Establish Restoration Objectives for Eelgrass in Long Island Sound

Prepared for: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPA QA Tracking No. RFA - 06353

Prepared by: University of Connecticut, Avery Point 1080 Shennecossett Road Groton, CT 06340-6048 and Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse 79 Elm Street Hartford, CT 06106-5127

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 2 of 23

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 3 of 23

Section A Project Management

A1 Approval Page
PROJECT OFFICERS

________________
Jamie Vaudrey
University of Connecticut/Avery Point 1080 Shennecossett Road, Groton, CT 06340 860-405-9149 FAX 860-405-9153 jamie.vaudrey@uconn.edu

DATE

James Kremer
University of Connecticut/Avery Point 1080 Shennecossett Road, Groton, CT 06340 860-405-9027 FAX 860-405-9153 jkremer@uconn.edu

________________ DATE

CTDEP QUALITY ASSURANCE AND PROJECT OFFICER ________________ DATE

Paul E. Stacey
CTDEP, Bureau of Water Protection and Land Reuse 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106 860-424-3728 FAX 860-424-4055 paul.stacey@po.state.ct.us

USEPA PROJECT OFFICER ________________ DATE

Johanna Hunter
USEPA Region I One Congress St., Suite 1100 (COP), Boston, MA 02114 617-918-1041 FAX 617-918-1505 hunter.johanna@epa.gov

USEPA QUALITY ASSURANCE OFFICER ________________ DATE

Nora Conlon USEPA 11 Technology Drive, North Chelmsford, MA 01863 (617) 918- 8322 conlon.nora@epa.gov

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 4 of 23

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 5 of 23

A2 Table of Contents
Section A Project Management ................................................................................................... 3 A1 Approval Page....................................................................................................................... 3 A2 Table of Contents .................................................................................................................. 5 A3 Distribution List/TAC ........................................................................................................... 6 A4 Project/Task Organization.................................................................................................... 7 A5 Project Description and Background ................................................................................... 7 A6 Project/Task Description and Schedule ............................................................................... 9 A7 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Non-Direct Measurements ........................................ 13 A8 Documentation and Records .............................................................................................. 15 Section B Data Generation and Acquisition .............................................................................. 15 B1 Non-Direct Measurements (Data Acquisition Requirements) ........................................... 15 B2 Data Management .............................................................................................................. 20 Section C Assessment and Oversight ........................................................................................ 20 C1 Assessment and Response Actions .................................................................................... 20 C2 Reports to Management ..................................................................................................... 21 Section D Data Validation and Usability................................................................................... 21 D1 Data Review, Verification and Validation.......................................................................... 21 D2 Reconciliation with User Requirements ............................................................................. 22 References..................................................................................................................................... 23

List of Tables Table 1. Acronyms and Abbreviations. ......................................................................................... 6 Table 2. Data Quality Indicators (DQI) and their application. .................................................... 14 Table 3. Major Data Types and Sources...................................................................................... 17 Table 4. Physical variable precision goals and QA requirements from CTDEP (2002). ............ 18 Table 5. Chemical variable precision goals and QA requirements from CTDEP (2002)............. 19

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 6 of 23

Table 1. Acronyms and Abbreviations. CLEAR CTD CTDEP DO DQI EPA LIS LISRC LISS PI QA/QC QAPP QMP RIDEM SAV STAC TAC TMDL UConn URI USFWS USGS Center for Land use Education and Research Conductivity/Temperature/Depth CT Dept. of Environmental Protection Dissolved Oxygen Data Quality Indicator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Long Island Sound Long Island Sound Resources Center Long Island Sound Study Principal Investigator Quality Assurance/Quality Control Quality Assurance Project Plan Quality Management Plan Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Mgmt. Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee Technical Advisory Committee Total Maximum Daily Load University of Connecticut University of Rhode Island U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service United States Geological Survey

A3 Distribution List/TAC
Name Alan Banister Alison Branco Betty Buckley Christopher Deacutis Wally Fulweiler Steve Granger Tom Halavik Johanna Hunter Mark Johnson Milan Keser Jim Kremer Jim Latimer John Mullaney Ron Rozsa Paul Stacey Mark Tedesco Mike Traber Jamie Vaudrey Affiliation Stonington Shellfish Commission University of Connecticut University of Rhode Island Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management University of Rhode Island University of Rhode Island U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. EPA Region I Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Marine Fisheries Dominion Electric University of Connecticut U.S. EPA U.S. Geological Survey, East Hartford Office Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island Sound Programs Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Management U.S. EPA, Long Island Sound Office University of Rhode Island University of Connecticut

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 7 of 23

Name Harry Yamalis Charles Yarish

Affiliation Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Long Island Sound Programs University of Connecticut, Stamford Campus

A4 Project/Task Organization
Paul E. Stacey, Project Manager Responsible for oversight of the coordination, management, and implementation of the project through a cooperative agreement and work plan approved by the EPA Project Officer and the Long Island Sound Study. The project is executed through a personal services agreement between the CTDEP and the University of Connecticut at Avery Point. Jamie Vaudrey, Principal Investigator Responsible for overall coordination, management and implementation of the project, including QAPP development, TAC coordination, data collection and compilation, criteria development and recommendations, and report preparation. James Kremer, Co-Principal Investigator Advisor to Jamie Vaudrey as a post-doctoral at the University and will provide day-to-day oversight of her activities and review for scientific validity and quality assurance. Paul E. Stacey, Quality Assurance Officer Responsible for verifying that a QAPP is generated for projects in which environmental data are collected for decision making and that the QAPP meets the requirements of CTDEPs Quality Management Plan. He is also responsible for verifying that the QAPP is followed. Technical Advisory Committee A TAC has been established for this project (see circulation list above), which draws from the LISS STAC and researchers, scientists and regulators from CT and RI, as well as other stakeholders including the USGS, the USFWS and the EPA. The TAC will be consulted on project design and goals, scientific validity of the effort, and final product review including recommendations for acceptance of nutrient criteria. TAC membership may change during the life of the project, but not to the extent that it will affect project performance. Johanna Hunter, Project Officer Responsible for grant administration of this project for EPA which provided funding through a LISS Enhancement Grant. This includes reviewing and approving the project workplan and QAPP, as well as reviewing progress and deliverables, including a final report.

A5 Project Description and Background

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 8 of 23

Introduction This project will establish restoration objectives for eelgrass (Zostera marina) beds in the coastal waters of Long Island Sound. Both the LISS Habitat Restoration Work Group and CTDEP are concerned about the long-term demise of eelgrass in Long Island Sound (LIS). Eelgrass restoration is one of the habitat restoration goals listed in the 1994 LISS Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. The project will focus primarily on how nutrient loading may be affecting eelgrass in Connecticuts coves, embayments and tidal rivers and identify management measures that can be taken to restore eelgrass. Scientific research has established a strong relationship between nitrogen loading and eelgrass growth and survival. Excess nitrogen favors the growth of phytoplankton, epiphytes and macroalgae, which out-compete eelgrass for light and space. There are other biotic and abiotic factors that affect eelgrass, but the current body of research indicates that the degree of nitrogen loading, either alone or in concert with other factors such as temperature, can often explain the loss of eelgrass. In Connecticuts waters, this relationship has not yet been established with the certainty needed to develop and implement management measures. CTDEP has the authority to develop management plans to address problems resulting from nutrient enrichment (e.g., total maximum daily loads or TMDLs). However, the regulatory process has been hampered by 1) an unclear understanding of nitrogen concentration or loading thresholds that impair eelgrass and whether these levels are being exceeded in Connecticuts nearshore waters; 2) a lack of definitive estimates or measurements of nitrogen sources in small embayment watersheds, particularly from surface and groundwater nonpoint sources, and 3) complexities of nitrogen transport, dilution and fate in tidal embayments from effects of tidal forcing, local hydrodynamics and cycling kinetics, all of which may affect the calculation of a loading threshold. Furthermore, there has not been a Sound-wide monitoring program in place to track the status of eelgrass. However, the LISS funded a comprehensive survey in 2002, and LISS is committed to continue funding this project starting in 2005 as a bi-annual monitoring program to be conducted by the USFWS. Objectives Due to the small supporting budget for this project, the TAC has recommended focusing on a small number of goals that will help determine the role of nitrogen in Connecticuts embayments and further efforts to manage nitrogen to improve eelgrass vitality: 1) Use existing information to determine the relationship between typical eastern LIS watersheds, nitrogen loading, and eelgrass status 2) Develop nitrogen criteria for the protection and restoration of eelgrass 3) Assess the potential for attaining the nitrogen criteria in case study areas 4) Use the understanding and materials generated during this effort to develop web-based information that might be housed at the Long Island Sound Resource Center (LISRC) at Avery Point and would be available to LISS partners and other interested parties

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 9 of 23

It is also the ultimate goal of this project to implement the nitrogen criteria to effect better management of watersheds and point discharges that achieve the nitrogen levels (or the criteria) that can sustain or lead to the restoration of eelgrass populations. This will likely be done through existing state and federal regulatory mechanisms, but is an important following outcome of this effort.

A6 Project/Task Description and Schedule

CTDEP with TAC oversight will work with the University of Connecticut/Avery Point to compile data through a literature review and researcher interviews and interpret the data to define potential nutrient criteria protective of SAV in LIS. The project comprises four primary tasks: 1) preparation of a Quality Assurance Project Plan; 2) review of the literature and compilation of a database; 3) interpretation of data to identify eelgrass nutrient effects thresholds, and 4) apply relationships of nutrient loading from watersheds in 3 or 4 selected embayments in eastern Connecticut to define prospects for reducing those loads to attain the proposed criteria. Task 1 Preparation of a Quality Assurance Project Plan The QAPP will be prepared and submitted to EPA for approval in accordance with EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans - QA/R-5, 3/01 (EPA, 2001), Section B9 for non-direct measurements and Guidance for Quality Assurance Project Plans - QA/G-5 (EPA, 2002), Section 2.2.9 for non-direct measurements. As required by the EPA QAPP guidance, the intent is to validate the intended use of the information and define criteria for accepting and limiting the use of that information. The QAPP must be fully approved before any data compilation and/or generation activities begin. The University of Connecticut/Avery Point is responsible for developing the QAPP with assistance from the CTDEP. As for all products produced under this project, the TAC will have the opportunity to review and comment on the QAPP. Task 2 Review of the Literature and Data Compilation A comprehensive literature and data review of eelgrass research and management will be conducted by the PI at University of Connecticut Avery Point (UConn) under the guidance of the TAC. Both the PI and her advisor bring ideal background experience to the project, the PI completing her Ph.D. research on physical and chemical factors affecting eelgrass health in eastern LIS. The PI and her advisor are familiar with most of the relevant literature and with the area and national research of use to the project. Most of the literature is at hand, as well as key contacts for data, which will minimize the need for extensive literature and data searching. In addition, the expertise on the TAC will be used to ensure that no significant literature or data sources have been neglected. While estuarine systems in eastern LIS will be the focus, the review will include other pertinent publications and data of relevance to the goals of this study. These may, therefore, go beyond the direct impacts of nitrogen on eelgrass health to define, for example, indirect effects such as light attenuation via plankton production or promotion of benthic algae production and the role of ancillary conditions such as temperature.

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 10 of 23

The review will also compile data and results of modeling assessments that relate watersheds to nitrogen loading and impact in eastern LIS embayments. Loading will be described according to conventional categories (e.g., surface water, ground water, direct atmospheric deposition) and sources (e.g., nonpoint sources, point sources, indirect atmospheric deposition). While the loading component is conceptually straightforward, the impact assessment may be more complex and should reflect the characteristics of typical embayments that may mitigate or modify the effects of nitrogen loading, such as flushing time, hypsography, and potential nitrogen loading from offshore areas into the embayments, as available from the literature. These factors are essential to the development of useful criteria that may be expressed as a loading function. Data will be compiled in an electronic format such as a spreadsheet or relational database useful to the investigators but also for future availability careful attention to QA/QC qualifications, relevant metadata, and citations, links, or contact information for original sources, as recommended in EPA QAPP guidance (EPA, 2002). It will be managed and housed by the PI at the University of Connecticut Avery Point Campus in secure condition with automated back up and will be added to the LISRC data files, also at the Avery Point Campus in Groton, CT. Relevant data for this analysis includes: Nutrient (all forms of nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations in coastal embayments; Mean monthly and/or annual nutrient loads from coastal watersheds; Offshore nutrient delivery into coastal embayments; Embayment physical characteristics size, hypsography, flushing, etc.; SAV presence, condition and historical trends; Watershed character land cover, population, sewers, etc.; Other related water quality parameters suspended solids, turbidity, light, temperature; Competing plant life presence and effects epiphytes, macroalgae; Laboratory studies of nutrient/temperature effects on SAV

Task 3 Data Analysis and Criteria Development The final outcome of the project is to develop nutrient criteria for the protection of eelgrass. This outcome is framed around several questions that will be addressed in the final report regarding the intended uses of the data: What do we know about the relationship between nitrogen and eelgrass? How much nitrogen, as a load or concentration, is too much? How do different characteristics of the receiving water affect potential criteria (flushing, depth, etc.)? What is our understanding of the loading from the landscape (different types of geology, land use and nitrogen loads)? What ancillary conditions or stressors are important? For example, variability of nitrogen load, seasonal effects, interplay of nitrogen and temperature - biology of eelgrass (is timing of arrival of nitrogen an issue?).

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 11 of 23

How big a difference in nitrogen loading is necessary to positively impact SAV, i.e., how good is our ability to manage nitrogen? How applicable is the literature information in developing the three case studies?

Data sets will be examined to verify they meet the requirements and fulfill the assumptions for conducting statistical tests (Sokal et al. 1995; Zar 1998). Data will be analyzed primarily using descriptive statistical techniques that relate nutrient loads to response (e.g., correlation, regression, principal components). In cases where data are sparse or there are gaps in the knowledge of the ecosystems (e.g., a span of 15 years without any biomass data), graphical displays will be used to illustrate potential trends, explaining in the report why formal statistical analyses were not possible. All statistical analyses will be performed in JMP v.6 or SAS, two statistical programs offered by the SAS Institute Inc. CTDEP staff will provide assistance and guidance during development of the program to ensure that appropriate information is assembled and developed to be useful to this purpose. Task 4 Criteria Evaluation Case Studies To test validity of the relationships and criteria, the project will develop up to three simplified case studies provided adequate data are found in the literature review. Possible candidates are: 1) The Niantic River, where nonpoint sources are likely to dominate the nitrogen load and where recent and active projects have focused, 2) Mumford Cove, where it is believed that the removal of a dominant nitrogen source led to the restoration of eelgrass beds, and 3) a system where point sources, are prominent, such as Little Narragansett Bay (Pawcatuck River), Mystic Harbor, Stonington Harbor, or even a collective assessment of these systems, if useful. The case studies should apply the understanding and approaches from the literature reviews (above) with respect to observed eelgrass status and ability to withstand nitrogen loading stress under present condition and a managed scenario, i.e., an assessment of the nitrogen load reduction required to attain healthy eelgrass status and its feasibility of attainment. Task 5 Database Disposition and Reporting While a fair amount of information and analysis is anticipated from the literature and data review, it is recognized that some of the data and ongoing research may not be ready for release. Before any data are placed in a final repository, the PI will assure there are no programmatic, legal or other constraints on use of the data including 1) clearance to access proprietary or confidential data, 2) use of data that do not meet acceptance criteria and 3) use of data with incomplete metadata. Nevertheless, it is expected that a comprehensive and scientifically valid review in a final report, white paper or article covering the three tasks will be successfully met in this project. Further, it is a goal of this project to disseminate findings not only as a publication, but also by posting the final report and data on an eelgrass web module on the LISRCs Long Island Sound data portal. Examples of report and GIS data file postings are available at: http://www.lisrc.uconn.edu/lisrc/catalog.asp under Publications and Documents for reports and Spatial Layers and Data Layers, for data files, which also exemplify metadata requirements of the LISRC.

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 12 of 23

Details on reporting are incorporated into the Task Schedule and in Section C2, Reports to Management.

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 13 of 23

Task Schedule The schedule for completion of the project is as follows: 2006
April August August September August October August December November December Project commences. Draft QAPP to EPA for Review Conduct literature review/compile database on water quality and SAV (TAC Review) Conduct literature review/compile database on watershed nutrient loads and characteristics (TAC Review) Develop statistical relationships between nutrient loads/concentrations and SAV health, and relationships between watershed character and loading (TAC Review) Develop data portal with LISRC for eelgrass findings and reporting, i.e., web module (continued in 2007)

2007
January February January January March January April May Continue with data portal and web module. Develop first approximation of nutrient criteria and SAV for TAC review and comment (TAC Review) Revise and finalize literature review and nutrient criteria recommendations (TAC Review) Develop case studies for selected embayments (TAC Review)

Provide first analysis of nutrient load management and potential for meeting proposed nutrient criteria for TAC review and comment Draft final report for TAC review and comment September Final report and project completion. October Note: PIs and EPA and CTDEP project officers will discuss progress on a monthly basis. TAC review will predominantly be conducted via e-mail and for some specific issues (e.g., data quality resolution) only a subset of the TAC may be consulted.

A7 Quality Objectives and Criteria for Non-Direct Measurements

Data Criteria All data acquired for the project must be evaluated for conformance to QA/QC procedures required under EPA quality assurance guidance for acceptable data quality. Since much of the data may not have been produced under an approved EPA QAPP, the PI will be responsible for this evaluation and determination of data acceptability. For peer-reviewed publications, the methodologies may adequately support good QA/QC protocols and be quantitatively acceptable,

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 14 of 23

but gray literature and unpublished data files will likely require contact with the authors and, by interview or from recorded files, a determination of QA/QC procedural acceptability will be made. This determination will rely on availability of specific data quality indicators (DQI) recommended by EPA (EPA, 2002) that assess precision, bias, accuracy, representativeness, comparability, completeness and sensitivity (Table 2). When available, these values will be reported as metadata in the final database (see Section B10, Data Management, below). If there are inadequate data available to assess one or more DQIs, the metadata file will indicate that inadequacy, thus flagging the data, which will limit its utility. Table 2. Data Quality Indicators (DQI) and their application.
DQI Precision Review Criteria Verify if measures of precision were completed and reported. Consider: Analytical instrument consistency Methodology Field splits/duplicate performance Laboratory splits and spikes Check for bias in data distribution Reference samples Spikes Be sure data accurately reflect matrix condition Reference samples Percent recovery or bias Verify that data reflect the prevailing environmental condition Consider precision, bias and accuracy Check sampling design for spatial and temporal acuity Consider professional (TAC) and peer review commentaries Compare and contrast results from similar studies Use all DQIs to explain differences and their potential resolution Check all QA metadata and protocols for error Review data reporting adequacy All data should be reported Validity and qualification of observations Check cause and effect relationships and variable discrimination Method detection limits Instrument detection limits Quantification limits

Bias

Accuracy

Representativeness

Comparability

Completeness

Sensitivity

Further, processing of compiled data will often identify data that appear to be outliers, or have incomplete or inadequate detection or quantification limits or other metadata shortcomings that could be caused by a DQI inadequacy. The data can be flagged, or further evaluated with the studys investigator(s) to see if a correction needs to be made. In the compilation of the database, fields will be included for appropriate metadata and QA notations that help complete QA/QC needs that might not be in the original publication or attached to the original data files. If necessary, the data will be converted to consistent units to draw relationships useful to criteria development. The TAC for the project also provides a resource of local experts that can help determine if questionable data may be acceptable for use, qualified use, or should be rejected. The TAC will also rely on DQIs to make their assessments, but in cases where the data are of questionable quality, but the only data available for an essential component of the review, they will make

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 15 of 23

recommendations for qualifying the data, its interpretation, and its use for development of criteria recommendations. Data Limitations Data will be categorized for acceptability using DQIs as: 1) Acceptable meets the needs for this project 2) Acceptable with Qualifications Data required some correction or reworking to make it acceptable Acceptance criteria not all met, but judged adequate for some uses Essential data, but with acceptance criteria concerns flagged and qualified 3) Unacceptable It is likely that data from the literature will not provide an ideal spatial and temporal distribution that completely meets the goals and objectives of this project. If it becomes necessary to include data of uncertain quality to test outcomes from a limited amount of quality approved data, interpretations will be treated with due caution and appropriately identified and qualified in both the text and (automatically) in the database. However, every effort will be made to use only quality-approved data so as not to complicate interpretations and the final report, and in cases where there is any question as to the quality or limitations of data, the conservative option not to use the data will prevail if there are adequate approved data.

A8 Documentation and Records

All documentation, including the QAPP, progress reports, records of monthly meetings, and final reports will be developed by the PIs with assistance from CTDEP and stored both at UConn and CTDEP offices. Copies will also be provided to the EPA Region Project Officer and the LISS Office. Final product outputs and database will be housed at the LISRC at Avery Point, Groton, CT.

Section B Data Generation and Acquisition

B1 Non-Direct Measurements (Data Acquisition Requirements)
To provide for a high-quality input database, data will be acquired from a variety of qualified sources, including peer-reviewed literature, federal and state agencies, university researchers, and watershed groups. As noted above (Sec. A6 Task 2), the PI and her advisor bring ideal background experience to the project, the PI completing her Ph.D. research on physical and chemical factors affecting eelgrass health in eastern LIS. The PI and her advisor are familiar with most of the relevant literature and with the area and national research of use to the project. Most of the literature is at hand, as well as key contacts for data, which will minimize the need for extensive literature and data searching. In addition, the expertise on the TAC will be used to ensure that no significant literature or data sources have been neglected.

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 16 of 23

Data categories for this analysis will include: water chemistry, SAV and other biological data, embayment hypsography, land cover and other watershed characteristics, pollutant loads, and relationship data between nutrients, temperature, light, suspended solids, and turbidity and SAV distribution and health. As listed under Task 2, specific data requirements include: Nutrient (all forms of nitrogen and phosphorus) concentrations in coastal embayments; Mean monthly and/or annual nutrient loads from coastal watersheds; Offshore nutrient delivery into coastal embayments; Embayment physical characteristics size, hypsography, flushing, etc.; SAV presence, condition and historical trends; Watershed character land cover, population, sewers, etc.; Other related water quality parameters suspended solids, turbidity, light, temperature; Competing plant life presence and effects epiphytes, macroalgae; Laboratory studies of nutrient/temperature effects on SAV

Nutrient data will require obtaining constituent concentration and load data, such as for TKN, NO2, NO3, and NH3, PO4 and TP. Much of the nutrient data will be obtained from published studies and government and university files, although some may come from other sources such as watershed groups. Load data will be assembled from reports that include both empirical estimates and watershed models. TSS, light attenuation and turbidity may also be helpful in defining SAV health due to light limitation. The PIs and CTDEP will ensure that all data conforms to the state government level quality assurance standards and will review DQIs (Table 2) established for this project to make data acceptability determinations. Primary data sources for this project include: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Published literature and reports Results and data from unpublished research Third party data including agency monitoring and compliance data Publicly available databases, e.g., USGS stream monitoring data Output from models Maps, GIS data and similar media from prior studies

Examples of these sources are summarized in Table 3.

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 17 of 23

Table 3. Major Data Types and Sources.

Data Water Chemistry Source USGS, EPA, CTDEP, RIDEM CTDEP, CLEAR USGS US Census, CTDEP CTDEP CTDEP, USFWS, Dominion Electric, EPANarragansett Links USGS: http://ct.water.usgs.gov/ CTDEP: http://www.dep.state.ct.us/ EPA LIS Office: http://www.longislandsoundstudy.net/ CTDEP: http://www.dep.state.ct.us/ CLEAR: http://clear.uconn.edu/ USGS: http://ct.water.usgs.gov/ US Census: http://factfinder.census.gov/metadoc/stf3appc.pdf CTDEP: http://www.dep.state.ct.us/ CTDEP: http://www.dep.state.ct.us/ CTDEP: http://www.dep.state.ct.us/

Land Use/Land Cover Flow Septic System Usage Point Sources SAV

Acceptance Criteria The DQIs in Table 2 identify the categories of acceptance criteria that will be reviewed for this project. In addition, for chemical and physical parameters data quality objectives and QA sample protocols established in the CTDEP LIS Monitoring Program QAPP (CTDEP, 2002a) may be used as supplemental evaluation criteria to check project specific QA data (Tables 4 and 5).

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 18 of 23

Table 4. Physical variable precision goals and QA requirements from CTDEP (2002).
Variable Precision Goal 0.5 m 0.5 m 0.5 oC 0.5 oC 0.5 psu 0.5 mg/L 0.5 mg/L 0.5 mg/L NA 0.3 units 0.3 meter QA Sample Type Performance verification at certified calibration facility QC check against vessels depth finder Performance verification at certified calibration facility QC check against secondary thermistor in DO sensor module Performance verification at certified calibration facility New membrane installation and calibration at laboratory Comparison to discrete water sample (Winkler titration) Winkler Replicates: 2 when CTD DO #5mg/L; 3 when DO #3 mg/L Performance verification at certified calibration facility QC check with standard buffers Three replicate observations and check by second crew member Frequency of QA Annually Data Generated CTD response vs calibration standards; annual drift Difference between CTD station depth and onboard depth finder CTD response vs calibration standards; annual drift CTD temperature vs oxygen sensor temp CTD response vs calibration standards; annual drift CTD response at zero and 100% saturated water; new coefficient values Difference between CTD DO and chemical determination precision Sensor response vs calibration standard; drift Difference between probe and standard precision and comparison with second crew member observation

Depth

Depth

Every cast

Temperature

Annually

Temperature

Every cast

Salinity

Annually At least monthly; always prior to cruise Daily during cruise Daily when CTD DO #5 mg/L At least every other year Daily during cruise At each site

Dissolved Oxygen

D.O.

D.O.

PAR pH Secchi depth

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 19 of 23

Table 5. Chemical variable precision goals and QA requirements from CTDEP (2002).
Variable Ammonia (NH3) Accuracy Goal 85-115% Precision Goal 15% QA Sample Type Standards, spikes, lab and field duplicates Standards, spikes, lab and field duplicates; QC check against Day 0 wholewater BOD sample, 11 stations Standards, spikes, lab and field duplicates Field blanks and field duplicates Standards, spikes, lab and field duplicates Standards, spikes, lab and field duplicates Standards, spikes, field blanks, lab and field duplicates Standards, spikes, lab and field duplicates Field blanks and field duplicates Standards, spikes, lab and field duplicates Standards, spikes, field blanks, lab and field duplicates Standards, spikes, field blanks, field duplicates Standards, field blanks and duplicates; replicates averaged Field duplicate Standards, spikes, lab and field duplicates Frequency of QA Per batch; one cruise Data Generated Relative accuracy and precision

Nitrate + Nitrite (NO3-+NO2)

85-115%

15%

Per batch; one cruise

Relative accuracy and precision; secondary NOx measurement on fresh sample Relative accuracy and precision Precision; estimate of field contamination Relative accuracy and precision Relative accuracy and precision Relative accuracy and precision; estimate of field contamination Relative accuracy and precision Precision; estimate of field contamination Relative accuracy and precision Relative accuracy and precision; estimate of field contamination Relative accuracy and precision; estimate of field contamination Precision; estimate of field contamination

Total Dissolved Nitrogen (TDN) Particulate Nitrogen (PN) Orthophosphate (PO43-) or (DIP) Total Dissolved Phosphorus (TDP) Particulate Phosphorus (PP) Dissolved Org.Carbon (DOC) Particulate Carbon (PC) Dissolved Silica (SiO2) Biogenic Silica (BioSi) Chlorophyll a (Chl a) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)

85-115% 85-115% 85-115%

15% 15% 15%

Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise Per batch; one cruise

85-115%

15%

85-115%

15%

85-115% 85-115% 85-115%

15% 15% 15%

85-115%

15%

85-115%

15%

NA

15%

NA

15%

Precision Relative accuracy and precision

85-115%

15%

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 20 of 23

B2 Data Management
Most data will be obtained from state agencies, typically through the state representatives on the TAC. Additional datasets will be obtained from national agencies (e.g., USGS stream monitoring data). Data will be obtained by CD or email, whichever method is most convenient for the providers, for easy transfer into the database with minimal hand re-entry, which will reduce the potential for data entry errors or omissions. A copy of all datasets will be stored in the original form in which it was received. Whenever data are reformatted, the new files will be saved in a separate folder to ensure that the original formats of the data are not lost. To ensure that pre-formatted data are not used, the filenames of all modified datasets will include the date they were modified, along with a written description of the file and any modifications that were made. All emails regarding data information and transfer will also be saved. All data will be stored on a secure server at UConn and ultimately transferred to the LISRC upon completion of the project. To ensure correct values and units, data will be reviewed by the PI for 100% of the data that are transcribed from paper and 10% of data that are obtained electronically and converted to the needed dataset format. The formulas used to perform unit conversions will be checked and reviewed by the PI. The PIs advisor will review approximately 10% of the data compilation effort to ensure accurate data transference and entry. Any errors in the data that cannot be corrected will be reported to the project officer and flagged. Upon assessment of the any reported errors, the Project Officer may require the PI to go back to the pre-formatted data and begin the development of a given dataset from scratch. In this scenario, the Project Officer will oversee the review of the formatted datasets to ensure their accuracy. All final versions of datasets will be placed in a data directory. Within this directory, sitespecific data will be kept in subdirectories for their respective sites, and data from other areas will be kept in a separate subdirectory, organized by scientific category (e.g., temperature, SAV growth). A Word document will be maintained that gives, for each dataset, the file name and a description, including any modifications made to the dataset.

Section C Assessment and Oversight

C1 Assessment and Response Actions
The CTDEP and EPA Project Officers will communicate with the PIs on a monthly basis to discuss program progress. Collectively, per EPA QAPP guidance (EPA, 2002), they will ensure that: Data meet project specifications and are appropriately relevant and suitable for their targeted use Data meet the acceptance criteria and are sufficient for analysis, or properly qualified

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 21 of 23

Proper procedures and protocols were used in obtaining or extracting data Quality Control information and data were sufficient based on DQI and QA acceptance criteria The QAPP was used and followed

At appropriate milestones identified in the project schedule, the project officers may choose to convene a meeting of the TAC to discuss progress or to seek input on DQI or other matters that cannot be handled via e-mail or hard copy on an individual issue basis. All products will be copied to the Project Officers and the LISS Office in hard copy, and be distributed electronically to the TAC. Review of data or publications may be requested by the PIs or project officers by QAPP officers or the TAC to resolve QA or other technical issues. Any errors found in the dataset during these or other QA reviews will be documented and reported to the project officers. In case any backtracking is needed to locate the source of errors, all original files will be saved separately, along with each modified variant of the dataset will be saved. All data files shall be named and documented so that all project participants will understand the file contents. CTDEP may implement, at their discretion, various audits or reviews of this project to assess conformance and compliance to the quality assurance project plan in accordance with their Quality Management Plan (CTDEP, 2002b).

C2 Reports to Management
Deliverables to be submitted for quality assurance purposes includes: QAPP, submitted by CTDEP and UConn Quarterly progress reports (1-2 pages) Final report, submitted by the PI The database Presentation to the TAC by the PIs on final outcomes and recommendations

Section D Data Validation and Usability

D1 Data Review, Verification and Validation
Verification and Validation All acquired data will be reviewed and verified for conformance to project requirements, and validated against the data quality objectives, which are presented in Section A7. Only those data supported by appropriate quality control data and meet the data quality objectives defined for this project will be considered acceptable for use, unless properly qualifies as described above.

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 22 of 23

These objectives require the best available quality control standards of the source agency and as checked by the PI with Project Officer and TAC oversight. UConn, CTDEP and the EPA Project Managers are responsible for ensuring that data are properly reviewed and verified for integrity, and are suitable for use in model development. Verification, validation and integrity review of data will be performed using self-assessments by the UConn, CTDEP and EPA Project Managers, and TAC reviews (as appropriate). Prior to inclusion in the database, the data will be reviewed for accuracy, representativeness, sufficiency, and analytical quality, as discussed in Section A7. Data will be checked for errors, especially errors in transcription, calculations, and data input, as discussed in section B3. Issues and/or errors that can be corrected will be corrected and documented. If an issue cannot be corrected, the research assistant will consult with the project management to establish the appropriate course of action. During the course of the statistical analysis and TAC review, the data and literature summaries will undergo another type of scrutiny that may further identify outlying data or lapses in data representativeness and comparability (see Section A7). Usability The success of this project will be assessed in two ways: the successful development of nitrogen criteria for the protection of eelgrass in LIS and the ability of state agencies to utilize these criteria in their water quality assessment and management programs. All input data for the project will undergo a review to ensure the quality of the data, as outlined in Section B2. Data that do not meet these standards will not be utilized in this project, unless properly qualified and handled, as detailed above; this will insure that the final criteria will met the necessary QA/QC standards to be scientifically and managerially acceptable and useful.

D2 Reconciliation with User Requirements

Near the end of the project, the Project Officers from EPA and CTDEP as well as the project TAC will be reviewing the final report and products for acceptance and project closeout. As well as considering the competence of the analysis, the validity of the conclusions and report quality and cohesion, they will be revisiting the basic QA questions posed in this QAPP. This will be a final determination that data acceptance criteria were met adequately to meet project purposes. Specifically: Were data reflective of the population of concern? Were the data geographically relevant? Were sampling strategies and analytical methodologies appropriate? Were programmatic, legal and other constraints on data use clearly documented? o Clearance to access proprietary or confidential data gained? o Use of qualified data that did not meet acceptance criteria documented? o Use of data with incomplete metadata properly described and qualified?

Eelgrass Restoration for LIS Final QAPP August 2006 Page 23 of 23

References
CTDEP, 2002a. Quality Assurance Project Plan, Long Island Sound ambient water quality monitoring program. CTDEP, Bureau of Water Management, Hartford, CT. 31 p. CTDEP, 2002b. Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Quality Management Plan. Revision No. 2002-01. CTDEP, Hartford, CT. 27 p. EPA, 2001. EPA requirements for quality assurance project plans. EPA QA/R-5. EPA/240/B01/003. U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC. 24 p. EPA, 2002. Guidance for quality assurance project plans. EPA QA/G-5. U.S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Washington, DC. Sokal R. R., R. R. R. Sokal, and F. J. Rohlf, 1995. Biometry, 3rd ed. W.H. Freeman Co. 880pp. Zar J.H., 1998. Biostatistical Analysis, 4th ed. Prentice Hall, 663pp.