¦?. United States Environmental Protection Agency
flyp r% Office of Water
"SEZ, Washington, D.C.
%
V ' >°" EPA 843-B-21-004
PRO"^
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Version 1.0, March 2021
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 2 of 101
APPROVAL PAGE
Management Approvals: Signature indicates approval for the National Wetland Condition Assessment
2021 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), related Field Operations Manual (FOM) and Laboratory
Operations Manual (LOM).
GREGG SERENBETZ
Digitally signed by GREGG SERENBETZ
Date: 2021.03.17 16:25:57 -04'00'
Gregg Serenbetz
NWCA Project Manager
Date
DANIELLE GRUNZKE
Digitally signed by DANIELLE GRUNZKE
Date: 2021.03.17 17:12:25 -04'00'
Danielle Grunzke
Project Quality Assurance Coordinator
Date
SARAH LEHMANN
Digitally signed by SARAH LEHMANN
Date: 2021.03.17 17:27:35 -04'00'
Sarah Lehmann
National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS) Team Leader
Date
SUSAN HOLDSWORTH
Digitally signed by SUSAN HOLDSWORTH
Date: 2021.03.18 21:28:48 -04'00'
Susan Holdsworth
Chief, Monitoring Branch
Date
BERNICE SMITH
Digitally signed by BERNICE SMITH
Date: 2021.03.19 13:22:34 -04'00'
Bernice Smith
Division Quality Assurance Coordinator
Date
CYNTHIA SHIMANSKI
Digitally signed by CYNTHIA SHIMANSKI
Date: 2021.03.23 16:17:09 -04'00'
Cynthia N. Johnson
OWOW Quality Assurance Coordinator
Date
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 3 of 101
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLAN
REVIEW & DISTRIBUTION ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND
COMMITMENT TO IMPLEMENT
for
NATIONAL WETLAND CONDITION ASSESSMENT 2021
I/We have read the QAPP and the methods manuals for the National Wetland Condition
Assessment listed below. Our agency/organization agrees to abide by its requirements for work
performed under the National Wetland Condition Assessment. Please check the boxes for the
appropriate documents.
Quality Assurance Project Plan ~
Field Operations Manual ~
Site Evaluation Guidelines ~
Laboratory Operations Manual ~
Field Crew leads: I also certify that I attended an NWCA 2021 training and that all members of
my crew have received training in NWCA protocols
Print Name
Title
(Cooperator's Principal Investigator)
Organization
Signature Date
Field Crews: Please return this signed "QAPP Review & Distribution Acknowledgment and Commitment
to Implement" form to the Contractor Field Logistics Coordinator, Chris Turner, Great Lakes
Environmental Center, Inc.; 739 Hastings Street; Traverse City, Ml 49686. cturner@glec.com.
Labs and others: Please return the signed original to Kendra Forde who will ensure all parties have
signed the QA forms, compile them, and submit them to the EPA QA Coordinator. Send your forms to:
Kendra Forde atforde.kendra@epa.gov. US EPA; 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW (4503T); Washington, DC
20460. Retain a copy for your files.
Please save the QAPP locally upon completing this page, and then print this page only to PDF. Use the
following naming convention for the file:
NWCA_2021_QAPPvl.0_[Lastname. Firstname_organization_YYYYMMDDJ.pdf
* Handwritten or digital signatures are acceptable.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 4 of 101
VERSION HISTORY
QAPP Version
Date Approved
Changes Made
1.0
Not Applicable
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 5 of 101
NOTICES
The National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) 2021 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and
related documents are based on the National Wetland Condition Assessments in 2011 and 2016.
The complete documentation of overall NWCA project management, design, methods, and standards is
contained in four companion documents, including:
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Quality Assurance Project Plan (EPA 843-B-21-004)
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Field Operations Manual (EPA 843-B-21-002)
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Laboratory Operations Manual (EPA 843-B-21-003)
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Site Evaluation Guidelines (EPA 843-B-21-001)
This document (QAPP) contains elements of the overall project management, data quality objectives,
measurement and data acquisition, and information management for NWCA 2021. Methods described
in this document are to be used specifically in work relating to the NWCA 2021 and related projects. All
Project Cooperators should follow these guidelines. Mention of trade names or commercial products in
this document does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. More details on specific
methods for site evaluation, field sampling, and laboratory processing can be found in the appropriate
companion document(s).
The suggested citation for this document is:
USEPA. 2021. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Quality Assurance Project Plan. EPA-843-
B-21-004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington D.C.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 6 of 101
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 6
ACRONYMS 10
DISTRIBUTION LIST 12
NWCA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 14
1 PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT 17
1.1 Introduction 17
1.2 Scope of the Quality Assurance Plan 18
1.3 Project Organization 18
1.4 Project Design 23
1.5 Project Schedule 23
1.6 Overview of Field Operations 23
1.6.1 Field Crew Duties and Qualifications 24
1.6.2 Pre Field Visit Activities 27
1.6.3 Field Visit Activities 27
1.6.4 Post Field Visit Activities 28
1.7 Overview of Laboratory Operations 29
1.7.1 Chemistry Lab Quality Evaluation 31
1.7.2 Biological Laboratory Quality Evaluation 31
1.8 Data Analysis 31
1.9 Peer Review 32
2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES 33
2.1 Data Quality Objectives for the National Wetland Condition Survey 33
2.2 Measurement Quality Objectives 33
2.2.1 Laboratory Reporting Level (Sensitivity) 33
2.2.2 Sampling Precision and Bias 35
2.2.3 Taxonomic Precision and Accuracy 38
2.2.4 Completeness 38
2.2.5 Comparability 39
2.2.6 Representativeness 39
3 SAMPLING DESIGN AND SITE SELECTION 41
3.1 Probability-Based Sampling Design and Site Selection 41
3.1.1 Target Population 41
3.1.2 Sample Frame 41
3.1.3 Selection of Sampling Locations 43
3.2 Handpicked Candidate Reference Site Selection 43
4 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 45
4.1 Roles and Responsibilities 45
4.1.1 State/Tribe-Based Data Management 47
4.2 Overview of System Structure 48
4.2.1 Data Flow 48
4.2.2 Simplified Description of Data Flow 48
4.2.3 Core Information Management Standards 49
4.2.4 Data Formats 50
4.2.5 Public Accessibility 50
4.3 Data Transfer Protocols 51
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 7 of 101
4.4 Data Quality and Results Validation 52
4.4.1 Design and Site Status Data Files 53
4.4.2 Sample Collection and Field Data 53
4.4.3 Laboratory Analyses and Data Recording 54
4.4.4 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Activities 56
4.5 Data Transfer 58
4.5.1 Database Changes 58
4.6 Metadata 58
4.6.1 Parameter Formats 58
4.6.2 Standard Coding Systems 59
4.7 Information Management Operations 59
4.7.1 Computing Infrastructure 59
4.7.2 Data Security and Accessibility 59
4.7.3 Life Cycle 59
4.7.4 Data Recovery and Emergency Backup Procedures 59
4.7.5 Long-Term Data Accessibility and Archive 60
4.8 Records Management 60
5 INDICATORS 61
5.1 Vegetation 62
5.1.1 Introduction 62
5.1.2 Sampling Design and Methods 62
5.1.3 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations 62
5.1.4 Quality Control Procedures: Laboratory Operations 63
5.1.5 Data Management, Review, and Validation 64
5.2 Soils 65
5.2.1 Introduction 65
5.2.2 Sampling Design and Methods 65
5.2.3 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations 66
5.2.4 Quality Control Procedures: Laboratory Operations 67
5.2.5 Data Management, Review, and Validation 68
5.3 Hydrology 68
5.3.1 Introduction 68
5.3.2 Sampling Design and Methods 69
5.3.3 Quality Control Procedures 69
5.3.4 Data Management, Review, and Validation 69
5.4 Water Chemistry (including chlorophyll-o) 70
5.4.1 Introduction 70
5.4.2 Sampling Design and Methods 70
5.4.3 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations 70
5.4.4 Quality Control Procedures: Laboratory Operations 71
5.4.5 Data Reporting, Review, and Management 78
5.5 Microcystin 79
5.5.1 Introduction 79
5.5.2 Sampling Design and Methods 79
5.5.3 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations 79
5.5.4 Quality Control Procedures: Laboratory Operations 80
5.5.5 Data Management, Review, and Validation 83
5.6 Physical Alteration 83
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021 Quality Assurance Project Plan
Version 1.0, March 2021 Page 8 of 101
5.6.1 Introduction 83
5.6.2 Sampling Design and Methods 84
5.6.3 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations 84
5.6.4 Data Management, Review, and Validation 84
6 FIELD AND LABORATORY QUALITY EVALUATION AND ASSISTANCE VISITS 85
6.1 National Wetland Condition Assessment Field Quality Evaluation and Assistance Visit Plan 85
6.1.1 Preparation Activities 85
6.1.2 Field Day Activities 86
6.1.3 Post Field Day Activities 87
6.1.4 Summary 87
6.2 National Wetland Condition Assessment Laboratory Quality Evaluation and Assistance Visit Plan
88
6.2.1 Remote Evaluation/Technical Assessment 88
6.2.2 Water Chemistry Laboratories 89
6.2.3 Assistance Visits 90
6.2.4 NWCA 2021 Document Request Form - Chemistry Laboratories 90
6.2.5 NWCA 2021 Vegetation Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Form 91
7 DATA ANALYSIS PLAN 94
7.1 Data Interpretation Background 94
7.1.1 Scale of assessment 94
7.1.2 Selecting the best indicators 94
7.1.3 Defining least impacted reference condition 94
7.1.4 Determining thresholds forjudging condition 94
7.2 Geospatial Data 95
7.3 Datasets Utilized for the Report 95
7.3.1 Ecological integrity 95
7.3.2 Stressor Status / Extent 95
7.4 Vegetation Data Analysis 95
7.5 Soils, Hydrology, Water Chemistry, and Physical Alteration Data Analysis 96
7.6 Relative Extent, Relative Risk, and Attributable Risk Evaluation 96
8 REFERENCES 97
TABLE OF TABLES
Table 1-1. Proposed schedule 32
Table 2-1. Important variance components for aquatic resource assessments 37
Table 3-1. NWCA Target Wetland Types and crosswalk to US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Status &
Trends (S&T) wetland categories and USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland classes 42
Table 4-1 Summary of IM responsibilities 45
Table 4-2 Summary of software 51
Table 4-3 Summary sample and field data quality control activities: sample tracking 54
Table 4-4 Summary laboratory data quality control activities 55
Table 4-5 Data review, verification, and validation quality control activities 57
Table 5-1. Description of indicators and collection locations 61
Table 5-2. Laboratory quality control activities for vegetation indicator 63
Table 5-3. Data validation quality control for vegetation indicator 64
Table 5-4. Soil indicator field and laboratory measurements and analyses 65
Table 5-5. Field quality control for soil indicator 66
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 9 of 101
Table 5-6. Lab analysis quality control for soil indicator 68
Table 5-7. Data validation quality control for soil indicator 68
Table 5-8. Field measurement methods for hydrology indicator 69
Table 5-9. Data quality control for hydrology indicator 70
Table 5-10. Water chemistry and chlorophyll-a laboratory methods performance requirements 73
Table 5-11. Required quality control activities for water chemistry and chlorophyll-a samples 74
Table 5-12. Data validation quality control for water chemistry indicator 78
Table 5-13. Data reporting criteria for water chemistry indicator 78
Table 5-14. Field quality control for microcystin 80
Table 5-15. Measurement quality objectives for microcystin 80
Table 5-16. Required quality control activities for microcystin samples 81
Table 5-17. Sample receipt and processing quality control for microcystin 82
Table 5-18. Data validation quality control microcystin 83
Table 5-19. Data reporting criteria for microcystin 83
Table 6-1. Equipment and Supplies - Field Evaluation and Assistance Visits 86
Table 6-2. Summary of Field Evaluation and Assistance Visit Information 87
TABLE OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1. NWCA Project Organization 22
Figure 1-2. Site verification activities for wetland field surveys 28
Figure 3-1. Ten geographic areas used in survey design and for reporting on wetland condition in NWCA
43
Figure 4-1. Conceptual model of data flow into and out of the master SQL 49
Figure 5-1. Analysis Activities for Water Chemistry Samples 72
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 10 of 101
ACRONYMS
ASTM
CSDGM
DBH
DQO
EMAP
FGDC
FOIA
FOM
GDIT
GIS
GLEC
GRTS
HDPE
IM
LIMS
LOM
LRL
LT-MDL
MDL
MMI
MQO
NAPA
NARS
NCCA
ND
NHD
NIST
NLA
NMFS
NOAA
NRC
NRCS
NRSA
NWCA
OMB
ORD
OW
PE
PESD
PETG
OA
QAPP
QA/QC
QC
QCS
American Society of Testing and Materials
Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata
diameter at breast height
Data Quality Objectives
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program
Federal Geographic Data Committee
Freedom of Information Act
Field Operations Manual
General Dynamics Information Technology
geographic information system
Great Lakes Environmental Center
Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (survey design)
high density polyethylene
information management
Laboratory Information Management System
Lab Operations Manual
Laboratory Reporting Limit
target long-term Method Detection Limit
Method Detection Limit
multimetric indices
Measurement Quality Objectives
National Academy of Public Administration
National Aquatic Resource Surveys
National Coastal Condition Assessment
non-detect
National Hydrography Dataset
National Institute of Standards
National Lakes Assessment
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
Natural Resources Conservation Service
National Rivers and Streams Assessment
National Wetlands Condition Assessment
Office of Management and Budget
USEPA Office of Research and Development
USE PA Office of Water
performance evaluation
USEPA Office of Research and Development's Pacific Ecological Systems Division
polyethylene terephthalate
quality assurance
Quality Assurance Project Plan
quality assurance/quality control
quality control
quality control sample
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 11 of 101
RL
Reporting Limit
RPD
relative percent difference
SEG
Site Evaluation Guidelines
SOP
Standard Operating Procedure
SQL
Structured Query Language
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USEPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGAO
United States Government Accountability Office
USGS
United States Geological Survey
WQX
USEPA Water Quality Exchange
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 12 of 101
DISTRIBUTION LIST
This Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and associated manuals or guidelines will be distributed to
the following: EPA, states, tribes, universities, and contractors participating in NWCA 2021. EPA Regional
Coordinators are responsible for distributing the QAPP to state and tribal Water Quality Agency staff or
other cooperators who will perform the field sampling and laboratory operations. The Quality Assurance
(QA) Officers will distribute the QAPP and associated documents to participating project staff at their
respective facilities and to the project contacts at participating laboratories, as they are determined.
National Project Coordinators
Gregg Serenbetz
NWCA Project Manager
serenbetz.gregg@epa.gov
202-566-1253
U.S. EPA Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
Danielle Grunzke
NWCA QA Coordinator
grunzke.danielle@epa.gov
202-566-2876
U.S. EPA Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
Cynthia N. Johnson
OWOW Quality Assurance Officer
Johnson.CynthiaN@epa.gov
202-566-1679
U.S. EPA Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
Bernice L. Smith
Division Quality Assurance Coordinator
Smith. BerniceL@epa.gov
202- 566-1244
U.S. EPA Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
Mary Kentula
EPA ORD Technical Leader
Kentula.mary@epa.gov
541-754-4478
U.S EPA, ORD
Pacific Ecological Systems Division
Corvallis, OR
Amanda Nahlik
EPA ORD Technical Leader
Nahlik.amanda@epa.gov
541-754-4581
U.S EPA, ORD
Pacific Ecological Systems Division
Corvallis, OR
Teresa Magee
EPA ORD Technical Advisor
Magee.teresa@epa.gov
541-754-4385
U.S EPA, ORD
Pacific Ecological Systems Division
Corvallis, OR
Sarah Lehmann
NARS Team Leader
lehmann.sarah@epa.gov
202-566-1379
U.S. EPA Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
Brain Hasty
NWCA Logistics Coordinator
Hasty.brian@epa.gov
202-564-2236
U.S. EPA Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
Kendra Forde
NWCA Laboratory Coordinator
Forde.kendra@epa.gov
202-566-0417
U.S. EPA Office of Water
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
Washington, DC
Michelle Gover, GDIT
NARS Information Management
Coordinator
Gover.michelle@epa.gov
541-754-4793
GDIT
Corvallis, OR 9733
Chris Turner
Contract Logistics Coordinator
cturner@glec.com
715-829-3737
Great Lakes Environmental Center
Traverse City, Ml
Regional Monitoring Coordinators (MC) and Wetland Coordinators (WC)
Tom Faber, Region 1 MC
faber.tom@epa.gov
617-918-8672
U.S. EPA - Region 1
North Chelmsford, MA
Beth Alafat, Region 1 WC
Alafat.beth@epa.gov
617-918-1399
U.S. EPA - Region 1
Boston, MA
Emily Nering, Region 2 MC
Nering.Emily@epa.gov
732-321-6764
U.S. EPA - Region II
Edison, NJ
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 13 of 101
Jaclyn Woollard, Region 2 WC
Woollard.Jaclyn@epa.gov
212-637-3832
U.S. EPA-Region II
New York, NY
Bill Richardson, Region 3 MC
richardson.william@epa.gov
215-814-5675
U.S. EPA-Region III
Philadelphia, PA
Christine Mazzarella., Region 3 WC
Mazzarella.Christine@epa.gov
215-814-5756
U.S. EPA-Region III
Philadelphia, PA
Elizabeth McGuire Smith, Region 4 MC
Smith.elizabeth@Epa.gov
404-562-8721
U.S.EPA- Region IV
Atlanta, GA
Christopher McArthur, Region 4 MC
mcarthur.christopher@epa.gov
404-562-9391
U.S.EPA - Region IV
Atlanta, GA
Elizabeth Belk, Region 4 MC
Belk.Elizabeth@epa.gov
404-562-9377
U.S.EPA - Region IV
Atlanta, GA
Diana Woods, Region 4 WC
Woods.diana@Epa.gov
404-562-9404
U.S.EPA - Region IV
Atlanta, GA
Ed Hammer, Region 5 MC
Hammer.edward@epa.gov
312-886-3019
U.S. EPA- Region V
Chicago, IL
Mari Nord, Region 5 MC
nord.mari@epa.gov
312-353-3017
U.S. EPA - Region V
Chicago, IL
Kerryann Weaver, Region 5 WC
weaver.kerryann@epa.gov
312-353-9483
U.S. EPA-Region V
Chicago, IL
Rob Cook, Region 6 MC
Cook.robert@Epa.gov
214-665-7141
U.S. EPA-Region VI
Dallas, TX
Eliodora Chamberlain, Region 7 MC/WC
Chamberlain.Eliodora@epa.gov
913-551-7945
U.S. EPA-Region VII
Lenexa, KS
Tom Johnson, Region 8 MC
Johnson.tom@Epa.gov
303-312-6226
U.S. EPA-Region VIII
Denver, CO
Liz Rogers, Region 8 MC
Rogers.Liz@epa.gov
303-312-6974
U.S. EPA-Region VIII
Denver, CO
Nolan Hahn, Region 8 WC
hahn.nolan@epa.gov
303-312-6486
U.S. EPA-Region VIII
Denver, CO
Billy Bunch, Region 8 WC
Bunch.William@epa.gov
303-312-6412
U.S. EPA-Region VIII
Denver, CO
Matt Bolt, Region 9 MC
Bolt.Matthew@epa.gov
415-972-3578
U.S.EPA-Region IX
San Francisco, CA
Jennifer Siu, Region 9 WC
Siu.Jennifer@epa.gov
415-972-3983
U.S.EPA-Region IX
San Francisco, CA
Lil Herger, Region 10 MC
Herger.Lillian@epa.gov
206-553-1074
U.S. EPA-Region X,
Seattle, WA
Annie Whitley, Region 10 WC
Whitley.Annie@epa.gov
206-553-0058
U.S. EPA-Region X,
Seattle, WA
Charissa Bujak, Region 10 WC
Bujak.Charissa@epa.gov
208-378-5754
U.S. EPA-Region X,
Seattle, WA
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 14 of 101
NWCA EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Background
In the early 2000s, several reports identified the need for improved water quality monitoring and
analysis at multiple scales. In response, the U.S. EPA Office of Water, in partnership with EPA's Office of
Research and Development (ORD), EPA regional offices, states, tribes and other partners, initiated a
program to assess the condition of the nation's waters using a statistically valid design approach. Often
referred to as probability-based surveys, these assessments, known as the National Aquatic Resource
Surveys (NARS), report on core indicators of water condition using standardized field and lab methods
and utilize integrated information management plans, such as described in this Quality Assurance
Project Plan, to ensure confidence in the results at national and ecoregional scales. NARS is made up of
four assessments: coastal, lakes, rivers and streams, and wetlands.
The current National Wetland Condition Assessment (referred to as NWCA 2021), which builds upon
previous NWCA in 2011 and 2016, has three main objectives:
1. Estimate the current condition of the nation's wetlands with known statistical confidence using
selected ecological indicators;
2. Identify the relative importance of key stressors;
3. Assess changes and trends in the condition of wetlands between NWCA 2011 and 2016.
NWCA is also designed to help expand and enhance state monitoring programs. Through these
assessments, states and tribes have the opportunity to collect data which can be used to supplement
their existing monitoring programs or to begin development of new programs.
NWCA Project Organization
Overall project coordination is conducted by USEPA's Office of Water (OW) in Washington, DC, with
technical support from USEPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD). Each USEPA Regional Office
has identified Regional USEPA Coordinators to assist in implementing the survey and coordinate with
the state and tribal crews who collect data following NWCA protocols.
Quality Assurance Project Plan
The purpose of this QAPP is to document the project data quality objectives and quality
assurance/quality control measures that will be implemented in order to ensure that the data collected
meets those needs. The plan contains elements of the overall project management, data quality
objectives, measurement and data acquisition, and information management for the NWCA.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 15 of 101
Information Management Plan
Environmental monitoring efforts that amass large quantities of information from various sources
present unique and challenging data management opportunities. To meet these challenges, the NWCA
employs a variety of well-tested information management (IM) strategies to aid in the functional
organization and ensured integrity of stored electronic data. IM is integral to all aspects of the NWCA
from initial selection of sampling sites through the dissemination and reporting of final, validated data.
A technical workgroup convened by the EPA Project Leader is responsible for development of a data
analysis plan that includes a verification and validation strategy. General processes are summarized in
the indicator-specific sections of this QAPP. Validated data are transferred to the central data base
managed by NARS information management support staff located at the Pacific Ecological Systems
Division facilities in Corvallis. This database is known as the National Aquatic Resource Surveys
Information Management (NARS IM) system. All validated measurement and indicator data from the
NWCA are eventually transferred to EPA's Water Quality Exchange (WQX) for storage in EPA's STORET
warehouse for public accessibility. NARS IM staff provides support and guidance to all program
operations in addition to maintaining NARS IM.
Overview of NWCA Design
The NWCA 2021 is designed to be completed during the index period of mid to late April through the
end of September 2021. Field crews will collect a variety of measurements and samples from
predetermined sampling locations (located with an assigned set of coordinates). EPA used an unequal
probability design to select 904 wetland sites throughout the conterminous United States. Additionally,
NWCA-related sampling will occur in wetland areas of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. More
information can be found in Section 1.4 (Project Design) and Section 3.1 (Site Selection) of this QAPP.
Overview of Field Operations
Field data acquisition activities are implemented in a consistent manner across the entire country. Each
site is given a unique ID which identifies it throughout the pre-field, field, lab, analysis, and data
management phases of the project. Specific procedures for evaluating each sampling location and for
replacing non-sampleable sites are documented in NWCA 2021: Site Evaluation Guidelines.
NWCA indicators include vegetation, soil chemistry and morphological properties, water chemistry,
hydrology, field observations of physical disturbance (stressors) and algal toxins (microcystin). Research
indicators for the NWCA 2021 are soil isotopes. Field measurements and samples are collected by
trained teams following sampling methods described in the NWCA 2021: Field Operations Manual. The
field team leaders must be trained at an EPA-sponsored training session. Field sampling assistance visits
will be completed for each field team.
Overview of Laboratory Operations
NWCA laboratory analyses are conducted either by state-selected labs or "National Laboratories"
contracted by EPA to conduct analyses for any state which so elects. All laboratories must comply with
the QA/QC requirements described in this document. Any laboratory selected to conduct analyses with
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 16 of 101
NWCA samples must demonstrate that they can meet the quality standards presented in this QAPP and
the NWCA 2021: Laboratory Methods Manual.
Peer Review
The NARS program, including the NWCA, utilizes a three-tiered approach for peer review of the survey.
¦ internal and external review by USEPA, states, other cooperators and partners;
¦ external scientific peer review (when applicable); and
¦ public review (when applicable).
Additionally, cooperators have been actively involved in the development of the overall project
management, design, indicator selection, and methods. Outside scientific experts from universities,
research centers, and other federal agencies have been instrumental in indicator development and will
continue to play an important role in data analysis.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 17 of 101
1 PROJECT PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
1.1 Introduction
In the early 2000s, several reports identified the need for improved water quality monitoring and
analysis at multiple scales. In 2000, the Government Accountability Office (USGAO 2000) reported that
the USEPA, states, and tribes collectively cannot make statistically valid inferences about water quality
(via 305[b] reporting) and lack data to support key management decisions. In 2001, the National
Research Council (NRC 2000) recommended USEPA, states, and tribes promote a uniform, consistent
approach to ambient monitoring and data collection to support core water quality programs. In 2002,
the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment (Heinz Center 2002) found
there are inadequate data for national reporting on fresh water, coastal and ocean water quality
indicators. The National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA 2002) stated that improved water
quality monitoring is necessary to help states and tribes make more effective use of limited resources.
USEPA's Report on the Environment 2003 (USEPA 2003) found that there is insufficient information to
provide a national answer, with confidence and scientific credibility, to the question, "What is the
condition of U.S. waters and watersheds?"
The most commonly cited and scientifically valid sources of national-scale wetland information are the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Status and Trends Reports (S&T Report), which have
documented trends in wetland acreage since the 1950's. The most recent report, published in 2011,
documented a decline of 62,300 wetland acres from 2004-2009. While the report noted gains for some
wetland types, such as freshwater ponds, it found continued declines in area of forested wetlands and
salt marshes (Dahl 2011). Companion reports focused specifically on wetlands in coastal watersheds
(Dahl and Stedman 2013) and the prairie pothole region (Dahl 2014) also found wetland area is
decreasing in these areas. It is vitally important for wetland managers to understand the causes and
sources of this loss to inform implementation of appropriate management measures. While the S&T
Report is an invaluable source of information on trends in wetland acreage and class, it does not provide
data on wetland condition.
In response to these needs, OW, in partnership with states and tribes, initiated a program to assess the
condition of the nation's waters using a statistically valid approach. The current assessment, the
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021 (referred to as NWCA 2021 throughout this document),
builds upon previous NWCA in 2011 and 2016. It also builds on other National Aquatic Resource Surveys
(NARS) such as the National Coastal Condition Assessment (NCCA), the National Lakes Assessment (NLA),
and the National Rivers and Streams Assessment (NRSA). The NWCA 2021 effort will provide important
information to states and the public about the condition of the nation's wetland resources and key
stressors on a national and regional scale. It will also provide a trends assessment between three time
periods: 2011, 2016, and 2021.
USEPA developed this QAPP to support project participants and to ensure that the final assessment is
based on high quality data and known quality for its intended use, and information. The QAPP contains
elements of the overall project management, data quality objectives, measurement and data
acquisition, and information management for NWCA 2021. USEPA recognizes that states and tribes may
add elements to the survey, such as supplemental indicators, that are not covered in the scope of this
integrated QAPP. USEPA requires that any supplemental elements are addressed by the states, tribes, or
their designees, in a separate approved QAPP. This document covers all core NWCA 2021 QA activities.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 18 of 101
The NWCA 2021 participants have agreed to follow this QAPP and the protocols and design laid out in
this document, and its associated documents - the NWCA 2021 FOM, LOM, and SEG.
This cooperative effort between states, tribes, and federal agencies makes it possible to produce a
broad-scale assessment of the condition of the nation's wetlands with both a known confidence and
scientific credibility. Through this survey, states and tribes have the opportunity to collect data that can
be used to supplement their existing monitoring programs or to begin development of new programs.
The NWCA 2021 has three main objectives:
1. Estimate the current condition of the nation's wetlands with known statistical confidence using
selected ecological indicators;
2. Identify the relative importance of key stressors;
3. Assess changes and trends in the condition of wetlands between NWCA 2011 and 2016.
Indicators for the 2021 survey will remain the same as those used in the past surveys, with a few
modifications. This is critical so that USEPA and partners can track not only condition but changes over
time in the quality of wetlands. Modifications to the 2021 survey include changes to the way buffer and
hydrologic disturbance data are collected in the field and evaluated for data analysis.
1.2 Scope of the Quality Assurance Plan
This QAPP addresses the data acquisition efforts of NWCA, which focuses on the 2021 sampling of
wetlands across the conterminous United States. Data from approximately 900 wetland sites (selected
with a probability design) will provide a comprehensive assessment of the nation's wetlands.
Companion documents to this QAPP that are relevant to the overall project include:
• National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Field Operations Manual (EPA 843-B-21-002)
• National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Laboratory Methods Manual (EPA 843-B-21-003)
• National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Site Evaluation Guidelines (EPA 843-B-21-001)
1.3 Project Organization
The responsibilities and accountability of the various principals and cooperators are described here and
illustrated in Figure 1-2. The overall coordination of the project will be provided by USEPA's Office of
Water (OW) in Washington, DC, with support from USEPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD).
Specifically, OW is working with ORD's Pacific Ecological Systems Division (PESD). Each USEPA Regional
Office has identified Regional USEPA Coordinators that provide a critical link to coordinate and
implement the survey with state and tribal partners. State and tribal Cooperators work with their
Regional USEPA Coordinator to address any technical issues. A comprehensive quality assurance (QA)
program has been established to ensure data integrity and provide support for the reliable
interpretation of the findings from this project.
Contractor support is provided for all aspects of this project. Contractors will provide support ranging
from implementing the survey, sampling and laboratory processing, data management, data analysis,
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 19 of 101
and report writing. Cooperators will interact with their Regional USEPA Coordinator and the USEPA
Project Leader regarding contractual services.
The primary responsibilities of the principals and cooperators are as follows:
EPA HQ NWCA Project Manager - Gregg Serenbetz, OW
• Provides overall coordination of the project and makes decisions regarding the proper
functioning of all aspects of the project.
• Makes assignments and delegates authority, as needed to other parts of the project
organization.
• Leads the NWCA Steering Committee and establishes needed technical workgroups.
• Interacts with USEPA Project Team on technical logistical, and organizational issues on a regular
basis.
EPA HQ NWCA Project QA Coordinator - Danielle Grunzke, OW
• Provides leadership, development and oversight of project-level quality assurance for NARS.
• Assembles and provides leadership for NWCA 2021 QA Team.
• Maintains official, approved QAPP.
• Maintains all training materials and documentation.
• Maintains all laboratory accreditation files.
EPA HQ Field Logistics Coordinator - Brian Hasty, OW
• EPA employee who functions to support implementation of the project based on technical
guidance established by the USEPA Project Manager and serves as point-of-contact for
questions from field crews and cooperators for all activities.
• Tracks progress of field sampling activities.
• Coordinates all field and laboratory quality assistance visits.
EPA HQ NARS Team Leader - Sarah Lehman, OW
• Provides leadership, development and oversight for all NARS activities.
EPA ORD Technical Advisors - Mary Kentula, Amanda Nahlik, and Teresa Magee ORD Pacific Ecological
Systems Division
• Advises the Project Manager on the relevant experiences and technology developed within ORD
that are to be used in this project.
• Facilitates consultations between NWCA personnel and ORD scientists.
EPA HQ Laboratory Review Coordinator - Kendra Forde, OW
• Ensures participating laboratories have the appropriate technical competencies to process
samples.
• Ensures participating laboratories complete sample analysis following Laboratory Operations
Manual.
• Ensures participating laboratories follow QA activities.
• Ensures laboratory data is submitted within specified timelines.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 20 of 101
• Coordinates activities of individual lab Task Order Project Officers to ensure methods are
followed and OA activities take place.
NARS Information Management Coordinator - Michelle Gover, GDIT
• A contractor who functions to support implementation of the project based on technical
guidance established by the USEPA Project Manager and Alternate USEPA Project Manager.
• Oversees all sample shipments and receives data forms from the Cooperators.
• Oversees all aspects of data entry and data management for the project.
EPA OWOW QA Officer - Cynthia N. Johnson, OW
• Functions as an independent officer overseeing all QA and quality control (QC) activities.
• Responsible for ensuring that the OA program is implemented thoroughly and adequately to
document the performance of all activities.
EPA WRAPD QA Coordinator - Bernice L. Smith, OW
• Functions as an independent officer overseeing all QA and quality control (QC) activities.
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Lead - Garrett Stillings, OW
• Primary ESA contact for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS).
• Works with the USEPA Project Lead to ensure that survey manuals and protocols include
appropriate responses and reporting requirements in the event that a crew encounters federally
listed species when conducting field work.
• Prepares the Biological Evaluation to support Section 7 consultations.
• Works with the survey logistics lead to implement the conservation measures, reasonable and
prudent measures, and reporting requirements identified in the Biological Opinion.
• Maintains library of NWCA ESA documents.
Regional USEPA Coordinators
• Assist Project Manager with regional coordination activities.
• Serve on the NWMAWG and interact with Project Manager on technical, logistical, and
organizational issues on a regular basis.
• Serve as primary points-of-contact for the Cooperators.
EPA Study Design Manager - Tony Olsen, ORD
• Coordinates w/ Project Manager and Field Implementation Coordinator to develop and manage
the Sampling Frame, select sampling locations, and track field evaluation and site
reconnaissance.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 21 of 101
Steering Committee (Technical Experts Workgroup): States, USEPA, academics, USDA-NRCS, other
federal agencies
• Provides expert consultation on key technical issues as identified by the USEPA Project
Management team and works with Project Lead to resolve approaches and strategies to enable
data analysis and interpretation to be scientifically valid.
Cooperator(s): States, Tribes, USDA-NRCS others
• Under the scope of their assistance agreements, plan and execute their individual studies as part
of the cross jurisdictional NWCA and adhere to all QA requirements and standard operating
procedures (SOPs).
• Interact with the USEPA Grant Coordinator, Field Implementation Coordinator and USEPA
Project Lead regarding technical, logistical, organizational issues.
Field Sampling Crew Leaders
• Functions as the senior member of each Cooperator's field sampling crew and the point of
contact for the Field Logistics Coordinator.
• Responsible for overseeing all activities of the field sampling crew and ensuring that the Project
field method protocols are followed during all sampling activities.
National Laboratory Task Order Managers, OW
• Responsible for managing activities of the national contract laboratories.
• Provide direction to national and state laboratories on methods, timelines and QA activities to
ensure all actions are followed.
• Provide updates to USEPA Laboratory Review Coordinator on the sample processing status of
the laboratory and any questions or concerns raised by participating laboratories regarding
timelines and deliverables.
Field Logistics Coordinator-Chris Turner, Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC)
• A contractor who functions to support implementation of the project based on technical
guidance established by the USEPA Project Manager and Alternate USEPA Project Manager
serves as point-of-contact for questions from field crews and cooperators for all activities.
• Tracks progress of field sampling activities.
• Tracks progress of lab activities.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 22 of 101
Study Design
Tony Olsen, EPA ORD
Project Management
Project Manager: Gregg Serenbetz, EPA OW
Project QA Coordinator: Danielle Grunzke, EPA OW
Technical Advisors: Mary Kentula, Amanda Nahlik,
and Teresa Magee, EPA ORD
OWOW QA
Oversight and Review
Cynthia N. Johnson, EPA OW
Field Logistics
Implementation Coordinator
Training
EPA OW, ORD and Regions
Contractors
Field Implementation
State/Tribal Agencies
EPA Regions, Contractors
Field Protocols /
Indicator Selection
EPA OW and ORD
State/Tribal Steering
Committee
Sample Flow
Vegetation
Soil Chemistry / Bulk Density
Water Chemistry / Chlorophyll a
Hydrology
Field Observations (stressors)
Microcystin
NWCA Project and Quality Team
Information Management
EPA PESD/GDIT - Michelle Gover
Data Archiving
Web, STORET/WQX-OW
Assessment
EPA OW-Lead
EPA ORD and Regions
States, Tribes, Cooperators and other partners
Figure 1-1. NWCA Project Organization
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 23 of 101
1.4 Project Design
The NWCA 2021 is designed to be completed during the index period of mid to late April through the
end of September 2021. Field crews will collect a variety of measurements and samples from
predetermined sampling locations (located with an assigned set of coordinates).
With input from the states and other partners, EPA used an unequal probability design to select 904
wetland sites throughout the conterminous United States. Additionally, NWCA-related sampling will
occur in wetland areas of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands, during the 2021 field season.
For more information about the primary and enhancement survey designs, please see Section 3.
1.5 Project Schedule
Training and field sampling will be conducted in 2021. Sample processing and data analysis are planned
for 2022 to support publication of results in 2023.
1.6 Overview of Field Operations
Field data acquisition activities are implemented for the NWCA, based on guidance originally developed
for the NWCA 2011 and 2016 surveys. Funding for states and tribes to conduct field data collection
activities are provided by EPA under Section 106 of the Clean Water Act. Survey preparation is initiated
with selection of the sampling locations by the Design Team (PESD in Corvallis). The Design Team gives
each site a unique ID which identifies it throughout the pre-field, field, lab, analysis, and data
management phases of the project. The Project Lead distributes the list of sampling locations to the
EPA Regional Coordinators, states, and tribes. With the sampling location list, state and tribal field crews
can begin site reconnaissance on the primary sites and alternate replacement sites and begin work on
obtaining access permission to each site. EPA provides specific procedures for evaluating each sampling
location and for replacing non-sampleable sites in NWCA: Site Evaluation Guidelines. Each crew is
responsible for procuring, as needed, scientific collecting permits from state/tribal and federal agencies,
and if necessary, permission from landowners. The field teams will use standard field equipment and
supplies as identified in the Equipment and Supplies List (Appendix A of the Field Operations Manual).
Field crews will work with Field Logistics Coordinators to coordinate equipment and supply requests.
This helps to ensure comparability of protocols across all crews. EPA has documented detailed lists of
equipment required for each field protocol, as well as guidance on equipment inspection and
maintenance, in the Field Operations Manual.
Field measurements and samples are collected by trained teams/crews. Typically, each field crew is
comprised of four members, divided into the Vegetation (Veg) Team and the Assessment Area and
Buffer (AB) Team. The number and size of crews depends on the duration of the sampling window,
geographic distribution of sampling locations, number and complexity of samples and field
measurements, and other factors. The two teams work closely with each other to coordinate sampling
activities. Field crew duties and qualifications are documented in Appendix X. The field crew leaders and
field personnel who lead the Veg Team (Botanist/Ecologist) and AB Team (Soil Specialist), if they are not
the overall field crew leader, must be trained at an EPA-sponsored training session before the field
season. Ideally, all members of each field crew should attend one EPA-sponsored training session before
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 24 of 101
the field season. The training program stresses hands-on practice of methods, consistency among crews,
collection of high-quality data and samples, and safety. Training documentation will be maintained by
the Project QA Coordinator. Field Crew leaders will maintain records indicating that members of their
team that did not attend and EPA training were properly trained to follow the NWCA protocols. Field
crew leaders will provide EPA with this documentation if requested by the NWCA Project Leader or QA
Coordinator. EPA or other designated personnel (e.g. contractors) will conduct field sampling assistance
visits for each field crew early in the sampling season.
1.6.1 Field Crew Duties and Qualifications
The Veg Team is responsible for collecting data on vegetation in the AA. The AB Team is responsible for
collecting abiotic data on soils, hydrology, water quality and landscape disturbance in the AA and buffer.
All field crew members should have the following general skills:
• Ability to work collaboratively in a team environment
• Ability to work long hours outdoors in varying conditions of weather and terrain
• Ability to carefully execute precise sampling protocols
• Keen attention to detail and ability to keep meticulous field records
• Ability to adapt to unforeseen challenges with fieldwork (e.g., site access, logistics, equipment)
• Ability to understand and adhere to safety and health considerations in often remote field-
settings
1.6.1.1 Vegetation Team Duties and Qualifications
The Vegetation Team (Veg Team) is composed of a Botanist/Ecologist and a Botanist Assistant. Primary
responsibilities for the Veg Team include:
1. Collecting high quality plant ecological data, including:
a. Identity, presence, predominant height, and cover data for all individual vascular plant taxa
observed in sample plots;
b. Additional data for each observed tree species - cover by height classes for all trees and
counts by diameter classes for trees > 5cm in diameter;
c. Data describing presence and cover of vertical vegetation strata;
d. Data on ground surface attributes and general information about the presence of
nonvascular plant groups;
2. Collecting other information related to vegetation condition; and
3. Collecting, labeling for tracking, and processing plant specimens.
The Veg Team carefully follows protocols in the Field Operations Manual to make onsite decisions
regarding layout and set-up of the vegetation plots within the assessment area; and collect several kinds
of plant data and data on associated ecosystem attributes. Accurate plant species identification is critical
to data quality. The Veg Team will use the flora most appropriate to the location of each sampled site to
aid in plant identification. When the identity of a species is unknown, a plant specimen is collected and
notes describing key diagnostic characteristics of the specimen, its habitat, and associated plant species
are provided as part of the specimen label information. Plant specimens are also collected for a subset
of known taxa (QA taxa), which will be later identified by independent expert taxonomists for quality
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 25 of 101
assurance purposes. Careful attention to provide information necessary to track all collected specimens
(both Unknowns and QA) is essential.
VegTeam members must meet the minimum qualifications identified below. Information describing
study goals and training on standardized vegetation sampling methods, field protocols, and plant
collection requirements is also provided to the Veg Team. This training prepares the Veg Team to
consistently implement all protocols and ensures accurate completion of data and specimen collection
tasks. Accurate and consistent implementation of standard protocols is critical to data comparability
across crews and the geographic area of the NWCA.
Botanist/Ecologist
The Botanist/Ecologist is the foremost expert and authority in identification of plants on the field crew.
They are responsible for generating a complete list of plants observed in Veg Plots at the field site,
properly citing the flora used to identify plant taxa, collecting the plant data using NWCA protocols, and
reviewing vegetation data submissions to ensure completeness, and addressing any issues (e.g.
nomenclatural discrepancies, data completeness) that are observed during initial data review by USEPA.
The Botanist/Ecologist will have the following minimum qualifications:
• Demonstrated understanding of wetland plant ecology (e.g., course work in plant ecology and
systematic botany (taxonomy) and experience with plant ecological field work gained through
completion of a pertinent B.S. or higher degree, or through professional experience in wetland
systems totaling 2 years or more).
• Familiarity with the flora in regions they are assigned to sample and proficiency in identifying
wetland plant species common in that region:
o capable of sight recognition of common dominant species to the level of genus and species,
provided plants are at the proper phenological stage; or
o capable of sight recognition of most species at least to family, and strong proficiency using
dichotomous botanical keys and field guides to identify a taxon to the level of genus and
species.
• Proficiency in keying many unknown plants to species using regionally appropriate floras and
diagnostic keys, particularly for difficult taxonomic groups (e.g., graminoids (grass-like plants), forb
taxa in families such as the Asteraceae, or shrub taxa such as willows (Salix species), etc.).
• Ability to distinguish difficult graminoid taxa as Poaceae (grasses), Juncaceae (rushes), and
Cyperaceae (sedges, bulrushes, spikerushes), and to distinguish unknown species within these
families or genera from one another.
• College or graduate level coursework in botany, plant taxonomy, systematics or equivalent that
included field identification of plant species; and/or excellent references regarding proficiency in
botanical identification of plants.
• Previous experience conducting botanical or ecological field work, including the collection and
preservation of plant specimens.
All prospective Botanist/Ecologists are to provide a Curriculum Vitae and references to the Regional
USEPA Coordinators and Project Manager, who will review and verify the qualifications. If a state is
unable to identify a Botanist/Ecologist, USEPA will work with the state to help identify potential ways to
bring on a qualified Botanist/Ecologist.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 26 of 101
Botanist Assistant
The Botanist Assistant provides support to the Botanist/Ecologist in collection of vegetation data and
plant specimens.
The Botanist Assistant will have the following minimum qualifications:
• Coursework in botany, ecology, natural resources, or equivalent.
• Previous experience conducting ecological field work.
1.6.1.2 AB Team Duties and Qualifications
The AB Team is composed of a Soil Specialist and a Field Technician. Primary responsibilities for the AB
Team include:
1. Collecting high-quality soil, hydrology, water chemistry, biological (e.g., % vegetative cover), and
stressor data following the FOM protocols,
2. Collecting and processing soil, water chemistry, chlorophyll-a, and microcystin samples.
The AB team carefully follows protocols in the FOM to make onsite decisions regarding layout and set-
up of the soil and buffer plots, water sampling location, and to collect ecological data. Accurate
characterization of soil, hydrology, water, and habitat disturbance data is critical. Descriptions of soil
morphological properties and hydric soil field indicators are documented. Hydrology and landscape
attributes are recorded. The AB team collects, preserves, packs and catalogues for tracking all samples
(soil, water chemistry, chlorophyll-a, and microcystin).
AB Team members must meet the minimum qualifications identified below. In addition, standard
training on study goals, physical and biological sampling methods, field protocols, and soil and water
collection requirements is provided to the AB Team to prepare for and ensure accurate completion of
data and sample collection tasks.
Soil Specialist
The Soil Specialist is the member of the AB Team who is primarily responsible for describing soil
characteristics and collecting soil samples at each field site. They may also support the other data
collection activities of the AB Team.
The Soil Specialist will have the following minimum qualifications:
• Demonstrated understanding of wetland soil characteristics and processes (e.g., coursework in
hydric soils and experience with hydric soil field work gained through completion of a pertinent B.S.
or higher degree, or through professional experience in wetland systems totaling 2 years or more).
• Experience, totaling 2 years or more, conducting wetland delineations
• Training or college/graduate level coursework on hydric soils
• Proficiency in measuring or describing physical characteristics of wetland soils
• Familiarity with and proficiency identifying hydric soil field indicators in regions they are assigned to
sample
All prospective Soil Specialists are to provide a Curriculum Vitae and references to the Regional USEPA
Coordinators and Project Manager, who will review and verify the qualifications. If a state is unable to
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 27 of 101
identify a Soil Specialist, USEPA will work with the State to help identify potential ways to bring on a
qualified Soil Specialist.
Field Technician
The Field Technician supports all data collection activities of the AB Team, including assisting the Soil
Specialist in collection of soil characterization data and samples.
The Field Technician will have the following minimum qualifications:
• Coursework in soil science, ecology, natural resources or equivalent field
• Previous experience conducting ecological field work
• Ability to use common field equipment (compass, GPS, laser rangefinder, etc.)
1.6.2 Pre Field Visit Activities
For each site, crews prepare a dossier or site packet that contains the following applicable information:
maps, aerial photos, and other imagery detailing information on access and conditions on-site;
coordinates of the site and preliminary plans for Assessment Area establishment; copies of written
access permissions; scientific collection permits; per field crew's standard operating procedures,
information on federally listed species that may occur at the site, how to avoid them, and actions to be
taken if they are encountered; information brochures on the program for interested parties; and local
area emergency numbers. Site packets are retained by field crews and do not need to be submitted to
EPA. As the design requires repeat visits to select sampling locations, it is important for the field crews
to do everything possible to maintain good relationships with landowners. This includes prior contacts,
respect of special requests, closing gates, minimal site disturbance, and removal of all materials,
including trash, associated with the sampling visit.
1.6.3 Field Visit Activities
The site verification process is shown in Figure 1-2. Upon arrival at a site, crews verify the POINT location
by a Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver. Crews collect samples and measurements for various
parameters according to step-by-step procedures described in the NWCA 2021 Field Operations Manual
(USEPA 2021a). The manual also contains detailed instructions for completing documentation, labeling
samples, any field processing requirements, and sample storage and shipping. Any revision of methods
must be approved in advance by the USEPA Project Leader. Field communications will be available
through Field Logistics Coordinator and may involve regularly scheduled conference calls or contacts.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 28 of 101
Figure 1-2. Site verification activities for wetland field surveys
After field sampling is complete (and WiFi available), crews will submit all completed data forms in the
NWCA App. If still reviewing data forms, the Point Verification and Tracking Forms (for any shipped
samples) must be submitted if samples are shipped. All submitted data will be sent back to the field
crew in a summary email from the database to the field crew's iPad.
1.6.4 Post Field Visit Activities
Crews store and package samples for shipment in accordance with instructions contained in the Field
Operations Manual. EPA developed the NWCA shipping instructions so that sample holding times are
not exceeded. Samples which must be shipped are delivered to a commercial carrier; copies of bills of
lading or other documentation are maintained by the team. Crews notify the Information Management
Coordinator, as outlined in the FOM, that shipment has occurred; thus, tracing procedures can be
initiated quickly in the event samples are not received. Crews complete chain-of-custody forms for all
transfers of samples, with copies maintained by the field team.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 29 of 101
The field operations phase is completed with collection of all samples or expiration of the sampling
window. Following the field seasons, EPA and the contractor field logistics coordinator will hold
debriefings with crews and other project staff which cover all aspects of the field program and solicit
suggestions for improvement.
1.7 Overview of Laboratory Operations
Holding times for samples vary with the sample types and analytes. Field crews begin some analytical
measurements during sampling (e.g., in situ soil profiles) while other analytical measurements are not
initiated until sampling has been completed (e.g., water chemistry, microcystin, soil chemistry).
Analytical methods are summarized in the NWCA 2021 Laboratory Operations Manual (LOM). When
available, standard methods are used and are referenced in the LOM. Where experimental methods are
used or standard methods are modified by the laboratory, these methods are documented in the
laboratory methods manual by USEPA or in internal documentation by the appropriate laboratory. The
Laboratory Review Coordinator will work with appropriate experts to describe them in Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) developed by the analytical laboratories.
Contractor and/or cooperator laboratories will perform chemical, physical, or biological analyses.
National contract laboratories will process most samples. Where those laboratories are currently in
place, USEPA has identified the prime contractor here:
• CSS, Inc, a national contractor which manages the ORD-PESD Willamette Research Station, will
analyze water chemistry and chlorophyll-a samples.
• Great Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC), a national contractor, will analyze unknown and QA
plant specimens.
• Avanti, a national contractor, will analyze microcystin.
• USDA NRCS Kellogg Soil Survey Laboratory will analyze soil chemistry and bulk density samples.
• USEPA anticipates that pre-approved state laboratories may opt to analyze samples for the
water chemistry, chlorophyll a, microcystin, and vegetation indicators.
Laboratories analyzing research indicator samples:
• ORD-PESD will analyze soil isotope samples.
Laboratories providing analytical support must have the appropriate facilities to properly store and
prepare samples and appropriate instrumentation and staff to provide data of the required quality
within the time period dictated by the project. Laboratories are expected to conduct operations using
good laboratory practices. The following are general guidelines for analytical support laboratories:
• A program of scheduled maintenance of analytical balances, water purification systems,
microscopes, laboratory equipment, and instrumentation.
• Verification of the calibration of analytical balances using National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) certified Class "S" weights or ASTM Class 1 or 2 weights, which have
certificate of calibration traceable to NIST.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 30 of 101
• Verification of the calibration of top-loading balances using NIST certified Class "P" weights or
ASTM Class 4 weights, which have certificate of calibration traceable to NIST.
• Checking and recording the composition of fresh calibration standards against the previous lot
of calibration standards. Participating laboratories will keep a percentage of the previous lot of
calibration standard to check against the next batch of samples processed. This will ensure that
a comparison between lots can occur. Acceptable comparisons are less than or equal to two
percent of the theoretical value. (This acceptance is tighter than the method calibration criteria.)
• Recording all analytical data in bound logbooks in ink, or on standardized recording forms.
• Verification of the calibration of uniquely identified daily use thermometers using NIST-certified
thermometers.
• Monitoring and recording (in a logbook or on a recording form) temperatures and performance
of cold storage areas and freezer units (where samples, reagents, and standards may be stored).
During periods of sample collection operations, monitoring must be done on a daily basis.
• An overall program of laboratory health and safety including periodic inspection and verification
of presence and adequacy of first aid and spill kits; verification of presence and performance of
safety showers, eyewash stations, and fume hoods; sufficiently exhausted reagent storage units,
where applicable; available chemical and hazardous materials inventory; and accessible material
safety data sheets for all required materials.
• An overall program of hazardous waste management and minimization, and evidence of proper
waste handling and disposal procedures (90-day storage, manifested waste streams, etc.).
• If needed, having a source of reagent water meeting American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Type I specifications for conductivity (< 1 piS/cm at 25 °C; ASTM 1984) available in
sufficient quantity to support analytical operations.
• Appropriate microscopes or other magnification for biological sample sorting and organism
identification.
• Approved biological identification and taxonomic keys/guides for use in biological identification
(plants) as appropriate.
• Labeling all containers used in the laboratory with date prepared, contents, and initials of the
individual who prepared the contents.
• Dating and storing all chemicals safely upon receipt. Chemicals are disposed of properly upon
expiration.
• Using a laboratory information management system to track the location and status of any
sample received for analysis.
• Reporting results electronically using standard formats and units compatible with NARS IM (see
LOM for data templates). These files will be labeled properly by referencing the indicator and/or
analyte and date (see the LOM for file naming convention).
All laboratories providing analytical support to the NWCA 2021 must adhere to the provisions of this
integrated QAPP and LOM. Laboratories will provide information documenting their ability to conduct
the analyses with the required level of data quality prior to data analyses. USEPA provides different
requirements based on the type of analysis being completed by the laboratory (i.e., chemistry vs.
biological analyses).
Laboratories will send the documentation to the USEPA Project QA Coordinator and the Laboratory
Review Coordinator at USEPA Headquarters (or other such designated parties). The Project QA
Coordinator will maintain these files in NWCA QA files. Such information may include the following:
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 31 of 101
• Signed Quality Assurance Project Plan by the laboratory performing analysis;
• Signed Laboratory Form;
• Valid Accreditation or Certification;
• Laboratory's Quality Manual and/or Data Management Plan;
• Method Detection Limits (MDL);
• Demonstration of Capability;
• Results from inter-laboratory comparison studies;
• Analysis of performance evaluation samples; and
• Control charts and results of internal QC sample or internal reference sample analyses to
document achieved precision, bias, accuracy.
Other requirements may include:
• Participation in calls regarding laboratory procedures and processes with participating
laboratories;
• Participation in a laboratory technical assessment or audit;
• Participation in performance evaluation studies; and
• Participation in inter-laboratory sample exchange.
1.7.1 Chemistry Lab Quality Evaluation
Participating laboratories will send requested documentation to the NWCA 2021 QA Team for
evaluation of qualifications. The NWCA 2021 QA Team will maintain these records in the project QA file.
1.7.2 Biological Laboratory Quality Evaluation
The NWCA 2021 QA Team will review the past performance of biological laboratories. The biological
laboratories shall adhere to the quality assurance objectives and requirements as specified for the
pertinent indicators in the LOM.
See Section 6 of this QAPP and the LOM for additional information related to laboratory certification. All
qualified laboratories shall work with the NARS IM Center to track samples as specified by the NARS
Information Management Lead.
1.8 Data Analysis
A technical workgroup convened by the USEPA Project Leader is responsible for development of a data
analysis plan that includes a verification and validation strategy. General processes are summarized in
the indicator-specific sections of this QAPP. The NWCA QA Team transfers validated data to the central
database managed by NARS information management system support staff located at PESD-Corvallis.
Information management activities are discussed further in Section 4. Data in the database are available
to Cooperators for use in development of indicator metrics. USEPA will transfer all validated
measurement and indicator data from the NWCA to USEPA's Water Quality Exchange (WQX) for storage
in USEPA's STORET warehouse for public accessibility. The Data Analysis Plan is described in Section 7 of
this QAPP.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 32 of 101
1.9 Peer Review
The USEPA NARS program, including the NWCA, utilizes a three-tiered approach for peer review of the
Survey: (1) internal and external review by USEPA, states, other cooperators and partners, (2) external
scientific peer review, when applicable, and (3) public review, when applicable.
Once data analysis is complete, cooperators examine the results. The NWCA team reviews comments
and feedback from the cooperators and incorporate into the draft report, when appropriate. The NWCA
team follows Agency and OMB requirements for public and peer review. External scientific peer review
and public review is initiated for new analyses or approaches as appropriate. Additionally, following
applicable guidance, other aspects of NWCA may undergo public and scientific peer review.
Below are the proposed measures USEPA will implement for engaging in the peer review process:
• Follow the Agency's Information Quality Guidelines (IQG) and complete the IQG checklist.
• Develop and maintain a public website with links to standard operating procedures, quality
assurance documents, fact sheets, cooperator feedback, and final report
• Conduct technical workgroup meetings composed of scientific experts, cooperators, and USEPA
to evaluate and recommend data analysis options and indicators
• Complete data validation on all chemical, physical and biological data
• Conduct final data analysis with workgroup to generate assessment results
• Engage peer review contractor to identify external peer review panel (if applicable)
• Develop draft report presenting assessment results
• Develop final draft report incorporating input from cooperators and results from data analysis
group to be distributed for peer and public review
• Issue Federal Register (FR) Notice announcing document availability and hold scientific/peer
review and 30-45-day public comment periods (if applicable)
• Consider scientific and public comments and produce a final report (if applicable)
The proposed peer review schedule is provided below in Table 1-1 and is contingent upon timeliness of
data validation and schedule availability for workgroup meetings.
Table 1-1. Proposed schedule
I
May 2021 - December 2022
July 2022-June 2023
Data validation
Internal data analysis and review meetings (e.g.
web conferences)
Draft released for external peer review (if
applicable)
Draft released for public review (if applicable)
Summer 2023
December, 2023
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 33 of 101
2 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES
It is a policy of the U.S. EPA that data quality objectives (DQOs) be developed for all environmental data
collection activities following the prescribed DQO process. DQOs are qualitative and quantitative
statements that clarify study objectives, define the appropriate types of data, and specify the tolerable
levels of potential decision errors that will be used as the basis for establishing the quality and quantity
of data needed to support decisions (USEPA 2006a). Data quality objectives thus provide the criteria to
design a sampling program within cost and resource constraints or technology limitations imposed upon
a project or study. DQOs are typically expressed in terms of acceptable uncertainty (e.g., width of an
uncertainty band or interval) associated with a point estimate at a desired level of statistical confidence
(USEPA 2006a). The DQO Process is used to establish performance or acceptance criteria, which serve as
the basis for designing a plan for collecting data of sufficient quality and quantity to support the goals of
a study (USEPA 2006a). As a rule, performance criteria represent the full set of specifications that are
needed to design a data or information collection effort such that, when implemented, generate newly
collected data that are of sufficient quality and quantity to address the project's goals. Acceptance
criteria are specifications intended to evaluate the adequacy of one or more existing sources of
information or data as being acceptable to support the project's intended use (USEPA 2006a).
2.1 Data Quality Objectives for the National Wetland Condition Survey
NWCA has established target DQOs for assessing the current status of selected indicators of condition
for wetlands in the conterminous U.S. as follows.
• For each indicator of condition, estimate the proportion of wetlands (± 5%) in the
conterminous U.S. in degraded condition within a ± 5% margin of error and with
95% confidence.
• For each indicator of condition, estimate the proportion of wetlands (± 15%) in
specified ecoregions in degraded condition within a ± 5% margin of error and with
95% confidence.
• For estimates of change, the DQOs are: Estimate the proportion of the nation's
wetlands (± 7%) that have changed condition classes for selected measures with
95% confidence.
2.2 Measurement Quality Objectives
For each parameter, performance objectives (associated primarily with measurement error) are
established for several different data quality indicators (following USEPA Guidance for Quality Assurance
Plans, USEPA 2002a). Specific measurement quality objectives (MQOs) for each parameter are
presented in the indicator section of this QAPP and in the LOM. The following sections define the data
quality indicators and present approaches for evaluating them against acceptance criteria established
for the program.
2.2.1 Laboratory Reporting Level (Sensitivity)
For chemical measurements, requirements for the method detection limit (MDL) are typically
established. The MDL is defined as the lowest level of analyte that can be distinguished from zero with
99 percent confidence based on a single measurement (Glaser et al., 1981). USGS NWQL has developed
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 34 of 101
a variant of the MDL called the long-term MDL (LT-MDL) to capture greater method variability (Oblinger
Childress et al. 1999). Unlike MDL, it is designed to incorporate more of the measurement variability
that is typical for routine analyses in a production laboratory, such as multiple instruments, operators,
calibrations, and sample preparation events (Oblinger Childress et al. 1999). Because the LT-MDL
addresses more potential sources of variability than the MDL, the NWCA uses the LT-MDL.
The LT-MDL determination ideally employs at least 24 blanks and spiked samples prepared and analyzed
by multiple analysts on multiple instruments over a 6- to 12-month period at a frequency of about two
samples per month (USEPA 2004). The LT-MDL uses "F-pseudosigma" (F0) in place of s, the sample
standard deviation, used in the EPA MDL calculation. F-pseudosigma is a non-parametric measure of
variability that is based on the interquartile range of the data (USEPA 2004). The LT-MDL is calculated
using either the mean or median of a set of long-term blanks, and from long-term spiked sample results
(depending on the analyte and specific analytical method). The LT-MDL for an individual analyte is
calculated as:
Equation la LT _MDL =M + ^ xFa)
where:
M = the mean or median of blank results
n = the number of spiked sample results
F0 = F-pseudosigma, a nonparametric estimate of variability calculated as:
Equation lb g3 ~QX
1.349
where:
0.3 = the 75th percentile of spiked sample results
Qi = the 25th percentile of spiked sample results
LT-MDL is designed to be used in conjunction with a laboratory reporting level (LRL; Oblinger Childress
et al. 1999). The LRL is designed to achieve a risk of <1% for both false negatives and false positives
(Oblinger Childress et al. 1999). The LRL is set as a multiple of the LT-MDL, and is calculated as follows:
LRL = (2 x LT-MDL)/fractional spike recovery
Where fractional spike recovery is the mean or median recovered spike concentration divided by the
expected spike concentration. For example, at 50% recovery, LRL is 4 times the LT-MDL.
Therefore, multiple measurements of a sample having a true concentration at the LRL should result in
the concentration being detected and reported 99 percent of the time (Oblinger Childress et al. 1999).
All laboratories will develop calibration curves for each batch of samples that include a calibration
standard with an analyte concentration equal to the LRL. Estimates of LRLs (and how they are
determined) are required to be submitted with analytical results. Analytical results associated with LRLs
that exceed the objectives are flagged as being associated with unacceptable LRLs. Analytical data that
are below the estimated LRLs are reported but are flagged as being below the LRLs.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 35 of 101
2.2.2 Sampling Precision and Bias
Precision and bias are estimates of random and systematic error in a measurement process (Kirchmer,
1983; Hunt and Wilson, 1986, USEPA 2002a). Collectively, precision and bias provide an estimate of the
total error or uncertainty associated with an individual measurement or set of measurements. Precision
and bias MQOs are developed for lab measurements. Precision, bias, and accuracy of field
measurements will not be monitored during the NWCA1.
Systematic errors are minimized by using validated methods and standardized procedures across all
laboratories. Precision is estimated from repeated measurements of samples. Net bias is determined
from repeated measurements of solutions of known composition, or from the analysis of samples that
have been fortified by the addition of a known quantity of analyte. For analytes with large ranges of
expected concentrations, MQOs for precision and bias are established in both absolute and relative
terms, following the approach outlined in Hunt and Wilson (1986). At lower concentrations, MQOs are
specified in absolute terms. At higher concentrations, MQOs are stated in relative terms. The point of
transition between an absolute and relative MQO is calculated as the quotient of the absolute objective
divided by the relative objective (expressed as a proportion, e.g., 0.10 rather than as a percentage, e.g.,
10%).
2.2.2.1 Laboratory Measurements
Precision based on duplicate measurements (e.g., from revisited POINTs) is estimated based on the
range of measured values (which equals the difference for two measurements). The relative percent
difference (RPD) is calculated as:
Equation 2
Where:
RPD =
a-b\
pTsp
x 100
v
A = the first measured value
B = the second measured value.
Bias in relative terms (B[%]) is calculated as:
B[%\ = ?-^x 10°
the mean value for the set of measurements
the theoretical or target value of a performance evaluation sample.
Precision and bias within each laboratory are monitored for every sample batch by the analysis of
internal QC samples. Samples associated with unacceptable QC sample results are reviewed and re-
Equation 3
Where:
x =
T =
1 Bias, for example, cannot be determined directly, since the "true" values at any particular site are not known.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 36 of 101
analyzed if necessary. Precision and bias across all laboratories will be evaluated after analyses are
completed by using the results of performance evaluation (PE) samples sent to all laboratories (3 sets of
3 PE samples, with each set consisting of a low, moderate, and high concentration sample of all
analytes).
2.2.2.2 Field Measurements
Since precision, bias, and accuracy of field measurements will not be monitored during the NWCA 2021,
a revisit site approach will be taken to ensure the quality of data. The survey design incorporates a plan
for repeated sampling of a subset of sites. Data from these repeat visits provide estimates of important
components of variance to evaluate the performance of ecological indicators. These variance
components are presented in Table 2-1. If estimates of these components are available from other
studies, they are used in conjunction with the project requirements to evaluate alternative design
scenarios (Larsen et al. 1995, 2001, 2004). Status estimates are influenced most by the interaction (if
multiple years are required to complete sampling) and residual variance components. Residual variance
is composed of temporal variance within a sampling period confounded with measurement error of
various types. If the magnitude of residual variance is sufficiently large to impact status estimates (see
above), then relative magnitudes of the interaction variance and various components of residual
variance are examined to determine if any reduction can be achieved in the future. Interaction variance
can only be reduced by increasing the sample size. Index variance can be reduced by either increasing
the number of sites, increasing the number of times a site is visited within a year, reducing the length of
the index period, or by reducing measurement error. Trend detection is evaluated using the equation to
determine the variance in the slope of the trend (Table 2-1). In this model, residual variance also
includes the interaction component. For multi-site networks such as the national aquatic resource
assessments, trend detection is most sensitive to coherent year variance, which can only be reduced by
extending the time period for monitoring (Larsen et al. 1995, 2001, 2004). If residual variance is large
relative to the coherent year variance, then trend detection within a fixed time period can be improved
by increasing the number of sites sampled each year, increasing the number of times each site is
sampled within a year, or by reducing measurement error.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 37 of 101
Table 2-1. Important variance components for aquatic resource assessments
Model for status estimation
^ 7 | 2 ^ 1.
^iotaX &iiitz year ' site* year
and
2 2 2
residual ^^¦wiihin-year ' error
Model for trend detection
-| <7,
AT
j.\ r
V -
A ' TF^T
vems
zi
i=l
and
^Mrfobal
cr;
iy r i,
reiidktsf
file * vsar
viitr
Component
fits?
Components in parentheses represent "extraneous" variance
Variance
Description
Observed variance among all sites sampled over multiple-year sampling cycle.
If sites are revisited across years, this effect can be eliminated
Coherent variance across years that affects all sites equally, due to regional-scale
factors such as climate or hydrology
Principal effect on trend detection, reduced only by increasing number of years
"Interaction" variance occurring at each site across years that affects each site
independently.
Principal effect on status, reduce by increasing number of sites
"Residual" variance: Includes temporal variance at each site within a single index period
(o2within-year) confounded with measurement error (o2error) due to acquiring the data from
the site (e.g., sample collection and analysis)
Principal effect on status,
reduce by increasing number of sites or altering index period
o
a
ttS ^ TrASilF
' residual
If O index O error '
If o2error is large relative to o2index, then modify sampling and analysis procedures
For the NWCA, approximately ten percent of all sample sites will receive repeat visits to determine if
differences exist in field data collection on different days. Revisit sites will be sampled at least two
weeks apart to ensure that we are assessing temporal variability. Control measures to minimize
measurement error among crews and sites will be employed. These control measures include the use of
standardized field protocols provided in the Field Operations Manual (FOM), consistent training of all
crews, field assistance visits to all crews, and availability of experienced technical personnel during the
field season to respond to site-specific questions from field crews as they arise.
Each Field Crew Leader and Botanist/Ecologist must be trained at an EPA-sponsored training session
prior to the start of the field season, along with as many crew members as possible. The training
program stresses hands-on practice of methods, comparability among crews, collection of high-quality
data and samples, and safety. A 3.5-day training course will be provided in locations across the U.S., or a
combination of online virtual and field training exercises as needed, for cooperators and contractors.
Project organizations responsible for training oversight are identified in Error! Reference source not
found.. Training documentation will be maintained by the Project QA Officer.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 38 of 101
Evaluation and assistance visits will be conducted with each Field Team early in the sampling and data
collection process, and that corrective actions will be conducted in real time. These visits provide a basis
for the uniform evaluation of the data collection techniques, and an opportunity to conduct procedural
reviews to minimize data loss due to improper technique or interpretation of program guidance. The
field visit evaluations will be based on the uniform training, plans, and checklists. For more information
on field assistance visits, see section 6 of this document.
2.2.3 Taxonomic Precision and Accuracy
Taxonomic precision can be evaluated by comparing whole-sample identifications completed by
independent taxonomists or laboratories. For the NWCA, five known plant specimens (QA plant
vouchers) from each assessed sampling site will be randomly selected for re-identification by a second
botanist ("verifying botanist"), independent of the field botanist who initially identified the plant
specimens. In addition, all unknown plant specimens sent to a State or National Plant Laboratory for
initial identification will also be subject to quality assurance. Of these unknown specimens, 10% will be
randomly selected for re-identification by a second verifying botanist, independent of the botanist who
initially identified the unknown specimens. Comparison of the results of whole-sample re-identifications
allows Percent Taxonomic Disagreement (PTD) to be calculated using the following equation:
Equation 4
PTD =
rcomPposA
N
x 100
Where:
comppos = the number of agreements
N = the total number of individuals in the larger of the two counts.
The lower the PTD, the more similar taxonomic results are, and the overall taxonomic precision is better.
A specific MQO will not be established for taxonomic precision for NWCA 2021. The NWCA QA Team will
monitor differences in the taxonomic identification of plant specimens between the botanists providing
the initial identification (in the field or lab in the case of unknown specimens) and the verifying botanists
providing the independent re-identifications. Substantial disagreements between the two will be
investigated and reasons for the discrepancies examined and corrected.
Taxonomic accuracy is evaluated by having individual specimens' representative of selected taxa
identified by recognized experts. Samples will be identified using the most appropriate technical
literature that is accepted by the taxonomic discipline and reflects the accepted nomenclature. The
USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov/) will be used to verify nomenclatural validity and
spelling.
2.2.4 Completeness
Completeness requirements are established and evaluated from two perspectives. First, valid data for
individual parameters must be acquired from a minimum number of sampling locations in order to make
subpopulation estimates with a specified level of confidence or sampling precision. The objective of this
study is to acquire valid data at 95% or more of the sampled sites. Percent completeness is calculated
as:
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 39 of 101
Equation5 %C = %xlOO
Where:
V = the number of measurements/samples judged valid
T = the total number of planned measurements/samples.
Within each indicator, completeness objectives are also established for individual samples or individual
measurement variables or analytes. These objectives are estimated as the percentage of valid data
obtained versus the amount of data expected based on the number of samples collected or number of
measurements conducted. Where necessary, supplementary objectives for completeness are presented
in the indicator-specific sections of this QAPP.
The completeness objectives are established for each measurement per site type (e.g., probability sites,
revisit sites, etc.). Failure to achieve the minimum requirements for a particular site type results in
regional population estimates having wider confidence intervals. Failure to achieve requirements for
revisit samples (10% of sites visited) reduces the precision of estimates of index period and annual
variance components and may impact the representativeness of these estimates because of possible
bias in the set of measurements obtained.
2.2.5 Comparability
Comparability is defined as the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another (USEPA
2002a). A performance-based methods approach is being utilized for water chemistry analyses that
define a set of laboratory method performance requirements for data quality. Following this approach,
participating laboratories may choose which analytical methods they will use for each target analyte as
long as they are able to achieve performance requirement criteria established by EPA as described in the
Laboratory Operations Manual. For all parameters, comparability is addressed by the use of
standardized sampling procedures and analytical methods by all sampling crews and laboratories.
Comparability of data within and among parameters is also facilitated by the implementation of
standardized quality assurance and quality control techniques and standardized performance and
acceptance criteria. For all measurements, reporting units and format are specified, incorporated into
standardized data recording forms, and documented in the information management system.
Comparability is also addressed by providing results of OA sample data, such as estimates of precision
and bias, conducting methods comparison studies when requested by the grantees and conducting
interlaboratory performance evaluation studies among state, university, and NWCA contract
laboratories.
2.2.6 Representativeness
Representativeness is defined as "the degree to which the data accurately and precisely represent a
characteristic of a population parameter, variation of a property, a process characteristic, or an
operational condition" (USEPA 2002a). At one level, representativeness is affected by problems in any or
all of the other data quality indicators.
At another level, representativeness is affected by the selection of the target wetlands, the location of
sampling sites within that wetland, the time period when samples are collected, and the time period
when samples are analyzed. The probability-based sampling design should estimate the condition of
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 40 of 101
wetland resource populations that are representative of the region. The individual sampling programs
defined for each indicator attempt to address representativeness within the constraints of the response
design, (which includes when, where, and how to collect a sample at each site). Holding-time
requirements for analyses ensure analytical results are representative of conditions at the time of
sampling.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 41 of 101
3 SAMPLING DESIGN AND SITE SELECTION
The overall sampling program for the NWCA requires a randomized, probability-based approach for
selecting wetlands where sampling activities are to be conducted. Details regarding the specific
application of the probability design to surface waters resources are described in Paulsen et al. (1991)
and Stevens (1994). The specific details for the collection of samples associated with different indicators
are described in the indicator-specific sections of this QAPP.
3.1 Probability-Based Sampling Design and Site Selection
3.1.1 Target Population
The target population for NWCA is tidal and nontidal wetlands of the conterminous U.S., including
certain farmed wetlands not currently in crop production. The wetlands have rooted vegetation and,
when present, open water less than 1 meter deep. A wetland's status under state or federal regulatory
programs does not affect a site's status as target for the purposes of NWCA.
3.1.2 Sample Frame
Wetland sampling locations were chosen through a survey design consisting of two components: 1) sites
from the prior NWCA survey in 2016; and; 2) new sites drawn from a sample frame utilizing U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) digitized maps of wetland types and
locations (http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/), or state-provided wetland maps comparable to NWI (MN,
MT). NWCA processed the NWI data by assigning wetland polygons to states and within each state
assigning them to the NARS nine aggregated ecoregions. In addition, the detailed wetland classes were
categorized into seven wetland types of interest to NWCA (E2EM, E2SS, PEM, PSS, PFO, Pf and PUBPAB;
defined in Table 3-1) and five wetlands types not included (EOTH - estuarine other wetlands, M1M2 -
marine wetlands, LOTH - lacustrine other wetlands, POTH - palustrine other wetlands, and ROTH -
riverine other wetlands). The former are included as they are likely to result in sites that would meet the
NWCA target population and the latter are excluded as they are unlikely to result in sites that would
meet the NWCA target population. Cowardian wetland classes were assigned to each NWCA wetland
type by two wetland ecologists.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 42 of 101
Table 3-1. NWCA Target Wetland Types and crosswalk to US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Status & Trends
S&T) wetland categories and USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) wetland classes.
NWCA Target
NWCA
Wetland
Wetland
Type (Design
NWCA Target
Group for
S&T Wetland
Included NWI Classes:
Code)
Wetland Type
Reporting
Categories*1,
Systems/Subsystems2
EH (E2EM)
Estuarine Emergent
Estuarine
E2EM-Estuarine
Intertidal Emergent
Emergent and Aquatic Bed Classes in
Estuarine/lntertidal Subsystems
EW (E2SS)
Estuarine
Estuarine
E2SS - Estuarine
Forested and Scrub-Shrub Classes in
Shrub/Forest
Intertidal Forest or
Shrub
Estuarine/lntertidal Subsystems
PRL-EM
Palustrine, Riverine,
Inland
PEM - Palustrine
Emergent Classes in Palustrine
(PEM)
and Lacustrine -
Emergent
Herbaceous
Emergent
Systems; Shallow Riverine/Tidal,
Lower Perennial, Upper Perennial,
or Intermittent Subsystems; and
Shallow Lacustrine/Littoral
Subsystems
PRL-UBAB
Palustrine, Riverine,
Inland
PUB - Palustrine
Unconsolidated Bottom, Aquatic Bed
(PUBPAB)
and Lacustrine -
Herbaceous
Unconsolidated
Unconsolidated Shore, Rock Bottom,
Unconsolidated
Bottom
and Rocky Shore Classes in
Bottom/Aquatic Bed
PAB - Palustrine
Aquatic Bed
Palustrine Systems; Shallow
Riverine/Tidal, Lower Perennial,
Upper Perennial, or Intermittent
Subsystems; and Shallow
Lacustrine/Littoral Subsystems
PRL-f (Pf)
Palustrine, Riverine,
Inland
Pf - Palustrine
Farmed Modifier in Palustrine
and Lacustrine -
Herbaceous
farmed
Systems; Shallow Riverine/Tidal,
Farmed
Lower Perennial, Upper Perennial,
or Intermittent Subsystems; and
Shallow Lacustrine/Littoral
Subsystems
PRL-SS (PSS)
Palustrine, Riverine,
Inland
PSS - Palustrine
Scrub-Shrub Classes in Palustrine
and Lacustrine -
Woody
Shrub
Systems; Shallow Riverine/Tidal,
Shrub/Scrub
Lower Perennial, Upper Perennial,
or Intermittent Subsystems; and
Shallow Lacustrine/Littoral
Subsystems
PRL-FO (PFO)
Palustrine, Riverine,
Inland
PFO - Palustrine
Forested Classes in Palustrine
and Lacustrine -
Woody
Forested,
Systems; Shallow Riverine/Tidal,
Forested
Lower Perennial, Upper Perennial,
or Intermittent Subsystems; and
Shallow Lacustrine/Littoral
Subsystems
*IMPORTANTNOTE: Status and Trends (S&T) category names DO NOT precisely equate to National Wetland Inventory (NWI)
Codes for wetland type. S&T categories often aggregate multiple NWI types.
1Dahl TE, Bergeson MT (2009) Technical procedures for conducting status and trends of the Nation's wetlands. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Services, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation, Washington, D.C., p 74.
2US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, Wetland Classification Codes.
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Wetland-Codes.html. Accessed November 2020.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 43 of 101
3.1.3 Selection of Sampling Locations
Sites were randomly selected from the NWCA sample frame using a spatially balanced Generalized
Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) survey design for an area resource, with each point having a
known probability of being sampled (Stevens and Olsen 2004). The GRTS design ensures the sample is
representative of wetland resources at national and regional scales. Using this approach, EPA selected
904 wetland assessment locations from across the conterminous US, consisting of 269 resample sites
from 2016 and 635 new sites. Ninety-six of the 904 sites are sampled twice within the index period to
quantify variability in sampling; these sites are referred to as revisit sites. In addition, a pool of
oversample sites are included for use as replacements if any of the 904 assessment locations are not
sampleable. The selected sites are distributed across seven target wetland types defined for the NWCA
(Table 3-1) and 10 geographic areas (Figure 3-1).In addition, some states invest additional resources to
supplement the NWCA survey design to add sites to allow state-scale reporting of wetland quality.
W WII»I . i«iiio <-/
Xeric West (XER)
I Western Mountains (WMT)
Tidal Saline
| Atlantic Coast (ATL)
Gulf and Florida Coasts (GFL)
¦ Pacific Coast (PAC)
Figure 3-1. Ten geographic areas used in survey design and for reporting on wetland condition in NWCA
3.2 Handpicked Candidate Reference Site Selection
EPA selected a set of potential reference sites to sample in NWCA 2021. This handpicked set of
candidate sites comes from various sources. EPA solicited recommendations from states and other
partners for potential reference sites based on their own wetland monitoring and assessment programs.
2021 National Wetland Condition Assessment Design
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 44 of 101
EPA examined aerial maps and selected sites with the least amount of disturbance based on land cover,
road networks, and hydrologic features observed on the maps.
Although crews will sample these potential reference sites during the field season, the final set of
reference wetlands (i.e., those that EPA will use in the assessment), will be determined after the
complete set of data is returned. EPA will run a set of screening criteria similar to that used in NWCA
2011 and 2016. This screening approach can be found in the NWCA 2011 Technical Report
(http://www.epa.gov/national-aquatic-resource-surveys/national-wetland-condition-assessment-2011-
d raft-technical-report).
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 45 of 101
4 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Environmental monitoring efforts that amass large quantities of information from various sources
present unique and challenging data management opportunities. To meet these challenges, the NWCA
employs a variety of well-tested information management (IM) strategies to aid in the functional
organization and ensured integrity of stored electronic data. IM is integral to all aspects of the NWCA
from initial selection of sampling sites through the dissemination and reporting of final, validated data.
And, by extension, all participants in the NWCA have certain responsibilities and obligations which also
make them a part of the IM system. This "inclusive" approach to managing information helps to:
¦ Strengthen relationships among NWCA cooperators;
¦ Increase the quality and relevance of accumulated data; and
¦ Ensure the flexibility and sustainability of the NWCA IM structure.
This IM strategy provides a congruent and scientifically meaningful approach for maintaining
environmental monitoring data that will satisfy both the scientific and technological requirements of the
NWCA 2021.
4.1 Roles and Responsibilities
At each point where data and information are generated, compiled, or stored, the NWCA 2021 IM team
must manage the information. Thus, the IM system includes all of the data-generating activities, all of
the means of recording and storing information, and all of the processes that use data. The IM system
also includes both hardcopy and electronic means of generating, storing, organizing and archiving data,
and the effort to achieve a functional IM process is all encompassing. To that end, all participants in the
NWCA 2021 play an integral part within the IM system. Table 4-1 provides a summary of the IM
responsibilities identified by NWCA 2021 group. Specific information on the field crew responsibilities
for tracking and sending information is found in the FOM.
Table 4-1 Summary of IM responsibilities.
NWCA Group Contact Primary Role Responsibility
Complete and review field data forms and sample tracking forms
for accuracy, completeness, and legibility.
Ship/fax field and sample tracking forms to NARS IM Center so
information can be integrated into the central database.
Work with the NARS IM Center staff to develop acceptable file
structures and electronic data transfer protocols should there be
a need to transfer and integrate data into the central database.
Provide all data as specified in FOM, SEG or as negotiated with
the NWCA Project Manager.
Maintain open communications with NARS IM Center regarding
any data issues.
Field Crews
State/tribal
partners and
contractor or
other field
crews (regional
EPA, etc.)
Acquire in-situ
measurements and
prescribed list of
biotic/abiotic
samples at each site
targeted for the
survey
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 46 of 101
NWCA Group
Contact
Primary Role
Responsibility
Analytical
Laboratories
State/tribal
partners and
contractors
Analyze samples
received from field
crews in the
manner appropriate
to acquire
biotic/abiotic
indicators/measure
ments requested.
Review all electronic data transmittal files for completeness and
accuracy (as identified in the QAPP).
Work with the NARS IM Center staff to develop file structures and
electronic data transfer protocols for electronically based data.
Submit completed sample tracking forms to NWCA IM Center so
information can be updated in the central database.
Provide all data and metadata as specified in the laboratory
transmittal guidance section of the LOM, with specific templates
for each indicator or as negotiated with the NWCA Project
Manager.
Maintain open communications with NWCA IM Center regarding
any data issues.
IM Center staff
USEPAORD
NHEERL
Western
Ecology
Division-
Co rvallis,
Contractors
Provides support
and guidance for all
IM operations
related to
maintaining a
central data
management
system for NWCA
2021
Develop/update field data forms and field app.
Plan and implement electronic data flow and management
processes.
Manage the centralized database and implement related
administration duties.
Receive, scan, and conduct error checking of field data forms.
Monitor and track samples from field collection, through
shipment to appropriate laboratory.
Receive data submission packages (analytical results and
metadata) from each laboratory.
Run automated error checking, e.g., formatting differences, field
edits, range checks, logic checks, etc.
Receive verified, validated, and final indicator data files (including
record changes and reason for change) from OA reviewers.
Maintain history of all changes to data records from inception
through delivery to WQX.
Organize data in preparation for data verification and validation
analysis and public dissemination.
Implement backup and recovery support for central database.
Implement data version control, as appropriate.
Project Quality
Assurance
Manager
USEPA Office
Of Water
Lead OA Team to
review and evaluate
the relevancy and
quality of
information/data
collected and
generated through
the NWCA surveys.
Monitor quality control information.
Evaluate results stemming from field and laboratory audits.
Investigate and take corrective action, as necessary, to mitigate
any data quality issues.
Issue guidance to NWCA Project Manager and IM Center staff for
qualifying data when quality standards are not met or when
protocols deviate from plan.
Steering
Committee
NWCA Project
Manager and
other team
members, EPA
Regional and
ORD staff,
States, tribes,
other federal
agencies
Provide technical
recommendations
related to data
analysis, reporting
and overall
implementation
Provide feedback and recommendations related to QA, data
management, analysis, reporting and data distribution issues.
Review and comment on QA and information management
documentation (QAPP, data templates, etc.).
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 47 of 101
NWCA Group
Contact
Primary Role
Responsibility
Data Analysis
and Reporting
Team
USEPA Office
of Water, ORD
WED, Partners
Provide the data
analysis and
technical support
for NWCA reporting
requirements
Provide data integration, aggregation and transformation support
as needed for data analysis.
Provide supporting information necessary to create metadata.
Investigate and follow-up on data anomalies using identified data
analysis activities.
Produce estimates of extent and ecological condition of the target
population of the resource.
Provide written background information and data analysis
interpretation for report(s).
Document in-depth data analysis procedures used.
Provide mapping/graphical support.
Document formatting and version control.
Develops QA report for management.
Data
Finalization
Team
TBD
Provides data
librarian support
Prepare NWCA data for transfer to USEPA public web server(s).
Generate data inventory catalog record (Science Inventory
Record).
Ensure all metadata is consistent, complete, and compliant with
USEPA standards.
4.1.1 State/Tribe-Based Data Management
Some state and tribal partners will be managing activities for both field sampling and laboratory
analyses. While the NARS program encourages states and tribes to use these in-house capabilities, it is
imperative that NWCA 2021 partners understand their particular role and responsibilities for executing
these functions within the context of the national program. If a state or tribe chooses to conduct these
activities, the state or tribe must perform all of the functions associated with the following roles:
¦ Field Crew—including shipping/faxing of field data forms to the IM Coordinator (NWCA 2021
paper or electronic field forms must be used, and the original field forms must be sent to
the NARS IM Center as outlined in the NWCA 2021 FOM).
¦ Laboratory Quality Assurance including responding to the NWCA 2021 QA Team questions
after submitting data.
¦ Submission of data from the state or tribe to the Laboratory Review Coordinator or other
designated member of the QATeam and then to the NARS IM Center. Typically, the state or
tribe will provide a single point of contact for all activities related to NWCA 2021 data.
However, it may be advantageous for the Laboratory Review Coordinator to have direct
communication with the state or tribe participating laboratories to facilitate the transfer of
data, a point that may be negotiated between the primary state or tribal contact, the EPA
Regional Coordinator and the NWCA Laboratory Review Coordinator.
¦ Data transfers to the NARS IM Center must be timely. States and tribes must submit all
initial laboratory results (i.e., those that have been verified by the laboratory and have
passed all internal laboratory QA/QC criteria) in the appropriate format to NARS IM Center
by March 2022, in order to meet NWCA 2021 product deadlines.
¦ Data transfers must be complete. For example, laboratory analysis results submitted by a
state or tribe must be accompanied by related quality control and quality assurance data,
qualifiers code definitions, contaminant/parameter code cross-references/descriptions, test
methods, instrumentation information and any other relevant laboratory-based
assessments or documentation related to specific analytical batch runs.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 48 of 101
¦ The state or tribe will ensure that data meet minimum quality standards and that data
transfer files meet negotiated content and file structure standards.
The Laboratory Review Coordinator communicates the necessary guidance for data management and
submission requirements (i.e. data templates).
4.2 Overview of System Structure
In its entirety, the NARS IM system includes site selection and logistics information, sample labels and
field data forms, tracking records, mapping and analytical data, data validation and analysis processes,
reports, and archives. NARS IM staff provides support and guidance to all program operations in
addition to maintaining a central database management system for the NWCA data.
The central repository for data and associated information collected for use by NWCA 2021 is a secure,
access-controlled server located at WED-Corvallis. This database is known as the NARS IM. Data are
stored and managed on this system using the Structured Query Language (SQL). Data review (e.g.,
verification and validation) and data analysis (e.g., estimates of status and extent) are accomplished
primarily using programs developed in either Statistical Analysis System (SAS) or 'R' language software
packages.
4.2.1 Data Flow
The NWCA 2021 will accumulate large quantities of observational and laboratory analysis data. To
manage this information appropriately, it is essential to have a well-defined data flow model and
documented approach for acquiring, storing, and summarizing the data. This conceptual model in Figure
4-1 helps focus efforts on maintaining organizational and custodial integrity, ensuring that data available
for analyses are of the highest possible quality.
4.2.2 Simplified Description of Data Flow
There are several components associated with the flow of information, these are:
¦ Communication between the NARS IM Center, the NWCA 2021 QA Team and the various
data contributors (e.g., field crews, laboratories and the data analysis and reporting team) is
vital for maintaining an organized, timely, and successful flow of information and data.
¦ Data are captured or acquired from four basic sources: field data transcription, laboratory
analysis reporting, automated data capture, and submission of external data files (e.g.,
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data) encompassing an array of data types (site
characterization, biotic assessment, sediment and tissue contaminants, and water quality
analysis). Data capture generally relies on the transference of electronic data, e.g., optical
character readers and email, to a central data repository. However, some data must be
transcribed by hand in order to complete a record.
¦ Data repository or storage provides the computing platform where raw data are archived,
partially processed data are staged, and the "final" data, assimilated into a final, user-ready
data file structure, are stored. The raw data archive is maintained in a manner consistent
with providing an audit trail of all incoming records. The staging area provides the IM Center
staff with a platform for running the data through all of its QA/QC paces as well as providing
data analysts a first look at the incoming data. This area of the data system evolves as new
data are gathered and user-requirements are updated. The final data format becomes the
primary source for all statistical analysis and data distribution.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 49 of 101
Metadata—a descriptive document that contains information compliant with the Content
Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDGM) developed by the Federal Geographic
Data Committee (FGDC).
ECOLOGICAL INDICATOR FIELD AND LABORATORY DATA FLOW
FIELD DATA COLLECTION
SAMPLE
COLLECTION
Labeled
ACK^l
Samples
j, J p
Sample
Tracking
=
Form(s)
RAW DATA FILES
(NARS^IM Spec)
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENTCENTER
(WED-Corvallis)
ASSESSMENT DATA FILES
(Extent and status estimates)
FINAL DATA
RECORDS
(EPA WATER
QUALITY
EXCHANGE
[WQX])
Permanent
Archival
V 7
Figure 4-1. Conceptual model of data flow into and out of the master SQL
The following sections describe core information management standards, data transfer protocols, and
data quality and results validation. Additionally, Section 4.4 describes the major data inputs to the
central database and the associated QA/QC processes used to record, enter, and validate measurement
and analytical data collected.
4.2.3 Core Information Management Standards
The development and organization of the NARS IM system is compliant with current EPA guidelines and
standards. Areas addressed by these policies and guidelines include, but are not limited to, the
following:
¦ Taxonomic nomenclature and coding;
¦ Locational data;
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 50 of 101
¦ Sampling unit identification and reference;
¦ Hardware and software; and
¦ Data catalog documentation.
NWCA 2021 is committed to compliance with all applicable regulations and guidance concerning
hardware and software procurement, maintenance, configuration control, and QA/QC. To that end, the
NWCA 2021 team has adopted several IM standards that help maximize the ability to exchange data
within the study and with other aquatic resource surveys or similar large-scale monitoring and
assessment studies (e.g. NARS, past EMAP and R-EMAP studies). Specific information follows.
4.2.4 Data Formats
4.2.4.1 Attribute Data
¦ SQL Tables;
¦ SAS Data Sets;
¦ R Data Sets2; and
¦ American Standard Code for Information Interchange (ASCII) Files: Comma-Separated
values, or space-delimited, or fixed column.
4.2.4.2 GIS Data
¦ ARC/INFO native and export files; compressed .tar file of ARC/INFO workspace; and
¦ Spatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS; FGDC 1999) (format available upon request).
4.2.4.3 Standard Coding Systems
¦ Sampling Site: (EPA Locational Data Policy; USEPA 1991);
¦ Coordinates: Latitude and Longitude in decimal degrees (±0.002);
¦ Datum: NAD83;
¦ Chemical Compounds: Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS 1999) (http://www.cas.org/);
¦ Species Codes: Integrated Taxonomic Information System when possible; and
¦ Land cover/land use codes: Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics; National Hydrography
Dataset Plus Version 1.0 (NHDPIus 2005).
4.2.5 Public Accessibility
While any data created using public funds are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), some
basic rules apply for general public accessibility and use. Briefly, those rules are:
¦ Program must comply with Data Quality Act before making any data available to the public
and person generating data must fill out and have a signed Information Quality Guidelines
package before any posting to the Web or distribution of any kind.
2 R is a free software programming language and a software environment for statistical computing and graphics.
The R language is widely used among statisticians and data miners for developing statistical software and data
analysis.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 51 of 101
¦ Data and metadata files are made available to the contributor or participating group for
review or other project-related use from NARS IM or in flat files before moving to an EPA-
approved public website.
¦ Data to be placed on a public website will undergo QA/QC review according to the approved
QAPP.
¦ Only "final" data (those used to prepare the final project report) are readily available
through an EPA-approved public website.
As new guidance and requirements are issued, the NARS IM staff will assess the impact upon the IM
system and develop plans for ensuring timely compliance.
4.3 Data Transfer Protocols
Field crews are expected to send in hard copies of field forms or use the provided electronic field forms
containing in situ measurement and event information to the NARS IM Center defined in the FOM for
submission. Laboratories will submit electronic data files to either the EPA Task Order Manager
(contractors) or the Laboratory Review Coordinator (states and tribes) or as otherwise agreed to by the
EPA Project Manager and the laboratory. Field crews and laboratories must submit all sample tracking
and analytical results data in electronic form using a standard software package to export and format
data. Data submission templates for laboratories are included in the LOM. Examples of software and the
associated formats are given in Table 4-2:
Table 4-2 Summary of software
Software
Export Options (file extensions)
Microsoft Excel"
xls, xlsx, csv, formatted txt delimited
Microsoft Access"
mdb, csv, formatted txt delimited
SAS"
csv, formatted txt delimited
R
csv, formatted txt delimited
All electronic files must be accompanied by appropriate documentation (e.g., metadata, laboratory
reports, QA/QC data and review results). This documentation must contain sufficient information to
identify field contents, field formats, qualifier codes, etc. It is very important to keep EPA informed of
the completeness of the analyses. Labs may send files periodically, before all samples are analyzed, but
EPA must be informed that more data are pending if a partial file is submitted. All data files sent by the
labs must be accompanied by text documentation describing the status of the analyses, any QA/QC
problems encountered during processing, and any other information pertaining to the quality of the
data. Following is a list of general transmittal requirements each laboratory, state, or tribal based IM
group should consider when packaging data for electronic transfer to the IM Center:
¦ Provide data in row/column data file/table structure - see Appendix A in LOM for templates.
All cooperators and contractors should further consider the following:
a. Include NWCA site and sample ID provided on the sample container label in a field
for each record (row) to ensure that each data file/table record can be related to a
site visit.
b. Use a consistent set of column labels.
c. Use file structures consistently.
d. Use a consistent set of data qualifiers.
e. Use a consistent set of units.
f. Include method detection limit (MDL) as part of each result record.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 52 of 101
g. Include reporting limit (RL) as part of each result record for water chemistry.
h. Provide a description of each result/QC/QA qualifier.
i. Provide results/measurements/MDL/RL in numeric form.
j. Maintain result qualifiers (e.g., <, Not Detected (ND)) in a separate column.
k. Use a separate column to identify record-type. For example, if QA or QC data are
included in a data file, there should be a column that allows the IM staff to readily
identify the different result types.
I. Include laboratory sample identifier.
m. Include batch numbers/information so results can be paired with appropriate
QA/QC information.
n. Include "true value" concentrations, if appropriate, in QA/QC records.
o. Include a short description of preparation and analytical methods used to analyze
samples (where appropriate) either as part of the record or as a separate
description for the test(s) performed on the sample. For example, EPAxxxx.x,
ASTMxxx.x, etc. Provide a broader description (e.g., citation) if a non-standard
method is used.
p. Include a short description of instrumentation used to acquire the test result (where
appropriate). This may be reported either as part of the record or as a separate
description for each test performed on the sample. For example, GC/MS-ECD, ICP-
MS, etc.
q. Ensure that data ready for transfer to NARS IM are verified and validated, and
results are qualified to the extent possible (final verification and validation are
conducted by EPA).
r. Data results must meet the specified requirements for each indicator found in the
LOM as specified by contract or agreement.
s. Identify and qualify missing data (why are the data missing?).
t. Submit any other associated quality assurance assessments and relevant data
related to laboratory results (i.e., chemistry, nutrients). Examples include summaries
of QC sample analyses (blanks, duplicates, check standards, matrix spikes) standard
or certified reference materials, etc.), results for external performance evaluation or
proficiency testing samples, and any internal consistency checks conducted by the
laboratory. For requirements, please see specific indicator sections of this QAPP and
LOM.
The Laboratory Review Coordinator will work with the NARS IM Coordinator to establish a data load
process into NARS IM.
4.4 Data Quality and Results Validation
Data quality is integrated throughout the life cycle of the data. This includes development of appropriate
forms, labels etc. for capturing data as well as verifying data entry, results, and other assessments.
Indicator workgroup experts, the data analysis and reporting team submit any recommended changes to
the Project QA Coordinator who recommends and submits any changes (deletions, additions,
corrections) to the NARS IM data center for inclusion in the validated data repository. All explanation for
data changes is included in the record history.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 53 of 101
4.4.1 Design and Site Status Data Files
The site selection process described in Section 3 produces a list of candidate sampling locations,
inclusion probabilities, and associated site classification data (e.g., target status, ecoregion, etc.). The
Design Team provides this file to the NWCA 2021 Project Manager, who in turn distributes to the IM
staff, and field coordinators. Field coordinators determine ownership and contacts for acquiring
permission to access each site, and conduct site evaluation and reconnaissance activities. Field Crews
document information from site evaluation and reconnaissance activities following the SEG and the
FOM. The site evaluation spreadsheets are submitted to the Logistics Field Coordinator by the field
crews. The Logistics Field Coordinator and NARS IM Center compile all information such as ownership,
site evaluation, and reconnaissance information for each site into a "site status" data file. Any missing
information from the site status data file is identified and a request is made by the Field Logistics
Coordinator to the field crew (or site evaluator) to complete the record. Revised information is then
submitted to the NARS IM Center.
4.4.2 Sample Collection and Field Data
Field crews record sampling event observational data in a standard and consistent manner using field
data collection forms (Appendix B of the NWCA 2021 FOM). Prior to initiation of field activities, the
NARS IM staff works with the indicator leads and analytical support laboratories to develop standardized
field data forms and sample labels. Adhesive labels, completed by the field crews, have a standard
recording format and are affixed to each sample container. Field protocols include precautions to ensure
that label information remains legible and the label remains attached to the sample.
NWCA 2021 provides two options for completing field forms: electronic data entry using pre-developed
e-forms or "traditional" paper. Paper forms are printed for field crews on water resistant paper. Copies
of the field data forms and instructions for completing each form are documented in the NWCA 2021
FOM. Recorded data whether through e-forms or paper are reviewed upon completion of data
collection and recording activities by the Field Crew Leader. Field crews check completed data forms and
sample labels before leaving a sampling site to ensure information and data were recorded legibly and
completely. Errors are corrected by field crews if possible, and data considered as suspect are qualified
using a flag variable. The field sampling crew enters explanations for all flagged data in a comments
section. Field crews transmit e-forms to the NARS IM Staff by selecting the "submit" button as described
in the FOM. Alternately, field crews, ship completed paper field data forms to the NARS IM staff for
entry into the central database management system.
All samples are tracked from the point of collection. Tracking of samples refers to the documentation of
the specified location of each sample in the centralized NARS IM Center database. This is done by
requiring that field crews ensure that copies of the shipping and custody record accompany all sample
transfers; other copies are transmitted to the IM Center. Each sample has a custody record that
laboratory manager is required to enter into NARS IM Center upon receipt of sample. The IM Center
tracks samples to ensure that they are delivered to the appropriate laboratory, that lost shipments can
be quickly identified and traced, and that any problems with samples observed when received at the
laboratory are reported promptly so that corrective action can be taken, if necessary. Detailed
procedures on shipping and sample tracking can be found in the FOMs.
Procedures for completion of sample labels and field data forms and use of personal computers (PCs)
are covered extensively in training sessions. General QC checks and procedures associated with sample
collection and transfer, field measurements, and field data form completion for most indicators are
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 54 of 101
listed in Table 4-3. Additional QA/QC checks or procedures specific to individual indicators are described
in the LOM.
Table 4-3 Summary sample and field data quality control activities: sample tracking
Quality Control Activity
Description and/or Requirements
Contamination
Prevention
All containers for individual site sealed in plastic bags until use; specific contamination
avoidance measures covered in training
Sample Identification
Pre-printed labels with unique ID number on each sample
Data Recording
Data recorded in field app or on pre-printed forms of water-resistant paper; field
sampling crew reviews data forms for accuracy, completeness, and legibility
Data Qualifiers
Defined qualifier codes used on data form; qualifiers explained in comments section on
data form
Sample Custody
Records
Unique sample ID and tracking form information entered in LIMS; sample shipment
and receipt confirmed
Sample Tracking
Sample condition inspected upon receipt and noted on tracking form with copies sent
to NWCA Field Logistics Coordinator and/or IM
Data Entry
Data entered using customized entry screens that resemble the data forms; entries
reviewed manually or by automated comparison of double entry
Data Submission
Standard format defined for each measurement including units, significant figures,
accepted code values, and required field width
Data Archival
All data records, including raw data, archived in an organized manner. For example,
following verification/validation of the last submission into the NARS database, it is
copied to a terabit external hard drive and sent to the Project Leader for inclusion in
their project file, scheduled as 501, permanent records.
Processed samples and reference collections of taxonomic specimens submitted for
cataloging and curing at an appropriate museum facility
4.4.3 Laboratory Analyses and Data Recording
Upon receipt of a sample shipment, analytical laboratory receiving personnel check the condition and
identification of each sample against the sample tracking record. Each sample is identified by information
written on the sample label. The laboratory reports any discrepancies, damaged samples, or missing
samples to the NARS IM staff and NWCA 2021 Project Manager electronically.
Most of the laboratory analyses for the NWCA 2021 indicators, particularly chemical and physical analyses,
follow or are based on standard methods. Standard methods generally include requirements for QC
checks and procedures. General laboratory QA/QC procedures applicable to most NWCA 2021 indicators
are described in Section 5. Additional QA/QC procedures specific to individual indicator and parameter
analyses are described in the LOM and the FOM. Biological sample analyses are generally based on current
acceptable practices within the particular biological discipline. Table 4-4 provides a summary of the lab
data QC activities for NWCA 2021.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 55 of 101
Table 4-4 Summary laboratory data quality control activities
Quality Control Activity
Description and/or Requirements
Instrument Maintenance
Follow manufacturer's recommendations and specific guidelines in methods;
maintain logbook of maintenance/repair activities
Calibration
Calibrate instruments according to manufacturer's recommendations for each
specific indicator; recalibrate or replace before analyzing any samples
QC Data
Maintain control charts, determine LT-MDLs and achieved data attributes; include
QC data summary (narrative and compatible electronic format) in submission
package
Data Recording
Use software compatible with NARS IM system. Check all data entered against the
original bench sheet to identify and correct entry errors.
Review other QA data (e.g., condition upon receipt, etc.) for possible problems
with sample or specimen.
Data Qualifiers
Use defined qualifier codes; explain all qualifiers
Data Entry
Automated comparison of double entry or 100% manual check against original
data form
Submission Package
Includes:
¦ Letter by laboratory manager
¦ Data
¦ Data qualifiers and explanations
¦ Electronic format compatible with NARS IM
¦ Documentation of file and database structures
¦ Metadata: variable descriptions and formats
¦ Summary report of any problems and corrective actions implemented
A laboratory's IM system may consist of only hardcopy records such as bench sheets and logbooks, an
electronic laboratory information management system (LIMS), or some combination of hardcopy and
electronic records. Laboratory data records are reviewed at the end of each analysis day by the
designated laboratory onsite QA coordinator or by supervisory personnel. Errors are corrected by
laboratory personnel if possible, and data considered as suspect by laboratory analysts are qualified
with a flag variable. All flagged data are explained in a comments section. Private contract laboratories
generally have a laboratory Quality Assurance Protection Plan and established procedures for recording,
reviewing, and validating analysis data.
Once analytical data have passed all of the laboratory's internal review procedures, the lab prepares and
transfers a submission package using the prescribed templates in the LOM. The contents of the
submission package are largely dictated by the type of analysis (e.g., physical, chemical, or biological).
Remaining sample material and voucher specimens may be transferred to EPA's designated laboratory
or facilities as directed by the NWCA 2021 Project Manager. All samples and raw data files (including
logbooks, bench sheets, and instrument tracings) are to be retained by the laboratory for 3 years or until
authorized for disposal, in writing, by the EPA Project Leader. Deliverables from contractors and
cooperators, including raw data, are permanent as per EPA Record Schedule 258
(http://www.epa.gov/records/policy/schedule/sched/258.htm). EPA's project records are scheduled 501
(http://www.epa.gov/records/policy/schedule/sched/501.htm) and are also permanent.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 56 of 101
4.4.4 Data Review, Verification, and Validation Activities
Raw data files are created from entry of field and analytical data, including data for QA/QC samples and
any data qualifiers noted on the field forms or analytical data package.
4.4.4.1 Paper Forms
The NARS IM Center either optically scans or transcribes information from field collection forms into an
electronic format (sometimes using a combination of both processes). During the scanning process,
incoming data are subjected to a number of automated error checking routines (e.g., entry and
character reading errors). Obvious errors are corrected immediately at the time of scanning. Suspected
errors that cannot be confirmed at the time of scanning are qualified for later review by someone with
the appropriate background and experience (e.g., a chemist or aquatic ecologist). The process continues
until the transcribed data are 100% verified or no corrections are required.
4.4.4.2 Electronic Forms
The NARS IM Center directly uploads information from the electronic field collection forms into their
database. During the upload process, incoming data are subjected to a number of automated error
checking routines. Omissions and errors are automatically noted in an email message to the field crew
lead.
4.4.4.3 Additional Review
Additional validation is accomplished by the NARS IM Center staff using a specific set of guidelines and
executing a series of programs (computer code) to check for: correct file structure and variable naming
and formats, outliers, missing data, typographical errors and illogical or inconsistent data based on
expected relationships to other variables. Data that fail any check routine are identified in an "exception
report" that is reviewed by an appropriate scientist for resolution.
The NARS IM Center brings any remaining questionable data to the attention of the EPA Project QA
Officer and individuals responsible for collecting the data for resolution. The EPA Project QA Officer
evaluates all data to determine completeness and validity. Additionally, the data are run through a
rigorous inspection using SQL queries or other computer programs such as SAS or R to check for
anomalous data values that are especially large or small or are noteworthy in other ways. Focus is on
rare, extreme values since outliers may affect statistical quantities such as averages and standard
deviations.
The EPA Project QA Officer examines all laboratory quality assurance (QA) information to determine if
the laboratory met the predefined data quality objectives - available through the QAPP. Some of the
typical checks made in the processes of verification and validation are described in Table 4-5.
Automated review procedures may be used. The primary purpose of the initial checks is to confirm that
each data value present in an electronic data file is accurate with respect to the value that was initially
recorded on a data form or obtained from an analytical instrument. In general, these activities focus on
individual variables in the raw data file and may include range checks for numeric variables, frequency
tabulations of coded or alphanumeric variables to identify erroneous codes or misspelled entries, and
summations of variables reported in terms of percent or percentiles. In addition, associated QA
information (e.g., sample holding time) and QC sample data are reviewed to determine if they meet
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 57 of 101
acceptance criteria. Suspect values are assigned a data qualifier. They will either be corrected, replaced
with a new acceptable value from sample reanalysis, or confirmed suspect after sample reanalysis. For
biological samples, species identifications are corrected for entry errors associated with incorrect or
misspelled codes. Errors associated with misidentification of specimens are corrected after voucher
specimens have been confirmed and the results are available. Files corrected for entry errors are
considered to be raw data files. Copies of all raw data files are maintained in the centralized NARS IM
System. Any suspect data will be flagged for data qualification.
The NARS IM staff, with the support of the NWCA 2021 QATeam, correct and qualify all questionable
data. Copies of the raw data files are maintained in NARS IM, generally in active files until completion of
reporting and then in archive files. Redundant copies of all data files are maintained, and all files are
periodically backed up to the EPA HQ shared G drive system.
Table 4-5 Data review, verification, and validation quality control activities
Quality Control Activity
Description and/or Requirements
Review any qualifiers associated with variable
Determine if value is suspect or invalid; assign
validation qualifiers as appropriate
Determine if MQOs and project DQOs have been achieved
Determine potential impact on achieving research
and/or program objectives
Exploratory data analyses (univariate, bivariate,
multivariate) utilizing all data
Identify outlier values and determine if analytical
error or site-specific phenomenon is responsible
Confirm assumptions regarding specific types of statistical
techniques being utilized in development of metrics and
indicators
Determine potential impact on achieving research
and/or program objectives
In the final stage of data verification and validation, exploratory data analysis techniques may be used to
identify extreme data points or statistical outliers in the data set. Examples of univariate analysis
techniques include the generation and examination of box-and-whisker plots and subsequent statistical
tests of any outlying data points. Bivariate techniques include calculation of Spearman correlation
coefficients for all pairs of variables in the data set with subsequent examination of bivariate plots of
variables having high correlation coefficients. Multivariate techniques have also been used in detecting
extreme or outlying values in environmental data sets (Meglen, 1985; Garner et al., 1991; Stapanian et
al., 1993).
The QA Team reviews suspect data to determine the source of error, if possible. If the error is
correctable, the data set is edited to incorporate the correct data. If the source of the error cannot be
determined, the QA Team qualifies the data as questionable or invalid. Data qualified as questionable
may be acceptable for certain types of data analyses and interpretation activities. The decision to use
questionable data must be made by the individual data users. Data qualified as invalid are considered to
be unacceptable for use in any analysis or interpretation activities and will generally be removed from
the data file and replaced with a missing value code and explanatory comment or flag code. After
completion of verification and validation activities, a final data file is created, with copies transmitted for
archival and for uploading to the centralized IM system.
Once verified and validated, data files are made available for use in various types of interpretation
activities; each activity may require additional restructuring of the data files. These restructuring
activities are collectively referred to as "data enhancement." In order to develop indicator metrics from
one or more variables, data files may be restructured so as to provide a single record per site.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 58 of 101
4.5 Data Transfer
Field crews may transmit data electronically; hardcopies of completed data and sample tracking forms
are sent via express courier service. Copies of raw, verified, and validated data files are transferred from
the QA lead to the IM staff for inclusion in the central IM system. All transfers of data are conducted
using a means of transfer, file structure, and file format that has been approved by the EPA IM Project
lead. Data files that do not meet the required specifications will not be incorporated into the centralized
data access and management system.
4.5.1 Database Changes
The NARS IM Center staff complete data corrections at the lowest level to ensure that any subsequent
updates will contain only the most correct data. The NARS IM Center sends back laboratory results
found to be in error to the originator (e.g., analysis laboratory) for correction. After the originator makes
any corrections, the entire batch or file is resubmitted to the NARS IM Center. The NARS IM Center uses
these resubmissions to replace any previous versions of the same data.
The NARS IM Center uses a version control methodology when receiving files. This methodology is
explained in the following discussion. Incoming data are not always immediately transportable into a
format compatible with the desired file structures. When this situation occurs, the IM staff creates a
copy of the original data file, which then becomes the working file in which any formatting changes will
take place. The original raw data will remain unchanged. This practice further ensures the integrity of
the data and provides an additional data recovery avenue, should the need arise.
All significant changes are documented by the NARS IM Center staff. The NARS IM Center includes this
information in the final summary documentation for the database (metadata).
After corrections have been applied to the data, the NARS IM Center will rerun the validation programs
to re-inspect the data.
If requested by the NARS Project QA Officer, the NARS IM Center will implement database auditing
features to track changes.
4.6 Metadata
All metadata will be kept according to the Federal Geographic Data Committee, Content standard for
digital geospatial metadata, version 2.0. FGDC-STD-001-1998 (FGDC 1998).
4.6.1 Parameter Formats
The following parameter formats will be used:
• Sampling Site (EPA Locational Data Policy (USEPA 1991)
• Latitude and Longitude in decimal degrees (+/- 7.4), Negative longitude values (west of the
prime meridian),
• Datum: NAD83;
• Date: YYYYMMDD (year, month, day)
• Hour: HHMMSS (hour, minute, second), Greenwich mean time, Local time
• Data loaded to STORET will take on the STORET formats upon loading.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 59 of 101
4.6.2 Standard Coding Systems
The following standard coding systems will be used:
• Chemical Compounds: Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS 1999)
• Species Names: USDA-NRCS PLANTS Database (USDA-NRCS 2021)
• Land cover/land use codes: Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC 1999)
4.7 Information Management Operations
4.7.1 Computing Infrastructure
Electronic data are collected and maintained within a central server housed at WED using a Windows
Server 2003 R2 (current configuration) or higher computing platform in SQL native tables for the primary
data repository and SAS® native data sets or R datasets for data analysis. Official IM functions are
conducted in a centralized environment.
4.7.2 Data Security and Accessibility
The NARS IM Center ensures that all data files in NARS IM are protected from corruption by computer
viruses, unauthorized access, and hardware and software failures. Guidance and policy documents of
EPA and management policies established by the IM Technical Coordination Group for data access and
data confidentiality are followed. Raw and verified data files are accessible only to the NWCA 2021
collaborators. Validated data files are accessible only to users specifically authorized by the NWCA 2021
Project Leader. Data files in the central repository used for access and dissemination are marked as
read-only to prevent corruption by inadvertent editing, additions, or deletions.
Data generated, processed, and incorporated into the IM system are routinely stored as well as archived
on redundant systems by the NARS IM Center. This ensures that if one system is destroyed or
incapacitated, IM staff can reconstruct the databases. Procedures developed to archive the data,
monitor the process, and recover the data are described in IM documentation.
Data security and accessibility standards implemented for NWCA 2021 IM meet EPA's standard security
authentication (i.e., username, password) process in accordance to EPA's Information Management
Security Manual (1999; EPA Directive 2195 Al) and EPA Order 2195.1 A4 (2001). Any data sharing
requiring file transfer protocol (FTP) or internet protocol is provided through an authenticated site.
4.7.3 Life Cycle
Data may be retrieved electronically by the NWCA 2021 team, partners and others throughout the
records retention and disposition lifecycle or as practicable (Section 4.4).
4.7.4 Data Reco very and Emergency Backup Procedures
The NARS IM Center maintains several backup copies of all data files and of the programs used for
processing the data. Backups of the entire system are maintained off-site by the NARS IM Center. The
IM process used by the NARS IM Center for NWCA 2021 uses system backup procedures. The NARS IM
Center backs up and archives the central database according to procedures already established for EPA
Western Ecology Division and NARS IM. All laboratories generating data and developing data files are
expected to establish procedures for backing up and archiving computerized data.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 60 of 101
4.7.5 Long-Term Data Accessibility and Archive
All data are transferred by OW's Water Quality Exchange (WQX) team working with the NARS IM Team
to EPA's agency wide WQX data management system for archival purposes. WQX is a repository for
water quality, biological, and physical data and is used by state environmental agencies, EPA and other
federal agencies, universities, and private citizens. Data from the NWCA 2021 project will be run through
an Interface Module in an Excel format and uploaded to WQX by the WQX team. Once uploaded, states
and tribes and the public will be able to download data (using Oracle software) from their region. Data
will also be provided in flat files on the NARS website.
4.8 Records Management
Removable storage media (i.e., CDs, USB Drives) and paper records are maintained in a centrally located
area at the NARS IM Center. Paper records will be returned to OW once the assessment is complete. The
IM Team identifies and maintains files using standard divisional procedures as established by EPA
Western Ecology Division. Records retention and disposition comply with U.S. EPA directive 2160
Records Management Manual (July, 1984) in accordance with the Federal Records Act of 1950.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 61 of 101
5 INDICATORS
This section of the QAPP provides summary information on laboratory and field performance and quality
control measures for the NWCA 2021 indicators. Additional details are described in the NWCA 2021
Field Operations Manual and Laboratory Operations Manual. A description of the NWCA 2021 indicators
is found in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1. Description of indicators and collection locations
Indicator
Description
Location of Sample Collection
Vegetation
Measurements of composition
Five 100-m2 Vegetation Plots
and abundance of plant species
systematically placed across the
used to evaluate biological
Assessment Area.
integrity.
Soil
Measurements of physical and
Collected in a 3- meter
chemical properties to evaluate
diameter Soil Plot co-located
the health and condition of soil.
with one of the Vegetation
Plots.
Hydrology
Measurements include an
Collected from Assessment
assessment of hydrologic
Area.
sources and connectivity,
observation of hydrologic
indicators, and documentation
of hydrologic alterations or
stressors.
Water Chemistry
Measurements used to
Collected from location with
determine general surface
standing water in Assessment
water conditions, various
Area, if present.
chemical analytes, and evidence
of disturbance.
Chlorophyll a
Measurement used to
Collected from location with
determine algal biomass in the
standing water in Assessment
water.
Area, if present.
Microcystin
Measurement used to
Collected from location with
determine the harmful algal
standing water in Assessment
bloom biomass in the water.
Area, if present.
Physical Alterations
Measurements used to
Collected from the Assessment
physically characterize the area
Area and twelve 100-m2 Buffer
surrounding the Assessment
Plots systematically placed on
Area.
cardinal transects (3 in each
direction).
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 62 of 101
5.1 Vegetation
5.1.1 Introduction
Wetland plant species represent diverse adaptations, ecological tolerances, and life history strategies;
effectively integrating environmental conditions, species interactions, and human-caused disturbance.
Data describing plant species composition and abundance and vegetation structure are powerful,
robust, and relatively easy to gather. They can be used to derive myriad metrics or indicators that are
useful descriptors of ecological integrity or stress (e.g., Lopez and Fennessy 2002, USEPA 2002b, Pino et
al. 2005, Bourdaghs et al. 2006, Quetier et al. 2007, Magee et al. 2008, Magee et al. 2010, Mack and
Kentula 2010). NWCA collects data on plant species composition and abundance, on vegetation
structural attributes, and on ground surface attributes within in vegetation plots at each sample site.
This vegetation data collected by field crews is later used during analysis to calculate numerous metrics
in a variety of categories that inform the development of Vegetation Multimetric Indices that serve as
indicators of wetland vegetation condition (USEPA 2016; Magee et al. 2019a, b). Thus, the vegetation
data collected in the field by the Vegetation Team is central to the key descriptors of ecological
condition for the NWCA. The field data and metrics can also be used to characterize wetland vegetation
across the NWCA target population or subpopulations.
5.1.2 Sampling Design and Methods
Detailed sample collection and handling procedures are described in the NWCA 2021 Field Operations
Manual.
5.1.3 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations
Control measures to minimize measurement error among crews and sites include the use of
standardized field protocols, consistent training of all crews, field assistance visits to all crews, and
availability of experienced technical personnel during the field season to respond to site-specific
questions from field crews as they arise. In addition, quality assurance audits will be conducted at least
once during the field season for each Field Crew to ensure that the protocols are being implemented
consistent with training.
Upon completion of sampling, the Botanist/Ecologist reviews all vegetation forms for completeness,
legibility, and for any errors (e.g. spelling) in species names. The Botanist/Ecologist checks the voucher
collection record on the Vascular Plant Species Presence and Cover Form (FOM Vegetation Chapter) for
all taxa with pseudonyms to ensure that specimens have been collected for all unknown species.
Additionally, the Botanist/Ecologist and Botanist Assistant collect five known plant species (randomly
selected from species identified from the 100-m2 vegetation plots) as OA plant voucher specimens.
These QA voucher specimens are sent to a QA taxonomist ("verifying botanist") for re-identification. The
NWCA QA Team will monitor differences in the taxonomic identification of plant specimens between the
Botanist/Ecologist ("identifying botanist") and the verifying botanist. Substantial disagreements
between the two will be investigated and logged for indication of error patterns or trends, but all values
will generally be considered acceptable for further analysis, unless the investigation reveals significant
problems.
Other controls include audits and revisits. Quality assurance audits are conducted of each Field Crew at
least once during the field season, to ensure the protocols followed are consistent with training. Ten
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 63 of 101
percent of all sites will receive repeat sampling visits to be sampled by a Field Crew to determine the
extent to which the population estimates might vary if they were sampled at a different time (revisit
sites must be sampled at least two weeks apart).
5.1.4 Quality Control Procedures: Laboratory Operations
A subset of plant samples collected as unknown specimens and later identified by a State or National
Plant Laboratory botanist ("identifying botanist") will be verified by a QAtaxonomist ("verifying
botanist") for additional quality assurance. The lab will randomly select 10% of the identified unknown
samples for re-identification by another experienced taxonomist who did not participate in the original
identifications. The NWCA QA Team will evaluate differences in the taxonomic identification of plant
specimens between the identifying and verifying botanists. Substantial disagreements between the two
will be investigated and logged for indication of error patterns or trends, but all values will generally be
considered acceptable for further analysis, unless the investigation reveals significant problems.
Quality control procedures associated with sample handling and processing at laboratories handling
NWCA QA and unknown plant vouchers are summarized in Table 5-2Table 5-3.
Table 5-2. Laboratory quality control activities for vegetation indicator.
Quality Control
Activity
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Corrective Action
Demonstrate
Once
Demonstration of past
EPA will not approve any
competency for
experience relevant to
laboratory for NWCA voucher
identifying plant
identifying plants collected
identifications if the laboratory
specimens to meet
from wetlands
cannot demonstrate
the performance
competency. In other words,
measures
EPA will select another
laboratory that can
demonstrate competency.
Verify that plant
All vouchers
The condition must allow for
Lab will consult immediately
voucher has arrived
positive identification
with EPA TOCOR if voucher
in acceptable
does not arrive in acceptable
condition
condition.
Voucher log-in
All vouchers
Plant vouchers logged into
NARS IM system within 24
clock hours of receipt.
Discrepancies, damaged or
missing vouchers, and missing
plant specimen label
information are reported to EPA
Project Manager and
Laboratory Review Coordinator.
Store vouchers
All vouchers
Vouchers must be treated to
EPA expects that the laboratory
appropriately
kill potential contaminants
and properly stored dry in a
condition that prevents
will exercise every effort to
maintain vouchers in proper
storage conditions.
contamination by
detritivores, molds, and pests
(typically in herbarium
cabinets or sealable plastic
containers).
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 64 of 101
Quality Control
Activity
Frequency
Acceptance Criteria
Corrective Action
Use widely and
All identifications
Full citations for floras and
Lab will provide explanation
commonly accepted
field guides used in plant
and discuss deviances with EPA
taxonomic references
identification must be
TOCOR.
and reconcile to
provided and;
USDA-NRCS PLANTS
identifications must be
taxonomic
reconciled to the taxonomic
nomenclature
nomenclature of the USDA-
NRCS PLANTS database
QA voucher
All QA vouchers
Identification by the lab's QA
Disagreement with field
identification by
verifying botanist
Botanist/Ecologist identification
laboratory/herbarium
reported to EPA
Unknown species
All unknown species
Identification by the lab's
Replace field crew's "unknown"
voucher
vouchers
identifying botanist
identification with
Identification by
determination by lab
laboratory/herbarium
Unknowns QC
Approximately 10% of
all unknown vouchers
independently
identified in the lab
PTD < 15%
If PTD > 15%, review data for
possible explanations;
otherwise, insert data qualifier
for laboratory identifications
Conduct assistance
EPA may choose to
Visit conducted using
Performance and any
visit
visit any laboratory
checklist
recommended improvements
described in debrief with
laboratory staff
5.1.5 Data Management, Review, and Validation
The Botanist/Ecologist and Field Crew Leader are responsible for the validity of all field-generated data
(i.e. measurement and observation data) up to the point it is sent to EPA. The Botanist/Ecologist and
Field Crew Leader are likewise responsible for the proper labeling, storage, and delivery for shipping of
all voucher samples, and for informing ORD/Corvallis when samples have been shipped. Laboratory
SOPs (see Section 1 for details) will be followed to ensure that data generated and delivered to EPA are
valid. Once data have been delivered to EPA, data quality procedures will be followed to ensure the
validity of data in storage, analysis, reporting and archiving. All raw data (including all standardized
forms and logbooks) are retained permanently in an organized fashion in accordance with EPA records
management policies.
Other checks made of the data in the process of review and verification are summarized in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3. Data validation quality control for vegetation indicator.
Activity or Procedure
Requirements and Corrective Action
Range checks, summary statistics, and/or exploratory
data analysis (e.g., box and whisker plots)
Corrective reporting errors or qualify as suspect or invalid
Review data from QA plant vouchers
Determine impact and possible limitations on overall
usability of data
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 65 of 101
5.2 Soils
5.2.1 Introduction
Soils data will be collected in a 3 m diameter Soil Plot and will include a soil profile description and
collection of soil samples for laboratory analysis of physical and chemical properties. Soils cycle
nutrients, mediate groundwater movement and storage, and serve as a growth medium or habitat for
plants, microbes, and macroinvertebrates. Soil physical and chemical characteristics can be indicative of
hydrology, past and present land uses, and the health and condition of the soil (which impacts its ability
to perform important ecosystem services).
5.2.2 Sampling Design and Methods
There are two components to collecting soil information: The first component involves field
measurement and description of soil morphological properties (e.g., texture, color). The second
component involves collecting soil samples for laboratory analysis of various physical characteristics and
chemical constituents. Detailed sample collection and handling procedures are described in the NWCA
2021 Field Operations Manual and Lab Operations Manual. A summary of the field measurements and
laboratory analyses are given in Table 5-4.
Table 5-4. Soil indicator field and laboratory measurements and analyses.
Analysis Method
Analyte(s) Measured
Field Measurements
Soil Profile Description
Soil Morphological Properties:
description/identification of horizon
boundaries and designations, soil texture, rock
fragment volume, root volume, matrix color,
redoximorphic features, masked sand grains,
organic features, and mottles
HydricSoil Field Indicator
Identification of Hydric Soil Field Indicators (if
present)
Depth to Water Table
Depth to water table
Laboratory Analyses
Particle Size Distribution Analysis (PSDA), < 2mm, air dry
Clay, Silt, Sand
Calcium Carbonate Equivalent, < 2mm
CaC03
Calcium Carbonate Equivalent, < 20 mm
CaC03
Total Carbon, Nitrogen, and Sulfur
C, N, S
PH
1:1 H20,1:2 0.01 M CaCI2
Cation Exchange Capacity and Base Cations
CEC, Ca2+, K+, Mg2+, Na+
Ammonium Oxalate Extraction
Al, Fe, Mn, P, Si
Electrical Conductivity
EC
Dithionite-Citrate Extraction
Al, Fe, Mn
Olsen Phosphorus
P
Mehlich Phosphorus
P
Trace Elements
Ag, As, Ba, Be, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Hg, Mn, Mo, Ni,
P, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Sr, V, W, Zn
Bulk Density
Dbf
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 66 of 101
5.2.3 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations
Control measures to minimize measurement error among crews and sites include the use of
standardized field protocols, consistent training of all crews, and availability of experienced technical
personnel during the field season to respond to site-specific questions from field crews. Additionally,
field crews will apply a consistent labeling convention across all samples (see the NWCA 2021 FOM, Soils
Chapter for details on info to include on labels).
Other controls include audits and revisits. Quality assurance audits are conducted of each field crew at
least once during the field season, to ensure the protocols followed are consistent with training. At
approximately 10% of sites, field crews will be accompanied by an NRCS Soil Scientist. The NRCS Soil
Scientist will assist the field crew with the soil profile description and collection of soil samples, review
the morphological description, and assign horizon designations. Ten percent of all sites will be sampled
by a field crew during a repeat sampling visit to determine the extent to which the population estimates
might vary if they were sampled at a different time.
In addition, field crew leaders are responsible for reviewing all forms for completeness and legibility and
ensuring that all samples are properly collected and shipped. Field forms are then sent to participating
NRCS State Soil Scientists to review morphological descriptions, review determination of any hydric soil
field indicators, and assign horizon designations (using soil profile photographs and morphological
descriptions). Specific quality control measures are listed in Table 5-5 for field measurements and
observations.
Table 5-5. Field quality control for soil indicator
Quality Control Activity
Frequency
Acceptance criteria
Corrective Action
Quality Control
Check completeness of soil
descriptive data
Each soil horizon
Values for each soil horizon
Repeat observations
Check for completeness of
soil sample collection for
chemical analyses and bulk
density
Each site
Data sheets complete
where appropriate
Repeat observations
Sample storage
Each site
All samples kept in a cool
dry place until shipped
Qualify sample as suspect
for all analyses
Data Validation
Estimate precision of
measurement based on
repeat visits
2 visits
Measurements should be
within 10 percent
Review data for
reasonableness; Determine
if acceptance criteria need
to be modified
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 67 of 101
5.2.4 Quality Control Procedures: Laboratory Operations
Standardized lab protocols, consistent training of all lab technicians, lab assistance visits to all labs, and
availability of experienced technical personnel to respond to site-specific questions as they arise are
important to ensuring the quality of lab data. Additionally, control measures to minimize measurement
error among lab technicians and laboratories include the use of a Control Sample, a Blank Sample, Data
Review, and Data Validation.
A Control Sample represents a sample of known concentration for an attribute. A Control Sample is
collected in bulk for an attribute and repetitively analyzed to determine statistical control limits (i.e.,
range of expected values) for the method. A Control Sample is analyzed in conjunction with every batch
of samples to ensure the method was run correctly. If the value of the Control Sample falls outside the
expected range of values then the process has failed and the batch is triggered for reanalysis.
A Blank Sample is used to ensure equipment is thoroughly cleaned before each use. A Blank Sample is
especially important when measuring soil chemistry (i.e., trace metals) because concentrations may be
quite small. A Blank Sample is analyzed in conjunction with every batch of samples to ensure that proper
equipment cleaning protocols are followed. If the value of the Blank Sample does not equal zero or fall
below the MDL, then the equipment is not clean and the batch is triggered for reanalysis.
The process of Data Validation is described here. Laboratory data undergo four Data Reviews, first by
the Bench Analysts, second by the Lead Analyst, third by the Project Coordinator Soil Scientist, and
fourth by a Soil Scientist Liaison with expertise in soils from the region where the samples are from. The
Bench Analysts verifies that blank and control samples return results that fall within established control
limits. The Lead Analyst examines the data for inconsistencies and apparent anomalies; inconsistencies
usually take the form of unexpected high or low values for an analyte or values that do not fit with the
expected trend of a soil profile. The Project Coordinator will use professional judgment to determine
whether the project data are self-consistent and congruent with the site data collected in the field;
incongruities within the data that can be explained either by site data or the results of other analytes
are recorded. A final review is given by a Soil Scientist Liaison to the area of sample origin, before the
data are released.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 68 of 101
Table 5-6. Lab analysis quality control for soil indicator
Activity or Procedure
Requirements and Corrective Action
Sample Log-in
Upon receipt of a sample shipment, record receipt of
samples in the NARS IM system (within 24 clock hours)
and the laboratory's Information Management System
(LIMS). Discrepancies, damaged or missing samples are
reported to EPA Project Manager and Laboratory Review
Coordinator.
Range check of Control Sample
If value is outside expected range, batch is triggered for
reanalysis
Value check of Blank Sample
If value is >0 or the MDL, batch sample is triggered for
reanalysis
Data Review
Corrective reporting for explicable incongruities within
the data
Data Validation
Corrective reporting for explicable incongruities within
the data
5.2.5 Data Management, Review, and Validation
Checks made of the data in the process of review, verification, and validation are summarized in Table
5-7. The Field Crew Leader is responsible for the validity of all field-generated data (i.e. measurement
and observation data) up to the point it is sent to EPA (NARS IM). The Field Crew Leader is responsible
for the proper labeling, storage, and delivery for shipping of all samples. The Field Crew Leader is
responsible for notifying both the laboratory and NARS IM when samples have been shipped. Laboratory
SOPs (see Section 1 for details) will be followed to ensure that data generated and delivered to EPA are
valid. Once NARS IM receives the data, DQ procedures (as detailed in Section 4) will be followed to
ensure the validity of data in storage, analysis, reporting and archiving. Raw data (including standardized
forms and logbooks) are retained permanently in an organized fashion in accordance with EPA records
management policies.
Table 5-7. Data validation quality control for soil indicator
Activity or Procedure
Requirements and Corrective Action
Range checks, summary statistics, and/or exploratory
data analysis (e.g., box and whisker plots)
Corrective reporting errors or qualify as suspect or invalid
Review data from QA samples (e.g., laboratory control
samples, blank samples, or other standards or replicates)
Determine impact and possible limitations on overall
usability of data
5.3 Hydrology
5.3.1 Introduction
Hydrology data will include an assessment of hydrologic sources and connectivity, indirect evidence of
hydroperiod, estimates of hydrologic fluctuations, and documentation of hydrology alterations or
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 69 of 101
stressors. Wetland hydrology is the primary driver of wetland formation and persistence. Hydrology
impacts soil geochemical dynamics, plant productivity, nutrient cycling, and accretion and erosion of
organic and inorganic materials in wetlands (Mitch and Gosselink 2007, Tiner 1999).
5.3.2 Sampling Design and Methods
The collection of hydrologic data for the NWCA will be entirely in the field - no hydrology samples will be
collected for laboratory analysis. Field measurements, observations, and associated methodology are
summarized in Table 5-8. Detailed data collection procedures are described in the NWCA 2021 Field
Operations Manual.
Table 5-8. Field measurement methods for hydrology indicator.
Variable or
Measu rement
Units
Summary of Method
Water Sources
Documentation of seasonal and perennial sources, including
inlets, streams, springs, the ocean, ditches, and pipes
Hydrologic alterations
Count of damming features (e.g., dikes/berms, roads),
ditches/drains, evidence of tilling and fresh sediment influx
Water Depth
cm
Determine the maximum depth of surface water and the
percent of the AA covered. (Form WQ-1)
Depth to Groundwater
cm
Recorded on S-l Form
5.3.3 Quality Control Procedures
Control measures to minimize measurement error among crews and sites include the use of
standardized field protocols, consistent training of all crews, and availability of experienced technical
personnel during the field season to respond to site-specific questions from field crews. In addition,
quality assurance audits are conducted, at least once during the field season of every field crew to
ensure that the protocols are being implemented consistent with training.
5.3.4 Data Management, Review, and Validation
Checks made of the data in the process of review, verification, and validation are summarized in Table
5-9. The Field Crew Leader is responsible for the validity of all field-generated data (i.e. measurement
and observation data) up to the point they are sent to EPA (NARS IM). EPA QA SOPs (see Section 2 for
details) will be followed to ensure that data generated and delivered to EPA are valid. Once data have
been delivered to EPA, DQ procedures (as detailed in Section 2) will be followed to ensure the validity of
data in storage, analysis, reporting and archiving. All raw data (including all standardized forms and
logbooks) are retained permanently in an organized fashion in accordance with EPA records
management policies.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 70 of 101
Table 5-9. Data quality control for hydrology indicator.
Quality Control Activity
Frequency
Acceptance criteria
Corrective Action
Quality Control
Check completeness of
hydrology data
Across AA and Buffer
Values where appropriate
Repeat observations
5.4 Water Chemistry (including chlorophyll-a)
5.4.1 Introduction
Surface water conditions will be noted and water chemistry samples collected to assess general surface
water conditions, various chemical analytes, and evidence of disturbance. Total nitrogen and
phosphorus reflect the trophic state of the wetland, providing crucial information on possible
eutrophication (Keddy 1983). Anthropogenic disturbances such as hydrologic modifications and land use
changes are known to alter water chemistry variables (Lane and Brown, 2007; Reiss and Brown, 2005).
Chlorophyll-a samples describe blue-green algal biomass, which gives an estimate of algal productivity
which reflects nutrient concentrations of water. Nutrient status can reflect normal or stressed
conditions and are dependent on wetland type.
5.4.2 Sampling Design and Methods
Detailed sample collection and handling procedures are described in the NWCA 2021 Field Operations
Manual. Detailed laboratory methods are described in the NWCA 2021 Laboratory Operations Manual.
5.4.3 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations
Control measures to minimize measurement error among crews and sites include the use of
standardized field protocols, consistent training of all crews, and availability of experienced technical
personnel during the field season to respond to site-specific questions from field crews. Field crews will
verify that all sample containers are uncontaminated and intact, and that all sample labels are legible
and intact.
Before leaving the field site, crews will:
• Check the label to ensure that all written information is complete and legible.
• Place a strip of clear packing tape over the label, covering the label completely.
• Record the sample ID number assigned to the water chemistry and chlorophyll-a samples on the
Sample Collection Form.
• Enter a flag code and provide comments on the Sample Collection Form if there are any
problems in collecting the sample or if conditions occur that may affect sample integrity.
• Store the samples on wet ice in a cooler.
• Recheck all forms and labels for completeness and legibility.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 71 of 101
Other controls include audits and revisits. Quality assurance audits are conducted of each Field Crew at
least once during the field season, to ensure the protocols followed are consistent with training. Ten
percent of all sites will be sampled by a Field Crew during a repeat sampling visit to determine the
extent to which the population estimates might vary if they were sampled at a different time.
5.4.4 Quality Control Procedures: Laboratory Operations
A single central laboratory and some state laboratories will analyze the water chemistry and chlorophyll-
a samples. Specific quality control procedures used by each laboratory are implemented to ensure that:
• Objectives for various data quality indicators are met
• Results are consistent and comparable among all participating laboratories
The central laboratory demonstrated in previous studies that it can meet the required Laboratory
Reporting Levels (RLs) (USEPA 2004). All laboratories will follow the QA/QC procedures outlined in the
NWCA 2021 QAPP and the LOM. A summary and diagram of the OA processes related to water
chemistry samples for the NWCA 2021 are found in Figure 5-1.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 72 of 101
Figure 5-1. Analysis Activities for Water Chemistry Samples
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 73 of 101
5.4.4.1 Laboratory Performance Requirements
Table 5-10 summarizes the pertinent laboratory methods performance requirements for the water
chemistry and chlorophyll-a samples.
Table 5-10. Water chemistry and chlorophyll-a laboratory methods performance requirements
Parameter
Units
Potential
Method
Target
Transition
Precision
Accuracy
Range
Detection
Reporting
Value3
Objective4
Objective5
of Samples1
Limit Objective2
Limit
Conductivity
|_iS/cm at
25°C
10 to 73,660
1.0
2.0
20
±2 or ±10%
± 2 or 5%
PH
Std units
3.0 to 10.2
N/A
NA
5.75, 8.25
<5.75 or
> 8.25 =
±0.07;
5.75-8.25 =
±0.15
<5.75 or
>8.25 =±0.15;
5.75-8.25 =
±0.05
Ammonia
mg N/L
0 to 7.9
0.01 marine (0.7
0.02
0.10
± 0.01 or
±0.01 or
(NH3)
M-eq/L)
0.02 freshwater
(1.4 M.eq/L)
±10%
±10%
Nitrate-
mg N/L
0 to 24.6
0.01 marine
0.02
0.10
± 0.01 or
±0.01 or
Nitrite (NOs-
(as nitrate)
0.02 freshwater
±10%
±10%
N02)
Total
mg/L
0.04 to 70.1
0.01
0.02
0.10
± 0.01 or
±0.01 or
Nitrogen (TN)
±10%
±10%
Total
Hg P/L
0 to 18,500
2.0
4.0
20.0
± 2 or
± 2 or
Phosphorous
(as TP)
±10%
±10%
(TP)
Dissolved
mg C/L
0.5 to 222
0.1
0.20
<1
± 0.10 or
±0.10 or
Organic
>1
±10%
±10%
Carbon
(DOC)
Turbidity
Nephelom
etric
Turbidity
Units
(NTU)
0.1 to 2170
1.0
2.0
20
±2 or ±10%
±2 or ±10%
Chloride (CI)
mg Cl/L
0.06 to
41,200
0.10(3 iaeq/L)
0.20
(6 neq/L)
1
± 0.10 or
±10%
±0.10 or
±10%
Sulfate (S04)
mg SO4/L
0.08 to
8,320
0.25 (5.2 iaeq/L)
0.50
(10.4
M-eq/L)
2.5
± 0.25 or
±10%
±0.25 or
±10%
Chlorophyll-a
M-g/L in
extract
0.5 to 2,136
0.5
1.0
15
± 1.5 or
±10%
±1.5 or
±10%
1 Estimated from samples analyzed for NWCA 2011 and 2016.
2 The method detection limit is determined as the minimum concentration of an analyte that can be measured and reported with 99%
confidence (based on a one-sided 99% confidence interval) that the analyte is greater than zero.
3 Value for which absolute (lower concentrations) vs. relative (higher concentrations) objectives for precision and accuracy are used.
4 For duplicate samples, precision is estimated as the pooled standard deviation (calculated as the root-mean square) of all samples at the
lower concentration range, and as the pooled percent relative standard deviation of all samples at the higher concentration range. For
standard samples, precision is estimated as the standard deviation of repeated measurements across batches at the lower concentration
range, and as percent relative standard deviation of repeated measurements across batches at the higher concentration range.
5 Accuracy is estimated as the difference between the measured and target values of performance evaluation and/or internal reference
samples at the lower concentration range, and as the percent difference at the higher concentration range.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 74 of 101
5.4.4.2 Laboratory Quality Control Requirements
Error! Reference source not found.Table 5-11 summarizes the pertinent laboratory quality
control activities for water chemistry and chlorophyll-a samples.
Table 5-11. Required quality control activities for water chemistry and chlorophyll-a samples.
QC Sample
Indicators Description
Frequency
Acceptance
Corrective Action
Type and
Criteria
Description
Demonstrate
All
Demonstration
Once
See Error!
EPA will not approve
competency
of past
Reference
any laboratory for
for analyzing
experience with
source not
NWCA sample
water samples
water samples in
found, in LOM
processing if the
to meet the
achieving the
laboratory cannot
performance
method
demonstrate
measures
detection limits
competency. In other
words, EPA will select
another laboratory that
can demonstrate
competency for its
NWCA samples.
Check
All
Sample issues
Once
No sample issues
Lab determines if the
condition of
such as cracked
or determination
sample can be analyzed
sample when
container;
that sample can
or has been too
it arrives.
missing label;
temperature;
adherence to
holding time
requirements;
sufficient
volume for test.
still be analyzed
severely compromised
(e.g., contamination).
Assign appropriate
condition code
identified in Table 1.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 75 of 101
QC Sample
Indicators
Description
Frequency
Acceptance
Corrective Action
Type and
Criteria
Description
Store sample
All
Check the
Record
While stored at
If at any time samples
appropriately.
temperature of
temperature of
the laboratory,
are warmer than
the refrigerator
sample upon
the sample must
required, note
per laboratory's
arrival at the
be kept at a
temperature and
standard
laboratory.
maximum
duration (either from
operating
Check
temperature of
the continuous
procedures.
temperature of
4° C (for aliquots
temperature log or
the
except
from the last manual
refrigerator/fre
chlorophyll a)
reading) in comment
ezer where
and -20° C for
field. Lab will still
samples are
the chlorophyll a
perform test. EPA
stored at least
sample.
expects that the
daily if using a
laboratory will exercise
continuous
every effort to maintain
temperature
samples at the correct
logger and
temperature.
twice daily
(once at
beginning of
the day and
once at the
end) not using a
continuous
logger.
Analyze
All
The test must be
Perform test in all cases
sample within
completed
but note reason for
holding time
within the
performing test outside
holding time
holding time. Add QC
specified in the
Code for any samples
analytical
analyzed outside of
method.
holding time. EPA
expects that the
laboratory will exercise
every effort to perform
tests before the
holding time expires.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 76 of 101
QC Sample
Indicators
Description
Frequency
Acceptance
Corrective Action
Type and
Criteria
Description
Laboratory/
All
Once per
All analytes <
Prepare and analyze
Reagent Blank
analytical batch
MDL objective
new blank. Determine
prior to sample
value (Table 5-10)
and correct problem
analysis
(e.g., reagent
contamination,
instrument calibration,
or contamination
introduced during
filtration) before
proceeding with any
sample analyses.
Reestablish statistical
control by analyzing
three blank samples.
Filtration
All
ASTM Type II
Prepare once
All analytes <
Measure archived
Blank
dissolved
reagent water
per week and
MDL objective
samples if review of
analytes
processed
archive
value (Table 5-10)
other laboratory blank
through
Prepare filter
information suggest
filtration unit
blank for each
source of
box of 100
contamination is
filters and
sample processing.
examine the
results before
any other filters
are used from
that box.
LT-MDL check
All
Once per
Within accuracy
Confirm achieved LRL
standard
analytes
analytical batch
objective
by repeated analysis of
requiring
LT-MDL check
MDL
standard. Evaluate
studies
affected samples for
possible re-analysis.
Initial and
All
Analyze ICV
±10% or method
Perform corrective
Continuing
after
criteria
action and repeat all
Calibration
calibration.
associated samples
Verification
Analyze CCV
since last successful
(ICV and CCV)
after every 10
CCV. Alternatively,
samples and at
recalibrate and
end of
reanalyze all samples
analytical batch
since last successful
CCV.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 77 of 101
QC Sample
Indicators Description
Frequency
Acceptance
Corrective Action
Type and
Criteria
Description
Analytical
All
One per 10
Within precision
If results are below LRL:
Duplicate
samples
objective
Prepare and analyze
Sample
duplicate from
different sample
(volume permitting).
Review precision of
batch. Check
preparation of
duplicate sample.
Qualify all samples in
batch for possible
reanalysis.
Standard
When
One analysis in
Manufacturers
Analyze standard in
Reference
available
a minimum of
certified range
next batch to confirm
Material
for a
five separate
suspected inaccuracy.
(SRM)
particular
indicator
batches
Evaluate standards for
contamination and
preparation error.
Correct before any
further analyses of
routine samples are
conducted. Reestablish
control by three
successive reference
standard
measurements that are
acceptable. Qualify all
sample batches
analyzed since the last
acceptable reference
standard measurement
for possible reanalysis.
Matrix Spike
Only
One per batch
Control limits for
Select two additional
Samples
prepared
when
samples
with
potential
for matrix
interferen
ces are
encounter
ed
recovery cannot
exceed 100±20%
samples and prepare
fortified subsamples.
Reanalyze all suspected
samples in batch by the
method of standard
additions. Prepare
three subsamples
(unfortified, fortified
with solution
approximately equal to
the endogenous
concentration, and
fortified with solution
approximately twice
the endogenous
concentration).
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 78 of 101
QC Sample
Type and
Description
Indicators
Description
Frequency
Acceptance
Criteria
Use consistent
All
Verify that all
Data reporting
For each
If it is not possible to
units for QC
units are
indicator, all
provide the results in
samples and
provided
field and QC
consistent units, then
field samples
consistently
samples are
assign a QC code and
within each
reported with
describe the reason for
indicator.
the same
different units in the
measurement
comments field of the
units
database.
Maintain
completeness
All
Determine
completeness
Data reporting
Completeness
objective is 95%
for all indicators
(useable with or
without flags).
Contact EPA HQ NWCA
Laboratory Review
Coordinator*
immediately if issues
affect laboratory's
ability to meet
completeness
objective.
*Section 1 provides contact information for the EPA HQ NWCA Laboratory Review Coordinator. Laboratories under contract to
EPA must contact the Task Order's Contracting Officer's Representative (TOCOR) instead of the Laboratory Review Coordinator.
5.4.5 Data Reporting, Review, and Management
Checks made of the data in the process of review and verification is summarized in Table 5-12. Data
reporting units and significant figures are given in Table 5-13. The Project Lead is ultimately responsible
for ensuring the validity of the data, although performance of the specific checks may be delegated to
other staff members.
Table 5-12. Data validation quality control for water chemistry indicator.
Activity or Procedure
Requirements and Corrective Action
Range checks, summary statistics, and/or exploratory
data analysis (e.g., box and whisker plots)
Correct reporting errors or qualify as suspect or
invalid.
Review holding times
Qualify value for additional review
Review data from QA samples (laboratory PE
samples, and interlaboratory comparison samples)
Determine impact and possible limitations on overall
usability of data
Table 5-13. Data reporting criteria for water chemistry indicator.
Measurement
Units
Minimum No.
Significant Figures
Temperature
°C
2
PH
pH units
3
Conductivity
|j.S/cm at 25 °C
3
Ammonia
mg/L
3
Dissolved organic carbon (DOC)
mg/L
3
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 79 of 101
Nitrate-Nitrite
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Turbidity
Chlorophyll-o
Chloride
Sulfate
5.5 Microcystin
5.5.1 Introduction
Microcystins are a class of toxins produced by bluegreen algae that can have harmful health effects to
humans and animals if concentrations are high as a result of high abundance of certain bluegreen algae.
If water is present, crews will collect a water sample to measure concentrations of microcystin.
5.5.2 Sampling Design and Methods
Detailed sample collection and handling procedures are described in the NWCA 2021 Field Operations
Manual. Detailed laboratory methods are described in the NWCA 2021 Laboratory Operations Manual.
5.5.3 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations
Field data quality is addressed, in part, by application and consistent performance of valid procedures
documented in the standard operating procedures detailed in the NWCA 2021 Field Operations Manual.
That quality is enhanced by the training and experience of project staff and documentation of sampling
activities. Crews will collect a single water sample for microcystins analyses. Field crews will verify that
all sample containers are uncontaminated and intact, and that all sample labels are legible and intact.
While in the field, the crew will store samples in a cooler on ice and will then freeze the sample upon
returning to the base site (e.g., hotel, lab, office)(Table 5-14). Before leaving the field, the crews will:
• Check the label to ensure that all written information is complete and legible.
• Place a strip of clear packing tape over the label, covering the label completely.
• Record the sample ID number assigned to the microcystins sample on the Sample Collection
Form.
• Enter a flag code and provide comments on the Sample Collection Form if there are any
problems in collecting the sample or if conditions occur that may affect sample integrity.
• Store the sample on ice in field.
• Recheck all forms and labels for completeness and legibility.
mg/L
3
mg/L
3
h-§/l
3
NTU
3
h-§/l
3
mg/L
3
mg/L
3
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 80 of 101
Table 5-14. Field quality control for microcystin.
Quality Control
Activity
Description and Requirements
Corrective Action
Holding time
Hold sample on wet ice and freeze immediately
upon return to the base site (hotel, lab, office)
and keep frozen until shipping
Qualify samples
Sample Storage
Store samples in darkness and frozen (-20 °C)
Monitor temperature daily
Qualify sample as suspect
5.5.4 Quality Control Procedures: Laboratory Operations
A single central laboratory and some state laboratories will analyze the microcystin samples. Specific
quality control procedures used by each laboratory are implemented to ensure that:
• Objectives for various data quality indicators are met
• Results are consistent and comparable among all participating laboratories
All laboratories must follow QA/QC procedures outlined in this QAPP and the NWCA 2021 Laboratory
Operations Manual.
5.5.4.1 Laboratory Performance Requirements
Performance requirements for microcystin are listed in Table 5-15.
Table 5-15. Measurement quality objectives for microcystin.
Parameter
Units
Method Detection Limit
Objective
Reporting Limit Objective
Microcystins, undiluted samples
with salinities <3.5 part per
thousand (ppt)
Hg/L
0.1
0.15
Microcystins, undiluted samples
with salinity greater than or
equal to 3.5 ppt
Hg/L
0.175
0.263
Microcystins, diluted samples
with salinities <3.5 ppt
Hg/L
0.1 times the dilution
factor
Will vary
Microcystins, diluted samples
with salinity greater than or
equal to 3.5 ppt
Hg/L
1.75 times the dilution
factor
Will vary
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 81 of 101
5.5.4.2 Laboratory Quality Control Requirements
Quality control requirements for microcystin samples are listed in Table 5-16. Sample receipt and other
processing requirements are listed in Table 5-17.
Table 5-16. Required quality control activities for microcystin samples.
Quality Control Description and Requirements Corrective Action
Activity
Kit-Shelf Life
Is within its expiration date listed on kit box.
If kit has expired, then discard or clearly
label as expired and set aside for training
activities.
Kit - Contents
All required contents must be present and in
acceptable condition. This is important
because Abraxis has calibrated the standards
and reagents separately for each kit.
If any bottles are missing or damaged,
discard the kit.
Calibration
All of the following must be met:
Standard curve must have a correlation
coefficient of >0.99;
Average absorbance value, A0, for SO must be
>0.80; and
Standards S0-S5 must have decreasing
average absorbance values. That is, if A, is the
average of the absorbance values for Si, then
the absorbance average values must be: A0>
Ai > A2 > A3 > A4 >As
If any requirement fails:
Results from the analytical run are not
reported.
All samples in the analytical run are
reanalyzed until calibration provides
acceptable results.
Kit Control
The average concentration value of the
duplicates (or triplicate) must be within the
range of 0.75 +/- 0.185 ng/L. That is, the
average must be between 0.565 ng/L and
0.935 ng/L.
If either requirement fails:
Results from the analytical run are not
reported
The lab evaluates its processes, and if
appropriate, modifies its processes to
Correct possible contamination or other
problems.
The lab reanalyzes all samples in the
analytical run until the controls meet the
requirements. At its discretion, the lab
may consult with EPA for guidance on
persistent difficulties with calibration.
Negative Control
The values for the negative control replicates
must meet the following requirements:
All concentration values must be < 0.15 ng/L
(i.e., the reporting limit; and
one or more concentration results must be
nondetectable (i.e., <0.10 ng/L)
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 82 of 101
Quality Control Description and Requirements Corrective Action
Activity
Sample Evaluations
All samples are run in duplicate. Each
duplicate pair must have %CV <15% between
its absorbance values.
If %CV of the absorbances for the sample
>15%, then:
Record the results for both duplicates
using different start dates and/or start
times to distinguish between the runs.
Report the data for both duplicate results
using the Quality Control Failure flag
"QCF"; and re-analyze the sample in a new
analytical run. No samples are to be run
more than twice.
If the second run passes, then the data
analyst will exclude the data from the first
run (which will have been flagged with
"QCF"). If both runs fail, the data analyst
will determine if either value should be
used in the analysis (e.g., it might be
acceptable to use data if the CV is just
slightly over 15%).
Results Within
Calibration Range
All samples are run in duplicate. If both of the
values are less than the upper calibration
range (i.e., < 5.0 ng/Lfor undiluted samples
with salinity <3.5 ppt; < 8.75 ng/Lfor
undiluted samples with salinity >3.5 ppt), then
the requirement is met.
If a result registers as 'HIGH', then record
the result with a data flag of "HI." If one or
both duplicates register as 'HIGH,' then the
sample must be diluted and re-run until
both results are within the calibration
range. No samples are to be run more than
twice. The lab reports both the original and
diluted sample results.
External Quality
Control Sample
External QC Coordinator, supported by QC
contractor, provides 1-2 sets of identical
samples to all laboratories and compares
results.
Based upon the evaluation, the External
QC Coordinator may request additional
information from one or more laboratories
about any deviations from the Method or
unique laboratory practices that might
account for differences between the
laboratory and others. With this additional
information, the External QC Coordinator
will determine an appropriate course of
action, including no action, flagging the
data, or excluding some or all of the
laboratory's data.
Table 5-17. Sample receipt and processing quality control for microcystin.
Quality
Control
Activity
Description and Requirements
Corrective Action
Sample Log-
in
Upon receipt of a sample shipment, record receipt of
samples in the NARS IM system (within 24 clock hours)
and the laboratory's Information Management System
(LIMS).
Discrepancies, damaged, or missing
samples are reported to the EPA HQs
Laboratory QA Coordinator
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 83 of 101
Sample
condition
upon receipt
Sample issues such as cracked container; missing label;
temperature (frozen); adherence to holding time
requirements; sufficient volume for test.
Qualify samples
Sample
Storage
Store sample frozen
Qualify samples
Holding time
Frozen samples can be stored up to 90 days from
collection.
Qualify samples
5.5.5 Data Management, Review, and Validation
Checks made of the data in the process of review and verification are summarized in Table 5-18. Data
reporting units and significant figures are given in Table 5-19. The Project Lead is ultimately responsible
for ensuring the validity of the data, although performance of the specific checks may be delegated to
other staff members.
Table 5-18. Data validation quality control microcystin.
Activity or Procedure
Requirements and Corrective Action
Range checks, summary statistics, and/or exploratory
data analysis (e.g., box and whisker plots)
Correct reporting errors or qualify as suspect or invalid.
Review holding times
Qualify value for additional review
Review data from QA samples (laboratory PE
samples, and interlaboratory comparison samples)
Determine impact and possible limitations on overall
usability of data
Table 5-19. Data reporting criteria for microcystin.
Measu rement
Units
No. Significant
Maximum No. Decimal Places
Figures
Microcystin
ug/L
3
3
5.6 Physical Alteration
5.6.1 Introduction
Physical alteration data will be collected in the Assessment Area and at twelve-100-m2 Buffer Plots
systematically placed on cardinal transects (three in each direction) to characterize human disturbance
to the wetland. Buffer is often defined as an area of natural vegetation surrounding the perimeter of a
wetland that is not directly affected by human activities and thus can provided some level of protection
to the wetland from stressors and neighboring land uses. Human caused stressors affect wetland
hydrology by draining the site, impounding water, compacting soils, and filling or eroding the wetland.
Alteration of vegetation through replacement and removal can also affect hydrology. Buffer data has
proven useful for describing anthropogenic stress in developing indicators of ecological integrity or
condition (USEPA 2006b, USEPA 2013, Kaufmann et al 2014).
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 84 of 101
5.6.2 Sampling Design and Methods
This indicator is based on field measurements and observations, so there is no sample collection
associated with it. Descriptions of the field measurements and procedures for completing the protocols
are described in the NWCA 2021 Field Operations Manual.
5.6.3 Quality Control Procedures: Field Operations
Control measures to minimize measurement error among crews and sites include the use of
standardized field protocols, consistent training of all crews, field assistance visits to all crews, and
availability of experienced technical personnel during the field season to respond to site-specific
questions from field crews as they arise.
5.6.4 Data Management, Review, and Validation
The Field Crew Leader is responsible for the validity of all field-generated data (i.e. measurement and
observation data) up to the point it is sent to EPA ORD/Corvallis. Once data have been delivered to EPA,
DQ procedures (as detailed in section 1) will be followed to ensure the validity of data in storage,
analysis, reporting and archiving. All raw data (including all standardized forms and logbooks) are
retained permanently in an organized fashion in accordance with EPA records management policies.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 85 of 101
6 FIELD AND LABORATORY QUALITY EVALUATION AND ASSISTANCE
VISITS
6.1 National Wetland Condition Assessment Field Quality Evaluation and
Assistance Visit Plan
EPA, contractor and other qualified staff will conduct evaluation and assistance visits with each field
crew early in the sampling and data collection process, if possible, and corrective actions will be
conducted in real time. These visits provide both a quality check for the uniform evaluation of the data
collection methods and an opportunity to conduct procedural reviews, as required, minimizing data loss
due to improper technique or interpretation of field procedures and guidance. Through uniform training
of field crews and review cycles conducted early in the data collection process, sampling variability
associated with specific implementation or interpretation of the protocols will be significantly reduced.
The visit also provides the field crews with an opportunity to clarify procedures and offer suggestions for
future improvements based on their sampling experience preceding the visit. The field evaluations,
while performed by a number of different supporting collaborator agencies and participants, will be
based on the uniform training, plans, and checklists. The field evaluations will be based on the
evaluation plan and field evaluation checklist. EPA has scheduled this review and assistance task for
each unique field crew collecting and contributing data under this program. If unforeseen events
prevent the EPA from evaluating every crew, the NWCA Quality Assurance Coordinator (QAC) will rely
on the data review and validation process to identify unacceptable data that will not be included in the
final database. If inconsistencies cannot be resolved, the QAC may contact the Field Crew Leader for
clarification.
One or more designated EPA, contractor or other staff who are qualified (i.e. have completed training)
in the procedures of the NWCA 2021 field sampling operations will visit trained state, contractor, federal
agency and EPA field sampling crews during sampling operations on site. If membership of a field crew
changes, and at least two of the members have not been evaluated previously, the field crew must be
evaluated again during sampling operations as soon as possible to ensure that all members of the field
crew understand and can perform the procedures. If a deviation is needed from the process described
here, the staff member conducting the assistance visit (AV) must contact the Assistance Visit
Coordinator who will contact the NWCA Project Manager and the NWCA Project QA Coordinator to
determine an acceptable course of action.
The purpose of this on-site visit will be to identify and correct deficiencies during field sampling
operations. The process will involve preparation activities, field day activities and post field day activities
as described in the following sections. Additionally, conference calls with crews may be held
approximately every two weeks to discuss issues as they come up throughout the sampling season.
6.1.1 Preparation Activities
• Each Field Crew Evaluator will schedule an assistance visit with their designated crews in
consultation with the Contractor Field Logistics Coordinator, Regional NWCA Coordinator, and
respective Field Sampling Crew Leader. Ideally, each Field Crew will be evaluated within the first
two weeks of beginning sampling operations, so that procedures can be corrected, or additional
training provided, if needed.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 86 of 101
• Each Evaluator is responsible for providing their own field gear sufficient to accompany the Field
Sampling Crews during a complete sampling cycle. Schedule of the Field visits will be made by
the Evaluator in consultation with the respective Field Crew Leader. Evaluators should be
prepared to spend additional time in the field if needed (see below).
• Each Field Crew Evaluator will ensure that field crews are aware of their visit plans and all
capacity and safety equipment will be provided for the Field Crew Evaluator.
• Each Field Crew Evaluator will need to bring the items listed in Table 6-1.
Table 6-1. Equipment and Supplies - Field Evaluation and Assistance Visits
Type
Item
Quantity
Assistance Visit
Checklist
Assistance Visit Manual
1
Documentation
NWCA2021 Field Operations Manuals
NWCA 2021 Quality Assurance Project Plan
Clipboard
Pencils/Pens (for paper data forms) or iPad (for electronic versions)
Field notebook (optional)
1
1
1
1
1
Gear
Field gear (e.g., protective clothing, sunscreen, insect repellent, hat, water,
food, backpack, cell phone)
As
needed
6.1.2 Field Day Activities
• The Field Crew Evaluator will review the Field Evaluation & Assistance Visit Checklist with each
crew during the field sampling day and establish and plan and schedule for their evaluation
activities for the day.
• The Field Crew Evaluator will view the performance of a field crew through one complete set of
sampling activities as detailed on the checklist.
• Scheduling might necessitate starting the evaluation midway on the list of tasks at a site, instead
of at the beginning. In that case, the Field Crew Evaluator will follow the crew to the next site to
complete the evaluation of the first activities on the list.
• If the field crew misses or incorrectly performs a procedure, the Field Crew Evaluator will note
this on the checklist and immediately point this out so the mistake can be corrected on the spot.
The role of the Field Crew Evaluator is to provide additional training and guidance so that the
procedures are being performed consistent with the FOM, all data are recorded correctly, and
paperwork is properly completed at the site.
• When the sampling operation has been completed, the Field Crew Evaluator will review the
results of the evaluation with the field crew before leaving the site (if practicable), noting
positive practices and problems (i.e., weaknesses [might affect data quality]; deficiencies [would
adversely affect data quality]). The Field Crew Evaluator will ensure that the field crew
understands the findings and will be able to perform the procedures properly in the future.
• The Field Crew Evaluator will review the list and record responses or concerns from the field
crew, if any; on the checklist (this may happen throughout the field day).
• The Field Crew Leader will sign the checklist after this review.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 87 of 101
6.1.3 Post Field Day Activities
• The Field Crew Evaluator will review the checklist that evening and provide a summary of
findings, including lessons learned and concerns.
• If the Field Crew Evaluator finds major deficiencies in the field crew operations (e.g., less than
two members, equipment, or performance problems) the Field Crew Evaluator must contact the
EPA NWCA Project QA Coordinator. The EPA NWCA Project QA Coordinator will work with the
EPA NWCA Program Manager to determine the appropriate course of action. Data records from
sampling sites previously visited by this Field Crew will be checked to determine whether any
sampling sites must be redone.
• The Field Crew Evaluator will retain a copy of the checklist and submit to the EPA Logistics
Coordinator either via Fed-Ex or electronically.
• The EPA Logistics Coordinator and the NWCA Project QA Coordinator or authorized designee
(member of the NWCA 2021 quality team) will review the returned Field Evaluation and
Assistance Visit Checklist, note any issues, and check off the completion of the evaluation for
each field crew.
6.1.4 Summary
Table 6-2 summarizes the plan, checklist, and corrective action procedures.
Table 6-2. Summary of Field Evaluation and Assistance Visit Information
Field The Field Crew Evaluator:
Evaluation • Arranges the field evaluation visit in consultation with the Project QA Coordinator, Regional
Plan NWCA Coordinator, and respective Field Sampling Crew Leader, ideally within the first two
weeks of sampling
• Observes the performance of a crew through one complete set of sampling activities
• Takes note of errors the field crew makes on the checklist and immediately point these out to
correct the mistake
• Reviews the results of the evaluation with the field crew before leaving the site, noting positive
practices, lessons learned, and concern
le Field Crew Evaluator:
Observes all pre-sampling activities and verifies that equipment is properly calibrated and in
good working order, and protocols are followed
Checks the sample containers to verify that they are the correct type and size, and checks the
labels to be sure they are correctly and completely filled out
Confirms that the field crew has followed NWCA protocols for locating the POINT
Observes the Assessment Area and buffer characterization sampling, confirming that all
protocols are followed
Records responses or concerns, if any, on the Field Evaluation and Assistance Checklist
If the Field Crew Evaluator's findings indicate that the Field Crew is not performing the
procedures correctly, safely, or thoroughly, the Evaluator must continue working with this Field
Crew until certain of the crew's ability to conduct the sampling properly so that data quality is
not adversely affected.
If the Field Crew Evaluator finds major deficiencies in the Field Crew operations the Evaluator
must contact the EPA NWCA Project QA Coordinator.
Field Th
Evaluation •
Checklist
Corrective
Action
Procedures
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 88 of 101
6.2 National Wetland Condition Assessment Laboratory Quality Evaluation and
Assistance Visit Plan
As part of the NWCA 2021, field samples will be collected at each assessment site. These samples will be
sent to laboratories cooperating in the assessment. To ensure quality, each Project Cooperator
laboratory analyzing samples from the NWCA 2021 will receive an evaluation from an NWCA Lab
Evaluator. All Project Cooperator laboratories will follow these guidelines.
No national program of accreditation for laboratory processing for many of our indicators currently
exists. For this reason, a rigorous program of laboratory evaluation has been developed to support the
NWCA 2021.
Given the large number of laboratories participating in the NWCA 2021, it is not feasible to perform an
assistance visit3 (AV) on each of these laboratories. An AV would include an on-site visit to the
laboratory lasting at least a day. As a result, the EPA Headquarters Project Management Team will
conduct remote review of laboratory certifications and accreditations of all laboratories. If issues arise
from the remote review or inter-laboratory comparison that cannot be resolved remotely, the EPA QA
Team and/or contractors will perform an on-site visit to the laboratory. This process is in keeping with
EPA's Policy to Assure Competency of Laboratories, Field Sampling, and Other Organizations Generating
Environmental Measurement Data under Agency-Funded Acquisitions.
6.2.1 Remote Evaluation/Technical Assessment
A remote evaluation procedure has been developed for performing assessment of all laboratories
participating in the NWCA 2021.
The Laboratory Review Coordinator, the NWCA Project QA Coordinator and other members of the
NWCA QA Team will conduct laboratory evaluation prior to data analysis to ensure that the laboratories
are qualified and that techniques are implemented consistently across the multiple laboratories
generating data for the program. The EPA National Aquatic Resource Surveys team has developed
laboratory evaluation plans to ensure uniform interpretation and guidance in the procedural reviews.
The NWCA QA Team is using a procedure that requests the laboratory to provide documentation of its
policies and procedures. For the NWCA 2021 project, the QA Team is requesting that each participating
laboratory provide the following documentation:
• The laboratory's Quality Manual, Quality Management Plan or similar document.
• Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for each analysis to be performed.
• Long term Method Detection Limits (MDLs) for each instrument used and demonstration of
capability for each analysis to be performed.
• A list of the laboratory's accreditations and certifications, if any.
• Results from Proficiency Tests for each analyte to be analyzed under the NWCA 2021 project.
3 The evaluation of the labs is being considered an Assistance Visit rather than an audit because the evaluation is
designed to provide guidance to the labs rather than "inspection" as in a traditional audit.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 89 of 101
If a laboratory has clearly documented procedures for sample receiving, storage, preservation,
preparation, analysis, and data reporting; has successfully analyzed Proficiency Test samples (if required
by EPA, EPA will provide the PT samples); has a Quality Manual that thoroughly addresses laboratory
quality including standard and sample preparation, record keeping and QA non-conformance;
participates in a nationally recognized or state certification program; and has demonstrated ability to
perform the testing for which program/project the audit is intended, then the length of an on-site visit
will be minimum, if not waived entirely. The QA Team will make a final decision on the need for an
actual on-site visit after the review and evaluation of the documentation requested.
If a laboratory meets or exceeds all of the major requirements and is deficient in an area that can be
corrected remotely by the lab, suggestions will be offered and the laboratory will be given an
opportunity to correct the issue. The QA Team will then verify the correction of the deficiency remotely.
The on-site visit by EPA and/or a contractor should only be necessary if the laboratory fails to meet the
major requirements and is in need of help or fails to produce the requested documentation.
In addition, all laboratories must sign a Laboratory Signature Form (see NWCA 2021 LOM) indicating that
they will abide by the following:
• Utilize procedures identified in the NWCA 2021 Laboratory Operations Manual (or equivalent). If
using equivalent procedures, please provide procedures manual to demonstrate ability to meet
the required MQOs.
• Read and abide by the NWCA 2021 Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) and related Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs).
• Have an organized IT system in place for recording sample tracking and analysis data.
• Provide data using the template provided in the Laboratory Operations Manual.
• Provide data results in a timely manner. This will vary with the type of analysis and the number
of samples to be processed. Sample data must be received no later than March 30, 2022 or as
otherwise negotiated with EPA.
• Participate in a lab technical assessment or audit if requested by EPA NWCA QA Team staff (this
may be a conference call or on-site audit).
If a laboratory is participating in biology analyses, they must, in addition, abide by the following:
• Use taxonomic standards outlined in the NWCA 2021 Laboratory Manual.
Note: All laboratories must also sign the approved NWCA 2021 QAPP.
6.2.2 Water Chemistry Laboratories
The water chemistry laboratory approval process which is outlined on in the previous paragraphs of this
section is deemed appropriate because many laboratories participate in one or more national laboratory
accreditation programs such as the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP),
International Organization for Standardization (ISO-17025) as well as various state certification
programs which include strict requirements around documentation and procedures as well as site visits
by the accrediting authority. It is built off the processes used by the NLA 2012, NRSA 2013/14, and NCCA
2015. The laboratories participating in NWCA 2021 meet these qualifications and as such have
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 90 of 101
demonstrated their ability to function independently. This process is one that has been utilized in Region
3 for many years and is designed around the national accrediting programs listed above.
6.2.3 Assistance Visits
Assistance Visits will be used to:
• Confirm the NWCA 2021 Laboratory Operations Manual (LOM) methods are being properly
implemented by cooperator laboratories.
• Assist with questions from laboratory personnel.
• Suggest corrections if any errors are made in implementing the lab methods.
Evaluation of the laboratories will take the form of administration of checklists which have been
developed from the LOM to ensure that laboratories are following the methods and protocols outlined
therein. The checklist will be administered on-site by a qualified EPA scientist or contractor.
See sections 6.2.4 and 6.2.5 and the Laboratory Operations Manual for copies of the Document Request
form used for the biological laboratories and chemical laboratories.
6.2.4 NWCA 2021 Document Request Form - Chemistry Laboratories
EPA and its state and tribal partners will conduct a survey of the nation's wetlands. This National
Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA), is designed to provide statistically valid regional and national
estimates of the condition of wetlands. Consistent sampling and analytical procedures ensure that the
results can be compared across the country. As part of the NWCA 2021, the Quality Assurance Team will
conduct a technical assessment to verify quality control practices in your laboratory and its ability to
perform chemistry analyses under this project. Our review will assess your laboratory's ability to receive,
store, prepare, analyze, and report sample data generated under EPA's NWCA 2021.
The first step of this assessment process will involve the review of your laboratory's certification and/or
documentation. Subsequent actions may include (if needed) reconciliation exercises and/or a site visit.
All laboratories will need to complete the following forms:
If your lab has been previously approved within the last 5 years for the specific parameters:
• A signature on the attached Laboratory Signature Form indicates that your laboratory will follow
the quality assurance protocols required for chemistry laboratories conducting analyses for the
NWCA 2021. A signature on the QAPP and the LOM Signature Form indicates that you will follow
both the QAPP and the LOM.
If you have not been approved within the last 5 years for the specific parameters in order for us to
determine your ability to participate as a laboratory in the NWCA, we are requesting that you submit
the following documents (if available) for review:
• Documentation of a successful quality assurance audit from a prior National Aquatic Resource
Survey (NARS) that occurred within the last 5 years (if you need assistance with this please
contact the individual listed below).
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 91 of 101
• Documentation showing participation in a previous NARS for Water Chemistry for the same
parameters/methods.
Additionally, we request that all laboratories provide the following information in support of your
capabilities, (these materials are required if neither of the two items above are provided):
• A copy of your Laboratory's accreditations and certifications if applicable (i.e. NELAC, ISO, state
certifications, North American Benthological Society (NABS), etc.).
• An updated copy of your Laboratory's QAPP.
• Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for your laboratory for each analysis to be performed (if
not covered in NWCA 2021 LOM).
• Documentation attesting to experience running all analytes for the NWCA 2021, including
chlorophyll a.
This documentation may be submitted electronically via e-mail to forde.kendra@epa.gov. Questions
concerning this request can be submitted forde.kendra@epa.gov (202-566-0417).
6.2.5 NWCA 2021 Vegetation Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluation Form
The National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) is designed to provide statistically valid regional
and national estimates of the condition of wetlands in the 48 conterminous states of the U.S. Plant
samples collected in the field are sent to a designated laboratory/herbarium for identification using
standard laboratory protocols outlined in the NWCA 2021 Laboratory Operations Manual (LOM).
As specified in the NWCA Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), an NWCA Evaluator will evaluate each
laboratory/herbarium to ensure the NWCA data quality objectives are satisfied. Each
laboratory/herbarium must participate in an evaluation and sign the laboratory signature form and
acknowledgement and commitment to implement page of the QAPP to satisfy the terms of the NWCA
QAPP.
It is essential that each laboratory/herbarium accurately implement standardized protocols for
vegetation identification and storage to ensure comparability of data among NWCA sites and minimize
data loss that could result from damaged or degraded specimens, errors in data recording, sample
processing, data storage, plant identification, or misinterpretation of guidance for laboratory operations.
These quality assurance evaluations are designed to:
1. Confirm the 2021 NWCA Laboratory Operations Manual (LOM) protocols are implemented
as intended.
2. Assist with questions the laboratory/herbarium may have.
3. Suggest corrections if any errors have been made by a laboratory/herbarium in
implementing methods described in the LOM.
This evaluation will include a discussion of the attached checklist between the NWCA Evaluator and the
laboratory/herbarium over the phone rather than an actual laboratory visit. The checklist includes
descriptions of sample handling and other requirements to which each laboratory/herbarium must
comply. The discussions will be scheduled with Kendra Forde (EPA Laboratory Review Coordinator,
forde.kendra@epa.gov).
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 92 of 101
Background: For all NWCA field work, whenever the identity of a species cannot be confirmed in the
field, a sample is collected for later identification in the office by the field botanist/ecologist or by
another botanist at a designated laboratory/herbarium. All unknown species located in one of five
Vegetation Plots arrayed across a site's Assessment Area that are mature and have key structures
needed for identification are collected (unknown species voucher). Unknown species that are immature
or senescent comprising more than 5% cover are also collected. The field botanist/ecologist will ship
unknown samples they cannot identify to the botanist (also called plant ID specialist or taxonomist in
NWCA) at the laboratory/herbarium for initial identification.
In addition to all unknown specimens, field crews collect five known plant voucher samples (randomly
selected from species identified by the Vegetation Team) for quality assurance (NWCA 2021 QAPP).
These QA vouchers are sent to a QA "verifying botanist" for re-identification/verification. Collecting
voucher specimens of known species both provides a quality assurance check on species identity data,
and a permanent record of the occurrence of a species at a given location.
The QA verifying botanist is responsible for re-identification/verification of the QA vouchers as well as a
random selection of 10% of the unknown specimens that were initially determined by the "identifying
botanist" at the laboratory/herbarium.
If the unknown species specimens and QA voucher samples are planned to be sent to the same
institution, it is important that all quality assurance activities be completed by a taxonomist that did not
participate in the identification of unknown specimens.
All laboratory methods and quality assurance requirements are fully described in the NWCA 2021 LOM
and QAPP.
For the purposes of the Vegetation Laboratory Quality Assurance Evaluations, the Vegetation Checklist
will focus on the lab's competence to receive and properly store specimens and to track and manage the
plant taxa data.
Definitions:
Voucher Sample - A pressed and dried plant sample, ideally comprised of leaves, stems, flowers, fruits
and roots. An integral component of each voucher sample is written data describing the location, date
of collection, habitat, plant habit, characteristic features and other information. Vouchers provide
physical evidence that confirms the presence of plant species at specific locations.
Identifying Botanist - The person identifying and processing unknown samples. This could be a field
botanist/ecologist; university, state, national or regional herbarium botanist; or an EPA contractor that
has qualifying credentials in plant taxonomy. The identifying botanist is responsible for ensuring all plant
identification and processing tasks outlined in the LOM are completed. In some cases, this may require
the identifying botanist to identify partners to assist with the work.
QA Verifying Botanist - The person re-identifying and verifying QA voucher identifications and a 10%
subset of unknown species identifications by the laboratory/herbarium. This could be a botanist,
ecologist, taxonomist, and/or plant ID specialist that is an expert in the identification of wetland plants.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 93 of 101
The verifying botanist agrees to use the NWCA prescribed methods, as described in chapter 4 of the
LOM, to ensure that all QA vouchers are correctly verified.
Laboratory/herbarium - represents the person or entity identifying and processing unknown samples.
This could be a field Botanist/Ecologist, state identified herbarium, EPA identified regional herbarium, or
National EPA Contractor. The Laboratory/herbarium is responsible for ensuring all plant identification
and processing tasks outlined in NWCA manuals (LOM and QAPP) are completed. In some cases, this
may require identifying partners to assist with the work.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 94 of 101
7 DATA ANALYSIS PLAN
The Data Analysis Plan describes the general process used to analyze the data for the survey. It outlines
the steps taken to assess the condition of the nation's wetlands and identify the relative impact of
stressors on this condition. Results from the analysis are included in the final report and used in future
analysis. The data analysis plan may be refined and clarified as the data are analyzed by EPA and states.
7.1 Data Interpretation Background
The basic intent of data interpretation is to evaluate the occurrence and distribution of parameters
throughout the population of wetlands in the United States within the context of regionally relevant
expectations for least disturbed reference conditions. This is presented using a cumulative distribution
function or similar graphic. For most indicators the analysis will also categorize the condition of the
wetland as good, fair, or poor. Because of the large-scale and multijurisdictional nature of this effort, the
key issues for data interpretation are unique and include: the scale of assessment, selecting the best
indicators, defining the least impacted reference conditions, and determining thresholds for judging
condition.
7.1.1 Scale of assessment
This is the third national report on the ecological condition of the nation's wetlands using comparable
methods. EPA selected the sampling locations for the survey using a probability based design, and
developed rules for selection to meet certain distribution criteria, while ensuring that the design yielded
a set of wetlands that would provide for statistically valid conclusions about the condition of the
population of wetlands across the nation. A challenge that this mosaic of sites poses is developing a data
analysis plan that allows EPA and other partners to interpret data and present results at a large,
aggregate scale.
7.1.2 Selecting the best indicators
Indicators should be applicable across all reporting units, and must be able to differentiate a range of
conditions. Indicators for the 2021 survey are the same as those used in the previous NWCA in 2011 and
2016 apart from the physical alteration indicator, which is a revision to the buffer indicator used in prior
surveys.
7.1.3 Defining least impacted reference condition
Reference condition data are necessary to describe expectations for biological conditions under least
disturbed setting. The NWCA 2021 project team expect to use an approach similar to that used in
previous NWCA (Herlihy et al, 2019).
7.1.4 Determining thresholds for judging condition
This reference site approach is used to set expectations and benchmarks for interpreting the data on
wetland condition. The range of conditions found in the reference sites for an ecoregion describes a
distribution of those biological or stressor values expected for least disturbed condition. The
benchmarks used to define distinct condition classes or stressor classes (e.g., good, fair, poor / low,
moderate, high) are drawn from this reference distribution. EPA's approach is to examine the range of
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 95 of 101
values for biological condition or a stressor indicator in all of the reference sites in a region, and to use
the 5th percentile of the reference distribution for that indicator to separate the most disturbed of all
sites from moderately disturbed sites. Using the 5th percentile means that wetlands in the most
disturbed category are worse than 95% of the best sites used to define reference condition. Similarly,
the 25th percentile of the reference distribution can be used to distinguish between moderately
disturbed sites and those in least disturbed condition. This means that wetlands reported as least
disturbed are as good as 75% of the sites used to define reference condition.
7.2 Geospatial Data
Geospatial data is an integral part of the data analysis for the NWCA 2021, as it has been for all other
surveys. Anticipated activities utilizing geospatial data include review of coordinate data on sampling
locations, compilation of attribute data (e.g., watershed information, protected area status) based on
the location of sites, and computing landscape metrics (e.g., land cover, climate, pollutant loads).
7.3 Datasets Utilized for the Report
The datasets available for use in the report will be developed based on the data collected during NWCA
2021, and data from previous NWCA for use in change analysis, reference condition development, and
other analytical purposes as needed. Other data (e.g. taxonomic trait information, geospatial
information) may be added when appropriate.
The survey will use indicators to assess ecological integrity and the extent of stressors impacting
integrity.
7.3.1 Ecological integrity
Ecological integrity describes the ecological condition of a wetland based on different assemblages of
the vegetative community, soil characteristics, presence of appropriate hydrology and their physical
habitat. The indicators include vegetation, soils, hydrology, and water chemistry.
7.3.2 Stressor Status / Extent
Stressor indicators describe the extent of key parameters impacting the condition of wetlands as well as
the relative risk and attributable risk associated with stressors. The indicators include vegetation, soils,
hydrology, water chemistry, and physical alterations.
7.4 Vegetation Data Analysis
Vegetation data will be analyzed using multimetric indices (MMI). The MMI approach summarizes
various assemblage attributes, such as composition, tolerance to disturbance, trophic and habitat
preferences, as individual metrics or measures of the biological community. Candidate metrics are
evaluated for aspects of performance and a subset of the best performing metrics are combined into an
index known as a Vegetation MMI. This index is then used to rank the condition of the resource (Magee
et al, 2019a,b).
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 96 of 101
7.5 Soils, Hydrology, Water Chemistry, and Physical Alteration Data Analysis
A wide array of soil, water, and physical alteration parameters will be measured, including a mix of field
and lab-derived values. Results from an analysis of soil morphological properties, soil chemistry, water
chemistry (including chlorophyll-o and microcystin concentrations), and physical alteration will feed into
an assessment framework to estimate the extent of key stressors and the relative risks that stressors
pose to wetland condition.
EPA will develop a set of regional stressor profiles which are qualitative characterizations of the general
types of human-caused stressors that affect wetlands within a broadly defined landscape. The analytical
process of grouping stressors into a profile takes into account the dominant land use and climatic
conditions surrounding the surveyed population of wetlands.
7.6 Relative Extent, Relative Risk, and Attributable Risk Evaluation
Each targeted reference site and survey site will be classified as being in either "Good", "Fair", or "Poor"
condition, separately for each stressor variable and for each MMI (response variable). From this data, an
estimate will be made of the relative extent (prevalence) of wetlands in "Poor" condition for a specified
stressor and the MMI.
The relative risk (RR) of each stressor for a biological response will also be estimated. RR measures the
severity of a stressor's effect on that response in an individual wetland assessment area, when that
stressor is in Poor condition (Van Sickle, et al. 2006).
Finally, the population attributable risk (AR) of each stressor for a biological response will be estimated.
AR combines RR and relative extent into a single measure of the overall impact of a stressor on a
biological response, over the entire wetland resource (Van Sickle and Paulsen 2008).
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 97 of 101
8 REFERENCES
Adamus, P. R., and K. Brandt. 1990. Impacts on quality of Inland Wetlands of the United States: A survey
of indicators, techniques, and applications of community level biomonitoring data. EPA/600/3-90/073,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Baker, J.R. and G.D. Merritt, 1990. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program: Guidelines for
Preparing Logistics Plans. EPA 600/4-91-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Las Vegas, Nevada.
Bourdaghs, M., C. A. Johnston, and R. R. Regal. 2006. Properties and performance of the floristic quality
index in Great Lakes coastal wetlands. Wetlands 26:718-735.
Dahl, T.E. 2011. Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009., U.S.
Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Dahl, T.E. 2014. Status and trends of prairie wetlands in the United States 1997 to 2009. U.S.
Department of the Interior; Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Dahl, T.E. and M.T. Bergeson. 2009. Technical procedures for conducting status and trends of the
Nation's wetlands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation,
Washington, D.C.
Dahl, T.E. and S.M. Stedman. 2013. Status and trends of wetlands in coastal watersheds of the
Conterminous United States 2004 to 2009. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marines Fisheries Service, Washington,
D.C.
Diaz-Ramos, S., D. L. Stevens, Jr., and A. R. Olsen. 1996. EMAP Statistical Methods Manual. EPA/620/R-
96/002, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL-Western
Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon.
Garner, F.C., M.A. Stapanian, and K.E. Fitzgerald. 1991. Finding causes of outliers in multivariate
environmental data. Journal of Chemometrics. 5: 241-248.
Glaser, J.A., D.L. Foerst, G.D. McKee, S.A. Quave, and W.L. Budde. 1981. Trace analyses of waste-waters.
Environmental Science & Technology. 15: 1426-1435.
Heinz Center. 2002. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems. The Cambridge University Press.
Herlihy, A.T., Kentula, M.E., Magee, T.K. et al. 2019. Striving for consistency in the National Wetland
Condition Assessment: developing a reference condition approach for assessing wetlands at a
continental scale. Environ Monit Assess 191, 327.
Hunt, D.T.E and A.L. Wilson. 1986. The chemical analysis of water: general principles and techniques.
2nd edition. Royal Society of Chemistry, London, England.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 98 of 101
Kaufmann, P.R., D.V. Peck, S.G. Paulsen, C.W. Seeliger, R.M. Hughes, T.R. Whitier, and N.C. Kamman.
2014. Lakeshore and littoral physical habitat structure in a national lakes assessment. Lake and Reservoir
Management 30:192-215.
Kaufmann, P. R., P. Levine, E. G. Robison, C. Seeliger, and D. V. Peck. 1999. Quantifying physical habitat
in wadeable streams. EPA 620/R-99/003, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Kirchmer, C.J. 1983. Quality control in water analysis. Environmental Science & Technology. 17: 174A-
181A.
Lane, C.R. and M.T. Brown. 2007. Diatoms as indicators of isolated herbaceous wetland condition in
Florida, USA. Ecological Indicators. 7:521-540.
Larsen, D. P., N. S. Urquhart, and D. L. Kugler. 1995. Regional-scale trend monitoring of indicators of
trophic condition of lakes. Water Resources Bulletin 31:117-139.
Larsen, D. P., T. M. Kincaid, S. E. Jacobs, and N. S. Urquhart. 2001. Designs for evaluating local and
regional scale trends. Bioscience 51:1069-1078.
Larsen, D. P., P. R. Kaufmann, T. M. Kincaid, and N. S. Urquhart. 2004. Detecting persistent change in the
habitat of salmon-bearing streams in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic
Sciences 61:283-291.
Mack, J. J., and M. E. Kentula. 2010. Metric similarity in vegetation-based wetland assessment methods.
EPA/600/R-10/140. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Health and Environmental Effects
Laboratory, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, OR.
Magee, T. K., and M. E. Kentula. 2005. Response of wetland plant species to hydrologic conditions.
Wetland Ecology and Management 13:163-181.
Magee, T.K., P. Ringold, and M. Bollman. 2008. Alien species importance in native vegetation along
wadeable streams, John Day River basin, Oregon, USA. Plant Ecology 195:287-307.
Magee, T.K., P.L. Ringold, M.A. Bollman, and T.L. Ernst. 2010. Index of Alien Impact: a method for
evaluating potential ecological impact of alien plant species. Environmental Management 45:759-778.
Magee, T.K., Blocksom, K.A. & Fennessy, M.S. 2019a. A national-scale vegetation multimetric index
(VMMI) as an indicator of wetland condition across the conterminous United States. Environ Monit
Assess 191, 322.
Magee, T.K., Blocksom, K.A., Herlihy, A.T. et al. 2019b. Characterizing nonnative plants in wetlands
across the conterminous United States. Environ Monit Assess 191, 344.
Meglen, R.R. 1985. A quality control protocol for the analytical laboratory. Pp. 250-270 IN: J.J. Breen and
P.E. Robinson (eds). Environmental Applications of Cehmometrics. ACS Symposium Series 292. American
Chemical Society, Washington, D.C.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 99 of 101
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 2007. Wetlands / William J. Mitsch, James G. Gosselink. Hoboken, N.J. :
John Wiley & Sons, c2007.
National Academy of Public Administration. 2002. Environment.gov: Transforming Environmental
Protection for the 21st Century. National Academy of Public Administration. ISBN: 1-57744-083-8. p. 219.
National Research Council. 2000. Ecological Indicators for the Nation. The National Academies Press,
Oblinger Childress, C.J., Foreman, W.T., Connor, B.F. and T.J. Maloney. 1999. New reporting procedures
based on long-term method detection levels and some considerations for interpretations of water-
quality data provided by the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality Laboratory. U.S.G.S Open-
File Report 99-193, Reston, Virginia.
Overton, W.S., White, D., and Stevens, D.L. Jr. 1991. Design report for EMAP, the Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program. EPA/600/3- 91/053, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C.
Paulsen, S.G., D.P. Larsen, P.R. Kaufmann, T.R. Whittier, J.R. Baker, D. Peck, J. McGue, R.M. Hughes, D.
McMullen, D. Stevens, J.L. Stoddard, J. Lazorchak, W. Kinney, A.R. Selle, and R. Hjort. 1991. EMAP -
surface waters monitoring and research strategy, fiscal year 1991. EPA-600-3-91-002. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Washington, D.C. and
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, Oregon.
Peet, R.K., T.R. Wentworth, and P.S. White. 1998. A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63(3):262-274.
Quetier, F., S. Lavorel, W. Thuiller, and I. Davies. 2007. Plant-trait-based modeling assessment of
ecosystem-service sensitivity to land-use change. Ecological Applications 17:2377-2386
Reiss, K.C. and M.T. Brown. 2005. The Florida Wetland Condition Index (FWCI): Developing Biological
Indicators for Isolated Depressional Forested Wetlands. Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. #WM-683.
Stapanian, M.A., F.C. Garner, K.E. Fitzgerald, G.T. Flatman, and J.M. Nocerino. 1993. Finding suspected
causes of measurement error in multivariate environmental data. Journal of Chemometrics. 7: 165-176.
Stevens, D. L., Jr., 1994. Implementation of a National Monitoring Program. Journal Environ.
Management 42:1-29.
Stevens, D.L., Jr. 1997. Variable density grid-based sampling designs for continuous spatial populations.
Environmetrics, 8:167-95.
Stevens, D.L., Jr. and Olsen, A.R. 1999. Spatially restricted surveys over time for aquatic resources.
Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental
Statistics, 4:415-428
Stevens, D. L., Jr., and A. R. Olsen. 2003. Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of
environmental resources. Environmetrics 14:593-610.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 100 of 101
Stevens, D. L., Jr., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially-balanced sampling of natural resources in the
presence of frame imperfections. Journal of American Statistical Association:99:262-278.
Taylor, J. K. 1987. Quality assurance of chemical measurements. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, Michigan.
Thien, S. J. 1979. A flow diagram for teaching texture by feel analysis. Journal of Agronomic Education.
8:54-55.
Tiner, R. W. 1999. Wetland Indicators: A guide to wetland identification, delineation, classification, and
mapping. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.
US GAO. 2000. Water Quality. GAO/RCED-OO-54. Washington, H.G. 1984. Diversity, biotic, and similarity
indices. Water Research 18(6): 653-694.
USDA and APHIS. 2010. How to import foreign soil and how to move soil within the United States. Q-
330.300-1. United States Department of Agriculture and Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Plant Protection and Quarantine.
USDA, and NRCS. 2006. Field indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 6.0.//7 G. W. Hurt and
L. M. Vasilas, editors. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils., Lincoln, NE.
USDA, NRCS. 2016. The PLANTS Database (http://plants.usda.gov, 19 January 2016). National Plant Data
Team, Greensboro, NC.
U.S. EPA, 1984. EPA Order 2160 (July 1984), Records Management Manual, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.U.S. EPA, 1999. EPA's Information Management Security Manual.
EPA Directive 2195 Al.
U.S. EPA, 2001. Agency Network Security Policy. EPA Order 2195.1 A4.
USEPA 2002a Guidance for Quality Assurance Plans EPA240/R-02/009 U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2002b. Methods for Evaluating Wetland Condition: #10 Using Vegetation to Assess
Environmental Conditions in Wetlands. EPA-822-R-02-020, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2003. Draft Report on the Environment. ORD and OEI. EPA-260-R-02-006. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and Office of Environmental Information,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2004. Revised Assessment of Detection and Quantitation Approaches. EPA-821-B-04-005. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2006a. Guidance on Systematic Planning Using the Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA/240/B-
06/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, D.C.
-------
National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021
Version 1.0, March 2021
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Page 101 of 101
USEPA. 2006b. Wadeable streams assessment: A collaborative survey of the nation's streams. EPA 841-
B-06-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 2011a. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Site Evaluation Guidelines. EPA-843-R-10-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 2011b. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Field Operations Manual. EPA-843-R-10-001.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 2011c. National Wetland Condition Assessment: Laboratory Operations Manual. EPA-843-R-
10-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA 2013. National rivers and streams assessment 2008-2009 technical report, DRAFT U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Office of Research and
Development, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2014. FY 2014-2018 EPA Strategic Plan: EPA-190-R-14-006. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
USEPA. 2016a. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Field Operations Manual. EPA-843-R-15-
007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2016b. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Laboratory Operations Manual. EPA 843-
R-15-009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2016c. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2016: Site Evaluation Guidelines. EPA 843-R-15-
010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2016d. National Wetland Condition Assessment: 2011 Technical Report. EPA-843-R-15-006. US
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2021a. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Field Operations Manual. EPA 843-B-21-
002. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2021b. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Laboratory Operations Manual EPA 843-B-
21-003. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
USEPA. 2021c. National Wetland Condition Assessment 2021: Site Evaluation Guidelines EPA 843-B-21-
001. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
------- |