
least once during the field season, to ensure the protocols followed are consistent with training. At
approximately ten percent of sites, Field Crews will be accompanied by an NRCS Soil Scientist. The NRCS
Soil Scientist will assist the Field Crew with the soil profile description and collection of soil samples,
review the morphological description, and assign horizon designations. Ten percent of all sites will be
sampled by a Field Crew during a repeat sampling visit to determine the extent to which the population
estimates might vary if they were sampled at a different time.
In addition, field Crew Leaders are responsible for reviewing all forms for completeness and legibility,
and ensuring that all samples are properly collected and shipped. Field forms are then sent to
participating NRCS State Soil Scientists to review morphological descriptions, review determination of
any hydric soil field indicators, and assign horizon designations (using soil profile photographs and
morphological descriptions). Specific quality control measures are listed in Table 5-7 for field
measurements and observations.
Table 5-7. Field quality control for soil indicator
Quality Control Activity Frequency Acceptance criteria Corrective Action
Quality Control
Check completeness of soil Each soil horizon Values for each soil horizon Repeat observations
descriptive data
Check for completeness of Each site Data sheets complete Repeat observations
soil sample collection for where appropriate
chemical analyses and bulk
density
Sample Storage Each site All samples kept in a cool Qualify sample as suspect
dry place until shipped for all analyses
Data Validation
Estimate precision of 2 visits Measurements should be Review data for

measurement based on within 10 percent reasonableness; Determine
repeat visits if acceptance criteria need
to be modified
Standardized lab protocols, consistent training of all lab technicians, lab assistance visits to all labs, and
availability of experienced technical personnel to respond to site-specific questions as they arise are
important to ensuring the quality of lab data. Additionally, control measures to minimize measurement
error among lab technicians and laboratories include the use of a Control Sample, a Blank Sample, Data
Review, and Data Validation.
A Control Sample represents a sample of known concentration for a particular attribute. A Control
Sample is collected in bulk for an attribute and repetitively analyzed to determine statistical control
limits (i.e., range of expected values) for the particular method. A Control Sample is analyzed in
conjunction with every batch of samples to ensure the method was run correctly. If the value of the
Control Sample falls outside the expected range of values then the process has failed and the batch is
triggered for reanalysis.
A Blank Sample is used to ensure equipment is thoroughly cleaned before each use. A Blank Sample is
especially important when measuring soil chemistry (i.e., trace metals) because concentrations may be
quite small. A Blank Sample is analyzed in conjunction with every batch of samples to ensure that proper
equipment cleaning protocols are followed. If the value of the Blank Sample does not equal zero or fall
below the MDL, then the equipment is not clean and the batch is triggered for reanalysis.
The process of Data Validation is described here. Laboratory data undergo four Data Reviews, first by
the Bench Analysts, second by the Lead Analyst, third by the Project Coordinator Soil Scientist, and
fourth by a Soil Scientist Liaison with expertise in soils from the region where the samples are from. The
Bench Analysts verifies that blank and control samples return results that fall within established control
limits. The Lead Analyst examines the data for inconsistencies and apparent anomalies; inconsistencies
usually take the form of unexpected high or low values for a particular analyte or values that do not fit
with the expected trend of a soil profile. The Project Coordinator will use professional judgment to
determine whether the project data are self-consistent and congruent with the site data collected in the
field; incongruities within the data that can be explained either by site data or the results of other
analytes are recorded. A final review is given by a Soil Scientist Liaison to the area of sample origin,
before the data are released.
Table 5-8. Lab analysis quality control for soil indicator

Sample Log-in Upon receipt of a sample shipment, record receipt of
samples in the NARS IM system (within 24 clock hours)
and the laboratory’s Information Management System
(LIM). Discrepancies, damaged or missing samples are
reported to EPA Project Manager and Laboratory Review
Coordinator.
Range check of Control Sample If value is outside expected range, batch is triggered for
reanalysis
Value check of Blank Sample If value is >0 or the MDL, batch sample is triggered for
reanalysis
Data Review Corrective reporting for explicable incongruities within
the data
Data Validation Corrective reporting for explicable incongruities within
the data
Checks made of the data in the process of review, verification, and validation are summarized in Table 5-
9. The Field Crew Leader is responsible for the validity of all field-generated data (i.e. measurement and
observation data) up to the point it is sent to EPA (NARS IM). The Field Crew Leader is responsible for
the proper labeling, storage, and delivery for shipping of all samples. The Field Crew Leader is
responsible for notifying both the laboratory and NARS IM when samples have been shipped. Laboratory
SOPs (see section 1 for details) will be followed to ensure that data generated and delivered to EPA are
valid. Once NARS IM receives the data, DQ procedures (as detailed in section 4) will be followed to
ensure the validity of data in storage, analysis, reporting and archiving. Raw data (including standardized
forms and logbooks) are retained permanently in an organized fashion in accordance with EPA records
management policies.
Table 5-9. Data validation quality control for soil indicator

Range checks, summary statistics, and/or exploratory Corrective reporting errors or qualify as suspect or invalid
Review data from QA samples (e.g., laboratory control Determine impact and possible limitations on overall
samples, blank samples, or other standards or replicates) usability of data
5.3 Hydrology
5.3.1 Introduction
Hydrology data will include an assessment of hydrologic sources and connectivity, indirect evidence of
hydroperiod, estimates of hydrologic fluctuations, and documentation of hydrology alterations or
stressors. Wetland hydrology is the primary driver of wetland formation and persistence. Hydrology
impacts soil geochemical dynamics, plant productivity, nutrient cycling, and accretion and erosion of
organic and inorganic materials in wetlands (Mitch and Gosselink 2007, Tiner 1999).
The collection of hydrologic data for the NWCA will be entirely in the field - no hydrology samples will be
collected for laboratory analysis. Field measurements, observations, and associated methodology are
summarized in Table 5-10. Detailed data collection procedures are described in the NWCA 2016 Field
Operations Manual.
Table 5-10. Field measurement methods for hydrology indicator.
Variable or
Units Summary of Method
Measurement
Water Sources Count of seasonal and perennial sources, including inlets,
streams, springs, the ocean, ditches, and pipes
Hydrologic alterations Count of damming features (e.g., dikes/berms, roads), length
and depth of ditches/drains, evidence of tilling and fresh
sediment influx
Drift lines Evidence of leaf packs and other plant detritus, anthropogenic
trash, and the percent of the AA with standing water.
Water Depth cm Determine the maximum depth of surface water and the
percent of the AA covered. (Form WQ-1)
Depth to Groundwater cm Recorded on S-1 Form
As mentioned above in section 2.2.2, precision of field measurements will not be monitored during the
NWCA. Previous hydrology experience or class work will be valuable for AB team members, but
mandatory NWCA training will provide an understanding of basic hydrology. This training will prepare
the crew to accurately complete hydrology data collection tasks according to the standardized field
protocols.
addressed in Section 2. The MQOs given in Table 5-11 represent the maximum allowable criteria for
statistical control purposes. Precision is determined from results of the revisits (field measurements)
taken on a different day (at least two weeks apart).
Table 5-11. Measurement quality objectives for hydrology indicator.

Field Measurements and Observations ±10% NA 90%
NA = not applicable in most cases. This would apply if the field auditor did a separate assessment and compared
the results to the crews.
5.3.4 Quality Control Procedures
personnel during the field season to respond to site-specific questions from field crews. In addition,
quality assurance audits are conducted, at least once during the field season of every field crew to
ensure that the protocols are being implemented consistent with training.
Checks made of the data in the process of review, verification, and validation are summarized in Table 5-
12. The Field Crew Leader is responsible for the validity of all field-generated data (i.e. measurement
and observation data) up to the point they are sent to EPA (NARS IM). EPA QA SOPs (see section 2 for
details) will be followed to ensure that data generated and delivered to EPA are valid. Once data have
been delivered to EPA, DQ procedures (as detailed in section 2) will be followed to ensure the validity of
data in storage, analysis, reporting and archiving. All raw data (including all standardized forms and
logbooks) are retained permanently in an organized fashion in accordance with EPA records
management policies.
Table 5-12. Data quality control for hydrology indicator.

Quality Control Activity Frequency Acceptance criteria Corrective Action
Quality Control
Check completeness of Across AA and Buffer Values where appropriate Repeat observations
hydrology data
5.4 Water Chemistry (including chlorophyll-a)

5.4.1 Introduction
Surface water conditions will be noted and water chemistry samples collected to assess general surface
water conditions, various chemical analytes, and evidence of disturbance. Total nitrogen and
phosphorus reflect the trophic state of the wetland, providing crucial information on possible
eutrophication (Keddy 1983). Anthropogenic disturbances such as hydrologic modifications and land
use changes are known to alter water chemistry variables (Lane and Brown, 2007; Reiss and Brown,
2005). Chlorophyll-a samples describe blue-green algal biomass, which gives an estimate of algal
productivity which reflects nutrient concentrations of water. Nutrient status can reflect normal or
stressed conditions, and are dependent on wetland type.
Manual. Detailed laboratory methods are described in the NWCA 2016 Laboratory Operations Manual.
A central national laboratory and some State laboratories will analyze the water chemistry and
chlorophyll-a samples. Specific quality control procedures used by each laboratory are implemented to
ensure that:
 Objectives for various data quality indicators are met

 Results are consistent and comparable among all participating laboratories
The central laboratory has demonstrated in previous studies that it meets performance-based criteria
established by EPA. State laboratories analyzing samples are required to demonstrate equivalent
performance-based criteria prior to processing NWCA samples. All laboratories must follow QA/QC
procedures outlined in this QAPP and the NWCA 2016 Laboratory Operations Manual.
personnel during the field season to respond to site-specific questions from field crews. Field crews will
verify that all sample containers are uncontaminated and intact, and that all sample labels are legible
and intact. Before leaving the field site, crews will:
 Check the label to ensure that all written information is complete and legible.
 Place a strip of clear packing tape over the label, covering the label completely.
 Record the sample ID number assigned to the water chemistry and chlorophyll-a samples on the
Sample Collection Form.
 Enter a flag code and provide comments on the Sample Collection Form if there are any
problems in collecting the sample or if conditions occur that may affect sample integrity.
 Store the samples on wet ice in a cooler.
 Recheck all forms and labels for completeness and legibility.
least once during the field season, to ensure the protocols followed are consistent with training. Ten
percent of all sites will be sampled by a Field Crew during a repeat sampling visit to determine the
extent to which the population estimates might vary if they were sampled at a different time.
NWCA samples are described in Table 5-11. Figure 5-13 illustrates the general scheme for analysis of a
batch of water chemistry samples, including associated QC samples.
Table 5-13. Required quality control activities for water chemistry and chlorophyll-a samples.
QC Sample Indicators Description Frequency Acceptance Corrective Action
Type and Criteria
Description
Demonstrate All Demonstration of Once See LOM EPA will not approve any
competency for past experience laboratory for NWCA
analyzing water with water sample processing if the
samples to samples in laboratory cannot
meet the achieving the demonstrate competency.
performance method detection In other words, EPA will
measures limits select another laboratory
that can demonstrate
competency for its NWCA
samples.
Sample Log-in All Upon receipt of a Once Discrepancies, damaged,
sample shipment, or missing samples are
record receipt of reported to the EPA HQs
samples in the Laboratory QA
NARS IM system Coordinator
(within 24 clock
hours) and the
laboratory’s
Information
Management
System (LIMS).
Check condition All Sample issues Once No sample issues Lab determines if the
of sample when such as cracked or determination sample can be analyzed or
it arrives. container; that sample can has been too severely
missing label; still be analyzed compromised (e.g.,
temperature; contamination).
adherence to
holding time
requirements;
sufficient volume
for test.

Type and Criteria
Description
Store sample All Check the Record While stored at If at any time samples are
appropriately. temperature of temperature of the laboratory, the warmer than required,
the refrigerator sample upon sample must be note temperature and
per laboratory’s arrival at the kept at a duration (either from the
standard laboratory. maximum continuous temperature
operating Check temperature of 4° log or from the last
procedures. temperature of C (for aliquots manual reading) in
the except chlorophyll comment field. Lab will
refrigerator/freez a) and -20° C for still perform test. EPA
er where samples the chlorophyll a expects that the
are stored at sample. laboratory will exercise
least daily if using every effort to maintain
a continuous samples at the correct
temperature temperature.
logger and twice
daily (once at
beginning of the
day and once at
the end) not
using a
continuous
logger.
Analyze sample All - NA The test must be Perform test in all cases,
within holding completed within but note reason for
time the holding time performing test outside
specified in the holding time. EPA expects
analytical method. that the laboratory will
exercise every effort to
perform tests before the
holding time expires.
Analyze All - Once per day Control limits ≤ Prepare and analyze new
Laboratory/ prior to sample MDL blank. Determine and
Reagent Blank analysis correct problem (e.g.,
reagent contamination,
instrument calibration, or
contamination introduced
during filtration) before
proceeding with any
sample analyses.
Reestablish statistical
control by analyzing three
blank samples.
Analyze All dissolved ASTM Type II Prepare once per Measured Measure archived
Filtration Blank analytes reagent water week and archive concentrations samples if review of other
processed Prepare filter <MDL laboratory blank
through filtration blank for each information suggest
unit box of 100 filters, source of contamination is
and examine the sample processing.
results before
any other filters
are used from
that box.

Type and Criteria
Description
Determine LT- All Prepared so Once per day Target LT-MDL Confirm achieved LRL by
MDL Limit for concentration is value (which is repeated analysis of LT-
Quality Control four to six times calculated as a MDL QCCS. Evaluate
Check Sample the LT-MDL 99% confidence affected samples for
(QCCS) objective interval) possible re-analysis.
Analyze All - Before and after ±10% or method Repeat QCCS analysis.
Calibration sample analyses criteria Recalibrate and analyze
QCCS QCCS.
Reanalyze all routine
samples (including PE and
field replicate samples)
analyzed since the last
acceptable QCCS
measurement.
Analyze All - One per batch Control limits < If results are below LRL:
Laboratory precision objective Prepare and analyze split
Duplicate from different sample
Sample (volume permitting).
Review precision of QCCS
measurements for batch.
Check preparation of split
sample. Qualify all
samples in batch for
possible reanalysis.
Analyze When - One analysis in a Manufacturers Analyze standard in next
Standard available for minimum of five certified range batch to confirm
Reference a particular separate batches suspected inaccuracy.
Material indicator Evaluate calibration and
(SRM) QCCS solutions and
standards for
contamination and
preparation error. Correct
before any further
analyses of routine
samples are conducted.
Reestablish control by
three successive
reference standard
measurements that are
acceptable. Qualify all
sample batches analyzed
since the last acceptable
reference standard
measurement for possible
reanalysis.

Type and Criteria
Description
Analyze Matrix Only - One per batch Control limits for Select two additional
Spike Samples prepared recovery cannot samples and prepare
when exceed 100±20% fortified subsamples.
samples Reanalyze all suspected
with samples in batch by the
potential for method of standard
matrix additions. Prepare three
interference subsamples (unfortified,
s are fortified with solution
encountered approximately equal to
the endogenous
concentration, and
fortified with solution
approximately twice the
endogenous
concentration).
Use consistent All Verify that all Data reporting For each indicator, If it is not possible to
units for QC units are all field and QC provide the results in
samples and provided samples are consistent units, then
field samples consistently reported with the assign a QC code and
within each same describe the reason for
indicator. measurement different units in the
units comments field of the
database.
Maintain All Determine Data reporting Completeness Contact EPA HQ NWCA
completeness completeness objective is 95% Laboratory Review
for all indicators Coordinator* immediately
(useable with or if issues affect
without flags). laboratory’s ability to
meet completeness
objective.
PREPARE QC SAMPLES
PREPARE QC SAMPLES
• Laboratory Blank
• Fortified Sample PREPARE QC SAMPLES
SAMPLEPROCESSING PREPARE QC SAMPLES
• Laboratory Split Sample
• QC Check Samples (QCCS)
• Internal Reference Sample
CALIBRATION
Fail Contamination
Laboratory Contamination
or Biased
Blank or Biased
Calibration
Calibration
Pass
LT-MDL Fail Recheck

QCCS Recheck
LT-MDL QCCS
LT-MDL QCCS
Insert randomly
into sample batch Pass
Calibration Fail
QCCS
Pass
SAMPLES
Pass
Accept Batch
Accept Batch
for Entry
for Entry
and Verification
and Verification
Pass
Review Fail
Results Re-Calibrate
Calibration Re-Calibrate
Re-analyze
QCCS Re-analyze
Previous Samples
Fail Previous Samples
Pass
Qualify batch
Qualify
for batch
possible
for possible SAMPLES
re-analysis
re-analysis
Pass Calibration Fail

QCCS
Figure 5-1. Analysis Activities for Water Chemistry Samples

5.4.6 Data Reporting, Review, and Management
Checks made of the data in the process of review and verification is summarized in Table 5-14. Data
reporting units and significant figures are given in Table 5-15. The Project Lead is ultimately responsible
for ensuring the validity of the data, although performance of the specific checks may be delegated to
other staff members.
Table 5-14. Data validation quality control for water chemistry indicator.
Range checks, summary statistics, and/or exploratory Correct reporting errors or qualify as suspect or
data analysis (e.g., box and whisker plots) invalid.
Review holding times Qualify value for additional review
Review data from QA samples (laboratory PE Determine impact and possible limitations on overall
samples, and interlaboratory comparison samples) usability of data
Table 5-15. Data reporting criteria for water chemistry indicator.

No. Significant Maximum No. Decimal
Measurement Units
Figures Places
Temperature °C 2 1
pH pH units 3 2
Conductivity S/cm at 25 °C 3 1
Ammonia mg/L 3 2
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) mg/L 3 2
Nitrate-Nitrite mg/L 3 2
Total nitrogen mg/L 3 2
Total phosphorus g/L 3 0
Turbidity NTU 3 0
Chlorophyll-a g/L 3 2
Chloride mg/L 3 2
Sulfate mg/L 3 2
5.5 Microcystin
5.5.1 Introduction
Microcystins are a class of toxins produced by bluegreen algae that can have harmful health effects to
humans and animals if concentrations are high as a result of high abundance of certain bluegreen algae.
If water is present, crews will collect a sample to measure concentrations of microcystin.
Manual. Detailed laboratory methods are described in the NWCA 2016 Laboratory Operations Manual.
A central national laboratory and some State laboratories will analyze the water chemistry and
chlorophyll-a samples. Specific quality control procedures used by each laboratory are implemented to
ensure that:
 Objectives for various data quality indicators are met

 Results are consistent and comparable among all participating laboratories
All laboratories must follow QA/QC procedures outlined in this QAPP and the NWCA 2016 Laboratory
Operations Manual. Laboratory performance requirements are listed in Table 5-16.
Table 5-16. Measurement quality objectives for microcystin.

Method Detection Limit
Parameter Units Reporting Limit Objective
Objective
Microcystins, undiluted samples
with salinities <3.5 part per µg/L 0.1 0.15
thousand (ppt)
Microcystins, undiluted samples µg/L 0.175 0.263
with salinity greater than or
equal to 3.5 ppt
Microcystins, diluted samples 0.1 times the dilution
µg/L Will vary
with salinities <3.5 ppt factor
Microcystins, diluted samples
1.75 times the dilution
with salinity greater than or µg/L Will vary
factor
equal to 3.5 ppt
Field data quality is addressed, in part, by application and consistent performance of valid procedures
documented in the standard operating procedures detailed in the NWCA 2016 Field Operations Manual.
That quality is enhanced by the training and experience of project staff and documentation of sampling
activities. Crews will collect a single water sample for microcystins analyses. Field crews will verify that
all sample containers are uncontaminated and intact, and that all sample labels are legible and intact.
While in the field, the crew will store samples in a cooler on ice and will then freeze the sample upon
returning to the base site (e.g., hotel, lab, office)(Table 5-17). Before leaving the field, the crews will:
 Check the label to ensure that all written information is complete and legible.
 Place a strip of clear packing tape over the label, covering the label completely.
 Record the sample ID number assigned to the microcystins sample on the Sample Collection
Form.
 Enter a flag code and provide comments on the Sample Collection Form if there are any
problems in collecting the sample or if conditions occur that may affect sample integrity.
 Store the sample on ice in field.
 Recheck all forms and labels for completeness and legibility.
Table 5-17. Field quality control for microcystin.

Quality Control
Activity Description and Requirements Corrective Action
Holding time Hold sample on wet ice and freeze immediately Qualify samples
upon return to the base site (hotel, lab, office)
and keep frozen until shipping
Sample Storage Store samples in darkness and frozen (-20 °C) Qualify sample as suspect
Monitor temperature daily
NWCA samples are described in Table 5-18 and Table 5-19.
Table 5-18. Required quality control activities for microcystin samples.

Quality Control Description and Requirements Corrective Action
Activity
Kit – Shelf Life Is within its expiration date listed on kit box. If kit has expired, then discard or clearly
label as expired and set aside for training
activities.
Kit - Contents All required contents must be present and in If any bottles are missing or damaged,
acceptable condition. This is important discard the kit.
because Abraxis has calibrated the standards
and reagents separately for each kit.
Calibration All of the following must be met: If any requirement fails:
Standard curve must have a correlation Results from the analytical run are not
coefficient of ≥0.99; reported.
Average absorbance value, Ā0, for S0 must be All samples in the analytical run are
≥0.80; and reanalyzed until calibration provides
Standards S0-S5 must have decreasing acceptable results.
average absorbance values. That is, if Āi is the
average of the absorbance values for Si, then
the absorbance average values must be: Ā0 >
Ā1 > Ā2 > Ā3 > Ā4 >Ā5
Kit Control The average concentration value of the If either requirement fails:
duplicates (or triplicate) must be within the Results from the analytical run are not
range of 0.75 +/- 0.185 µg/L. That is, the reported
average must be between 0.565 µg/L and The lab evaluates its processes, and if
0.935 µg/L. appropriate, modifies its processes to
Quality Control Description and Requirements Corrective Action

Activity
Negative Control The values for the negative control replicates Correct possible contamination or other
must meet the following requirements: problems.
All concentration values must be < 0.15 µg/L The lab reanalyzes all samples in the
(i.e., the reporting limit; and analytical run until the controls meet the
one or more concentration results must be requirements. At its discretion, the lab
nondetectable (i.e., <0.10 µg/L) may consult with EPA for guidance on
persistent difficulties with calibration.
Sample All samples are run in duplicate. Each If %CV of the absorbances for the sample
Evaluations duplicate pair must have %CV ≤15% between >15%, then:
its absorbance values. Record the results for both duplicates
using different start dates and/or start
times to distinguish between the runs.
Report the data for both duplicate results
using the Quality Control Failure flag
“QCF”; and re-analyze the sample in a new
analytical run. No samples are to be run
more than twice.
If the second run passes, then the data
analyst will exclude the data from the first
run (which will have been flagged with
“QCF”). If both runs fail, the data analyst
will determine if either value should be
used in the analysis (e.g., it might be
acceptable to use data if the CV is just
slightly over 15%).
Results Within All samples are run in duplicate. If both of the If a result registers as ‘HIGH’, then record
Calibration Range values are less than the upper calibration the result with a data flag of “HI.” If one or
range (i.e., ≤ 5.0 µg/L for undiluted samples both duplicates register as ‘HIGH,’ then the
with salinity <3.5 ppt; ≤ 8.75 µg/L for sample must be diluted and re-run until
undiluted samples with salinity ≥3.5 ppt), then both results are within the calibration
the requirement is met. range. No samples are to be run more than
twice. The lab reports both the original and
diluted sample results.
External Quality External QC Coordinator, supported by QC Based upon the evaluation, the External
Control Sample contractor, provides 1-2 sets of identical QC Coordinator may request additional
samples to all laboratories and compares information from one or more laboratories
results. about any deviations from the Method or
unique laboratory practices that might
account for differences between the
laboratory and others. With this additional
information, the External QC Coordinator
will determine an appropriate course of
action, including no action, flagging the
data, or excluding some or all of the
laboratory’s data.
Table 5-19. Sample receipt and processing quality control for microcystin.
Quality
Control
Activity Description and Requirements Corrective Action
Sample Log- Upon receipt of a sample shipment, record receipt of Discrepancies, damaged, or missing
in samples in the NARS IM system (within 24 clock hours) samples are reported to the EPA HQs
and the laboratory’s Information Management System Laboratory QA Coordinator
(LIMS).
Sample Sample issues such as cracked container; missing label; Qualify samples
condition temperature (frozen); adherence to holding time
upon receipt requirements; sufficient volume for test.
Sample Store sample frozen Qualify samples

Storage
Holding time Frozen samples can be stored for several months. Qualify samples
Checks made of the data in the process of review and verification are summarized in Table 5-20. Data
reporting units and significant figures are given in Table 5-21. The Project Lead is ultimately responsible
for ensuring the validity of the data, although performance of the specific checks may be delegated to
other staff members.
Table 5-20. Data validation quality control microcystin.

Range checks, summary statistics, and/or exploratory Correct reporting errors or qualify as suspect or invalid.
Review holding times Qualify value for additional review
Review data from QA samples (laboratory PE Determine impact and possible limitations on overall
samples, and interlaboratory comparison samples) usability of data
Table 5-21. Data reporting criteria for microcystin.

Measurement Units No. Significant Maximum No. Decimal Places
Figures
Microcystin ug/L 3 3
5.6 Buffer Characterization

5.6.1 Introduction
Buffer data will be collected in thirteen 100-m2 Buffer Plots systematically placed on cardinal transects
(three in each direction and one at the center of the AA) to physically characterize the area surrounding
the AA. Buffer is often defined as an area of natural vegetation surrounding the perimeter of a wetland
that is not directly affected by human activities and thus can provided some level of protection to the
wetland from stressors and neighboring land uses. Human caused stressors affect wetland hydrology by
draining the site, impounding water compacting soils, and filling or eroding the wetland. Alteration of
vegetation through replacement and removal can also affect hydrology. Buffer data has proven useful
for describing anthropogenic stress in developing indicators of ecological integrity or condition (USEPA
2006b, USEPA 2013, Kaufmann et al 2014).
This indicator is based on field measurements and observations, so there is no sample collection
associated with it. At NWCA sites, twelve 100-m2 plots are systematically arrayed along the four cardinal
transects at equal intervals extending outwards from the core assessment area boundary. An additional
100-m2 plot is located at the center of the AA. This sampling design is used to minimize bias in the
selection of the measurement sites. Descriptions of the field measurements and procedures for
completing the protocols are described in the NWCA 2016 Field Operations Manual.
Measurement data quality objectives (measurement DQOs or MQOs) are given in Table 5-22. General
requirements for comparability and representativeness are addressed in Section 2. The MQOs represent
the maximum allowable criteria for statistical control purposes. Precision is determined from results of
revisits (field measurements) taken on a different day at least two weeks apart.
Table 5-22. Measurement data quality objectives for buffer characterization.

Field Measurements and ±10% NA 90%
Observations
NA = not applicable in most cases. This would apply if the field auditor did a separate assessment and compared the
results to the crews.
standardized field protocols, consistent training of all crews, field assistance visits to all crews, and
availability of experienced technical personnel during the field season to respond to site-specific
questions from field crews as they arise.
The Field Crew Leader is responsible for the validity of all field-generated data (i.e. measurement and
observation data) up to the point it is sent to EPA (ORD/Corvallis. Once data have been delivered to EPA,
DQ procedures (as detailed in section 1) will be followed to ensure the validity of data in storage,
analysis, reporting and archiving. All raw data (including all standardized forms and logbooks) are
retained permanently in an organized fashion in accordance with EPA records management policies.
6 FIELD AND LABORATORY QUALITY EVALUATION AND ASSISTANCE

VISITS
6.1 National Wetland Condition Assessment Field Quality Evaluation and
Assistance Visit Plan
EPA, contractor and other qualified staff will conduct evaluation and assistance visits with each field
crew early in the sampling and data collection process, if possible, and corrective actions will be
conducted in real time. These visits provide both a quality check for the uniform evaluation of the data
collection methods and an opportunity to conduct procedural reviews, as required, minimizing data loss
due to improper technique or interpretation of field procedures and guidance. Through uniform training
of field crews and review cycles conducted early in the data collection process, sampling variability
associated with specific implementation or interpretation of the protocols will be significantly reduced.
The visit also provides the field crews with an opportunity to clarify procedures and offer suggestions for
future improvements based on their sampling experience preceding the visit. The field evaluations,
while performed by a number of different supporting collaborator agencies and participants, will be
based on the uniform training, plans, and checklists. The field evaluations will be based on the
evaluation plan and field evaluation checklist. EPA has scheduled this review and assistance task for
each unique field crew collecting and contributing data under this program. If unforeseen events
prevent the EPA from evaluating every crew, the NWCA Quality Assurance Coordinator (QAC) will rely
on the data review and validation process to identify unacceptable data that will not be included in the
final database. If inconsistencies cannot be resolved, the QAC may contact the Field Crew Leader for
clarification.
One or more designated EPA, contractor or other staff who are qualified (i.e. have completed training)
in the procedures of the NWCA 2016 field sampling operations will visit trained state, contractor, federal
agency and EPA field sampling crews during sampling operations on site. If membership of a field crew
changes, and at least two of the members have not been evaluated previously, the field crew must be
evaluated again during sampling operations as soon as possible to ensure that all members of the field
crew understand and can perform the procedures. If a deviation is needed from the process described
here, the staff member conducting the assistance visit (AV) must contact the Assistance Visit
Coordinator who will contact the NWCA Project Manager and the NWCA Project QA Coordinator to
determine an acceptable course of action.
The purpose of this on-site visit will be to identify and correct deficiencies during field sampling
operations. The process will involve preparation activities, field day activities and post field day activities
as described in the following sections. Additionally, conference calls with crews may be held
approximately every two weeks to discuss issues as they come up throughout the sampling season.
6.1.1 Preparation Activities
 Each Field Crew Evaluator will schedule an assistance visit with their designated crews in
consultation with the Contractor Field Logistics Coordinator, Regional NWCA Coordinator, and
respective Field Sampling Crew Leader. Ideally, each Field Crew will be evaluated within the first
two weeks of beginning sampling operations, so that procedures can be corrected or additional
training provided, if needed.
 Each Evaluator is responsible for providing their own field gear sufficient to accompany the Field
Sampling Crews during a complete sampling cycle. Schedule of the Field visits will be made by
the Evaluator in consultation with the respective Field Crew Leader. Evaluators should be
prepared to spend additional time in the field if needed (see below).
 Each Field Crew Evaluator will ensure that field crews are aware of their visit plans and all
capacity and safety equipment will be provided for the Field Crew Evaluator.
 Each Field Crew Evaluator will need to bring the items listed in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Equipment and Supplies – Field Evaluation and Assistance Visits
Type Item Quantity
Assistance Visit Assistance Visit Manual 1
Checklist
Documentation NWCA 2016 Field Operations Manuals 1
NWCA 2016 Quality Assurance Project Plan 1
Clipboard 1
Pencils (#2, for data forms)/Pen (or computer for electronic versions) 1
Field notebook (optional)
1
Gear Field gear (e.g., protective clothing, sunscreen, insect repellent, hat, water, As
food, backpack, cell phone) needed
6.1.2 Field Day Activities
 The Field Crew Evaluator will review the Field Evaluation & Assistance Visit Checklist with each
crew during the field sampling day and establish and plan and schedule for their evaluation
activities for the day.
 The Field Crew Evaluator will view the performance of a field crew through one complete set of
sampling activities as detailed on the checklist.
 Scheduling might necessitate starting the evaluation midway on the list of tasks at a site, instead
of at the beginning. In that case, the Field Crew Evaluator will follow the crew to the next site to
complete the evaluation of the first activities on the list.
 If the field crew misses or incorrectly performs a procedure, the Field Crew Evaluator will note
this on the checklist and immediately point this out so the mistake can be corrected on the spot.
The role of the Field Crew Evaluator is to provide additional training and guidance so that the
procedures are being performed consistent with the FOM, all data are recorded correctly, and
paperwork is properly completed at the site.
 When the sampling operation has been completed, the Field Crew Evaluator will review the
results of the evaluation with the field crew before leaving the site (if practicable), noting
positive practices and problems (i.e., weaknesses [might affect data quality]; deficiencies [would
adversely affect data quality]). The Field Crew Evaluator will ensure that the field crew
understands the findings and will be able to perform the procedures properly in the future.
 The Field Crew Evaluator will review the list and record responses or concerns from the field
crew, if any; on the checklist (this may happen throughout the field day).
 The Field Crew Leader will sign the checklist after this review.
6.1.3 Post Field Day Activities
 The Field Crew Evaluator will review the checklist that evening and provide a summary of
findings, including lessons learned and concerns.
 If the Field Crew Evaluator finds major deficiencies in the field crew operations (e.g., less than
two members, equipment, or performance problems) the Field Crew Evaluator must contact the
EPA NWCA Project QA Coordinator. The EPA NWCA Project QA Coordinator will work with the
EPA NWCA Program Manager to determine the appropriate course of action. Data records from
sampling sites previously visited by this Field Crew will be checked to determine whether any
sampling sites must be redone.
 The Field Crew Evaluator will retain a copy of the checklist and submit to the EPA Logistics
Coordinator either via Fed-Ex or electronically.
 The EPA Logistics Coordinator and the NWCA Project QA Coordinator or authorized designee
(member of the NWCA 2016 quality team) will review the returned Field Evaluation and
Assistance Visit Checklist, note any issues, and check off the completion of the evaluation for
each field crew.
6.1.4 Summary
Table 6-2 summarizes the plan, checklist, and corrective action procedures.
Table 6-2. Summary of Field Evaluation and Assistance Visit Information
Field The Field Crew Evaluator:
Evaluation  Arranges the field evaluation visit in consultation with the Project QA Coordinator, Regional
Plan NWCA Coordinator, and respective Field Sampling Crew Leader, ideally within the first two
weeks of sampling
 Observes the performance of a crew through one complete set of sampling activities
 Takes note of errors the field crew makes on the checklist and immediately point these out to
correct the mistake
 Reviews the results of the evaluation with the field crew before leaving the site, noting positive
practices, lessons learned, and concern
Field The Field Crew Evaluator:
Evaluation  Observes all pre-sampling activities and verifies that equipment is properly calibrated and in
Checklist good working order, and protocols are followed
 Checks the sample containers to verify that they are the correct type and size, and checks the
labels to be sure they are correctly and completely filled out
 Confirms that the field crew has followed NWCA protocols for locating the POINT
 Observes the Assessment Area and buffer characterization sampling, confirming that all
protocols are followed
 Records responses or concerns, if any, on the Field Evaluation and Assistance Checklist
Corrective  If the Field Crew Evaluator's findings indicate that the Field Crew is not performing the
Action procedures correctly, safely, or thoroughly, the Evaluator must continue working with this Field
Procedures Crew until certain of the crew's ability to conduct the sampling properly so that data quality is
not adversely affected.
 If the Field Crew Evaluator finds major deficiencies in the Field Crew operations the Evaluator
must contact the EPA NWCA Project QA Coordinator.
6.2 National Wetland Condition Assessment Laboratory Quality Evaluation and

Assistance Visit Plan
As part of the NWCA 2016, field samples will be collected at each assessment site. These samples will be
sent to laboratories cooperating in the assessment. To ensure quality, each Project Cooperator
laboratory analyzing samples from the NWCA 2016 will receive an evaluation from an NWCA Lab
Evaluator. All Project Cooperator laboratories will follow these guidelines.
No national program of accreditation for laboratory processing for many of our indicators currently
exists. For this reason, a rigorous program of laboratory evaluation has been developed to support the
NWCA 2016.
Given the large number of laboratories participating in the NWCA 2016, it is not feasible to perform an
assistance visit5 (AV) on each of these laboratories. An AV would include an on-site visit to the
laboratory lasting at least a day. As a result, the EPA Headquarters Project Management Team will
conduct remote review of laboratory certifications and accreditations of all laboratories. If issues arise
from the remote review or inter-laboratory comparison that cannot be resolved remotely, the EPA QA
Team and/or contractors will perform an on-site visit to the laboratory. This process is in keeping with
EPA’s Policy to Assure Competency of Laboratories, Field Sampling, and Other Organizations Generating
Environmental Measurement Data under Agency-Funded Acquisitions.
6.2.1 Remote Evaluation/Technical Assessment
A remote evaluation procedure has been developed for performing assessment of all laboratories
participating in the NWCA 2016.
The Laboratory Review Coordinator, the NWCA Project QA Coordinator and other members of the
NWCA QA Team will conduct laboratory evaluation prior to data analysis to ensure that the laboratories
are qualified and that techniques are implemented consistently across the multiple laboratories
generating data for the program. The EPA National Aquatic Resource Surveys team has developed
laboratory evaluation plans to ensure uniform interpretation and guidance in the procedural reviews.
The NWCA QA Team is using a procedure that requests the laboratory to provide documentation of its
policies and procedures. For the NWCA 2016 project, the QA Team is requesting that each participating
laboratory provide the following documentation:
 The laboratory’s Quality Manual, Quality Management Plan or similar document.

 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for each analysis to be performed.
 Long term Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for each instrument used and Demonstration of
Capability for each analysis to be performed.
 A list of the laboratory’s accreditations and certifications, if any.
 Results from Proficiency Tests for each analyte to be analyzed under the NWCA 2016 project.
5
The evaluation of the labs is being considered an Assistance Visit rather than an audit because the evaluation is
designed to provide guidance to the labs rather than as “inspection” as in a traditional audit.
If a laboratory has clearly documented procedures for sample receiving, storage, preservation,
preparation, analysis, and data reporting; has successfully analyzed Proficiency Test samples (if required
by EPA, EPA will provide the PT samples); has a Quality Manual that thoroughly addresses laboratory
quality including standard and sample preparation, record keeping and QA non-conformance;
participates in a nationally recognized or state certification program; and has demonstrated ability to
perform the testing for which program/project the audit is intended, then the length of an on-site visit
will be minimum, if not waived entirely. The QA Team will make a final decision on the need for an
actual on-site visit after the review and evaluation of the documentation requested.
If a laboratory meets or exceeds all of the major requirements and is deficient in an area that can be
corrected remotely by the lab, suggestions will be offered and the laboratory will be given an
opportunity to correct the issue. The QA Team will then verify the correction of the deficiency remotely.
The on-site visit by EPA and/or a contractor should only be necessary if the laboratory fails to meet the
major requirements and is in need of help or fails to produce the requested documentation.
In addition, all laboratories must sign a Laboratory Signature Form (see NWCA 2016 LOM) indicating that
they will abide by the following:
 Utilize procedures identified in the NWCA 2016 Laboratory Operations Manual (or equivalent). If
using equivalent procedures, please provide procedures manual to demonstrate ability to meet
the required MQOs.
 Read and abide by the NWCA 2016 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and related Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs).
 Have an organized IT system in place for recording sample tracking and analysis data.
 Provide data using the template provided in the Laboratory Operations Manual.
 Provide data results in a timely manner. This will vary with the type of analysis and the number
of samples to be processed. Sample data must be received no later than May 1, 2016 or as
otherwise negotiated with EPA.
 Participate in a lab technical assessment or audit if requested by EPA NWCA QA Team staff (this
may be a conference call or on-site audit).
If a laboratory is participating in biology analyses, they must, in addition, abide by the following:
 Use taxonomic standards outlined in the NWCA 2016 Laboratory Manual.
Note: All laboratories must also sign the approved NWCA 2016 QAPP.
6.2.2 Water Chemistry Laboratories
The water chemistry laboratory approval process which is outlined on in the previous paragraphs of this
section is deemed appropriate because many laboratories participate in one or more national laboratory
accreditation programs such as the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP),
International Organization for Standardization (ISO-17025) as well as various state certification
programs which include strict requirements around documentation and procedures as well as site visits
by the accrediting authority. It is built off of the processes used by the NLA 2012, NRSA 2013/14, and
NCCA 2015. The laboratories participating in NWCA 2016 meet these qualifications and as such have
demonstrated their ability to function independently. This process is one that has been utilized in Region
3 for many years and is designed around the national accrediting programs listed above.
6.2.3 Assistance Visits
Assistance Visits will be used to:

 Confirm the NWCA 2016 Laboratory Operations Manual (LOM) methods are being properly
implemented by cooperator laboratories.
 Assist with questions from laboratory personnel.
 Suggest corrections if any errors are made in implementing the lab methods.
Evaluation of the laboratories will take the form of administration of checklists which have been
developed from the LOM to ensure that laboratories are following the methods and protocols outlined
therein. The checklist will be administered on-site by a qualified EPA scientist or contractor.
See sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 and the Laboratory Operations Manual for copies of the Document Request
form used for the biological laboratories and chemical laboratories.
6.2.4 NWCA 2016 Document Request Form - Chemistry Laboratories

EPA and its state and tribal partners will conduct a survey of the nation's wetlands. This National
Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA), is designed to provide statistically valid regional and national
estimates of the condition of wetlands. Consistent sampling and analytical procedures ensure that the
results can be compared across the country. As part of the NWCA 2016, the Quality Assurance Team will
conduct a technical assessment to verify quality control practices in your laboratory and its ability to
perform chemistry analyses under this project. Our review will assess your laboratory’s ability to receive,
store, prepare, analyze, and report sample data generated under EPA’s NWCA 2016.
The first step of this assessment process will involve the review of your laboratory’s certification and/or
documentation. Subsequent actions may include (if needed) reconciliation exercises and/or a site visit.
All laboratories will need to complete the following forms:
If your lab has been previously approved within the last 5 years for the specific parameters:
 A signature on the attached Laboratory Signature Form indicates that your laboratory will follow
the quality assurance protocols required for chemistry laboratories conducting analyses for the
NWCA 2016. A signature on the QAPP and the LOM Signature Form indicates that you will follow
both the QAPP and the LOM.
If you have not been approved within the last 5 years for the specific parameters in order for us to
determine your ability to participate as a laboratory in the NWCA, we are requesting that you submit
the following documents (if available) for review:
 Documentation of a successful quality assurance audit from a prior National Aquatic Resource
Survey (NARS) that occurred within the last 5 years (if you need assistance with this please
contact the individual listed below).
 Documentation showing participation in a previous NARS for Water Chemistry for the same
parameters/methods.
Additionally, we request that all laboratories provide the following information in support of your
capabilities, (these materials are required if neither of the two items above are provided):
 A copy of your Laboratory’s accreditations and certifications if applicable (i.e. NELAC, ISO, state
certifications, North American Benthological Society (NABS), etc.).
 An updated copy of your Laboratory’s QAPP.
 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for your laboratory for each analysis to be performed (if
not covered in NWCA 2016 LOM).
 Documentation attesting to experience running all analytes for the NWCA 2016, including
chlorophyll a.
This documentation may be submitted electronically via e-mail to forde.kendra@epa.gov. Questions
concerning this request can be submitted forde.kendra@epa.gov (202-566-0417) or
Serenbetz.gregg@epa.gov (202-566-1253).
6.2.5 NWCA 2016 Vegetation Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Form
The National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) is designed to provide statistically valid regional
and national estimates of the condition of wetlands in the 48 conterminous states of the U.S. Plant
samples collected in the field are sent to a designated laboratory/herbarium for identification using
standard laboratory protocols outlined in the NWCA 2016 Laboratory Operations Manual (LOM).
As specified in the NWCA Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), an NWCA Evaluator will evaluate each
laboratory/herbarium to ensure the NWCA data quality objectives are satisfied. Each
laboratory/herbarium must participate in an evaluation and sign the laboratory signature form and
acknowledgement and commitment to implement page of the QAPP to satisfy the terms of the NWCA
QAPP.
It is essential that each laboratory/herbarium accurately implement standardized protocols for

vegetation identification and storage to ensure comparability of data among NWCA sites and minimize
data loss that could result from damaged or degraded specimens, errors in data recording, sample
processing, data storage, plant identification, or misinterpretation of guidance for laboratory operations.
These quality assurance evaluations are designed to:
1. Confirm the 2016 NWCA Laboratory Operations Manual (LOM) protocols are implemented
as intended.
2. Assist with questions the laboratory/herbarium may have.
3. Suggest corrections if any errors have been made by a laboratory/herbarium in
implementing methods described in the LOM.
This evaluation will include a discussion of the attached checklist between the NWCA Evaluator and the
laboratory/herbarium over the phone rather than an actual laboratory visit. The checklist includes
descriptions of sample handling and other requirements to which each laboratory/herbarium must
comply. The discussions will be scheduled with Chris Faulkner (EPA HQ NWCA Project Manager-
Alternate, Faulkner.Chris@epa.gov).
Background: For all NWCA field work, whenever the identity of a species cannot be confirmed in the
field, a sample is collected for later identification in the office by the field botanist/ecologist or by
another botanist at a designated laboratory/herbarium. All unknown species located in one of five
Vegetation Plots arrayed across a site’s Assessment Area that are mature and have key structures
needed for identification are collected (unknown species voucher). Unknown species that are immature
or senescent comprising more than 5% cover are also collected. The field botanist/ecologist will ship
unknown samples they cannot identify to the botanist (also called plant ID specialist or taxonomist in
NWCA) at the laboratory/herbarium for initial identification.
In addition to all unknown specimens, field crews collect five known plant voucher samples (randomly
selected from species identified by the Vegetation Team) for quality assurance (NWCA 2016 QAPP).
These QA vouchers are sent to a QA “verifying botanist” for re-identification/verification. Collecting
voucher specimens of known species both provides a quality assurance check on species identity data,
and a permanent record of the occurrence of a particular species at a given location.
The QA verifying botanist is responsible for re-identification/verification of the QA vouchers as well as a
random selection of 10% of the unknown specimens that were initially determined by the “identifying
botanist” at the laboratory/herbarium.
If the unknown species specimens and QA voucher samples are planned to be sent to the same
institution, it is important that all quality assurance activities be completed by a taxonomist that did not
participate in the identification of unknown specimens. .
All laboratory methods and quality assurance requirements are fully described in the NWCA 2016 LOM
and QAPP.
For the purposes of the Vegetation Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluations, the Vegetation Checklist
will focus on the lab’s competence to receive and properly store specimens and to track and manage the
vegetation data.
Definitions:
Voucher Sample - A pressed and dried plant sample, ideally comprised of leaves, stems, flowers, fruits
and roots. An integral component of each voucher sample is written data describing the location, date
of collection, habitat, plant habit, characteristic features and other information. Vouchers provide
physical evidence that confirms the presence of plant species at specific locations.
Identifying Botanist - The person identifying and processing unknown samples. This could be a field
botanist/ecologist; university, state, national or regional herbarium botanist; or an EPA contractor that
has qualifying credentials in plant taxonomy. The identifying botanist is responsible for ensuring all
plant identification and processing tasks outlined in the LOM are completed. In some cases this may
require the identifying botanist to identify partners to assist with the work.
QA Verifying Botanist – The person re-identifying and verifying QA voucher identifications and a 10%
subset of unknown species identifications by the laboratory/herbarium. This could be a botanist,
ecologist, taxonomist, and/or plant ID specialist that is an expert in the identification of wetland plants.
The verifying botanist agrees to use the NWCA prescribed methods, as described in chapter 4 of the
LOM, to ensure that all QA vouchers are correctly verified.
7 DATA ANALYSIS PLAN

The Data Analysis Plan describes the general process used to analyze the data for the survey. It outlines
the steps taken to assess the condition of the nation’s wetlands and identify the relative impact of
stressors on this condition. Results from the analysis will be included in the final report and used in
future analysis. The 2016 survey is only the second iteration of the NWCA, so the data analysis plan will
likely be refined and clarified as the data are analyzed by EPA and states.
7.1 Data Interpretation Background

The basic intent of data interpretation is to evaluate the occurrence and distribution of parameters
throughout the population of wetlands in the United States within the context of regionally relevant
expectations for least disturbed reference conditions. This is presented using a cumulative distribution
function or similar graphic. For most indicators the analysis will also categorize the condition of the
wetland as good, fair, or poor. Because of the large-scale and multijurisdictional nature of this effort, the
key issues for data interpretation are unique and include: the scale of assessment, selecting the best
indicators, defining the least impacted reference conditions, and determining thresholds for judging
condition.
7.1.1 Scale of assessment
This will be the second national report on the ecological condition of the nation’s wetlands using
comparable methods. EPA selected the sampling locations for the survey using a probability based
design, and developed rules for selection to meet certain distribution criteria, while ensuring that the
design yielded a set of wetlands that would provide for statistically valid conclusions about the condition
of the population of wetlands across the nation. A challenge that this mosaic of sites poses is developing
a data analysis plan that allows EPA and other partners to interpret data and present results at a large,
aggregate scale.
7.1.2 Selecting the best indicators
Indicators for the 2016 survey will remain basically the same as those used in the first assessment in
2011. Most of the 2011 indicators were found to be applicable across all reporting units, and were able
to differentiate a range of conditions. The notable exception was the algae species indicator, which has
been dropped for 2016.
7.1.3 Defining least impacted reference condition
Reference condition data are necessary to describe expectations for biological conditions under least
disturbed setting. The NWCA 2016 project team will use an approach similar to that used in NWCA 2011,
which is described in detail in the NWCA 2011 Technical Report (http://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-
resource-surveys/national-wetland-condition-assessment-2011-draft-technical-report).
7.1.4 Determining thresholds for judging condition
This reference site approach is used to set expectations and benchmarks for interpreting the data on
wetland condition. The range of conditions found in the reference sites for an ecoregion describes a
distribution of those biological or stressor values expected for least disturbed condition. The
benchmarks used to define distinct condition classes or stressor classes (e.g., good, fair, poor / low,
moderate, high) are drawn from this reference distribution. EPA’s approach is to examine the range of
values for biological condition or a stressor indicator in all of the reference sites in a region, and to use
the 5th percentile of the reference distribution for that indicator to separate the most disturbed of all
sites from moderately disturbed sites. Using the 5th percentile means that wetlands in the most
disturbed category are worse than 95% of the best sites used to define reference condition. Similarly,
the 25th percentile of the reference distribution can be used to distinguish between moderately
disturbed sites and those in least disturbed condition. This means that wetlands reported as least
disturbed are as good as 75% of the sites used to define reference condition.
7.2 Geospatial Data

Geospatial data is an integral part of the data analysis for the NWCA 2016, as it has been for all other
surveys. Anticipated activities utilizing geospatial data include review of coordinate data on sampling
locations, compilation of attribute data (e.g., watershed information, protected area status) based on
the location of sites, and computing landscape metrics (e.g., land cover, climate, pollutant loads).
7.3 Datasets Utilized for the Report

The datasets available for use in the report will be developed based on the data collected during NWCA
2016 and NWCA 2011. NWCA 2011 data will be used for change analysis, reference condition
development, and other analytical purposes as needed. Other data (e.g. taxonomic trait information,
geospatial information) may be added when appropriate.
The survey will use indicators to assess ecological integrity and the extent of stressors impacting
integrity.
7.3.1 Ecological integrity
Ecological integrity describes the ecological condition of a wetland based on different assemblages of
the vegetative community, soil characteristics, presence of appropriate hydrology and their physical
habitat. The indicators include vegetation, soils, hydrology, and water chemistry.
7.3.2 Stressor Status / Extent
Stressor indicators describe the extent of key parameters impacting the condition of wetlands as well as
the relative risk and attributable risk associated with stressors. The indicators include vegetation, soils,
hydrology, water chemistry, and buffer characterization.
7.4 Vegetation Data Analysis

Vegetation data will be analyzed using multimetric indices (MMI). The MMI approach summarizes
various assemblage attributes, such as composition, tolerance to disturbance, trophic and habitat
preferences, as individual metrics or measures of the biological community. Candidate metrics are
evaluated for aspects of performance and a subset of the best performing metrics are combined into an
index known as a Vegetation MMI. This index is then used to rank the condition of the resource.
7.5 Soils, Hydrology, Water Chemistry, and Buffer Data Analysis

A wide array of soil, water, and hydrologic/habitat disturbance parameters will be measured, including a
mix of field and lab-derived values. Results from an analysis of soil morphological properties, soil
chemistry, water chemistry (including chlorophyll-a and microcystin concentrations), and hydrologic
alteration will feed into an assessment framework to estimate the extent of key stressors and the
relative risks that stressors pose to wetland condition.
EPA will develop a set of regional stressor profiles which are qualitative characterizations of the general
types of human-caused stressors that affect wetlands within a broadly defined landscape. The analytical
process of grouping stressors into a profile takes into account the dominant land use and climatic
conditions surrounding the surveyed population of wetlands.
7.6 Relative Extent, Relative Risk, and Attributable Risk Evaluation

Each targeted reference site and survey site will be classified as being in either “Good”, “Fair”, or “Poor”
condition, separately for each stressor variable and for each MMI (response variable). From this data, an
estimate will be made of the relative extent (prevalence) of wetlands in “Poor” condition for a specified
stressor and the MMI.
The relative risk (RR) of each stressor for a biological response will also be estimated. RR measures the
severity of a stressor’s effect on that response in an individual wetland assessment area, when that
stressor is in Poor condition (Van Sickle, et al. 2006).
Finally, the population attributable risk (AR) of each stressor for a biological response will be estimated.
AR combines RR and relative extent into a single measure of the overall impact of a stressor on a
biological response, over the entire wetland resource (Van Sickle and Paulsen 2008).
8 REFERENCES
Adamus, P. R., and K. Brandt. 1990. Impacts on quality of Inland Wetlands of the United States: A survey
of indicators, techniques, and applications of community level biomonitoring data. EPA/600/3-90/073,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Baker, J.R. and G.D. Merritt, 1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Guidelines for
Preparing Logistics Plans. EPA 600/4-91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Bourdaghs, M., C. A. Johnston, and R. R. Regal. 2006. Properties and performance of the floristic quality
index in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 26:718-735.
Dahl, T.E. 2011. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009., U.S.
Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Dahl, T.E. 2014. Status and trends of prairie wetlands in the United States 1997 to 2009. U.S.
Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Dahl, T.E. and M.T. Bergeson. 2009. Technical procedures for conducting status and trends of the
Nation's wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation,
Washington, D.C.
Dahl, T.E. and S.M. Stedman. 2013. Status and trends of wetlands in coastal watersheds of the
Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marines Fisheries Service, Washington,
D.C.
Diaz-Ramos, S., D. L. Stevens, Jr., and A. R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistical Methods Manual. EPA/620/R-
96/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL-Western
Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon.
Garner, F.C., M.A. Stapanian, and K.E. Fitzgerald. 1991. Finding causes of outliers in multivariate
environmental data. Journal of Chemometrics. 5: 241-248.
Glaser, J.A., D.L. Foerst, G.D. McKee, S.A. Quave, and W.L. Budde. 1981. Trace analyses of waste‐waters.
Environmental Science & Technology. 15: 1426‐1435.
Heinz Center. 2002. The State of the Nation’s Ecosystems. The Cambridge University Press.
Hunt, D.T.E and A.L. Wilson. 1986. The chemical analysis of water: general principles and techniques.
2nd edition. Royal Society of Chemistry, London, England.
Kaufmann, P.R., D.V. Peck, S.G. Paulsen, C.W. Seeliger, R.M. Hughes, T.R. Whitier, and N.C. Kamman.
2014. Lakeshore and littoral physical habitat structure in a national lakes assessment. Lake and Reservoir
Management 30:192-215.
Kaufmann, P. R., P. Levine, E. G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D. V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying physical habitat
in wadeable streams. EPA 620/R-99/003, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Kirchmer, C.J. 1983. Quality control in water analysis. Environmental Science & Technology. 17: 174A-
181A.
Lane, C.R. and M.T. Brown. 2007. Diatoms as indicators of isolated herbaceous wetland condition in
Florida, USA. Ecological Indicators. 7:521-540.
Larsen, D. P., N. S. Urquhart, and D. L. Kugler. 1995. Regional-scale trend monitoring of indicators of
trophic condition of lakes. Water Resources Bulletin 31:117-139.
Larsen, D. P., T. M. Kincaid, S. E. Jacobs, and N. S. Urquhart. 2001. Designs for evaluating local and
regional scale trends. BioScience 51:1069-1078.
Larsen, D. P., P. R. Kaufmann, T. M. Kincaid, and N. S. Urquhart. 2004. Detecting persistent change in the
habitat of salmon-bearing streams in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 61:283-291.
Mack, J. J., and M. E. Kentula. 2010. Metric similarity in vegetation-based wetland assessment methods.
EPA/600/R-10/140. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects
Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR.
Magee, T. K., and M. E. Kentula. 2005. Response of wetland plant species to hydrologic conditions.
Wetland Ecology and Management 13:163-181.
Magee, T.K., P. Ringold, and M. Bollman. 2008. Alien species importance in native vegetation along
wadeable streams, John Day River basin, Oregon, USA. Plant Ecology 195:287-307.
Magee, T.K., P.L. Ringold, M.A. Bollman, and T.L. Ernst. 2010. Index of Alien Impact: a method for
evaluating potential ecological impact of alien plant species. Environmental Management 45:759-778.
Meglen, R.R. 1985. A quality control protocol for the analytical laboratory. Pp. 250-270 IN: J.J. Breen and
P.E. Robinson (eds). Environmental Applications of Cehmometrics. ACS Symposium Series 292. American
Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands / William J. Mitsch, James G. Gosselink. Hoboken, N.J. :
John Wiley & Sons, c2007.
NAPA. 2002. Environment.gov: Transforming Environmental Protection for the 21st Century. National
Academy of Public Administration. ISBN: 1-57744-083-8. p. 219.
National Research Council. 2000. Ecological Indicators for the Nation. The National Academies Press,
Oblinger Childress, C.J., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F. and T.J. Maloney. 1999. New reporting procedures
based on long-term method detection levels and some considerations for interpretations of water-
quality data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory. U.S.G.S Open-
File Report 99–193, Reston, Virginia.
Overton, W.S., White, D., and Stevens, D.L. Jr. 1991. Design report for EMAP, the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program. EPA/600/3- 91/053, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Paulsen, S.G., D.P. Larsen, P.R. Kaufmann, T.R. Whittier, J.R. Baker, D. Peck, J. McGue, R.M. Hughes, D.
McMullen, D. Stevens, J.L. Stoddard, J. Lazorchak, W. Kinney, A.R. Selle, and R. Hjort. 1991. EMAP -
surface waters monitoring and research strategy, fiscal year 1991. EPA-600-3-91-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. and
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Peet, R.K., T.R. Wentworth, and P.S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63(3):262-274.
Quétier, F., S. Lavorel, W. Thuiller, and I. Davies. 2007. Plant-trait-based modeling assessment of
ecosystem-service sensitivity to land-use change. Ecological Applications 17:2377-2386
Reiss, K.C. and M.T. Brown. 2005. The Florida Wetland Condition Index (FWCI): Developing Biological
Indicators for Isolated Depressional Forested Wetlands. Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. #WM-683.
Stapanian, M.A., F.C. Garner, K.E. Fitzgerald, G.T. Flatman, and J.M. Nocerino. 1993. Finding suspected
causes of measurement error in multivariate environmental data. Journal of Chemometrics. 7: 165-176.
Stevens, D. L., Jr., 1994. Implementation of a National Monitoring Program. Journal Environ.
Management 42:1-29.
Stevens, D.L., Jr. 1997. Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations.
Environmetrics, 8:167-95.
Stevens, D.L., Jr. and Olsen, A.R. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources.
Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental
Statistics, 4:415-428
Stevens, D. L., Jr., and A. R. Olsen. 2003. Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of
environmental resources. Environmetrics 14:593-610.
Stevens, D. L., Jr., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially-balanced sampling of natural resources in the
presence of frame imperfections. Journal of American Statistical Association:99:262-278.
Taylor, J. K. 1987. Quality assurance of chemical measurements. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
Thien, S. J. 1979. A flow diagram for teaching texture by feel analysis. Journal of Agronomic Education.
8:54-55.
Tiner, R. W. 1999. Wetland Indicators: A guide to wetland identification, delineation, classification, and
mapping. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
US GAO. 2000. Water Quality. GAO/RCED-00-54. Washington, H.G. 1984. Diversity, biotic, and similarity
indices. Water Research 18(6): 653-694.
USDA and APHIS. 2010. How to import foreign soil and how to move soil within the United States. Q-
330.300-1. United States Department of Agriculture and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection and Quarantine.
USDA, and NRCS. 2006. Field indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 6.0.in G. W. Hurt and
L. M. Vasilas, editors. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils., Lincoln, NE.
USDA, NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 19 January 2016). National Plant Data
Team, Greensboro, NC.
U.S. EPA, 1984. EPA Order 2160 (July 1984), Records Management Manual, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.U.S. EPA, 1999. EPA’s Information Management Security Manual.
EPA Directive 2195 A1.
U.S. EPA, 2001. Agency Network Security Policy. EPA Order 2195.1 A4.
USEPA 2002a Guidance for Quality Assurance Plans EPA240/R-02/009 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2002b. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: #10 Using Vegetation to Assess
Environmental Conditions in Wetlands. EPA-822-R-02-020, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2003. Draft Report on the Environment. ORD and OEI. EPA-260-R-02-006. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Environmental Information,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2004. Revised Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Approaches. EPA-821-B-04-005. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2006a. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA/240/B-
06/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2006b. Wadeable streams assessment: A collaborative survey of the nation’s streams. EPA 841-
B-06-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 2011a. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Site Evaluation Guidelines. EPA-843-R-10-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 2011b. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA-843-R-10-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 2011c. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Laboratory Operations Manual. EPA-843-R-
10-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA 2013. National rivers and streams assessment 2008–2009 technical report, DRAFT U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2014. FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan: EPA-190-R-14-006. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2016a. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Field Operations Manual. EPA-843-R-15-
007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2016b. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Laboratory Operations Manual. EPA 843-
R-15-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2016c. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Site Evaluation Guidelines. EPA 843-R-15-
010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Web Page: http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm
[Document End]

Logistics Quality Project Control Plan Template

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logistics Quality Project Control Plan Template

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Logistics Quality Project Control Plan Template

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States Environmental Protection Agency

National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016

QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN

Quality Assurance Project Plan □

Retain a copy for your files.

The suggested citation for this document is:

QAPP Version Date Approved Changes Made

National Project Coordinators

U.S. EPA Office of Water

U.S. EPA Office of Water

adams.darvene@epa.gov U.S. EPA - Region II

Poeske.regina@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region III

nord.mari@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region V

Chamberlain.Eliodora@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region VII

Johnson.tom@Epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region VIII

Bunch.William@epa.gov U.S. EPA – Region VIII

fleming.terrence@epa.gov U.S.EPA – Region IX

Jones.Paul@epa.gov U.S.EPA – Region IX

hayslip.gretchen@epa.gov U.S. EPA - Region X,

Thiesing.Mary@epa.gov U.S. EPA - Region X,

1 PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................ 1

4.7.1 Computing Infrastructure ..................................................................................................... 45

Table 5-10. Field measurement methods for hydrology indicator. ............................................................ 56

1 PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

The NWCA 2016 has three main objectives:

1.2 Project Organization

The primary responsibilities of the principals and cooperators are as follows:

Project Manager – Gregg Serenbetz, OW

Alternate Project Manager – Chris Faulkner, OW

EPA Field Logistics Coordinator – Colleen Mason, OW

EPA Project QA Lead – Sarah Lehman, OW

EPA Laboratory Review Coordinator – Kendra Forde, OW

 Ensures laboratory data is submitted within specified timelines.

Information Management Coordinator – Marlys Cappaert, SRA International Inc.

EPA QA Officer – Margarete Heber, OW

Wetlands Division QA Coordinator – Rebecca Dils, OW

Regional EPA Coordinators

Study Design Manager – Tony Olsen, ORD

Cooperator(s) – States, Tribes, academics, other federal agencies, contractors

Field Sampling Crew Leaders

National Laboratory Task Order Managers

Study Design Field Protocols

Vegetation Soil Chemistry / Bulk Density Water Chemistry / Chlorophyll a

Hydrology Field Observations (stressors) Microcystin

NWCA Project and Quality Team

Figure 1-2. NWCA Project Organization

1.2.1 Project Schedule

2014 2015 2016 2016-17 2018

1.3 Scope of Quality Assurance Project Plan

1.3.1 Overview of Field Operations

1.3.1.1 Field Crew Duties and Qualifications

1. Laying out the Assessment Area (AA) and vegetative plots;

 Understanding of basic wetland plant ecology.

AB Team members should have the following skills/abilities:

 Previous experience conducting ecological field work

1.3.1.2 Field Crew Training

1.3.1.3 Field Operations Timeline

1.3.1.4 Pre-Field Visit Activities

 Applicable site maps, aerial photos, and other Imagery

EPA will provide site maps for states if requested.