QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN FOR
1991 PILOT STUDY OF
THE ECOLOGICAL CONDITION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER
CONSTRUCTED WETLAND TREATMENT SYSTEMS
by
Arthur D. Sherman
JJ>. White Company
Vancouver, WA 98660
and
Lynne McAllister
Mantech Environmental Technology, Inc.
Corvallis, OR 97333
Project Officer
Mary E. Ken tula
Wetlands Research Program
Environmental Research Laboratory - Corvallis
Corvallis, OR 97333
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY - CORVALLIS
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OR 97333
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Ftmt md /mameriont on tht rrrene btfort compttf
1, REPORT NO. a.
EPA/600/R-92/23-1
» PB93-134674
4. TITLE *NP SUBTITLE ,
Quality Assurance Plan for 1991 Pilot Study
of Ecological Condition of Municipal Waste-
Water Constructed Wetland Treatment Systems
ft. WORT PATE
December 1992
I. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTMORISI
'Arthur D. Sherman and2 Lynne S. McAllister
B. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
>. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AMD ADDRESS
D. White Co, Vancouver, WA; and
2ManTech Environmental Technology, Inc.
ERL-Corvallis, OR
10. PROORAM ELEMENT NO.
H. C6N"T*ACf/'SHAnT k6."
12. SPONSORING AGiNCY NAME AND ADDRESS
US Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
13. TYPE OP HEPOBT AND PERIOD COVERED
Published Report
14. SPONSORING AOENCY CODE
EPA/600IOZ
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
1992. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
IS. ABSTRACT
The purpose of this quality assurance plan is to detail the methods and
procedures to be used in the pilot study of the ecological condition in
municipal wastewater constructed wetland treatment systems. It
includes specific procedures for assuring that data are of known, high
quality. Background material and description of the general approach
are outlined in a separate project work plan.x
17. KIY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
1. DESCRIPTORS
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI FkM/Ctoup
wetland treatment system,
wildlife habitat quality,
indicator, constructed
wetlands, quality assurance
IB. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
at. NO. Of PAGES
92
ao security class (Tsu
Unclassified
32. PRICE
spa Ptm S11B-1 (»-TI)
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
CONSTRUCTED WETLAND ECOLOGICAL STUDY
Document Control Number
( )
Name: Mary E. Kentula
Title Wetlands Program Leader
Phone 754-4478
Signature:
Name: Roger Blair
Title EPA Watershed Branch Chief
Date
Phone 754-4662
Signature,
r~t ¦
Date ~7/£/ fx
Name Robert Lackey
Title EPA Quality^-A-Ssurance Officer
Signature
Phone 754-4601
Date
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development
200 S.W. 35th Street
Corvallis, OR 97333
May 1992
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Overview 1
1.2 Objectives and Tasks 2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2
3.0 PROJECT QA ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES 7
4.0 OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT 7
5.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES 11
5.1 Introduction 11
5.1.1 Data handling procedures 11
5.1.2 Entering Data on Data Forms 11
5.1.3 Correcting Errors in Entries 12
5.1.4 Solving problems encountered 12
5.2 Landscape Indicators 12
5.2.1 QA Considerations 12
5.2.2 Material and supplies list 13
5.2.3 Specific procedures 13
5.3 Selection of Sampling Locations Within Site 13
5.3.1 Site Stratification 13
5.3.1.1 QA Considerations 14
5.3.1.2 Equipment and Supply List 14
5.3.1.3 Specific Procedures 14
5.3.2 Tratisect Establishment 14
5.3.2.1 QA Considerations 15
5.3.2.2 Equipment and Supply List 15
5.3.2.3 Specific Procedures 15
5.4 Water Quality (Existing data sets) 15
5.5 Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests 16
5.5.1 Introduction 16
5.5.2 QA Considerations 16
5.5.3 Materials and supplies list 17
5.5.4 Specific procedures 17
5.6 Vegetation Sampling 18
5.6.1 QA Considerations 18
5.6.2 Equipment and Supply List 18
5.6.3 Specific Procedures 18
5.6.3.1 Vegetation Inventory Procedures 18
5.6.3.2 Cover Estimation and Structural Diversity 18
5.7.3.3 Specimen Collection and Preservation 21
5.7 Bird Data 22
5.7.1 Introduction 22
5.7.2 QA Considerations 22
5.7.3 Materials and Supplies 22
5.7.4 Specific Procedures 22
5.8 Invertebrates 22
5.8.1 Introduction 22
5.8.2 Equipment and Supply List 23
-------
Li
5.83 Specific Procedures 24
5.9 Wetland Functional Analysis (WET) 25
5.9.1 Introduction 25
5.9.2 Equipment and Supplies List 25
5.9.3 Specific Procedures 25
5.10 Field Training 25
5.11 Sample Labeling 26
5.12 Sample Handling 26
5.13 Supporting Data 26
5.13.1 QA Considerations 26
5.13.2 Equipment and Supply List 26
5.13.3 Sketch Maps 26
5.13.4 Photography 27
6.0 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY 28
7.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY 28
7.1 Laboratory 28
7.2 Field 29
8.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES 29
8.1 Whole effluent toxicity tests 29
9.0 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION 29
10.0 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS 33
11.0 PERFORMANCE "AND SYSTEM AUDITS 33
12.0 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE 33
12.1 Compass 33
12.2 Plant presses 33
13.0 SPECIFIC ROUTINE PROCEDURES USED TO ASSESS DATA PRECISION,
ACCURACY, AND COMPLETENESS 34
13.1 Field Work 34
13.1.1 Specific Procedures 34
13.2 Laboratory Measurements 35
13.3 ERL-C Data Quality Assessment Procedures 35
13.3.1 General Procedures 36
13.3.2 Specific Procedures 36
14.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 39
15.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS (TO MANAGEMENT) 40
16.0 REFERENCES 41
APPENDIX A LIST OF COOPERATORS AND DATA COLLECTORS 43
APPENDIX B DATA FORMS AND LOGS 46
-------
iii
APPENDIX C AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHERS 56
APPENDIX D SKETCH MAP PROCEDURES 57
APPENDIX E WETLAND EVALUATION TECHNIQUE DATA FORMS 60
APPENDIX F SITE MAPS 78
-------
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table L Site information 3
Table IL Indicators of wetland ecological condition that will be measured during the 1991 pilot
study. 4
Table III. List of wetland indicators to be obtained from existing data sets 5
Table IV. 1991 pilot study schedule 6
Table V. Data variables, units, sources, and quality objectives 9
Table VI. Water quality measurements available from each site 16
-------
V
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Quadrat placement along transect 20
Figure 2. Data reduction scheme 32
-------
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this quality assurance plan is to detail the methods and procedures to be used in
the pilot study of the ecological condition in municipal wastewater constructed wetland treatment systems
(hereafter referred to as wetland treatment systems, or WTS). It includes specific procedures for assuring
that data are of known, high quality. Background material and description of the general approach are
outlined in a separate project work plan.
1.1 Project Overview
Wetland treatment systems are engineered systems designed to simulate natural wetland ecosystem
processes for the primary purpose of wastewater treatment (Hammer and Bastian 1989). While current
evidence shows that wetland treatment systems can duplicate structural aspects of some natural wetlands,
little is known about the replication of wetland functions (Clewell and Lea 1989, Zedler and Weller 1989).
Wetland functions are processes or attributes, inherent in many wetlands, that contribute toward a service
or benefit that humans consider important. Wetlands usually perform one or more functions, depending
upon their type, location, the local geology, topography, and hydrology, and other characteristics of the
watershed. Typical wetland functions include: wildlife habitat, recreation, nutrient and pollutant
assimilation and retention, detritus and dissolved nutrient and organic matter production, reduction of
downstream sedimentation, floodwater retention, and groundwater recharge. With the exception of nutrient
removal, wetland functions are normally considered "ancillary", or supplemental in WTS because these
systems are usually designed for wastewater treatment and not necessarily for other purposes.
Wetland treatment systems can 3nd do provide various ancillary functions, but concerns exist about
potential effects on ecological condition caused by additions of wastewater to these wetlands (Godfrey et
al. 1985, U.S. EPA 1984, Mudroch and Capobianco 1979). The ecological condition, or "health" of a
wetland refers to its ecosystem viability, sustainability, and ability to serve one or more functions. A
"healthy" wetland exhibits structures and functions necessary to sustain itself and is free of most known
stressors or problems (Rapport 1989, Schaeffer et al. 1988). Wetland treatment systems have great potential
to serve many ancillary functions, but concerns exist about potential effects on ecological condition caused
by additions of wastewater to these wetlands. Monitoring the ecological condition of wastewater treatment
systems requires development and validation of indicators. Indicators are easily-measured wetland attributes
which can be used to assess wetland ecological condition and to identify ecological disfunction. A great deal
of research is now underway to develop indicators of ecological condition in wetlands, but most indicators
need further testing.
This pilot study will focus on ancillary benefits and ecological processes and their assessment in
wetland treatment systems. Six selected wetland treatment systems will be evaluated in July and August
1991. The study is designed to test several indicators for their range, variability and ability to characterize
the ecological condition and functioning of wetland treatment systems. In particular, ecological condition
will be judged in terms of each wetland's ancillary role as wildlife habitat. The pilot study is an exploratory
effort for testing methods, indicators, logistics, and capabilities. It is not intended to provide probability
samples which can be related with known confidence to a defined population of constructed wetlands. The
data collected should enable us to draw some general conclusions about ecological condition and ancillary
benefits of wetland treatment systems (particularly with respect to wildlife habitat values) and the ability
of the chosen set of indicators to assess wetland ecological condition. Many of the conclusions drawn from
collected data will be speculative and will form the basis for designing a more focussed, quantitative study.
Future research efforts could expand on the pilot study by adopting a larger or more homogeneous set of
wetland sites, by intensifying sampling, and by refining the list of wetland condition indicators.
-------
2
L2 Objectives and Tasks
The objectives of the pilot study are:
o To examine methods and indicators for evaluating the wildlife habitat quality of WTS
o To identify potential gross differences in wildlife habitat indicators between WTS and non-WTS
o To provide baseline data and identify approaches for a more focussed, follow-up project that will
provide specific information for developing measures of the wildlife habitat quality of WTS.
Specific tasks for study of selected municipal wastewater constructed wetlands are to:
o utilize the Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) (Adamus 1987) to evaluate habitat quality and
other values of constructed wetlands;
o compile data on selected indicators of wetland condition by: 1) taking measurements at sites and
2) using existing data sets; and
o compare measured indicator values with literature values for natural and created wetlands to get
a preliminary idea of the range and variability of the indicators in the six study constructed wetlands
relative to the range and variability found in other wetlands.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Six wetland treatment sites were chosen from a list of all free water surface municipal wastewater
constructed wetlands operating in the U.S. Sites cover a range of sizes, ages, and geographical locations
(Table I). Sites were chosen based on the following criteria:
o location in two different geographical and climatic regions of the country (the arid
and semi-arid west and the southeast) and covering a range of sizes
o covering a range of ages but in operation for at least one year
o the existence of some background data on water quality
o permission to use the site
o interest of site operators and other groups in collaboration.
Lynne McAllister and Jane Schuler will travel to all sites in July and August of 1991. To assess
ecological condition of the selected wetland sites, two general techniques will be used. First, an evaluation
of each wetland's overall value, including its function as wildlife habitat, will be done at each site using the
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) (Adamus 1987). Second, selected indicators will be measured to
evaluate their abilities to assess ecological condition and ancillary benefits of wetland treatment systems.
Testing will include determination of indicator variability among wetlands sampled and deviation in indicator
values from those measured in natural and created wetlands. Low variability among constructed wetlands
and obvious deviations from values obtained for natural and created wetlands would be the expected
assessment result for an effective indicator. Data for each indicator will be obtained in one of two ways:
-------
3
o
collecting data in the field (Table II);
o
using information from existing data sets and records kept for each site (Table III).
Table I. Site information.
Site name
Location
Year built
Size fhal
Collins
Incline Village
Lakeland
Orlando
Show Low
West Jackson
Collins, MS
Incline Village, NV
Lakeland, FL
Orlando, FL
Show Low, AZ
Ocean Springs, MS
1987
1985
1987
1987
1980
1990
4.05
365.00
498.00
486.00
284.00
21.00
Calculation of descriptive statistics for each indicator will be necessary for data summary, but a
qualitative assessment of summary data will be done to determine:
o indicator range and variability among site sizes, locations, and ages
o ecosystem function and habitat value of sites
Ecosystem function and habitat value will be judged in terms of abundance and diversity of biota,
wetland nutrient assimilation capacity, and physical features of the landscape by comparing indicator values
with published data for natural and created wetlands. Qualitative comparisons will be done on wetland data
from the same general region of the country. Comparisons to existing data for natural and created wetlands
may help identify gross deviations from natural and/or created wetlands of ecological condition of the six
study wetland treatment systems if they exist. Because the sample size is small and sites are very different
from one another, statistical analyses are inappropriate.
ERL-Duluth is providing a van for travel to all sites. Field data collection will require 4-6 days
at each site, depending upon site size, weather, and vegetation density and diversity. Sampling at the
western sites will be completed in early July and at the eastern sites in late July and early August. The
project schedule chart is shown in Table IV.
Data analysis will include compilation of existing data, creation of a data base for all collected and
existing data, data summaries, validation of vegetation specimens, invertebrate enumeration, laboratory
analysis of water samples, digitizing aerial photographs for the landscape variables, literature review of
existing data for natural and created wetlands, and data comparisons with wetland treatment systems (see
Section 9.0 - Data Reduction and Validation). A final report for ERL-Corvallis will be prepared by May
1992.
-------
4
Table IL Indicators of wetland ecological condition that will be measured during the 1991 pilot study.
Ecological Component Indicators
Landscape Wetland area
Wetland age
Distance of land/water interface in relation to water surface area
Ratio of open water area to area covered by vegetation
Land use in surrounding upland
Distance to other wetlands, major rivers, the coast, traditional use areas
(e.g. rookeries), cliffs/bluffs, roads, towns
Presence of intervening habitats/corridors, protective buffers
Cowardin et al. wetland classification
Vegetation Species composition and percent coverage
Structural diversity (# layers, size classes)
Species dominance
Presence of exotic species (descriptive)
Invertebrates Species richness per stratum and per wetland
Number of individuals of each species and of each functional group
Toxicity
Whole effluent toxicity tests on inflow and outflow
-------
5
Table 1IL List of wetland indicators to be obtained from existing data sets.
Ecological Component Indicators
Water pH
Dissolved oxygen
Biochemical oxygen demand
Total suspended solids
Ammonia nitrogen
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Fecal coliform bacteria
Birds Ecological density (based on use concentration areas) of each species group
- waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds
Species richness
Relative abundance
-------
6
Table IV. 1991 pilot study schedule.
1991
|Mar |Apr |May |Jun j Jul |Aug |Sep [Oct |Nov |Dec
Initial site char. | —| |— | | |
prelim, contacts,
site visit, planning
Field crew training | | | ---1 — | |
Site visits
-Incline Village | | 1 | 1*1
-Show Low j | j j 1*1
-Ocean Springs | j j j 1*1
-Collins j j j j 1*1
-Lakeland j j j j j | *
-Orlando 1 I I I I I
Aerial photography | | | — | | |
Water sample analysis | | | j | —
Data analysis 1 I I I I I
-------
7
3.0 PROJECT QA ORGANIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITIES
This pilot project is being designed and led by ERL-Corvailis staff; field support and laboratory
work will be provided by ERL-Duluth. Names of cooperatore are listed in Appendix A The field
component of the study will be carried out by Lynne McAllister, ERl^Corvallis and Jane Schuler, a
temporary hire from ERL-Duluth, during July and August 1991. Lynne McAllister will oversee data
collection, recording, analysis, and report writing. She will be responsible for quality assurance procedures,
quality control data, evaluation of existing data bases, and oversight of the bird survey data. Both members
of the field crew have knowledge of wetland ecology and wetland plant identification, as well as extensive
work experience in different types of wetlands in various regions of the country.
Existing data bases will be used for some of the chosen indicators (Table III) because many data
are more useful and representative of average wetland conditions if collected over a period of time rather
than sampled during a very narrow time frame (4-6 days). Because these data have already been collected,
ERL-C has made no agreements with cooperators regarding QA/QC of the measurements. The names and
locations of people, agencies, and labs that contribute or provide existing data are listed in Appendix A
Wetland treatment sites that discharge wastewater to a natural water body are required under
regulations to sample water regularly for water quality. Water quality data is collected monthly or quarterly
at all the eastern sites. Due to arid conditions in the west, enough water evaporates to obviate discharge
to a natural body of water, so the western study sites (Show Low and Incline Village) are not required to
routinely analyze water to fulfill a discharge permit requirement. Some water quality data, however, is
collected at the western sites because it is of interest to site managers or agencies that have interest in the
nutrient status in the wetlands (e.g. wildlife agencies). Water quality data is available from site managere.
Most laboratories that conduct water analyses for these sites have their own quality assurance programs and
documents (See Section 5.4).
Bird surveys are being conducted during 1991 in the six study constructed wetland sites by wildlife
biologists from local state and federal agencies and universities who have expert knowledge of avian biology,
identification, and survey techniques for birds in their respective regions. Survey results will be available
for use in this study. We have made no arrangements with surveyors for QA/QC procedures during bird
surveys, nor do the individual surveyors use formal QA/QC guidelines. Quality assurance is incorporated
into the survey designs, however, through the selection of stationary survey points, employment of biologists
trained in bird identification, and standardizing survey methods and schedules among the six wetlands.
Landscape indicators will be measured from aerial photographs by Lynne McAllister at ERL-
Corvallis after the field season. Invertebrate field specimens will be identified and enumerated by personnel
at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Vegetation that cannot be identified by the field crew during
sampling will be preserved and identified to species by local experts at universities during the field season
or brought back to Duluth or Corvallis for keying by botanists at ERL-C, ERL-D, or nearby university
herbarium personnel. Water samples will be sent to ERL-Duluth after collection at each site for whole-
effluent toxicity analysis. Lynne McAllister will have responsibility for seeing that these tasks are completed
and that data are of sufficient quality.
4.0 OBJECTIVES FOR MEASUREMENT
Four types of data are used during this study: (1) data collected in the field; (2) data derived from
maps and aerial photographs; (3) existing data; and (4) laboratory analytical data (whole-effluent toxicity
analyses). Laboratory analytical data quality procedures and data quality objectives (DQO's) for the whole-
effluent toxicity tests will be based on the ERL-D's Laboratory Quality Assurance Plans and Standard
Operating Procedures.
-------
8
A primary objective of this pilot study is to develop and test environmental indicators for
determining and evaluating habitat functions provided by wetlands constructed for waste treatment
Vegetation, water quality, bird use, and landscape data will be collected. Data collected during the study
and existing data will be evaluated for (1) its ability to indicate wetland function and (2) its quality in terms
of precision, accuracy, completeness, representativeness, and comparability. The study findings will be used
to develop data quality objectives for future studies using these procedures. For this study, we will address
mainly precision and accuracy.
Data comparability and precision is monitored by periodic QA checks. Checks are conducted for
measured parameters requiring specific measurement, estimating, or identification skills. These parameters
are invertebrate identification and enumeration, vegetation cover estimation, and plant identification. To
accomplish this, replicate samples or determinations are compared at regular intervals in the sampling
procedures. For this study, accuracy can be addressed for few measurements because there are usually no
standards available for the types of data we will collect in the field. Table V lists data quality objectives
for precision and accuracy for all project variables.
The purpose of gathering water quality data was to evaluate the usefulness of water quality variables
as indicators and not to use the data in subsequent analyses or to draw conclusions about constructed
wetland performance. Standard operating procedures and quality assurance procedures were obtained from
the laboratories that measure water parameters from samples collected at the constructed wetland sites.
It was decided, however, that a careftil inspection of the data and quality assurance procedures was not
worthwhile or necessary for pilot study objectives. Criteria for assessing data quality had not been
developed, and the process would have been very time-consuming. The relative importance of the data for
assessing wetland condition and interpreting results was low. Data were intended to be used for calculating
summary statistics and assessing variability regardless of laboratory protocols and measurement consistency
among testing labs.
Completeness is checked by comparing the amount of data collected to that which was intended to
be collected. We expect to collect at least 80% of the samples stated in the procedures section. Because
the wetland environments, weather, and logistical matters on a trip of this scope and length are extremely
unpredictable, this is a reasonable estimate for completeness.
Representativeness is not particularly relevant to this study. Use of standard procedures and
documentation of decision criteria promote representativeness, although no specific numerical checks are
provided. When laying out transects, we will try to include all representative plant communities (or
habitats). This will be done by conducting an initial site reconnaissance to identify the major communities.
If the three long transects that we propose to sample as a minimum per site do not intersect all of the
major communities at least once, shorter transects will be established through communities that were missed.
Following routine procedures and documenting exactly what was done will ensure representative samples.
Whenever possible, procedures used will be consistent with standard procedures used in other EPA
wetland work (i.e., Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation 1989, Sherman, et al 1991).
This will maintain high comparability between the data collected during the respective studies. Where
possible, the expected data quality, based on previous EPA wetland studies, will be used as data quality
objectives.
-------
9
Table V. Data variables, units, sources, and quality objectives. NA=not applicable; NE=not evaluated.
Variable
Units
Source
Precision
Accuracy
Landscape
wetland area
ha
air photos
90%
NA
land/water interface
meters
air photos
90%
NA
cover/cover interface
meters
air photos
90%
NA
water surface area
ha
air photos
90%
NA
vegetated surface area
ha
air photos
90%
NA
relative coverage of
selected types
%
air photos
90%
NA
Veeetation
species richness
species
field samples
NE
NA
structural diversity
# layers
• •
100%
NA
% coverage by species
%
m n
85%
NA
species dominance
-
calculate
NA
NA
species composition
genus, species
n m
85%
NA
Invertebrates
species richness
species
field samples
NE
NA
species composition
family, genus
* •
85%
NA
individuals ea. species
individuals
85%
NA
relative abundance of
each functional group
%
calculate
NA
NA
Toxicity
% survival
field samples/lab assays
NA
NA
whole-effluent
mean reproduction
Birds
density
#/wetland area
calculate
NE
NA
species richness
species
bird surveys
NE
NA
relative abundances
no./habitat
bird surveys
NE
NA
-------
10
Table V, continued
Variable Units Source Precision Accuracy
Water Quality
pH
Standard units existing data sets
NE
NE
Dissolved oxygen
mg/L
NE
NE
BOD
• a
NE
NE
TSS
• ¦
NE
NE
nh3-n
» «
NE
NE
TKN
n m
NE
NE
TP
* ¦
NE
NE
Fecal Coliforms
#/100 ml
NE
NE
WET Functional Analysis -- field obs, maps, photos, NE NE
soil surveys
-------
11
5.0 SAMPLING PROCEDURES
5.1 Introduction
This section documents the procedures for each of the main project activities. For each activity,
a brief description, quality assurance considerations, a materials and supplies list, and a detailed procedure
are provided. Table V lists each parameter, the data sources, and the measurement units used.
5.1.1 Data handling procedures
The EPA ERL-C Technical and Field Leader is Lynne McAllister. She is responsible for the
custody of all data forms. All original data forms are to be preserved. Copies of all data forms that will
be used in this study appear in Appendix B.
General considerations in data handling are listed below.
1. Just before leaving the site each day, check each data sheet for legibility and completeness. Check
that all data forms are present and in the correct order. In particular, check that headings are
complete, e.g., that site name, date, team member's initials, QA status, and any other information
is filled in. Data forms should be stored in a dry and clean place.
2. Daily, or as soon as practical, make two copies of all data forms. Check copies for legibility. Send
one copy to Richard Olson at ERL-C, who will maintain a file at ERL-C. Keep the original and
second copy in separate storage containers with the field crew. This allows for replacement sets in
case the originals are destroyed or lost
3. Maintain a log of all data forms completed and copies sent to the lab. The log can be compared
to the field sampling schedule so any missing data can be identified and located.
5.1.2 Entering Data on Data Forms
There are three major sources of data entry errors: (1) Misplaced entries; (2) illegible entries; and
(3) incorrect entries. Procedures to minimize such errors are presented below.
Data forms:
1. Take time to ensure the data is being recorded in the correct row and column. When recording
numerical data on a matrix form it is easy to lose one's place.
2. Verify which sampling point is being sampled each time a move is made.
3. If data must be entered in a non-standard location on the form, document what you did and why
it was done. On the form write the information nearby or write a number, circle it, then, at the
bottom of the page or in the margin, repeat the circled number, write the correct data, and initial
the entry.
4. Some forms may be similar in appearance, so make sure that you are using the correct one.
5. Never enter data from more than one transect on the same data form.
-------
12
Avoiding Illegible Entries:
1. Use a black pen. Never use pencil Black pen makes better copies.
2. Write carefully and don't rush.
3. Use a clipboard and an additional clip to hold the paper down if windy.
4. Use the following rules for writing numbers:
-Leave the tops of 4's open.
-Close the tops of all 9's.
-Cross all 7's.
•Make certain one can distinguish between 5's, 8's, and 2's.
5. After entering a data set, stop and examine the data sheets for legibility and completeness.
During this project, one person may call out data and another record it. Before writing data down
the recorder should repeat it to verify accuracy. Verify the spelling of plant names. Watch for numerical
transpositions.
5.13 Correcting Errors in Entries
Never erase. Draw a line through mistakes, write the correct information neatly nearby and initial
the entry. If there isn't enough room to write the correct information, write a number and circle it. At
the bottom of the page or in the margin, repeat the circled number, write the correct data, and initial the
entry.
5.1.4 Solving problems encountered
If data is missing or illegible, Lynne should attempt to rectify the problem before leaving the site.
If the problem cannot be corrected, she should fully document the situation on the appropriate data form(s).
If the problem involves a significant quantity of data, Richard Olson (Project Officer, ERL-C) should be
contacted to determine what corrective action should be taken.
52 Landscape Indicators
Landscape indicators often provide a more integrated assessment of wetland condition than the more
highly variable indicator measurements obtained during field sampling. They can provide measures of
habitat values. Table V lists the landscape indicators to be measured during this study, the data sources,
and units of measurement.
5.2.1 QA Considerations
Appendix C lists aerial photographers who have been contracted through EPA to conduct color
infrared aerial photography of each site. Photo quality has been maximized by contracting experienced and
reputable air photo companies and by providing the same photo specification request to all companies for
photography to be done in each region.
The procedures used for acquiring landscape indicators consist of measurements of length and area
using a digitizer. Although quantitative, the areas and lengths measured relate to mapped or photographed
environmental conditions which must be qualitatively estimated. The major quality assurance measures
-------
13
related to these procedures are precision, completeness, and comparability. Precision will be checked by
replicate measurements of the same variable. Completeness and comparability will be enhanced through
the use of standard procedures.
5.2.2 Material and supplies list
* large scale aerial photographs
* digitizer/arc-info system
* planimeter
* stereoscope
* data sheets
* pencils
* calculator
* ruler
S 7 ^ Specific procedures
Photographs of each site will be overlapped to match land features appropriately and layed out on
a large digitizing board. A Mantech employee will complete the digitizing of wetland area, land/water
interface, cover type interface, water surface area, wetland area, and areas of vegetation zones using an
electronic digitizer connected to the ARC/INFO geographic information system software on the VAX
computer. Standard procedures for digitizing follow the Arclnfo Usere Guide (ESRI 1989). Personnel
performing this job will have experience with digitizing and the ARC/INFO system. In addition to
measurements taken for landscape indicators, the use of Arclnfo will facilitate the production of accurate
base maps for each site, which will be useful for designing future research at these sites and for noting long-
term changes in vegetation patterns.
The Cowardin et at. (1979) wetland classification will be used to define wetland type for each site.
At large sites that are composed of several wetland types, the percentage of each type will be estimated.
The Cowardin classification, developed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is intended to describe
ecological taxa, arrange them in a system useful to resource managers, furnish units for mapping, and
provide uniformity of concepts and terms. Wetlands are defined by plants (hydrophytes), soils (hydric soils),
and frequency of flooding. Ecologically related areas of deep water, traditionally not considered wetlands,
are included in the classification as deepwater habitats. The classification is based on a hierarchy of
classification levels: system, subsystem, class, subclass, dominance type and modifiers. No additional data
will be required for classifying wetlands. Wetland classification will be included in the general site
information in a field notebook.
53 Selection of Sampling Locations Within Site
53.1 Site Stratification
Each wetland will be stratified by vegetation communities present and by wetland cell. The farther
away from the source of wastewater entry, the greater the cell number. Very often wetland treatment
systems are planted so that each cell contains monospecific stands of %'egetation. The species planted -
usually Typha and Scirpus are those found to be most efficient in promoting nutrient assimilation. These
species are usually capable of translocating large quantities of oxygen to their root zones for use by bacteria
and other organisms that can process nutrients. If vegetation within a single cell is of mixed types,
stratification will be done for vegetation type as well as cell. Each community will be sampled separately.
This provides better sample representativeness and more accurate characterization of the various habitats
-------
14
within the site. Vegetation stratifications will be: 1) emergent - TVt?ha; 2) emergent - Srirpus: 3) emergent -
other dominant, or mixed; 4) submergent; 5) floating-leaved; 6) scrub/shrub; and 7) forested.
5.3.1.1 OA Considerations
This procedure is qualitative in nature so data quality is increased by consistently following standard
procedures and careful documentation of what was decided and why.
5.3.1.2 Equipment and Supply List
* Graph paper * Copy of a site base map
* Pencils * Aerial photos or habitat
* Any documentation of maps of the site
wetland vegetation
available
5.3.1.3 Specific Procedures
1. Tour the site to determine the location and extent of various plant communities.
2. Distinguish vegetation communities based on structure (i.e., forested, scrub/shrub, emergent, etc.)
and dominant species for emergent classes.
3. Draw the predominant communities on a base map of the site.
4. Label each community with a letter code. This code will precede all the data and sample
identification codes for measurements and samples collected from that area.
5.3.2 Transect Establishment
Establishing the transects for sampling vegetation is one of the first procedures performed at each
site. Although specific procedures are provided for establishing transect locations, the process requires a
good deal of professional judgement.
Transects will be placed to represent wetland processes and vegetation communities. First, they
should be placed parallel the gradient of wastewater treatment (i.e. running from the influent toward the
effluent control structures). This will in effect be a stratification by wetland cell. This will allow an analysis
of the influence of wastewater constituents (nutrients, pH, oxygen level) on vegetation and macroinvertebrate
composition. Second, transects should be placed through the major vegetation types in each cell. We will
attempt to include all plant community types present in the wetland within transects, which may require
relocation of some transect lines or the establishment of more transects. The number and length of
individual transects and number of sample plots along transects will be determined using several criteria:
1) wetland area; 2) accessibility (may be limited by dense vegetation, deep water, unstable substrates); and
3) configuration and size of vegetation communities. A minimum of three transects will be established in
each wetland, beginning from a base line at the influent end of the wetland when possible and continuing
toward the effluent end. Spacing of sampling plots along transects will depend on the length of the transect
and the size of the wetland. We will sample at least 40 plots (quadrats) per wetland and will attempt to
maintain a uniform sampling intensity among wetlands.
-------
15
5.3.2.1 OA Considerations
The location of transects within the wetland affects the representativeness of the samples and data
collected. To ensure high levels of comparability among field personnel, follow established procedures
throughout the project. Good documentation of the rationale for choosing a given location helps with later
data interpretation.
5.3.2.2 Equipment and Supply List
• lQO-m all weather measur- * Stakes
ing tape (Ben Meadows * Nylon Straps to bind
#122608 or equivalent) wooden stakes for carrying
* 5-lb. Hammer * Red and yellow flagging
5.3.2.3 Specific Procedures
1. Lynne McAllister is responsible for determining transect locations.
2. Personnel should always walk on the left side (the side on the left when walking away from the
starting point) of vegetation transects to avoid trampling vegetation in sampling plots.
3. The number of transects used and their lengths may vary from site to site depending on the
wetland's size, shape, and vegetation distribution. Lynne should clearly document in a field
notebook (Appendix B) what was done in each case.
4. Mark transect ends "with stakes and flags. Use the following system to avoid lost or bad data due
to misidentification of transect and plot numbers.
Indicate the beginning of each transect with yellow flagging attached to the stake at plot
"0". Plot "0" is located at the beginning of the transect at 0.0 m on the meter tape.
Indicate the end of each transect with yellow flagging attached to the stake at the last plot
in the transect.
Write the transect number on the stake or on the flagging to assist with later identification.
5.4 Water Quality (Existing data sets)
The suitability of each site's water quality data will be evaluated based upon the existence of
standard QA/QC procedures for water collection and laboratory analyses used at laboratories that analyze
each site's water samples. However, no detailed assessment of the adequacy of these procedures will be
done. QA/QC documents were sent to Mantech from each laboratory and can be obtained from Lynne
McAllister.
The water quality data set for this study will be created from existing site data for the last full year
for which it was collected. The western sites do not have discharge permits and therefore are not required
to take regular water samples. They do, however, take some measurements for their own records, and there
have been periods of more intensive sampling for which data is available. Water quality measurements
available for each site are listed in Table VI. A year of data for each water quality indicator will be copied
-------
I6
from data printouts, provided by each site manager into a data base at ERL-G Average values for each
parameter in Table III will then be calculated. Data quality for this data set will be judged based variances,
presence of outliers, and extent of missing data. Before including outliers in calculations, we will contact
respective labs for potential explanations. If they cannot provide explanation, we will delete the outliers
from the data base.
Table VI. Water quality measurements available from each site.
P=partial data set; C=complete data set; NS=not sampled; *=for phase I only, +=for effluent only, #=as
total phosphate.
Site
Measurement
dH
DO
BOD
TSS
NH3
NH3-N
TKN
TP
Fecal
coliforms
Orlando, FL
P
C
C
C
NS
C
C
c
c
Lakeland, FL
c
C
C
C
C
NS
C
c
NS
West Jackson, MS
c
C
C
C
NS
C
C*
NS
c
Collins, MS
c
C
C
C
NS
C
NS
p n
c*
Show Low, AZ
c
C
c
p
NS
NS
c
c*
p
Incline Village, NV
NS"
C
p
NS
NS
P
NS
p#
c
5 J Whole Effluent Toxicity Tests
5.5.1 Introduction
Grab water samples will be collected at the inflow and outflow of each wetland and sent to Duluth
for 7-day chronic whole effluent toxicity tests on Ceriodaphnia dubia. Whole effluent toxicity tests using
water from both the inflow and outflow of the wetlands can provide information on harmful substances that
might be present in the wetlands. Although toxic substances have rarely been documented, it is of interest
to check for them to ensure that wildlife are not being attracted to threatening environments.
5.5.2 OA Considerations
We will have no formal QA for collection of grab samples. QA considerations will be fulfilled to
the extent possible by following routine procedures, proper labelling, and consistency in collection
techniques.
-------
17
553 Materials and supplies list
* 2 1-gallon pre-labelled cubitainers
* 1-2 qt. plastic pitchers
* plastic iadel
* cooler
* dry ice
* data sheets
S.5.4 Specific procedures
Collection will be done on a Monday or Wednesday night, cooled overnight, and mailed to Duluth
as soon as possible Tuesday or Thursday morning. The Duluth lab will run tests starting on Wednesdays
or Fridays. Holding time for these samples is only 36 hours. Samples must be kept at 4° C until they
arrive at ERL-Duiuth. Deb Taylor and Cindy Hagley at ERL-Duluth will send supplies of dry ice to the
site contacts (see Appendix A) for pick-up by the field crew. The field crew will have a portable freezer
that can be kept in a hotel room so that dry ice can be kept frozen. Plastic coolers will be purchased by
the field crew as needed during the season. Use the following procedure to standardize collection of water
samples in the field. Lab procedures are outlined in Section 8.1.
1. Collect grab samples at the inflow and outflow of the wetland by dipping water out of the inflow
and outflow pools with a small (1-2 qt) nalgene containers. First, rinse the container with a sample
of the water that will be collected. Pour dipped samples into a pre-labelled 1-gallon cubitainer,
which has also been rinsed with site water prior to filling. Let the cubitainer overflow with about
1/4 its volume so that there is no headspace at the top. Collect 1 1-gallon cubitainer at the inflow
and 1 at the outflow.
2. If water can be "collected as it comes out of the inflow and outflow structures, simply let it fall
directly into the cubitainer. Document on the water collection log (Form H, Appendix D) whether
this method or the intermediate container method was used to fill the cubitainer. If water is very
shallow and use of a pitcher to collect the grab sample results in sediments entering the container,
use a ladel to scoop the water. Avoid potential contamination of the final sample with sediments,
stones, macroscopic algae, or other vegetation.
3. Tightly cap the cubitainer and place in an ice-packed cooler. Refrigerate as soon as possible.
4. Coolers must be packaged in a box for shipping. The length plus the girth of the package must
be less than 130" in order for Federal Express to guarantee overnight shipping. Just before
packaging, take the temperature of each water sample and write it on the water collection log.
Include a copy of the water collection log in the box. Mail packages to ERL-Duluth:
Teresa J. Norberg-King
U.S. EPA
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
5. Call Teresa Norberg-King at ERL-Duluth 1 or 2 days before collecting water samples to confirm
the date that water samples will arrive in Duluth so that she can set up laboratory apparatus to
conduct toxicity assays as soon as the water arrives. (A tentative schedule of shipping dates will
be set up with Teresa before departing from Duluth in July).
-------
18
5.6 Vegetation Sampling
Wetlaod vegetation is an indicator of wetland condition and type. Wildlife depends on vegetation
communities food and shelter. Understanding the plant communities within a wetland is essential to
evaluating potential habitat values.
Four separate, but related, vegetation sampling activities will be performed at each site: (1)
vegetation inventory; (2) percent species cover, (3) plant community structure; and (4) specimen collection
and preservation. The vegetation inventory will be a general reconnaissance of the site, including
identification and description of the major plant communities. Cover measurements estimate the percent
cover of all species located within the quadrats (sampling plots) located along the vegetation transects.
Plant community structure characterizes the vegetation on the basis of layers (i.e., trees, scrub/shrub,
emergent/floating, submerged, and bare). Specimen collection and preservation will involve collecting and
preserving samples of each species for later validation.
5.6.1 QA Considerations
Comparability, accuracy, precision, and completeness are the major areas of concern for QA in
vegetation sampling and will be checked for each variable. Replicate vegetation estimates provide an
indicator of estimating precision. Accurate vegetation identification is ensured by concurrent and post field
work specimen validation and replicate sampling. Completeness is enhanced through the careful use of
standard procedures and data recording methodologies.
5.6.2 Equipment and Supply T fct
* Vegetation Forms
* Pens
* Stakes
* Plant Presses with blotters
and ventilators
* Newspapers for plant pressing
' One gallon Ziplock or paper Bags
5.63 Specific Procedures
5.6.3.1 Vegetation Inventory Procedures
On arriving at the site, conduct a reconnaissance to determine the general nature of the vegetation
and to identify appropriate locations for transects. Photograph and identify the major plant communities
(e.g. emergent - Typha dominant, scrub/shrub, submergent, etc.) and roughly mark their boundaries on the
site sketch map. Photographs of vegetation patterns, unusual plants, and the general vegetative composition
will be taken using standard photographic procedures (See "Supporting Data" procedure, section 5.14.4).
A sufficient number of photos should be taken to characterize all the major habitats, vegetation
communities, and unusual conditions present in each wetland.
5.6.3.2 Cover Estimation and Structural Diversity
Vegetation will be sampled using quadrats at sample plots located at pre-determined meter marks
along transects that arc established according to guidelines in Section 5.3. A sample plot will be delineated
by 1-3 quadrat sizes along transects depending upon the vegetation type present. Vegetation cover
* 1-m2 Quadrat
* Twine
* Regional Flora
* Trowel
* Hand Lenses
* 6 centimeter ruler
* Flagging
-------
19
procedures consist of recording the estimated percentage of each sampling plot covered by each species'
undisturbed canopy. The measurements are general and no effort should be made to adjust for
discontinuities in the canopy of species with open habits. For example, do not account for small openings
in the canopy in a patch of vegetation when estimating cover. Because species can overlap each other, the
sum of cover percentages will often exceed 100%.
1. Complete the heading on each data form (Form F, Appendix B), recording site, date, recorder's
name, transect number, sample plot number, and meter mark along the transect. Take the time
to do this before starting to record data. Don't record data from more than one transect on one
data form. If more than one form is required to complete a transect, repeat the species names in
the same order on each form.
2. If vegetation is generally herbaceous, use the 1-m2 quadrat. Place the quadrat along the transect
as illustrated in Figure 1.
3. If vegetation contains large scrub/shrub establish a 5.0-m2 quadrat. Do this by extending the short
sides of the 1-meter quadrat another 2.8 meters as illustrated in Fig. 1. Slake the corners and mark
quadrat boundaries by running twine around all stakes.
4. If vegetation contains trees, establish a 10-m radius circle for a sampling plot. Measure 10 m along
the transect from the meter mark at the pre-chosen sampling point location and 10 m in both
directions perpendicular to the transect line. Visually determine which trees are within the circular
plot formed by connecting with an arc all endpoints of the 10-m radius measurements. If it
questionable whether some trees are within the 10-m radius boundaries, run a meter tape from the
sampling point along the transect to each tree in question.
5. For each species present, write the genus and species names on Form F. Indicate the vegetation
layer for each specids by entering the layer code in the appropriate box. Layer codes are:
S=submerged
E=emergent/floating-leaved
B=Scrub/shrub (bush)
T=forested (tree)
6. Establish pseudonyms for plants which can't be identified in the field. The following codes will be
used for unknown plants:
UE=unknown emergent
US=unknown submergent
UF=Unknown floating-leaved
UB=unknown bush (scrub/shrub)
UT=unknown tree
After each code, assign a number, starting with the first specimen in each of the above categories
at a particular site (e.g. UEl, US2, etc.). Use this letter-number code for the duration of plant sampling
at a particular site. Start a new code and numbering system for each site.
7. Record the name or unknown code for all species found within the quadrat and estimate percent
cover by estimating vegetation cover as close as possible to the following categories: 1%, 5%, 10%,
20%, 35%, 50%, 65%, 90%, 99%, or 100%. Percent cover for structural type can be calculated by
adding percentages across all species within each structural type.
-------
20
NOTE. Include canopy of all vegetation that falls within the quadrat even if the plant is rooted
outside of the quadrat.
Count the number of structural types recorded on the data sheet as a measure of structural diversity.
CoUect specimens of all unknown plants at every site. Preserve specimens as described in Section
1.0 Square — K1 e t o r,
Quadrat
6m
fiBiiAaUOMBUlfiAMlUffiiUAiUiffiUmMUU
5.0 Square —Meter
Quadrat
/
3 m
Increasing Plot Numbers
Transect Line
Figure 1. Quadr2t placement along transect.
-------
21
5.7.3.3 Specimen Collection and Preservation
This procedure involves collecting all unknown plant taxa observed during the project located in
the sampling plots. Plants will be labeled, pressed, and used for species validation. Standard procedures
for plant collection and preservation are used. The process is briefly outlined below and in more detail
in University of California (1975).
Collection
1. It is unlikely that rare plants will be present in these constructed wetlands. However, the field crew
should check with the site managers or local botanists (See section 13.1.1) whether rare plants may
be encountered on site and find out what they look like so that collection can be avoided.
2. Plants should be collected in flower or fruit, if possible.
3. Collect enough plant material to ensure adequate foliage, roots, and rhizomes for identification.
4. If the specimen is small, collect the entire plant, including roots and rhizomes.
5. If the specimen is large, collect some of the root, part of the stem with leaves, and part of the
inflorescence.
6. If the plant is woody, collect some twigs with leaves and fruit.
Preservation
1. Use standard (12 X118 inch) plant pressing frames, numbered 1,23. clc.
2. Clean the dirt off the plants before pressing.
3. Remove dead leaves and other unwanted parts.
4. Lay the plants flat and avoid overlapping.
5. Bend long plants sharply so they fit within the frame. Don't curve or twist the stems.
6. Pad areas around thick stems so no air pockets remain.
7. Attach a tag to the stem of each plant with the following information: unknown specimen code,
date, site, transect, and plot number.
8. Insert plants between folded layers of newspaper. Sandwich the newsprint between layers of blotter
material and separate with corrugated cardboard. The corrugations should be parallel to the shorter
dimension (12 in.) for better air circulation. Place the stack of plants, blotters and cardboard in
the press. Use two adjustable straps to hold the pressed plants firmly.
9. Record the following plant collection information on Form G (Appendix B): press number,
unknown specimen code, site, plot number, cell number, transect number, meter mark, date
collected, soil conditions, associated plant species, local conditions (moisture or water level, slope,
etc.)
-------
22
10. Change newspapers and blotters in the presses as necessary (daily to every few days) until specimens
are dry. Check that all samples are adequately labelled.
5.7 Bird Data
S.7.1 Introdnction
Birds are very visible and are relatively east to identify and survey over a large area. They are
therefore appropriate candidates as indicators of vertebrate diversity. The bird data will be treated as an
existing data set. Survey methods were submitted by local biologists who are doing bird surveys. There is
some degree of uniformity among survey designs. Copies of proposals are available from Lynne McAllister.
5.12 OA Considerations
When using existing data, we have limits on control over quality assurance. There is no QA that
is standardized among surveyors, and surveyors have not included QA considerations in their plans that were
provided for review by the Constructed Wetlands team. Accuracy and completeness will be maximized
through selection of data collected by highly qualified and experienced ornithologists. Each bird surveyor
has been contacted prior to their surveys so that survey design can be standardized as much as possible
while maintaining the original objectives of the surveying organization. Surveys being conducted are based
on commonly used survey methods, which will assure some degree of comparability to existing data bases.
Bird counts will be done by the same person for each survey, which will help insure precision among
surveys. Because there will be only one surveyor per survey, however, precision among observers will not
be evaluated.
5.7.3 Materials and Supplies - not applicable
5.7.4 Specific Procedures
Ground surveys will be conducted at the Collins, Ocean Springs, Show Low, and Incline Village
sites. Timed counts of the number of individuals of all species seen from pre-established points along the
wetland shorelines will provide an estimate or relative abundance of birds in each area (habitat and cell).
Aerial surveys will be carried out at the Incline Village, Orlando, and Lakeland sites. Surveyors will fly at
low altitude (200-500*), making one pass along pre-established flight lines through the wetland. They will
count the number of each species and note the locations of bird concentrations within the wetland. Copies
of data forms will be sent by each surveyor to ERL-Corvallis where results will be transcribed onto data
sheets (Form M, Appendix B) and entered into a file in a data base.
5.8 Invertebrates
5.8.1 Introduction
Aquatic invertebrates form an important link in the overall functioning of wetland systems. The
presence/absence of certain species and overall densities of invertebrates can provide information about bird
prey availability, nutrient levels, and how well the wetland is performing certain functions.
The Timed-Qualitative Sampling Method (TQSM) has been used extensively in South Carolina and
Florida to satisfy National Pollution Discharge Elimination System requirements and in wetlands success
criteria applications. The TQSM has recently become better known as the Timed-Quantitative Sampling
Method and it has become more widely accepted as a result of its being considered "quantitative" rather
than "qualitative". The primary objective when using this method is to obtain a representative, or relative,
-------
23
number of specimens of every species present at the sampling locality at the time of sampling. As long as
the primary objective is met, standard tests and indices and enumeration techniques can be used.
Invertebrates will be collected using a semi-quantitative technique. Various methods of collection
will be used in the major habitats within a site in order to obtain a sample that is representative of
invertebrate abundance and species richness at the site. The collection period will be timed. The time
spent in each area will be based on the number of individuals and species diversity in net samples. Each
collector will keep track of the time they spend in each area. Specimens will be preserved in ethyl alcohol.
Glass collection jars (approximately 250-ml) will be labeled for site, cell, and the habitat where invertebrates
were collected (different jars will be used for each habitat). Habitat categories are:
Samples will be mailed to Duluth where they will be identified to genus and counted by genus
and functional group for each wetland and for each cell/habitat combination within the wetland from which
they were collected. Functional groups are: shredders, scrapers, collectors, and predators (Vannote et al.
19SQ). The distribution of individuals among functional groups can provide information on the community
structure, biological and chemical processes occurring in a wetland, abiotic processes external to the water
body, and the trophic condition and pollution status. Some species might indicate eutrophic conditions or
low oxygen levels (Adamus and Brandt 1990).
This method will sample mainly the aquatic forms of invertebrates whose longest life stage is in the
water. It should allow us to collect a diversity of aquatic invertebrates in a relatively short time and with
minimal effort. Information acquired will contribute toward an initial overall characterization of the
invertebrate communities in each wetland and will provide a good first assessment of species abundance and
richness.
5.8.1 QA Considerations
Representativeness, completeness, and accuracy are the major QA considerations involved with
invertebrate sampling. Representativeness depends on the selection of sampling locations and is enhanced
by standard selection criteria. Completeness is achieved by careful sample handling and labelling.
Comparability is achieved through the use of well documented standard procedures. Count accuracy is
accomplished by partial replicate counting.
5.8.2 Equipment and Supptv List
#30 mesh rectangular kick nets
bucket with net bottom for rinsing
white enamel pans
forceps
ethyl alcohol (95% dilution)
glass collection bottles - 250 ml
stick-on labels
waterproof markers, pencils
waterproof labels
o
o
o
o
o
forested
emergent/floating
submergent
shrub/scrub
open water
5.8.3 Specific Procedures
-------
24
Sampling techniques will be semi-quantitative. Collection techniques will be qualitative but searches
will be timed so that the number of individuals collected will be per unit time.
1. Search for invertebrates by:
a. using kick nets along bare or rocky substrate, along bank areas with emergent vegetation,
within emergent, shrub, and forested vegetation in the wetland interior, and around or under
any other kind of substrate such as fallen logs, rubble, or other debris that invertebrates
might use as substrate to attach or to seek shelter.
b. scraping rocks and other substrates to obtain attached insect forms (e.g. species of
scrapers).
2. After taking several sweeps with a kick net in the same habitat, dump the contents into a bucket
with mesh in the bottom, and rinse the sample with water to eliminate all muds and other fine
particulates.
3. Pour the sample into a white enamel tray, pick out invertebrates with hands or forceps, and
place into 95% ethyl alcohol preservative in pre-labelled glass jars. Labels should include site, date,
cell #, habitat type, and jar number. In addition, write this information in pencil on a prepared
waterproof paper label and place it inside the jar.
4. Each jar should contain invertebrates from only one cell and one habitat type within that cell.
5. When jars are 2/3 full, begin filling a new jar if necessary to collect all invertebrates from each
cell/habitat type present in the wetland. For multiple jars, make sure all labels are the same, with
the exception of the jar number.
6. Record the following information on the invertebrate data form (Form C, Appendix B): date,
site, collector, previous and present weather, cell #, habitat type, amount of time spent sampling
in that habitat, number of jars used, and comments.
7. Not all wetland cell/habitat combinations need be sampled. In large wetlands or wetlands where
several adjacent cells support similar vegetation communities, the field crew will select a subsample
of cells and habitats to sample. The decision criteria used to make this judgement are listed below:
a. The habitat should be one of the major communities present throughout the wetland.
b. If several adjacent cells contain the same vegetation assemblage, either include all in
the same sample or take the sample from only one of the ceils and assume it is
representative of the others.
c. If cells with similar vegetation assemblages are separated by more than one or two cells
(use judgement for this decision) sample each separately.
8. Two crew members will sample each cell/habitat simultaneously. Effort can be divided between
the two members by dividing areas to be sampled in half. Each person will record separately the
amount of time they sample in each cell/habitat. The time includes sweep netting, straining, and
bottling samples. The two times will be added together to derive the total person-hours of effort
for each cell/habitat combination. The total amount of time spent sampling all cell/habitat
combinations selected can then be calculated by adding all the individual times.
-------
25
9. Samples will be stored in a cool place until sampling for a particular site is completed. Samples
will be shipped on ice to Duluth with a copy of the invertebrate sample log (Form D, Appendix
B). Specimens will be identified to species by ERL-Duluth personnel or by Jane Schuler on a Fall
1991 position extension. Identification data will be recorded on Form E (Appendix B). During
storage, both in the field and lab, samples will be checked twice per week for evaporation and
discoloration of alcohol. If the ethyl alcohol has developed a brownish tint, it will be carefully
drained, and new preservative will be added to completely cover all specimens in the jar.
5.9 Wetland Functional Analysis (WET)
5.9.1 Introduction
The Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET) (Adamus et al. 1987) is a rapid assessment of wetland
functions and values such as wildlife habitat, erosion control, floodwater retention, nutrient assimilation, and
groundwater recharge. Background on the method is given in a separate Workplan for this project. Lynne
McAllister will receive field training from Paul Adamus in May 1991 before commencing pilot study field
work. She will then train the temporary hire during training in late July in Duluth. Both crew members
will conduct separate assessments so that precision can be evaluated.
The technique requires that a sequence of questions be answered about the wetland being assessed.
Answers to questions will be marked on the WET data forms (Appendix E). After returning to Corvallis,
the information will be entered into the WET computer program which calculates high, moderate, or low
qualitative probability ratings for each wetland value in terms of social significance, effectiveness, and
opportunity.
The purpose of conducting this assessment is to make a cursory assessment of several wetland functions,
including wildlife habitat. Thus, it is a separate type of analysis than the indicator evaluation. Results can
provide a general idea of wetland ecological condition and can be compared to results of field indicator
sampling. Qualitative comparisons might help evaluate the effectiveness of the WET technique for assessing
wildlife habitat values in wetland treatment systems.
5.9.2 Equipment and Supplies List
* WET data forms
* notebook
* topo maps
* soil surveys
5.9.3 Specific Procedures
Follow procedures and questionnaire in the WET Manual (Adamus et al. 1987).
air photos, if available
binoculars
NWI maps, if available
pencils/pens
5.10 Field Training
Prior to beginning field work in July 1991, Lynne McAllister and Jane Schuler will travel to Duluth
MN to pack equipment and receive field training. Deborah Taylor at the Duluth Laboratory, who has
experience in wetland sampling, will demonstrate equipment use, sampling techniques, sample handling
and storage, and sample packing. Training will be done in a wetland near Minneapolis, MN where Deborah
is currently conducting a research project. At this time, we will also go through a run of all sampling
that we will do on each constructed wetland during July and August. This exercise will reveal any major
-------
26
problems in sampling techniques, sample transport and processing and equipment needs that we may have
overlooked. Steps can then be taken to remedy problems before leaving Duluth.
5.11 Sample Labeling
Information on labeling is covered under the sampling procedure for each measurement variable in
Sections 55 (whole effluent tests), 5.6 (vegetation), and 5.8 (invertebrates).
5.12 Sample Handling
Information for this section is covered under the sampling procedure for each measurement variable
in Sections 5.5 (whole effluent tests), 5.6 (vegetation), and 5.8 (invertebrates).
5.13 Supporting Data
Supporting data augments the quantitative components of this project by providing a general picture
of each wetland. It is divided into two major groups:
1. Sketch Maps
2. Photography
5.13.1 OA Considerations
Mapping QA is based on the use of standard procedures and on the correction of "closure" errors where
appropriate. Make certain the compass is in calibration before use (See "Calibration").
5.13.2 Equipment and Supply List
* Brunton Pocket Compass *
(360° azimuth) *
* Florescent Flagging *
* 100-m Measuring Tape *
* 35-mm Camera with 50-mm
* lens
* ASA 100, 35-mm Ektachrome *
slide film *
* Pens
5.133 Sketch Maps
Sketch maps are available for all sites (Appendix F). If additional or more accurate information is
desired on site layout and vegetation type distribution, the sketch mapping techniques detailed in Appendix
D will be used. Lynne McAllister will determine whether the need for detailed maps outweighs the time
required to construct them. In most cases, available sketch maps and air photos that will be taken during
summer and fall 1991 will suffice. Some of the mapping techniques in Appendix D will be useful for
placing site features and sampling locations on existing sketch maps.
Graph Paper
360° Protractor
Blank Paper
Metric Ruler with
Pencils
Erasers
5.13.4 Photography
-------
27
A photographic record is used to visually record site characteristics. It can be used to verify data later
in the study. In addition, it is a method for tracking changes in the wetland over lime.
General Guidelines:
The following procedure is followed when taking photographs.
1. To standardize photographs, use a good quality, 35-mm camera equipped with ASA 100, 35-mm
Ektachrome slide Glm and a normal 50-mm lens.
2. Label each roll of film by photographing a completed Form I (Appendix B) in the first frame, if it is
a new roll, or in the first frame taken on a site.
In addition, identify each roll with a "roll number code*. The code contains two parts. The first part
is the roll number. Rolls are numbered consecutively for each camera used. The second part is the
photographer's initials.
For example, if Jane Doe is taking vegetation photographs on the 14th roll of film used in that
camera, the code would be 14JD.
3. Document each picture by number and topic on the appropriate photo log (Form J, Appendix B).
4. Check camera battery frequently. Carry a spare.
5. Never let the camera or film sit in the sun. Extra film can be stored in a sealed plastic bag in a cooler
with plant or water samples if the weather is hot.
The primary types of photographs taken at each site are vegetation photos and general site photos. Each
is described below. In addition, photos may be taken of other types of samples (water, invertebrates) to
document collection methods used and to help characterize samples
Vegetation Photos:
The purpose is to document the vegetation observed. Include photos of the vegetation surrounding
the site, unusual or rare plants, unknowns or plants hard to identify, overviews of the vegetation on the site,
any obvious pattern in the distribution of the plants. Document the photos taken in the photo log by
recording location, date, dominant habitat type, growth form of the specimen, associated species, hydrologic
conditions where the plant was collected, and any other noteworthy information. Cross reference each entry
in the photo log (Form J) by including a sign in all photos indicating location (site, cell, transect no., and
plot number, if applicable) and date when the specimen was collected.
General Site Photos:
Take a panoramic landscape sequence from a central location or high elevation in the wetland.
Photograph major wetland features such as open water areas, water channels, inlets, and outlets. Take
pictures looking along all transects from each end. Document the photos taken in the photo log, being sure
to identify photos of transects by transect number.
6.0 SAMPLE HANDLING AND CUSTODY
-------
28
Samples can be damaged ihrough improper handling and lost if custodial responsibilities are not clearly
established and followed. This section outlines procedures for ensuring that field samples and data are
delivered safely to the lab.
Lynne McAllister has custodial responsibility for all samples collected during the study until they
are delivered to the Duluth lab. Each sample collected will be recorded in a Sample Custody Log
(Appendix B), which includes the sample type, number, date collected, and date custody was transferred.
In addition the water collection log (Form H) and the invertebrate sample log (Form D) will be filled out
in part and sent with the samples to Duluth.
Laboratory personnel will take custody of the water and invertebrate samples and sign Forms D and
H at the time of receipt of the samples. The Lab is then responsible for sample handling and safety.
Samples may not be discarded until authorized in writing by ERL-C.
General considerations in sample handling are listed below:
1. All sample containers must be clean prior to use in the field.
2. Discard defective containers and lids.
3. As soon as each sample is collected, close the lid firmly, and label the container.
4. Call the Duluth lab the day samples are mailed so that personnel there know when to expect samples
and can prepare laboratory apparatus.
5. To ship water and invertebrate samples to ERL-Duluth, pack in an insulated plastic cooler with adequate
dry ice to keep them cool until they can be transferred to laboratory refrigeration (invertebrate samples will
not need refrigeration). Take the temperature of the water samples just before packaging and record on
Form H; have the receiving party at Duluth record the temperature on Form H when the shipments are
received. Temperature of the water samples should be maintained as close to 4° C as possible.
Temperature and holding time are not critical for invertebrate samples.
7. Complete the Sample Custody Log and Forms D and H. Copies of forms D and H will be kept with
the samples from the time they are collected until they are discarded. Original copies of the forms are kept
in the site packet with the field crew. A second copy will be sent to ERL-Corvallis at the time of shipping
to Duluth.
8. Plant presses containing specimens should be stored in a dry, well ventilated environment if possible.
Keep them in a moderately heated room if conditions in alternative storage areas are cold or humid.
9. Keep invertebrate samples in a cool area until they are sent to Duluth. Check sample storage containers
periodically for leaks. Change ethyl alcohol in containers as necessary.
7.0 CALIBRATION PROCEDURES AND FREQUENCY
7.1 Laboratory
Calibration procedures and frequency for lab analysis of water and toxicity tests are outlined in the
National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center's standard operating procedures (EPA 1988).
12. Field
-------
29
Magnetic Compass
Prior to Geld work, and at each study site, the magnetic declination setting on the compass should
be checked and recalibrated if required. Magnetic declination is the difference in direction between the true
and magnetic north poles. Local declination can be determined from a recently (within the past ten years)
issued US Geological Survey topographic map for the area. The legend contains a true north arrow and
a magnetic north arrow and indicates the difference in degrees.
The compass has a calibration pin located under the glass face, opposite the cover hinge. On the
rim of the compass rosette is a compass scale, marked in degrees. Turn the adjustment screw, which is
located on the side of the case, until the pin lines up with the correct declination on the scale. Check the
compass by comparing the relationship between magnetic north (the compass needle direction) and true
north, 0° on the compass rosette, with the north rays on the topographic map.
8.0 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES
&1 Whole effluent toxicity tests
Teresa Norberg-King at ERL^Duluth will receive all samples sent from the field She will log in
samples as they arrive and will be responsible for analyzing them in the correct time frame. ERL-Duluth
has its own data sheets for reporting results. Samples are tracked in the Duluth lab by a log-in number.
Tests will be 7-day chronic tests with renewal of Ceriudaphnia twice during the test. In addition, survival
will be read at 48 hours to obtain an acute test result. The number of female adults and the number of
young produced after each of the periods will be recorded. The test will follow a standard format for
effluent testing (EPA method no. EPA/600/4-89/001, Short term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters for Freshwater Organisms). Whole effluent toxicity tests will
be run according to the National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center's Standard Operating Procedures, 1988
with the following modifications to the standard dilution technique:
1. A board will be set up for effluent tests each time samples are sent from the field sites. The board
will include 100% concentrations of influent and effluent samples and a control consisting of the
culturing water. For the pilot study, we are interested in whether there are any signs of toxicity, so we
will start with assays using only 100% concentration.
2. Acute tests will be done using Ceriodaphnia as the test organism because it is more sensitive to toxics
than is the fathead minnow. Ten Ceriodaphnia will be placed in each of the three treatments. The
number of surviving Ceriodaphnia in each chamber will be recorded at 48 hours for the acute result and
after 7 days for the chronic result
9.0 DATA REDUCTION, VALIDATION
Data that will be entered into computer files for further summary and reduction (i.e. measurements
that require replicate sampling) is listed in Table VII. All other data will be tabulated by hand (i.e. no
averages or further reduction is necessary). Each type of data in Table VII will be collected within the
sampling hierarchies shown in Figure 2. Data collected will be used when necessary to calculate other
indicators listed in Tables II and III.
Field data will be recorded on prepared data sheets (Appendix B) for parameters that will be sampled
by ERL staff in summer 1991. At the end of each day (or the beginning of the next day) data sheets will
be photocopied at the site manager's office or facility. One copy will stored in a secure place and kept with
-------
30
the field crew until arrival back in Corvallis. The second copy will be mailed to Corvallis when all work
is completed at each site.
Field data and raw data from existing databases will be entered into a personal computer in fall 1991
at ERL-C. All data except those from the WET analysis will be copied from original data sheets into
SAS (or other data base) data sets for manipulation and calculation of summary statistics. Lynne McAllister
will check every record of data entered with the original data sheets and correct as necessary. Data sets
and two backups will be kept on floppy disks. Lynne McAllister will be responsible for all data entry and
validation, data base management, and summary analyses. The PC-SAS software package will be used for
data analyses.
Vegetation structural diversity and percent coverage of each species will be calculated as an average or
all sample plots per transect and per wetland site. A species list will be made for each site with the
percentage of sample plots in which each species was seen. After obtaining cover estimates for each sample
plot, species will be ranked in descending order of percent cover. The species whose cover estimates total
the first 50% of cover will be considered dominants. If additional species with cover estimates of 20% or
more are ranked below the species comprising the first 50% on the list, they will also be considered
dominants.
Avian species richness will be calculated for the whole season by totalling the number of species observed
during any visit. Values will be derived for each cell or vegetation strata (ecological unit) in each site and
for the whole site. The ubiquity of each species will be evaluated by calculating the percentage of
observation points at which each species was seen. For aerial surveys, this will be based on the percentage
of cells in which each was seen. Relative abundance is based on the assumption that the sample represents
a constant but unknown proportion of the population (Bull 1981) and is useful when determination of the
actual density is not practical because of factors such as visibility or bird mobility. Relative abundance will
be considered the number of birds of each species per unit of effort, which is defined by a timed point
count or timed aerial survey.
Summary statistics will include mean, standard deviation, min/max, and range. Water quality data from
the most recent full year in which it was collected will be included in the data base. Vegetation data will
be summarized for the whole wetland and for each separate vegetation stratum or cell (e.g. emergent,
forested, shrub/scrub, bare). -Similarly, invertebrate counts will be summarized for each trap as well as for
all traps combined. Bird data will be summarized for each ecological zone (point count or wetland cell)
on each visit and over the entire survey period (May through November). Toxicity tests will not need
summarizing. Results of the WET analysis will be entered into the WET computer program for analysis.
For each wetland, the program gives qualitative probability ratings of high, medium, or low for wetland
functions and values in terms of 1) social significance, 2) effectiveness, and 3) opportunity. Wildlife habitat
is among the various functions and values that WET assesses.
Data summaries will be calculated for strata,, transect, and site. For comparison to other published
data, we eventually want to say something specific about the site as a whole because it is likely that most
comparison data will not be reported per strata or transect. Therefore, data will be summarized for a whole
site. For judging wetland function, however, and to get a better idea of ecological processes and influences
on biota, it will be more appropriate to report results by strata (vegetation type, cell).
Statistical tests will not be used. Summary data will be used for assessing range and variability of
indicator values, for making comparisons with data from natural and created wetlands, and for judging the
effectiveness of indicators in characterizing wetland function and ecological condition.
Table V1L
Data that will be included in data base for summary and reduction.
-------
M
Ecological Component
Data
Vegetation
Invertebrates
Water Quality
species and percent coverage per quadrat number of structural types per
quadrat species dominance per quadrat
number of each species per site and habitat within site functional group
of each species number of individuals of each species per cell/habitat
sampled
1 year's data for each wetland's influent and effluent measurements for:
pH, dissolved oxygen, BOD, total suspended solids, ammonia nitrogen total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus, fecal coliform bacteria
Birds
number of species detected per strata 3nd per survey number of individuals
of each species detected per strata and per survey
-------
Collected data
Vegetation invertebrates
Quadrat Length of time
I I
Transect Habitat
i i
Habitat Wetland cell
i i
Wetland Cell Site
i
Site
Existing data
Water
Birds
Grab sample
i
Inflow/outflow
1
Parameter
i
Date
i
Site
Point count
i
Survey date
i
Habitat
1
Cell
i
Site
Figure 2. Data reduction scheme.
-------
33
10.0 INTERNAL QUALITY CONTROL CHECKS
We will not use quality control checks for assessing water quality data. Quality control in the field will
be done by following routine procedures for checking accuracy and precision between the two field
personnel. Specific procedures are included in Section 13.0, Routine Procedures used to Assess Data
Precision, Accuracy, and Completeness.
11.0 PERFORMANCE AND SYSTEM AUDITS
The Environmental Research Laboratory-Corvallis QA staff perform technical systems audits of all
extramural projects prior to or concurrent with data collection to:
- familiarize project staff with EPA QA requirements and procedures,
- evaluate the implementation of the QA activities specified in the QA project plan, and
- provide assistance in attaining the objective to collect data of known and documented quality.
One or two of the six pilot study sites will be visited by ERL-Corvallis QA staff for a technical
systems audit during the July/August 1991 sampling season. Lynne McAllister will oversee the data
collection and will be in contact with cooperators about their responsibilities and activities. Internal audits
will be done during field data collection and are included in Section 13.0, "Routine Procedures Used to
Maintain QA Objectives" and in Section 10.0, "Internal Quality Control Checks".
12.0 PREVENTATIVE MAINTENANCE
Preventative maintenance at laboratories measuring water quality was not assessed. Preventative
maintenance for whole effluent toxicity testing is covered by standard operating procedures outlined in the
National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center's standard operating procedures and the Environmental
Research Laboratory -Duluth Quality Assurance Plans and Standard Operating Procedures (EPA 1988).
Standard field equipment, such as measuring tapes, buckets, quadrats, nets, waders, and hip boots will
be rinsed and checked daily for breakage or damage. Simple repairs will be done as necessary or equipment
will be replaced if possible.
12.1 Compass
At each site, before using the compass, check for damage, e.g., loose hinges, broken glass. The needle
should move freely and smoothly when the compass is held level. Check that the compass is adjusted for
the correct magnetic declination for the study area (see Section 10.0 "Calibration Procedures".
122 Plant presses
Because of very humid conditions in the eastern U.S., blotters and newsprint around all plant specimens
will be changed daily, even for samples that appeared completely dry at any point, and samples will be
checked for thorough and proper labeling. Incomplete or lost labeling will be corrected by checking the
cross reference in the unknown plant log (Form G, Appendix C) and filling in any incomplete labels in
plant presses.
-------
34
13.0 SPECIFIC ROUTINE PROCEDURES USED TO ASSESS DATA PRECISION, ACCURACY,
AND COMPLETENESS
Periodic quality control checks are performed to ensure that quality assurance objectives are maintained.
These checks are performed on field, lab, and ERL-C procedures. This section discusses the checks and
process for making corrective actions.
13.1 Field Work
Due to the high environmental variability between study sites, QC data will be collected at each site.
At each site, standard field procedures are followed, but team members exchange jobs and duplicate a
portion of the sampling and data collection. This procedure allows quantitative assessment of sampling
comparability between team members for vegetation and landscape measurements. Ultimately, this
information will be used to make a statement on the reproducibility of information gathered using the
techniques employed in this study.
13.1.1 Specific Procedures
WET Analysis-
All WET assessments will be fully completed. Information will be obtained through personal
communication with site managers and local people familiar wiih each region, through site visits, and by
studying soil surveys, USGS topo maps, and aerial photos. The two members of the field crew (Lynnc
McAllister and Jane Schuler) will conduct separate WET analyses. During this time there will be no
interaction or discussion between the two people. Precision will be evaluated by calculating the percentage
of questions answered the same by both people per wetland. These percentages will be averaged for all six
wetlands.
Vegetation-
1. Two field team members start sampling the same transect. One member (A) samples vegetation plot
number one and the data is recorded on the dat3 form for the site. The other team member (B)
samples plot number two and this data is recorded on a data form marked "remeasurement". After
sampling these plots the team members switch locations and re-sample the plots without moving the
sampling frames. Repeat this "switching" for plots three and four. All of team member B's data is
recorded as "remeasurement" and A's as "non-remeasurement", or regular site data.
2. After the first four quadrats are sampled, continue sampling the remaining quadrats without collecting
remeasurement data.
3. Team members should not exchange comments on the vegetation of re-sampled plots while conducting
remeasurement sampling until each person has their estimates.
4. If team members differ in their percent coverage estimates of vegetation by more than one increment
(see Section 5.6.3.2), each person will relate their reasons for the estimate they gave, and they will reach
an agreement on the "correct" estimate.
4. To ensure accurate plant identification, all plant specimens are validated by the team botanists or other
qualified persons during and after the field season. Validations during the field season will be made,
-------
35
if possible, at nearby universities or with biologists working near the site:
Jean Wooten, botanist at University of Southern Mississippi in Hattiesburg - approx. 40 miles from
Collins. She can help identify specimens collected at the Ocean Springs and Collins sites.
CH2M Hill • Consultants in Gainesville who will be sampling at the Ocean Springs site at the same
time we are there. They may also be able to help with samples from the Florida sites.
Bill Dunning, Carson City (Phone: 702-267-3965)
Terry, Meyer at the Show Low site
Post Buckley, environmental consulting firm in Orlando - Jim Burney, the site overseer, works at
the Orlando site all summer and is familiar with vegetation (Phone.407-647-7275).
Copies of the validated vegetation data sheets will then be used for data analysis.
133. Laboratory Measurements
Invertebrates-
Data quality will be evaluated for species identification and total count of each species per habitat and
per wetland. Personnel at ERL-Duluth will identify to species the invertebrates collected and will record
functional group for each and the number of individuals collected in each cell/habitat combination in each
wetland. Invertebrates will be identified using standard invertebrate keys (e.g. Merritt and Cummins 1984).
Remeasurement samples (every tenth sample analyzed at ERL-Duluth) from each wetland will be
reidentified and recounted by a second person. All individuals in each container will be identified to check
that all individuals that the first evaluator identified belong to the same species. Record replicate data on
the same type of data sheet used for the procedure and write "remeasurement sheet" on the top of the form.
Water Toxicity Tests-
Details of the testing procedure are included in the National Effluent Toxicity Assessment Center's
Standard Operating Procedures. Quality control is achieved through the use of ten replicate organisms per
treatment (influent, effluent and a control) and the use of a control containing water used to culture the
organisms. No other remeasurement will be done during tests. QA will also be assessed by determining
whether the assumptions of the tests were met during lab analysis and by following standard operating
procedures outlined by ERL-Duluth.
Landscape measurements-
Ten percent of all landscape measurements for each site which require the use of a digitizer or
planimeter will be replicated by Lynne McAllister or a second geographer. Replicated data will be checked
against original data and the relative percent difference calculated (see Section 13.3.1). Record the replicate
data on the same type of data sheet generally used for the procedure and write "remeasurement sheet" on
the top of the form.
133 ERL-C Data Quality Assessment Procedures
QC data will be sent by the field crew and ERL-D to ERL-C for evaluation. Several procedures are
-------
36
used to determine whether data quality objectives are met and to establish actual project performance. This
section details general data quality assessment procedures then applies them to specific activities. Examples
are used to clarify procedures.
133.1 General Procedures
Two calculations are frequently used in assessing data quality: Relative Percent Difference and
Coefficient of Variation. These calculations help to compare data sets with one or more reference data sets.
Relative Percent Difference (RPD) is used to compare two values such as the results of lab analysis of
replicate samples. Compute the RPD by subtracting one value from the other and recording the result
as an absolute value. Divide this number by the mean of the two values and multiply by 100.
|A-B|
RPD = X 100
(A + B)/2
Coefficient of Variation (CoV) is used to compare three or more values. CoV is computed by dividing
the standard deviation (sd) by the data mean and multiplying by 100 to obtain a percentage.
13.3.2 Specific Procedures
Landscape data-
Relative percent difference will be calculated for the two measurements. The mean of the RPDs for
each site will be calculated Immediately after each replicate data set is made. The results can then be
checked right away and required changes to procedures can be made if data quality does not meet the
DQOs (Table V). Precision will be evaluated based on whether the RPD meets the objectives specified for
each variable in Table V.
Record the replicate data on the same type of data sheet, and write "remeasurement sheet" on the top
of the form. When all data is collected, compute the RPD for the entire study and include this information
in the final data quality report.
Vegetation-
The following procedures are used to determine comparability between field team members. This also
provides an estimate of precision.
Vegetation Cover Estimates:
There are two components to the vegetation cover estimates. One is the actual cover estimate for each
species and the other is the number of species observed. The following procedures are used to determine
comparability between field team members. This also provides an estimate of precision.
Percent cover precision is computed by calculating the mean difference between team members for each
jointly recorded species. For each species jointly recorded along each transect, sum ihe cover percentages
of each species for each team member. Calculate the mean difference between the two sums. Determine
cover precision for the site by calculating the mean comparability (precision) for all species.
-------
37
Example: Precision for a given species.
Cover Estimates - Botanist One
Species Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5
Equisetum 5 20 0 50 30
Cover Estimates - Botanist Two
Species Plot 1 Plot 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5
Equisetom 5 30 5 60 40
Calculations:
The sum of cover estimates are:
Botanist One = 105
Botanist Two = 140
The means of cover estimates are:
Botanist One = 21
Botanist Two = 28
The mean difference is 7%
To compute cover comparability (precision) for the site, calculate the mean of the mean difference for
all species. If four species were jointly recorded at the site:
Species Species Species Species
#1 #2 #3 #4
Mean Difference 7% 8% 6% 10%
The sum is 31. Divide by 4 (the number of species) to get
the comparability for the site, which is 8%.
Plant recognition comparability examines the number of species both team members jointly observed
and identified during the QA check.
-------
38
Example:
Species Plot 1
Jointly
recorded 8
species-
Total of
species 12
observed-
Precision
ratio 0.67
Plot 2 Plot 3
5 11
7 11
0.71 1.00
Plot 4 Plot 5
9 11
12 12
0.75 0.92
To compute the precision for the site, sum the ratios for each plot, divide by five (the number of plots),
then multiply by 100:
(4.05/5) X 100 = 81%
Invertebrates
Invertebrates will be identified at least to the genus level and to the species level when possible. The
number of individuals of each taxon collected at each sampling location will be recorded. To accomplish
this, empty the contents of a sample container into a sorting dish. Use forceps to remove large pieces of
unwanted material, taking Care not to also remove small invertebrates. Then remove the invertebrate
specimens, one at a time, and record the numbers of each taxon found in the container. QA checks are
accomplished by returning the contents of every tenth sample container to the dish. Then, a second
individual identifies and re-counts the contents. Record the QA data on a separate data sheet marked
"remeasurement". The QA checks result in two indexes of comparability between the two team members.
One is a index for the "count" and the other an index for taxonomic identification.
Invertebrate count comparability (precision) between personnel is computed by calculating the percent
relative difference (PRD) between individual team members for each jointly recorded taxon then subtracting
this from 100. Compute the PRD by subtracting one person's count from the other's and recording the
result as an absolute value. Divide this number by the mean of the two values, and multiply by 100.
Subtract the product ftom 100.
100 (|A - B|)
Comparability Index = 100 - ( - )
(A + B)/2
Example: Comparability for a given species.
Count "A" = 25
Count "B" = 28
100 (|25-28|)
Comparability Index = 100 - ( ) = 88.7%
(25+28)/2
-------
39
Determine the "count" comparability for the whole specimen container by calculating the mean comparability
for each species.
Example: Comparability for the sample container.
Species Species Species Species
#1 #2 #3 #4
Comparability Index 72% 84% 78% 92%
The sum is 324. Divide by 4 (the number of taxons) to get the comparability index for the sample
container, 81%.
Invertebrate identification comparability represents the number of taxons both team members jointly
observed and identified during the QA check- Compute this by calculating the ratio of invertebrate taxons
jointly observed by total taxons observed and multiplying this by 100.
Jointly observed
Comparability = X 100
Total observed
Example:
Six different taxons were recorded by the two team members together. Of these, 5 were jointly recorded
by both team members.
Total observed = 6
Jointly recorded = 5
5
Comparability = X 100 = 83.3%
6
To compute'count" and "identification" comparability indexes for the study, sum all the QA sample
container comparability results, divide by the number of sample containers re-checked for QA, and multiply
by 100. Useful information can be obtained from calculating the "count" comparability for each taxon for
the whole study. The feasibility of calculating this index depends on the taxonomic similarity among the
sites studied.
Although no minimum acceptable value has been set for the study, the values should be equal to or
greater than those shown in Table V. The results of this study will help to establish standards for later
studies.
14.0 CORRECTIVE ACTIONS
Remeasurement data will be evaluated in the field and the field crew will reconsider methods,
procedures, etc. Lynne and the other crew member will communicate regularly about the efficiency and
techniques of sampling, and will take correctise actions when necessary. All changes that are made of the
original QA Plan will be documented in detail.
-------
40
15.0 QUALITY ASSURANCE REPORTS (TO MANAGEMENT)
The project will include a final report only, there will be no interim reports to management The QC
data to be collected throughout the study are discussed in Section 13.0 (Specific Routing Procedures used
to Assess Data...). The final report, to be completed at the end of May 1992, will summarize QC data
and evaluation of QA procedures.
-------
41
16.0 REFERENCES
Adamus, P.R., jEJ. Clairain, R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technioue CWETi.
Vol. II: Methodology. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Lab, Corvallis, OR and Department of the Army,
Vicksburg, MS.
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. U.S. EPA, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. 406 pp.
Bull, EL. 1981. Indirect estimates of abundance of birds. Pages 76-80 EN CJ. Ralph and J.M. Scott (eds).
Estimating Numbers of Terrestrial Birds: Studies in Avian Biology. No. 6. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, KS
630 pp.
Cowardin, LM., V. Carter, F.C Golet, and ET. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater
habitats of the United Slates. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, FWS/OBS-79/31. 131
pp.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. EPA-600/4-87-028. Environmental
Monitoring and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. 1989. User's Guide - Act Info, Vol. 2: Commany
References. ESRI, Redlands, CA
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and
Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. Cooperative
technical publication. 76 pp. plus appendices.
Godfrey, P.J., E.R. Kaynor, S. Pelczarski, and J. Benforado (eds.). 1985. Ecological Considerations in
Wetlands Treatment of Municipal Wastewaters. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Merritt, R.W. and K.W. Cummins. 1984. An introduction to the aquatic insects, 2nd ed. Kendall Hunt,
Dubuque, LA 722 pp.
Mudroch, A, and J.A. Capobianco. 1979. Effects of treated effluent on a natural marsh. Journal Water
Pollution Control Federation 51(9):2243-2256.
Rapport, D.J. 1989. What constitutes ecosystem health? Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 33(1):120-
132.
Schaeffer, D.J., EE. Herricks, and H.W. Kerster. 1988. Ecosystem Health I: Measuring Ecosystem Health.
Environmental Management 12(4):445-455.
Sherman, AD., S.E. Gwin, M.A Kentula, and W.A. Neiring 1991. Quality Assurance Project Plan:
Connecticut wetlandsstudy. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory-
Corvallis, OR.
Sherman, A.D., M.G. Harenda, D.L Frostholm, and M.E. Kentula. 1989. Wetlands Characterization
Method: Quality assurance project plan, Seaside wetlands study. U.S. EPA, Environmental Research
Laboratory-Corvallis, OR.
-------
42
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984. The Ecological Impacts of Wastewater on Wetlands. An
Annotated Bibliography. EPA 905/3-84-002. \JJS. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Washington, DC
University of California 1975. Selecting and preparing flowering plant specimens. Division of Agricultural
Sciences -Cooperative Extension, Leaflet 2787. Berkeley, CA 5 pp.
Vannote, R.L., G.W. Minshall, K.W. Cummins, J.R. Sedell, and C.E. Cushing. 1980. The river continuum
concept. Can. J. Fish Aq. Sci. 37:130-137.
-------
APPENDIX A LIST OF COOPERATORS AND DATA COLLECTORS
Cooperators (field and laboratory support!
1. Field support
Cindy Hagley
EPA, ERL-Duluth
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804 '
8-780-5755
2. Laboratory support
Bill Sanville
EPA, ERL-Duluth
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN 55804
8-780-5723
Data providers - existing data sets
A Water quality
1. Bob Hamill - Collins, MS site
Soil Conservation Service
601 7th Street
P.O. Box 487
Collins, MS 39428
601-765-4445
Water Lab: Culpepper Lab, Jackson, MS
2. Don Richey - Incline Village, NV site
Incline Village General Improvement District
893 Southwood Blvd.
P.O. Drawer P
Incline Village, NV 89451
702-832-1242
Water Lab: General Improvement District Lab, Incline Village, NV
3. Dave Hill - Lakeland, FL site
Wastewater Operations, City of Lakeland
1825 Glendale Street
Lakeland, FL 33803
813-686-0319
Water Lab: City of Lakeland Wastewater Treatment Lab, Lakeland, FL
4. Alan Oyler - Orlando, FL site
Bureau of Wastewater
Environmental Services Department, City of Orlando
-------
5100 LB. McLeod Road
Orlando, FL 32811
407-246-2213
Water Lab: Bureau of Wastewater Lab, City of Orlando, FL
5. Mel Wilhelm/Teny Meyer - Show Low, AZ site
U.S. Forest Service
Lakeside Ranger District
RR 3 Box B50
Lakeside, AZ 85929
602-368-5111
Water Lab: Western Technology, Flagstaff, AZ
6. Donald Scharr - West Jackson, MS site
Mississippi Gulf Coast Regional Wastewater Authority
3103 Frederic Street
Pascagoula, MS 39567
601-762-0119
Water Lab: Mississippi Gulf Coast Regional Wastewater Authority Lab, Pascagoula, MS
B. Bird surveys
1. Florida sites (Orlando, Lakeland)
Peter Frederick
Department of Wildlife and Range Sciences
118 Newins-Ziegler Hall
University of Florida
Gainesville, FL 32611-0304
904-392-4851/392-1040
2. Mississippi sites (Collins, West Jackson)
Frank Moore
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Southern Mississippi
Southern Station, Box 5018
Hatticsburg, MS 39406-5018
601-266-4929/266-4394
3. Arizona site (Show Low)
Mel Wilhelm/Terry Meyer
U.S. Forest Service
Lakeside Ranger District
RR3 Box B50
Lakeside, AZ 85929
602-368-5111
4. Nevada site (Incline Village)
-------
Rich Heap
Nevada Department of Wildlife - Region 1 Headquarters
380 West B Street
Fallon, NV 89406
-------
46
APPENDIX B DATA FORMS AND LOGS
List of data forms to be used during 1991 Geld season:
Form
Description
C
D
E
F
G
H
Invertebrate field data sheet
Invertebrate Sample Log
Invertebrate identification
Vegetation Field Sheet
Unknown Plant Log
Water Collection Log
Photo ID Sheet
Photo Log
J
List of notebooks/logs:
1. Field - general site information, wildlife species seen, surrounding land use, unusual observations,
rationale for transect placement, distance between quadrats, number of quadrats sampled, Cowardin et al.
wetland classification ...
2. Sample Custody Log - list of samples sent to Duluth, including type of sample, identification number,
date collected, and date sent
3. Log of all data forms completed, copied, and sent to ERL-Corvallis.
-------
Form C. Invertebrate Field Data Sheet
page of
Site; 'Habitat type
Date- Level I Level II
' F = forested S = sediment substrate
Previous & Present Weather: E = emergent R = rock or plant substrate
Collector: _ /floating 0 = other
S = submergent
C = scrub/shrub
Cell n
Habitat Type*
# Jars
Amt. of Time
B = bare
Comments
%
e
General comments/observations:
¦P-
Label on jar: — ^
Site Cell Hab type Jar#
-------
Form E. Invert ID 48
Site:
Date:
lll«l 11 1 1 11-51 .
Remeasurement: Y/N
Cell U
Habitat
Species
Functional
Group
Count/Sp.#
,
!
General Comments:
-------
Form D. Invertebrate Sample Log
Date Sent:
Date received in Duluth:
Received by:
Sample
ID#
Date
Collected
# Jars
Dates sample
checked
Dates alcohol
changed or
added
Specimen Condition
(Good, Fair, Poor)
Observer
initials
-------
Form F: Vegetation Field Sheet
Page
of
50
Site:
Date:
Recorder:
Transect
Length:
Put transect, plot & collec. code (e.g. UE-2)
in plant collection bag.
QA Sheet: Y/N
Plot »
1
Cell n
strata type
Meter Mark
Quad Size
Species
+ Collected
Y/N
Vea laver
S,E,B, or T
General Comments/Observations:
-------
5 L
Veg layers: s = Submerged
E = Emergent
B = bush (scrub/shrub)
T=tree (forested)
*Quad Size
Collect & label unknowns
1 = 1m
5 = 5m2
10 = 10m radius
UE = unk emergent
US=unk submergent
UF = unk floating-leaved
UB = unk bush (scrub/shrub)
UT = unk tree (forested)
% Cover categories:
1,5,10,20,35,50,65,80,90
99,100
Strata Types:
ET = emergent-Typha
ES = emergent-Scirpus
EO = emergent-Other, or mixed
SB = submerged
FL = floating-leaved
SS = scrub/shrub
FO = forested
-------
Form G. Plant Log - for collected unknowns
Label plants in presses w/ site, date,
transect, plot & unknown code.
Site
Date
Transect
ft
Plot
»
Cell
n
Meter
Mark
Press
n
Unknown
Code
Assoc.
Species
Soil
Condition
Other
Comments
T7T
NJ
-------
^ Code = site & water source
Form H.
Water Collection Log
Site:
Samples received by:
Processed by:
Collected
Sites
I = Incline Village
S = Show Low
C = Collins
0 = Ocean Springs
L = Lakeland
R = Orlando
Received
Source
I = influent
E = effluent
Sample
Code*
Method
Date
Time
Temp, when
sent
Date
Time
Temp.
Ln
U>
-------
PHOTO ID SHEET _ FORM I
.;(<¦ -0>.- "\Vi- v,
^ ^ ^;v ^ ^*v ^i,
vy^
r<
r«r:
Photographer:
\-*V
V J
r-\ x ^,(^$j•
y Date: **
,"V^/ / A /
# #
# Site Code: ^
-
* Film Roll Code: ^
r/~. ty:
54
-------
Form J. Photo Record: (1 sheet/roll of film) Pg of—
for veg, & site photos (whole transects, buffers,
disturbance, cells, overall veg. patterns, other features).
Site:
Date:
Film ID#*: (eg. 100-36-1)
Type of film:
# of exposures:
Photo Description (include sample codes)
Frame #
Photographer
e
Film ID:
„ „ Write this code on a label & put in the film cannister.
1 SO #
# Qv_ When film is developed, write the code on the
ft exp
II ^ processing stub.
-------
APPENDIX C AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHERS
1. Florida sites
Kucera South
Dick Connors
3550 Drain Field Road
Lakeland, FL 33811
813-646-9661
2. Mississippi sites
Harris Aerial Surveys
Lynn Harris
P.O. Box 246
Midway, AR 72651
501-481-5884
3. Show Low site
Keeney Aerial Mapping
Ellis Hyde, Vice President
1130 W. Fillmore
Phoenix, AZ 85007
602-340-1877
4. Incline Village site
American Aerial Survey, Inc.
6249 Freepon Blvd.
Executive Airport
Sacramento, CA 95822
916-422-0770
-------
57
APPENDIX D SKETCH MAP PROCEDURES
Each wetland studied may be mapped to provide a spatial picture of the site for use during data
analysis later in the project Sketch mapping techniques provide a quick and reasonably accurate wetland
map. This type of map shows the general planimetric shape of the wetland, but is not intended to be
precisely scaled. The maps shows major site features such as open water, banks, and landmarks. In
addition, sampling transects and other sampling points are indicated.
Copies of existing base maps for the site may be used- Use the mapping procedures below to locate
and place site features and sampling locations on the map.
Determining Distance by Striding:
Striding is a method for estimating surface distances by walking with a measured stride and counting
the steps. During training, field team members (Lynne McAllister and a temporary hire) determine the
length of their individual strides by repeatedly walking a known distance and counting the number of steps
taken. The procedure is to:
1. Mark off a 100-m course.
2. Wearing normal field clothing and shoes, walk the course four times with an easy stride, counting the
strides. Strides arc counted on one foot, Le., each time the left foot is placed.
3. If the number of strides required to walk the course varies by more than one, practice taking uniform
stride and repeat step #2.
4. After variation has been reduced to less than one stride per 100 m, calculate the average length of a
stride by dividing the number of strides taken to complete the course four times into four times the
length of the course.
5. Record the result for use during mapping.
Making Field Measurements:
First, determine what will be used as the wetland perimeter. Tie flagging at "corners" on the wetland
perimeter.
Corners represent changes in direction in the wetland boundary. The finished map will show the wetland
as a polygon. When mapped, the flagging will be represented by the points of the polygon.
Perform the following tasks:
1. Assemble a clipboard, Brunton compass, several copies of Map Datasheets, and a blank sketch map.
2. Check the declination setting on the compass (See Calibration Section).
3. Start at a convenient "corner" on the wetland perimeter. Make a dot on the sketch map to indicate
your location and label it with an "A". Draw an arrow on the map indicating "north".
4. Use the compass to sight the next flagged point on the wetland perimeter, this will be station "B".
-------
58
Mark the estimated location of "B" on data form with a *B". Record the compass reading from "A"
to "B" on form.
5. Stride in a straight line to station *B" and record the number of strides taken. NOTE; Make certain
stride length is written on the form.
6. Take a "backsight" compass reading from station "B" to station "A" and record.
7. Check to see if an error has been made in sighting the relationship between stations "A" and "B"
by adding the compass reading obtained in steps #4 and #6 above. They should total 360° +, 5°.
If not, repeat steps #4 and #6 until the criteria is met
8. Continue this process from station to station around the perimeter. As each segment of wetland
is measured, record compass bearings and number of strides on data form and draw a rough map.
9. At convenient points along the perimeter, take compass readings to the end-points of the vegetation
transects and other sampling points. Record the compass readings on the data form and sketch the
position of the transects on the map. Take readings on each end-point of each transect from at
least two stations.
10. Record the locations of major site features such as open water, trees, water courses, patches of
monotypic vegetation, and fences on data form and on the map.
11. If the space between two stations cannot be crossed due to water, unstable substrate or other
obstructions, use triangulation to compute the distance.
Locate a convenient area where both stations can be seen. Using a meter tape, establish two points
which are a known distance apart (at least 30 m) and record the distance on the data form. Take
compass readings to each station from each end of the measured distance. These readings can be used
to calculate the unknown distance later.
12. If the site is unusually difficult to traverse due to obstructions or unstable substrate, all survey stations
and site features can be determined with triangulation (See #11 above).
13. After all stations and site features are recorded, examine the sketch map and document anything which
will help complete the final map. Check that data is recorded for all map stations and that entries on
the data forms are legible.
Finishing the Map:
The maps are finished as time permits. Two processes are involved: map sketching and correcting for
closure errors.
1. Assemble graph paper, pencils, erasers, a ruler with markings in centimeters, and a 360° protractor.
2. Examine the map data sheet and estimate the appropriate scale to use so that the map will fit on a sheet
of paper. This takes some practice, if the scale is too large, the map won't fit on the paper. If too
small, the map will be too small to contain the details.
3. Establish "north" and indicate on the map with an arrow.
4. Mark the approximate location of station "A" on the graph paper.
-------
5. Lightly draw a line, Le., a ray, from station "A" to station "B", using the protractor to follow the compass
bearing recorded on the data sheet. Check to see that this line is correctly drawn using the "backsight"
data.
6. Calculate the distance from station "A* to station "B" by multiplying the "number of strides" information
on data form by the length of stride. Determine the length of a line to use on the map by converting
the actual distance from "A" to "B" to the equivalent based on the scale chosen for the map. Use the
cm scale on the ruler to create a line of the appropriate length on the graph paper from station "A* to
"B". Lightly label station "B" on the map.
7. Continue this procedure from station to station until the entire perimeter is mapped. The final leg
should connect the last station back to station "A". If it doesn't connect there is a "closure" error.
If there is a closure error, double check the computations and compass bearings. If no obvious reason
is found for the error see "Correcting Closure Error" below.
8. Finally, erase unwanted lines and marks, and darken the lines if necessary to make a good xerox copy.
Draw in the site features and label the map with the site number, location, date sampled, date drawn,
and the mapper's name. Also, indicate the map scale, e.g., Scale: 1 cm = 8 m. See Figure 14 for an
example of a finished map.
Correcting for Closure Error:
1. Measure the perimeter of the sketch, noting distances between points. Draw a line to represent the
perimeter of this plot and mark each point on it, keeping the relative scale.
Example: A to B = 4 cm; B to C = 4 cm; C to D = 5 cm;
D to A' = 7 cm; Perimeter = 20 cm.
The line does not have to be 20 cm long. It can be reduced as long as the reduction of all distances
between points is kept to scale.
2. Measure the width of the gap and draw a line its length up from A' on the line.
3. Measure the bearing of the ray from A to A'.
4. Complete the triangle by drawing a line from A to the top of the line representing the width of the gap.
This line will be the length of the perimeter of the adjusted plot.
5. Draw lines up from each point on the first perimeter to the adjusted perimeter.
6. Measure the lengths of each ray extending up from the points on the line. Then draw each ray in its
corresponding place on the figure with the angle from north of the ray connecting A to A'.
7. Finally, draw in the adjusted plot, starting at A, going to points 1, 2, & 3, and back to A. The "gap"
should now be closed.
This method of error correction should be used only if the closure error is very large. If the error
is small, either leave the gap open or adjust the plot from your memory of what the perimeter of the
wetland looked like and triangulation. TTie purpose of these maps does not require extreme precision.
-------
APPENDIX E WETLAND EVALUATION TECHNIQUE DATA FORMS
-------
WET 2.0
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FORM A: SITE DOCUMENTATION
Form A must be completed for ail evaluations. Fore A documents general
information about the wetland being evaluated. Ic serves as a useful
reference throughout the evaluation procedure anc as documentation of the
evaluation following its completion. It is suggested thai Form A be
completed as one of the preparatory tasks (see Section 2.8). Instructions
for completing Form A are as follows:
Complete Part 1 of Form A by filling in each of the blanks with the
requested information.
Complete Part 2 of Form A by sketching a map, or attaching a copy of the
topographic map. Include in the sketch, or on the map. (if it is not already
indicated), the additional information itemized in Fart 2 of Form A.
In addition, determine the size of each of the following areas and record
your answers in Part 2 of Form A.
(1) The AA acreage
(2) The IA acreage (if applicable)
(3) The watershed acreage of the AA
(4) The wetland acreage within the AA (AA acreage minus deepwater
acreage)
(5) The wetland acreage within the watershed of the closest service area
(watershed acreage minus upland ar.d deepwater acreage)
(6) The wetland/aeepwater acreage within the watershed of the closest
service area
-------
WET 2.0
FORM A: SITE DOCUMENTATION (Page I of 2)
62
Part 1 - Background Information
Evaluation Site: Date:
Site Location (Section, Range, and Township):
Has the evaluator taken a training course in WET Version 2.0?
Agencies/Experts Contacted:
Circle the assessment levels to be completed? SS-1 SS-2 E/0-1&2 E/0-3 HS
Is the wetland tidal or nontidal? If the wetland is nontidal. indicate the
month(s) that represent wet, dry, and average conditions, or if only average
annual condition will be used, give rationale. Also, indicate if the
previous 12 months of precipitation has been above, below, or near normal.
Is this evaluation an estimate of past conditions or a prediction of future
conditions? (If answer is yes, explain nature and source of predictive data.)
Will alternative ratings be used to evaluate any of the fur.cLions or values
(if yes, explain):
Part 2 - Identification and Delineation of Evaluation Areas
Sketch a map on the following page, or attach a suitable r.ap (photocopy of
topgraphic map) that shows the following infomation:
-- Boundaries of the AA, IA, and 1Z, and the location of service areas.
-- Watershed boundaries of AA, and service areas.
— Extent of surface water in the AA during the wet and dry seasons.
— Open water (channels and pools) wjthir. and adjacent to the AA.
-- Normal direction of channel or tidal flow
— Normal direction of wind-driven waves or current.
— Impact area(s).
— Scale of distance and north conpass direction.
Explain the procedures used to identify or delineate the AA, IA, IZ, service
areas, and the watersheds of these areas if they differed froc the
guidelines outlined in Section 2.7.
— Continued —
-------
WET 2.0
FORM A: SITE DOCUMENTATION (Page 2 of 2)
Part 2 (Cont.)
Estimate the extent of the following areas:
Assessment Area = acres
Impact Area = acres (only if applicable)
Watershed of AA = acres/ niles^ (acres x 0.0016 = tailes)
Wetlands in AA = acres
Wetlands in the watershed of closest service area - acres
Wetlands and deepwater in the watershed of closest service area = acres
How were locality and region defined for this evaluation?
63
Sketch of Evaluation Areas (or attach map) :
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FORM B
64
Record your answers to the social significance and effectiveness and opportunity
questions on Form B. There are four possible answers on this form. They
include the letters "Y" for a "yes" answer, "N" for a "no" answer. "U" for an
"unknown" answer, and "I" if the question is inappropriate to a particular
situation (i.e., a question dealing with tide is inappropriate when evaluating
nontidal wetlands).
In all cases. Form B indicates the appropriate answer options for each question.
For instance, appropriate answers for a level 1 assesment of social significance
(Questions 1-31) are "Y," "N," "U," and, in some cases. "I." On Fori B note
that the "I" is only given as an option when it is appropriate. Foi
effectiveness and opportunity assessment level 1 (Questions 1 — 27), "li" is never
an appropriate answer; therefore, it never appears on Form B as an option.
Answers to each question must be selected from the options shown on Form B.
During the effectiveness and opportunity evaluation certain questions must be
answered for the three seasonal contexts addressed by WET. For these questions,
three subcolumns with headings of "X," "W," and "D" are provided for answering
the question in terms of seasonal context. Unless it was determined in Task 4
to use the average annual condition for the evaluation, answer questions for all
three seasonal conditions using the following guidelines:
(1)
Average (X):
(a)
Hydrology:
intermediate between average annual wettest ana driest
condition.
(b)
Vegetation:
maximum annual standing crop.
(c)
Tidal: the
average daily high tide condition.
(2)
Wet
(W) :
(a)
Hydrology:
wettest time of an average year.
(b)
Vegetat ion:
midpoint of the growing season
(c)
Tidal: the
average monthly high tide condition (spring tide).
(3)
Dry
(D) :
(a)
Hydrology:
driest time of an average years.
(b)
Vegetation:
dormant time of the year.
(c)
Tidal: the
daily midtide condition.
Some effectiveness and opportunity questions are broken into two or more
alphabetic and/or numeric subsections. Alphabetic subsections are designed to
have a single "Y" answer. For example, in Question 10 only one of the choices
(10A-10F) will be answered "Y" while the remaining choices should be answered
"N." Numeric subsections, on the other hand, are designed sc that more that
one "Y" answer is possible. For example, in Question 42.1 one or mere of the
choices (42.1.1-42.1.3) may have a "Y" answer.
-------
Evaluation Sice:
FORM B: EVALUATION ANSWER SHEET
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION - LEVEL 1
3.1.1 "Red Flags"
Cosmients/Assuapt ions
s 1 .
Y
N
U
s 2.
Y
N
U
s3.
Y
N
U
s4.
Y
N
u
s5.
Y
N
u
s6.
Y
N
u
3.1.2 On-site Social Significance
CotLmcnts/A.ssuapt ions
s7. Y N U I
s8. Y N U 1
3.1.3 Off-site Social Significance
Comments Coalmen ts
s9.
Y
N
*J
T
s21.
Y
N
U
s 10.
Y
N
U
s22.
V
N
U
sll.
Y
N
U
s23.
Y
N
u
g 12,
Y
N
U
s24.
Y
N
u
s 13.
Y
N
U
s25.
Y
N
u
sl4.
Y
N
U
s 26.
Y
N
u
sl5.
Y
N
U
i.
s27.
Y
N
u
sl6.
Y
N
u
X
s28.
Y
N
u
s!7.
Y
N
u
i
s29.
Y
N
u
s i 8,
Y
N
u
I
s30.
Y
N
u
s 19.
Y
N
u
s31.
Y
N
u
s 20.
Y
N
u
SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE EVALUATION - LEVEL 2
Standard Density Circle
Context Region (Circle one) Locality
HydroLogic Unit
Question II
Comr.ents / As sump t ions
1 Y N
2 Y N
3 Y N
A Y N
-------
FORM B (Cont.)
Evaluation Site:
Page 2 of 9
EFFECTIVENESS/OPPORTUNITY EVALUATION -
WETLAND CONDITION
Q.// X W D
1.1
Y
N
1.2
Y
N
1.3
Y
N
2.1.1
Y
N
2.1.2
Y
N
2.1.3
Y
N
2.2.1
Y
N I
2.2.2
Y
N I
3.1
Y
N
3.2
Y
N
3.3
Y
N
A. 1
Y
N
4.2A
Y
N
4.2B
Y
N
4. 2C
Y
N
4. 2D
Y
N
5.1.1
y
N
5.1.2
Y
N
5.2
y
N
6. i
Y
N
6.2
Y
N
7
Y
N 1
LEVEL I (OFFICE)
COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
8.1 Y N
8.2 Y N
8.3 Y N
8.4 Y N
9.1
9.2
9.3
Y N
Y N I
Y N r
10A Y K
10B Y N
IOC Y N
10D Y N
102 Y N
10F Y N
-------
W1'..
FORM B (Cone.) Page 3 of 9
Evaluation Size:
WETLAND CONDITION COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
Q.// X W D
11
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
12A
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
12Aa
V
A
N
Y
N
Y
N
12Ab
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
12Ac
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
12Ad
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
12Ae
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
12B
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
1 2Ba
Y
N
Y
N
V
N
12Bb
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
12Bc
V
N
Y
N
Y
N
12Bd
Y
K
Y
N
Y
N
12Be
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
12C
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
12Ca
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N ¦
1 2Cb
V
N
Y
N
Y
N
1 2Cc
V
N
Y
N
Y
N
1 2Cd
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
121)
Y
N
V
N
Y
N
12Da
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
12Db
V
N
Y
N
Y
N
12E
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
13 A
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
1 3 Aa
y
N
Y
N
Y
N
13Ab
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
13 Ac
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
13Ad
Y
K
Y
N
Y
N
13Ae
V
N
Y
N
Y
N
13B
Y
N
Y
N
V
N
13Ba
Y
K
Y
N
Y
N
13Bb
Y
K
Y
N
Y
N
13Bc
V
N
V
N
Y
N
13Bd
V
N
Y
N
V
N
13Be
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
13C
Y
N
Y
N
V
N
13Ca
Y
N
Y
N
V
N
13Cb
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
13Cc
Y
N
Y
N
Y
K;
13Cd
Y
N
V
K
Y
N
13D
Y
N
Y
N
Y
K
13Da
Y
N
Y
N
Y
M
13Db
V
N
Y
N
Y
N
13 K
Y
N
Y
N
Y
v-
is
-------
Wr.r 2.0
FORM B (Cont.) Page 4 of 9
Evaluation Site:
WETLAND CONDITION COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
Q .It X W D
14.1 Y N Y N Y N
14.2 Y N Y N Y N
15.1A Y N I
15.IB Y N 1
15.1C Y N I
15.2 Y N I
16A Y N Y N Y N
1613 Y N Y N Y N
16C Y N Y N Y N
17 Y N
18 Y N I
19.1A Y N I
19.IB Y N I
19.2 Y N 1
19.3 Y N I
20.1 Y N I
20.2 Y N f
21A Y N
21B Y N
21C Y N
21D Y N
21E Y N
22.1.1 Y N
22.1.2 Y N 1
22.2 Y N
22.3 Y N I
23 Y N
24.1 Y N I
24.2 Y N I
24.3 Y N I
24.4 Y N I
24.5 Y N
25.1 Y N
25. 2A Y N 1
25. 2B Y K I
25.3 Y N
-------
FORM B
(Cant.
)
Pago 5 of 9
Evaluat
ion Sice:
WETLAND
CONDITION
COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
Q.I)
X
W
D
26. i
Y
N
26. 2
Y
N I
26.3
Y
N I
27.1
Y
N
27.2
Y
N I
27.3
Y
N I
EFFFECTIVENESS/OPPORTUNITY evaluation -
LEVEL 2 (FIELD)
WETLAND
CONDITION
COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
CM/
X
W
D
28
Y
N
29. 1
Y
N
29.2
Y
N
30.
Y
N
V
N Y
N
31.1
V
N
Y
N Y
N
31.2
Y
N
Y
N Y
N
31.3
Y
N
Y
N Y
N
31.4
Y
N I
Y
N I Y
N I
31.5
Y
N
Y
N Y
N
31.6A
Y
N
Y
N Y
N
31.6B
Y
N
Y
N Y
N
31.6C
Y
N '
Y
N Y
N
31.6D
Y
.N
Y
N Y
N
31.6E
Y
N
Y
N Y
N
32A
Y
N
32B
V
N
32C
Y
N
32D
V
N
32E
Y
N
32F
V
N
32G
V
N
32K
Y
N
321
V
N
32J
Y
N
32K
Y
N
-------
WET 2.0
FORM B (Cout.)
Evaluation Site:
Page 6 of 9
Q .if
33A
33B
33C
33D
33E
33F
33G
33H
331
33 J
33K
34.1
34.2
34.3.1
34.3.2
35.1
35.2
37
41.1
41.2
WETLAND CONDITION
W
COMMENTS /'ASSUMPTIONS
v
Y
Y
v
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y N
Y N
Y N
Y N I
Y
Y
N I
N I
36.1. 1
V
N
Y
N
Y~
~K
36.1.2
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
36.2.1
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
36.2.2
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
36.2.3
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
38.1
Y
N
38.2
Y
N
38.3
Y
N
38.4
Y
N
38.5
Y
N
38.6
Y
K
3 8.7
Y
N
38.8
Y
N
I
39
Y
N
40.1
Y
N
I
40.2
Y
N
I
Y
Y
N
N
-------
WET 2.0
FORM B (Cont.)
Evaluation Site:
Q.ff X
42.1.1
42.1.2
42.1.3
WETLAND CONDITION
W
Y N I
Y N I
Y N I
Y N I
Y N I
Y N I
D
Y N I
Y N I
Y N I
Page 7 of 9
COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
42.2.1 Y N I Y N I Y N I
42.2.2 Y N I Y N I Y N I
42.2.3 Y N I Y N I Y N I
43A
Y
N
Y
N
V
i.
N
43B
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
43C
Y
N
V
N
Y
N
43D
Y
N
V
N
Y
N
43E
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
43F
Y
N
y
N
Y
N
43G
Y
N
V
N
Y
N
43H
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
431
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
44A
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
44B
Y
N
V
N
Y
N
44C
Y
N
Y
K
Y
N
44D
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
44E
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
44F
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
44G
Y
N
Y
N
i
N
44H
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
441
Y
N
Y
N
Y
N
45A Y N
45B Y N
45C Y N
45D Y N
45E Y N
45F Y N
45G Y N
46A Y N Y N Y N
46B Y N Y N Y N
46C Y N ¥ N Y N
47A
47B
47C
Y N
Y N
Y N
-------
FORM B (Cont.) Page 8 of 9
Evaluation Site:
WETLAND CONDITION COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
Q . # X W D
48A
Y
N .
1
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
48B
Y
N
I
V
N
I
Y
N
I
48C
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
48D
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
48E
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
48F
Y
N
I
Y
N
r
Y
N
I
49.1.1
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
49.1.2
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
49.2
V
N
I
Y
N
I
Y
N
I
49.3
V
A
N
I
Y
N
i
Y
N
I
50.
V
N
Y
M
Y
N
EFFECTIVENESS/OPPORTUNITY EVALUATION - LEVEL 3 (DETAILED DATA)
WETLAND CONDITION COMMENTS/ASSUMPTION'S
Q.it X W D
51.1
V
N
U
51.2
V
N
U
52.1
Y
N
I
u
52.2
Y
N
T
u
53.1
Y
N
I
u
53.2
Y
N
I
u
54
Y
N
u
y :
"J
Y ?
IJ
55.1
Y
N
u
55.2
Y
N
u
55.3
Y
N
u
55.4
Y
N
u
56.1
V
N
I
u
56.2
Y
N
I
u
57.1
V
N
u
57.2
Y
N
u
58. Y N U
-------
FORM B (Cont.)
Evaluation Site:
WETLAND CONDITION COMMENTS/ASSUMPTIONS
Q.// X W D
59.1 Y N I U
59.2 Y N I U
60
Y
N
U
61
Y
N
I
u
62
Y
N
u
63.1
Y
N
I
u
63.2
Y
N
I
u
64 Y N 1 U
WET 2,0
Page 9 of 9
-------
ULT z.U
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FORM C: SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS
74
Form C is used to document the observation of fish and wildlife species by
the evaiuator(s) during the field visit to the AA site. The observations
documented in Form C are only used during the habitat suitability
evaluation procedure, therefore, it is not necessary to fill out Form C
unless habitat suitability evaluations are anticipated.
Record observations of fish and waterfowl species groups, as well as
individual fish and bird species while at the AA site. In addition, record
observations of recreational and consumptive activities occurring at the AA
site.
-------
w 2.0
FORM C: SUPPLEMENTARY OBSERVATIONS
Evaluation Site:
75
Indicate the species, species groups, and activities that are actually
observed, reliably reported, or known to occur at the AA on a regular basis.
FISH SPECIES GROUPS
03SERVED/REPORTED
1 .
Wannwaier Group
y
or
2.
Coldwater Group
Y
or
N
.
Northern Lake Group
Y
c r
N
Coldwater Riverine Grous
V
O I
N
FISH SPECIES
OBSERVED/REPORTED
Y o" N
Y or N
Y or N
WATERFOWL SPECIES GROUPS
A*
OBSERVED/REPORTED
NEST
ING
MIGRA1
'ItC
WINTER IN!
1 .
Prairie Dabblers
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
2.
Black Duck
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
3.
Wood Duck
Y
or
N
y
or
N
Y
or
N
4.
Common and Red-Breasted Mergansers
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
Hooded Merganser
Y
or
N
V
or
N
Y
or
N
6.
Canvasback, Redhead, Ruddy Duck
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
7 .
Ring-necked Duck
Y
or
N
Y
o r
N
Y
or
N
8.
Greater and Lesser Scaup
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
9.
Common Goideneye
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
10.
3uffleheaa
Y
or
N
Y
c r
N
Y
or
N
11.
Whistling Ducks
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
Y
or
N
12.
Inland Geese
V
or
N
Y
or
X1
Y
or
N
13.
Tundra Swar.
V
k.
or
N
Y
c r
N
Y
or
N
14.
Brant
Y
or
N
Y
or
\<
Y
or
N
BIRD SPECIES
OBSERVED/REPORTED
Y or N
N
N
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES
Hiking
Birdwatching
Photography
Swimming
Sailing
Power Boating
Canoeing
Kayak ing
Sr.ownobil ing
Ski ing
Snowshoeing
Ice Skating
Research
Educational Fieldtrips
Horseback Riding
CONSUMPTIVE ACTIVITIES
Agriculture
Hun t ing
Fur Harvesting
Timber Harvest
Commercial/Sport Fishing
Natural Food Gathering
Peat Harvesting
Water Supply
Fish species groups are explained on page 138
Waterfowl species groups are explained on page 1647
-------
WET 2.0
INSTRUCTIONS FOR FORM D: EVALUATION SUMMARY SHEET
Form D documents chc results of the evaluation. Record probability ratings
for functions in terms of social significance and/or effectiveness and
opportunity evaluation in the appropriate row and column. An on Form D
indicates that WET does not evaluate the function in terms or social
significance or effectiveness and opportunity.
Record probability ratings for any habitat suitability evaluations that were
conducted in the appropriate row and column.
At the bottom of the Form indicate:
(1) The levels of assessment completed for the evaluation
v2) Whether that particular Form 3 is for an AA or IA
(3! Identify evidence suggesting contrary probablity rati n gs
(4) Identify alternative sources of information used to assign a
probability rating
(5) If possible identify wetland loss rates for the locality or region in
terms of wetland type, acreage, and time frame.
-------
WET 2.0
FORM D: EVALUATION SUHMARY SHEET
77
Evaluation Sice:
Wetland Functions and Values
Soc ial
Significance Effectiveness Opportunity
Ground Water Recharge *
Ground Water Discharge *
Fioodflow Alteration
Sediment Stabilization *
Sedinent/Toxicant Retention
Nutrient Remcvai/Transform.
Production Export * *
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance - *
Breeding * * .
Migration * *
Wintering * *
Aquatic Diversity/Abundance *
Uniqueness/Heritage 2 1
Recreation * *
Habitat Suitability Evaluation
Fish Species Groups:
Group Group Group
Waterfcwl Species Groups:
Breeding Migration Wintering
Group
Group
Group
Group
Fish, Invertebrate, and Bird Species:
Levels cf assessment completed: S-l S-2 K/O-i E/C-2 E/G-3 HS
Evaluation is for the: AA IA (Note: if the evaluation is for an IA.
documentation of the AA evaluation must be presentee with this evaluation).
Is there any evidence that suggests ratings contrary to the above (explain)?
Were alternative sources used for any of the ratings above (explain)?
The loss rate for (identify locality/region)
between 19 and 19 for (identify wetland type)
was (acres/year or % loss).
wi. Coes not evaluate this function or value in these terns.
"ft
Wildlife Diversity/Abundance assesses only wetland-dependent birds.
Other wildlife (e.g., game mammals) shouid be evaluated usir.g other methods.
-------
APPENDIX F SITE MAPS
-------
-------
-------
81
u
&
£
5
$
M
rr
u
R
£¦
z)r
X,
"P
-------
-------
-------
84
cr
x
cn
-------
M4RSH
M'XtD
2
MAR5H
^ DEtfp
MAftSH
MIXED MAR5H
LAKb
Orlahdp IbiTe-
-------
N
-------
>U
¦>S
------- |