I. INTRODUCTION

I.1 Monitoring Program Overview

In response to accelerated wetland loss in Louisiana, Act 6 of the 2nd Extraordinary Session of the Louisiana State Legislature in 1989 and the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) of 1990 were created to conserve, restore, create, and enhance Louisiana's coastal wetlands. The agencies responsible for designing and implementing coastal conservation and restoration projects are the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Army, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The restoration plans developed pursuant to these acts specifically require an evaluation of the effectiveness of each coastal wetlands restoration project in achieving long-term solutions to arresting coastal wetlands loss. This necessitated the development of a monitoring program to adequately assess the effectiveness of coastal restoration projects. The above agencies have a responsibility to the State of Louisiana, and to the nation, to develop a monitoring program that will effectively ensure the best use of state and federal funds for the restoration and conservation of wetlands.

CWPPRA created an interagency task force and charged it with the development and implementation of a comprehensive approach to the long-term conservation and restoration of coastal wetlands. Because in a broader context, the mission of the CWPPRA is to provide appropriate management plans for the Louisiana coastal zone over the next 50-100 yr, monitoring protocols could be applied on a regional scale across the coastal zone to provide the data necessary for effective management planning at that scale. CWPPRA requires that not less than three years after the completion and submission of the restoration plan, and at least every three years thereafter, a report shall be made to Congress containing a scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of the coastal wetlands restoration projects in creating, restoring, protecting, and enhancing Louisiana's coastal wetlands. Consequently, a quality management plan was needed to ensure that all activities associated with the CWPPRA Monitoring Program were documented and met a high standard of quality.

I.1.1 Program Goals

Monitoring of projects implemented from the CWPPRA restoration plan must provide:

A. "An evaluation of the effectiveness of each coastal wetlands restoration project in achieving long-term solutions to arresting coastal wetlands loss in Louisiana," PL 101-646, Sec. 303 (b)(4)(L); and

B. "A scientific evaluation of the effectiveness of the coastal wetlands restoration projects carried out under the plan in creating, restoring, protecting and enhancing coastal wetlands in Louisiana," PL 101-646, Sec. 303(b)(7).

In order for the above mandates to be achieved, the monitoring efforts must generate results that can aid in determining the effectiveness of existing projects, in the beneficial modification of existing projects, in the design of future projects, and most importantly, support future decisions on selection of projects proposed for creating, restoring, protecting, and enhancing Louisiana's coastal wetlands. Comparisons of results among projects of similar types is a way to determine which projects are most effective in achieving long-term solutions to arresting coastal wetlands loss.

I.1.1 (1) Mission Statement

The highest quality data are needed to ensure that the monitoring efforts are successful. Therefore, it is our mission to collect, analyze, and interpret high-quality, ecological data. This mission will be realized by: (1) pragmatic data collection based on specific goals and objectives, using sound experimental design, (2) unbiased evaluation of data to determine the effectiveness of wetland projects, (3) documentation and dissemination of project data, and (4) the evaluation of program effectiveness as the knowledge and technology base expands. The fulfillment of our mission will result in appropriate management decisions to ultimately create, restore, protect, and enhance coastal wetlands in Louisiana.

I.1.2 Program Structure, Responsibilities, and Coordination

CWPPRA directed the Secretary of the Army to convene the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task Force to consist of the following members: Secretary of the Army; Secretary of the Interior; Secretary of Agriculture; Secretary of Commerce; Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Governor, State of Louisiana. In practice, the Task Force members named by the law have delegated their responsibilities to other members of their organizations. The Task Force established the Technical Committee and Planning and Evaluation (P&E) Subcommittee to assist in the implementation of CWPPRA. Each of these bodies contains the same representation as the Task Force: one member from each of the five federal agencies and one from the state. The P&E Subcommittee established several working groups to develop and/or evaluate critical information necessary for selection and implementation of priority list projects. The Monitoring Work Group (MWG) established a standard procedure for monitoring CWPPRA projects, developed a monitoring cost-estimating procedure, and determined how the monitoring program would be implemented. The Technical Advisory Group (TAG) ensures that the monitoring program is implemented properly. Figure 1 illustrates the CWPPRA Program Structure.

The Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, Coastal Restoration Division (LDNR/CRD), is responsible for management of all monitoring activities of CWPPRA, including monitoring plan development, data collection and storage, statistical analysis, quality control, data interpretation, and report generation. The National Biological Service/Southern Science Center (NBS/SSC) is responsible for habitat mapping and GIS analysis (geographic information systems support) and other related monitoring as deemed appropriate by LDNR/CRD for each project. LDNR/CRD and NBS/SSC jointly prepare reports for each CWPPRA project implemented. These reports are submitted to the P&E

Figure 1. Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act (CWPPRA) program structure.

Subcommittee, Technical Committee, and Task Force for final approval. The P&E Subcommittee shall direct the MWG to provide a technical review of the project reports. The implementation of all monitoring plans will follow the protocols developed in the CWPPRA Monitoring Program Document (Steyer and Stewart 1992). A technical advisory group (TAG), consisting of a federal project sponsor representative, state (LDNR/CRD) project sponsor representative, NBS/SSC representative, wetland ecologist, and biostatistician, assists in the development of project-specific monitoring plans. The P&E Subcommittee is advised of all TAG meetings. Assistance by the other sponsoring agencies in the development of the monitoring plans is available on a voluntary basis. These plans are reviewed by the MWG and Scientific Advisory Group and submitted to the P&E Subcommittee, Technical Committee, and Task Force for final approval (figure 2). The contracted wetland ecologist and biostatistician will also provide an independent evaluation of quality assurance (QA) and verification of data interpretations to ensure unbiased determinations of results.

Information that is generated in the CWPPRA Monitoring Program is developed, reviewed and/or quality controlled by the TAG committee. Further review is conducted by the following entities: academic and interagency peers, MWG, Scientific Advisory Group, P&E Subcommittee, Technical Committee, and the Task Force. This thorough review and coordination provides the highest level of quality assurance and promotes credibility. Additionally, this coordination aids in the information exchange process that is critical to understanding and promoting wetland restoration science.

CWPPRA involves federal, state, and local governments, as well as private landowners; thus, the ultimate customers of information generated are the citizens of the state of Louisiana. Generally, the federal sponsoring agency of a given project will be the primary customer for the monitoring information, generated by the LDNR/CRD and NBS/SSC.

I.1.3 Program Description

The CWPPRA Monitoring Program was developed by the MWG using a broad-based, standardized approach. Steyer and Stewart (1992) provide a guidance document that can be used to develop project-specific and basin-wide monitoring plans and monitoring cost estimates. The monitoring protocols developed by Steyer and Stewart (1992) broadly categorize project types, goals, and biological variables, and standardize data collection methodologies using a matrix design. The protocols were developed by subgroups of technical experts for seven categories of monitoring variables: water quality, hydrology, soils, and sediments, vegetative health, habitat mapping, wildlife, and fisheries. This organization provides accessibility to three levels of information: project type, category of variable, and variable. These three levels are cross referenced and ranked to guide personnel in the development of appropriate monitoring plans. The highest priority variables to be considered for monitoring by project type are listed in table 1.

Monitoring plans for CWPPRA projects were developed based on the minimum monitoring variables necessary to provide sufficient information to determine if project goals and object-

ives are being met. The essential variables category illustrates those variables that generally will be measured for each project type. However, due to the limited availability of funds, all of the highest priority variables may not be monitored. The MWG determined by project type which variables were essential in judging project effectiveness and which additional variables may need to be monitored, based on project objectives and possible impacts. This list does not preclude other variables from being monitored if determined necessary by TAG.

However, project-specific goals and objectives may dictate that some of these variables may be nonessential. Additionally, monitoring budgets may be insufficient to measure all essential variables.

The CWPPRA Task Force required that monitoring costs be standardized for each project type. Monitoring costs vary considerably depending upon the size and complexity of projects and site-specific concerns within the project area. Therefore, it was a difficult task to standardize monitoring costs. MWG determined that monitoring costs cannot be set at a fixed percentage of project cost due to varying project goals and objectives and project sizes. They did, however, generate an initial estimate of an average annual cost (below) necessary to adequately monitor each type of wetland restoration project. This cost estimate was reviewed by the P&E Subcommittee, Technical Committee, and Task Force, and was reduced by 40%.

Average annual monitoring costs for each project type will not exceed the following:

Project Type Average Annual Cost

Freshwater Diversion $ 25,875

Marsh Management $ 25,875

Hydrologic Restoration $ 25,875

Sediment Diversion $ 8,625

Vegetative Planting $ 4,325

Beneficial Use of

Dredged Material $ 4,325

Barrier Island Restoration $ 4,325

Sediment/Nutrient Trapping $ 4,325

Shoreline Protection $ 2,150

Freshwater diversion, marsh management, and hydrologic restoration project costs can be prorated based on project size as follows:

less than 1,000 acres = 60%

1,000-5,000 acres = 70%

5,000-15,000 acres = 80%

15,000-60,000 acres = 100%

In addition, those projects that require continuous data recorders for active management will also be funded at 100%, regardless of project size. Monitoring costs for any given project will not exceed 125% of the original, fully funded monitoring cost estimate. Monitoring costs for any given project will not exceed 50% of the fully funded project cost without monitoring.

Project-specific exemptions to the preceeding monitoring costs will be mutually agreed upon by the State of Louisiana and the federal cost-share sponsor. Monitoring costs will be included as a component of the fully funded project cost using the above average annual monitoring cost guidelines. In situations where monitoring costs must be added to a previously approved project, such an addition should not cause the previously approved fully funded project cost to be exceeded by more than 25%. If the cost is exceeded, approval must be obtained from the P&E Subcommittee, Technical Committee, and Task Force.

Once budgets have been determined and projects have been planned, designed, and approved for construction, preconstruction aerial photography planning is conducted and monitoring plans are developed. Once project boundaries have been finalized, these boundaries are provided through the Wetland Value Assessment (WVA) planning effort to the NBS/SSC for incorporation into the CWPPRA Regional GIS Data Base. In order to obtain photography for preconstruction conditions in the project area, these boundaries are then transferred to the mapping section of NBS/SSC. There, preflight planning is initiated. Flight lines are reviewed by personnel at NBS/SSC and LDNR/CRD before the photography is flown.

Monitoring plans undergo a thorough development and review process prior to finalization and acceptance. The following steps are initiated in completing a monitoring plan:

A. The monitoring manager is LDNR/CRD's representative on the TAG committee. Monitoring managers have the job classification of geoscientist. The monitoring manager should make initial contact with the LDNR/CRD project manager and the lead federal agency representative for acquisition of historical data, research reports, feasibility studies, WVA analyses, etc., in order to develop project objectives, goals, reference areas, monitoring elements, null hypotheses, and anticipated statistical analyses. The LDNR/CRD monitoring manager should develop the preliminary monitoring plan. The following documents should be used as templates in preparing the plan: standardized monitoring plan format; standardized null hypotheses and statistical analyses; LDNR/NBS joint monitoring proposal; and the CWPPRA Monitoring Program Document (Steyer and Stewart 1992). A plan-view map of the project area should be developed during this stage. If known, sampling stations, transect lines, etc., should be included on the plan-view map. Once this plan is developed, it should be reviewed by the monitoring supervisor and program manager, then sent to the lead federal agency representative for refinement. A site visit, travel, or meetings may be necessary with the lead federal agency representative in order to develop a mutually agreeable preliminary plan. Once a mutually agreeable preliminary plan is completed, a preliminary budget is prepared by the monitoring manager. The plan developed at this stage should have the goal of needing minimal changes to be approved by TAG.

B. Monitoring managers initially mail to the NBS/SSC representative, ecologist, and statistician the preliminary monitoring plan, project description report, and WVA analysis, at a minimum. A copy of the preliminary monitoring plan only will be mailed out to representatives of the MWG and TAG. This mail-out will be completed at least three weeks prior to a scheduled TAG meeting. Other data or information requested should be supplied unless it is too bulky or large to copy. Otherwise, all other project information, documents, drawings, etc., should be brought to the TAG meeting.

C. All comments at the TAG meeting must be noted by the monitoring manager. All areas of consensus, conflict, changes, and tasks to be completed, by whom and when, must be noted. It is the responsibility of the monitoring manager to type up these notes and have them sent, via FAX mail, to the TAG representatives within two days.

D. The goal of the TAG meeting is to finalize a monitoring plan, however, it may not be finalized after one meeting. Additional telephone calls, FAX mail, and/or meetings may be necessary. If major changes are made during the process, then all members of TAG must receive copies of the revised document. Some projects may require a field trip by TAG representatives either before or after the TAG meeting.

E. Other agency personnel are able to attend the TAG meetings on a voluntary basis. Their input is considered but they are not a voting member.

F. Once a monitoring plan is finalized by TAG, it is sent to the Scientific Advisory Group, MWG, and P&E Subcommittee representatives for a two-week review. Comments received by the monitoring manager must be considered by TAG. A justification by TAG is needed for any comments not incorporated.

G. After review comments are incorporated, the final monitoring plan is sent to the P&E Subcommittee chairman for final approval. Attached to the final plan are all comments received during review, a written response to comments, and a proposed budget. It is the responsibility of the P&E Subcommittee chairman to submit the final monitoring plan to the Technical Committee and Task Force.

H. Once a monitoring plan is developed, it is the responsibility of LDNR/CRD and NBS/SSC to implement the plan following the procedures outlined in this Quality Management Plan (QMP).

I. The implementation of the monitoring plan will be dependent on project construction timetables. In cases where a project is delayed because of unforeseen causes, the monitoring activities timetable will be adjusted accordingly.

I.1.4 Program Implementation

The development and implementation of monitoring plans require a significant amount of management oversight and inspection. Monitoring managers (geoscience specialists) meet with their supervisors on a monthly basis to discuss individual projects, job performance, quality control procedures, and to plan for the following month. Each employee then provides his supervisor with a list of items that were agreed to in the meeting, which is subsequently used as a guide throughout the month. This list of items is then used as an outline in the subsequent meeting to ensure that issues raised in the previous meeting were addressed during the month. Field trip reports are generated for each field trip that addresses both logistical and biological components and identifies any problems encountered. Field procedures and any quality control items are also discussed during monthly meetings with supervisors to ensure that each employee is familiar with standard operating procedures and that problems encountered in the field are not recurring. Inspection oversight is conducted by the Geoscience Program Manager and the QA Auditor.

Procedures for field and office protocols within the Biological Analysis Section (BAS) have been developed and implemented through the issuance of a BAS Policies and Procedures Manual compiled by the Geoscience Program Managers. Standard office protocols for the LDNR/CRD are utilized where applicable and specialized protocols have been developed under the direct supervision of Geoscience Program Managers. Specialized policies are developed when certain procedures become frequent enough to warrant the Geoscience Program Managers' attention. Departmental policies that are periodically updated by upper management and new policies that are developed by Geoscience Program Managers are introduced and reviewed at monthly staff meetings.

I.1.5 Approach

The CWPPRA Monitoring Program develops monitoring plans and collects data on individual projects based on specific project goals and objectives. The framework on which the plans are developed is based on a basin level approach. All monitoring efforts are coordinated within each hydrologic basin in order to adequately address secondary or cumulative effects of projects.

I.1.6 Deliverables

The CWPPRA Monitoring Program will generate data on all implemented projects under CWPPRA. Results from these projects will be published in progress reports three times a year and in reports to the U.S. Congress and Louisiana Legislature not less than three years after the completion and submission of the restoration plan, and at least every three years thereafter. The due dates may change based upon project construction timetables. Program level documents will also be generated as outlined below.

A. The CWPPRA Program Effectiveness Report will be completed by October 1, 1996, and updated every three years until October 1, 2017.

B. The status and assessment of the CWPPRA Monitoring Program will be completed by October 1, 1996.

C. The CWPPRA Monitoring Program Atlas will be completed by October 1, 1997, and updated every five years until October 1, 2017.

I.2 Management and Organization

The importance of a sound Quality Assurance (QA) Program is acknowledged by CWPPRA and is addressed in CWPPRA's overall program goals. It is the specific policy of LDNR/CRD and NBS/SSC that all environmentally related measurements are of known and documented quality. This level of assurance is necessary because of the vast quantities of data collected by numerous entities. These data will ultimately assist in a decision regarding project and program-level effectiveness, therefore, it is critical that this information is of the highest quality.

CWPPRA has dedicated resources to the monitoring program for 20 yr. These resources will provide the commitment for the continued development and improvement of the monitoring program as technologies advance and protocols are improved upon. Necessary training and technical support will be afforded to meet program needs. Quality control (QC) checks have been provided throughout the program to minimize impacts on data quality and integrity and to identify problems that could influence program implementation. Any situation that compromises data quality will be identified and addressed immediately.

It is understood that the QMP is a "living" document that will evolve over time. Any changes to the QMP will be distributed to all individuals performing work under the QMP as the change occurs, and these changes will be reviewed during the annual Field Methods training. If significant changes are made, a revised version will be published and distributed. Quality assurance training and evaluation will be conducted annually to assess the effectiveness of the Quality Management System, both organizationally and procedurally.

The team responsible for the implementation of the monitoring program and Quality System is identified in the organizational chart in figure 3.

QA responsibilities are dispersed throughout all levels of the organization. However, specific oversight and management of QA activities are carried out by three authorities: QA Officer (Geoscience Specialist III), QA Auditor (Contract Wetland Ecologist,) and QA Manager (Geoscience Manager).

The QA Officer is responsible for assuring compliance of daily QA activities and reporting problems immediately to the QA Manager. The QA Auditor performs an independent evaluation of activities annually in order to provide management oversight to maximize the success of the QA activities. The

Figure 3. Illustration of teams responsible for implementation of monitoring program.

QA Auditor reports directly to the QA Manager and provides a written quality assurance report annually to the QA Manager. The QA Manager will keep the P&E Subcommittee, Technical Committee, and Task Force informed about quality issues, and has complete authority and accountability for the QA program.

I.3 Quality Management System

The Quality Management System of the Monitoring Program is nested inside a larger Quality Management System for the entire CWPPRA process (figure 1). At the largest scale, quality is assured by the Project Selection Process; i.e., only projects with a high likelihood of success and large increases in wetland function relative to cost are selected for implementation. Likewise, the Monitoring Program is the quality control system of CWPPRA activities. The Monitoring Program is so vital to the achievement of the CWPPRA mandates that the program itself is the subject of this Quality Management Plan. Activities outside the Monitoring Plan, such as the Project Selection Process and deciding when to modify or abandon a particular project, are not within the scope of the Monitoring Program and the Quality Management System described in this document. Instead, the Quality System described in this document is designed to provide a review process of the Monitoring Program. This Quality System is as young as CWPPRA and is still evolving.

Monitoring is more critical to the success of CWPPRA than to traditional mitigation programs because large spatial scales and uncertainty regarding the status of the wetlands at any given time preclude the use of repeated trial and error, which is allowed in the Clean Water Act, Section 404, process. Instead, monitoring plans prepared by this Monitoring Program will be designed with the expectation that some projects will be less effective than others to facilitate learning from all projects, regardless of their success. This monitoring philosophy is a departure from traditional monitoring programs in which documenting effectiveness of a project is the goal of monitoring, and understanding why and how a project was effective (or not) is of minor importance. Thus, the monitoring philosophy behind the CWPPRA Monitoring Program is based on adaptive management (Boesch et al. 1994) and feedback monitoring (Gray and Jensen 1993). Consequently, the Monitoring Program not only detects unsuccessful projects, but also provides other CWPPRA working groups with a basis for improved project designs and operation.

Determining the effectiveness of CWPPRA projects in creating, restoring, protecting, and enhancing coastal wetlands in Louisiana is a daunting task because spatial and temporal variability cause differences between reference and project areas that hinder traditional experimental design and statistical techniques (Underwood 1994). The temporal variability and large spatial variability across the Louisiana coastal zone in wetland loss rates not only reduce the value of traditional experimental design and statistical techniques but also require a monitoring approach with a high degree of flexibility if the effectiveness of management actions under different environmental conditions are to be detected (Boesch et al. 1994). Thus, the Monitoring Program is designed not only to detect unsuccessful projects, but also to provide a basis for improved project designs and operation. The data generated from the Monitoring Program will be used to refine decision criteria and improve the level of accepted decision error. This will improve the quality of results and confidence in management decisions.

Management of all monitoring activities is the responsibility of LDNR/CRD, however, QC responsibilities (i.e., verifying that all decisions and practices will result in quality data) are shared by senior staff members. QC is consolidated under the QA Manager who has final QC authority.

A critical early step by MWG was the development of rigorous, standardized protocols that could guide the monitoring of projects (Steyer and Stewart 1992). That document was prepared with the input of the academic community and categorized project types, goals, biological variables, and standardized data collection methodologies. Its use by project managers ensures that project monitoring plans will dictate the proper variables to be monitored, along with proper sampling methods, proper sampling frequency, and appropriate statistical tests.

MWG verifies that project monitoring plans were designed according to the standardized protocols and that deviations from the protocols will not alter the ability to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of the project at protecting or restoring coastal wetlands. After verification by MWG, project monitoring plans are finalized by TAG and submitted to the P&E Subcommittee.

A technical audit will be conducted annually by a consulting wetland ecologist (QA Auditor) from the academic community. The primary focus of the technical audit is to verify that instructions laid out in the monitoring plans are being followed. Field collection methods, data handling methods, data analyses methods, and prepared project monitoring reports will be audited.

A program audit will be conducted annually by the QA Manager and periodically by the chairman of the P&E Subcommittee. The primary focus of this audit is to verify that the management decisions made by TAG and the Program Manager advance the goals of the Monitoring Program. This audit will use the benefit of hindsight to determine if policies should be re-evaluated. TAG and the Program Manager will use the technical and program audits to revise monitoring activities.

An accessible data base of temporal and spatial monitoring data, maintained by the State of Louisiana, will encourage the publication of monitoring results so that the ecosystem management techniques developed in Louisiana can be made available to and be peer reviewed by a national and international audience. Peer review is a final step to verify that monitoring plans provide the data necessary to determine the effectiveness of projects.

II. PERSONNEL

CWPPRA provides for the selection of approximately 5-15 projects each year for implementation. A priority list of projects has been approved each year since 1991 and will continue through 1995. Pending availability of funds, additional project lists may be approved for implementation. With the approval of each successive priority list, monitoring responsibilities increase and personnel requirements expand. LDNR/CRD assures that adequate staffing levels will be provided to meet monitoring responsibilities.

II.1 Qualifications

The broad range of ecological data collected in the monitoring program requires a diversity of expertise in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of such data. Personnel within the program have specialties in the following areas: estuarine ecology, wetland ecology, coastal processes, wildlife and fisheries science, plant and soil taxonomy, hydrology, water quality, geography, and statistics. Most personnel on-board have graduate degrees. All personnel who conduct data collection are familiar with basic wetland ecology or biology. Appendix A includes position descriptions and qualifications of all personnel involved in the program. Tables 2a and 2b list current personnel involved in the monitoring program.

II.2 Training

II.2.1 Field Methods

Field data required by project monitoring plans will be collected by geoscience specialists stationed at regional field offices or the LDNR/CRD Baton Rouge office of the Biological Analysis Section. Qualifications for those positions are given in appendix A. All geoscience specialists will attend an annual Field Methods meeting where personnel will practice standardized techniques to ensure adequate training. Personnel will practice using all field gear including, but not limited to, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) (section V.6), continuous data recorders, dissolved oxygen meters, velocity meters, soil redox electrodes, soil coring devices, salinometers, staff gauges, and transit levels. Personnel will practice collection and handling techniques of biomass plots, soil samples, water samples, and fishery samples. Personnel will practice species identification of all common emergent and submersed plant species and visually estimating distance and cover. The meeting will be conducted over 3-5 days and be developed and directed by the Geoscience Program Supervisor with assistance from the Geoscience Program Manager and the academic community. The Geoscience Program Supervisor will identify academic trainers and appropriately certified instructors and will be responsible for ensuring that all instructors and materials are current for any particular training under sections II.2.1-II.2.5 before that training is administered. Training will be verified by testing at the conclusion of the Field Methods meeting and via Louisiana Civil Service evaluations. The course will be evaluated

Table 2a. Biological Analysis Section staff and their positions as of April 1, 1995.

Table 2b. National Biological Service, Southern Science Center, Analysis Section staff and their positions as of April 1, 1995.

by geoscience specialists and comments will be provided to training personnel as part of the quality improvement process.

II.2.2 Laboratory Methods

All personnel who conduct routine laboratory procedures will attend an annual Laboratory Methods meeting where personnel will review standard laboratory practices related to the handling and measurement of samples for soil bulk density, dry weight of soil and vegetation samples, soil organic matter content, and water salinity. Laboratory training related to more complicated or less used techniques, or techniques requiring the use of hazardous materials, will not be conducted because those analyses will be contracted to commercial and academic laboratories. Personnel will be trained, however, in the preparation of spiked samples that will be sent to contract laboratories to verify the quality of those analyses. The Laboratory Methods meeting will be developed and directed by the Geoscience Program Supervisor with assistance from the Geoscience Program Manager and the academic community and will generally be conducted concurrently with the Field Methods meeting. Training will be verified by testing at the conclusion of the meeting and via Louisiana Civil Service evaluations. The course will be evaluated by geoscience specialists and comments will be provided to training personnel as part of the quality improvement process.

II.2.3 Data Processing and Analysis Training

All personnel who conduct data processing and analysis will attend training in the use of relevant software packages.

Spatial data are processed by NBS/SSC via a cooperative agreement with LDNR/CRD. Their training is described in a Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) document (NBS n.d.).

Nonspatial data are processed by the Biological Analysis Section, LDNR/CRD. Data will be processed and analyzed by geoscience specialists trained in the use of ORACLE, EXCEL, WordPerfect^®, and SAS software by experienced geoscience specialists and Information Systems Applications Programmer/Analyst 1. Training will be developed and directed by an Information Systems Applications Programmer/Analyst 2 and verified by a biostatistician, geoscience supervisor and via Louisiana Civil Service evaluations.

II.2.4 Safety

Safety training is a critical component of the monitoring program due to exposure to potential hazards in land, sea, and air. All personnel will be required to attend safety training every three years. The following is a list of types of trainings required in this program:

A. Water safety and boat handling: U.S. Coast Guard-approved boat safety training required of all field personnel involved in boat operation.

B. Airboat training: Eight hours of airboat training, including operation, by a qualified airboat operator.

C. First aid and CPR: Mandatory for field personnel and encouraged for office personnel.

D. All-terrain vehicle (ATV): Eight hours training by a certified instructor in the safety and use of an ATV before operation.

E. Aviation Safety Training: NBS/SSC employees flying special use missions or serving as aircrew members must have OAS Aviation User training every three years. NBS/SSC policy requires pinch-hitter training and certification for employees flying regular missions on projects.

F. Laboratory Safety Standards: Training and certification required.

II.2.5 Technical and Project Management

All personnel having technical and/or project management responsibilities will initially attend introductory project management training upon accrual of these duties. The training will be developed and directed by the Geoscience Program Supervisor with assistance from the Geoscience Program Manager. Continual training will be required as additional responsibilities are accrued.

II.2.6 Professional Development

All personnel will be encouraged and solicited to make presentations at scientific and professional meetings. Personnel are required to stay current in the scientific literature and are encouraged to seek additional scientific/academic training. Professional development is also maintained through the state of Louisiana 's Certified Public Training Program.

III. PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT, SERVICES, AND SUPPLIES

III.1 Contract and Purchasing Procedures

LDNR/CRD Program Managers have the responsibility of acquiring services needed to fulfill all the obligations and requirements of the monitoring program. LDNR/CRD has an administrative staff that is responsible for administering contracts and legally binding agreements through which LDNR/CRD acquires or renders all goods (deliverables) and/or services.

LDNR purchasing, individually and in conjunction with other state entities, operates under various statutes (Louisiana Revised Statutes [LRS]); administrative codes (Louisiana Administrative Codes [LAC]); and Executive Orders. The documents pertinent to procurement of equipment, services, and supplies include, but are not limited to:

1. LRS 39, Chapter 17, Louisiana Procurement Code

2. LAC 34, Part I, Rules and Regulations

3. Executive Order EWE 92-53 (small purchases)

4. LRS 38:2211 et al., Chapter 10 (construction/public works-letting bids)

5. LRS 39, Chapter 19 (Louisiana Minority and Women's Business Enterprise Act)

The administrative staff have extracted and simplified these documents to provide in-house guidelines (unpublished Policy and Procedural Memoranda) that identify procedures to be followed to adequately track and manage contracts. The completed codification of procedures, however, appears in the above listed documents. Specific guidelines include, but are not limited to: (1) requests for contracts and amendments, (2) billing and invoices, (3) selection of vendor, (4) contracting party requirements, and (5) purchasing process. Checklists are provided to ensure submission and routing of appropriate information to minimize contracting and purchasing problems. The administrative staff are expected to, at a minimum:

1. Review and track all significant paperwork, including: project narrative; scope of services; budget; request for contracts and amendments or proposals; purchase and change orders; invoices; payments; ensure dual sign-off where needed for technical and administrative review; and ensure all commitments/requests of any kind are in writing and by the appropriate persons.

2. Ensure complete documentation and filing of all significant documents, correspondence, and other information.

3. Coordinate, develop, or initiate correspondence, written alternatives, recommendations, responses, and preventative actions to project concerns/problems.

4. Prepare postassignment reports on all projects and contracts when completed.

5. Inquire and arrange for orderly transfer of project/contract management responsibilities.

6. Ensure that minority/disadvantaged business enterprises have the maximum opportunity to compete for and perform contracted services.

7. Personally inspect all purchases and deliverables and verify whether they are satisfactory and in keeping with the terms and conditions of the contract. Authorization or payment of invoices should not be processed until deliverables are in-hand or documented.

8. In the case of contracted facilities or laboratories, monitoring reports are provided by the contractor at the time of invoicing and reviewed by LDNR/CRD program managers for compliance and provided to the administrative staff. The LDNR/CRD program managers complete a performance evaluation form at the end of the contract period and provide this to the administrative staff. The review of the contractor includes evaluating compliance with LDNR/CRD standards and the contract conditions and deliverables.

IV. QUALITY ASSURANCE OBJECTIVES

IV.1 QA Mission Statement

The objective of this QMP is to define and assure that processes involved in the implementation of the monitoring program meet QA and QC requirements of CWPPRA. The QA Mission is to certify that all data collected in this program meet the quality objectives defined below, and that CWPPRA management will support decisions necessary to meet the level of detail described in this QMP.

IV.2 Measurement Quality Objectives

Introduction

QA methodology, as set forth in this QMP, is used to ensure that the QA Goals outlined in this section are met. All participants must be impressed from the beginning with the importance of maintaining a commitment to QC throughout the program. Training field personnel is an important part of QC. All personnel must be familiar with the procedures to be used, and confident in their ability to use the equipment, and that those procedures used are standardized among personnel to keep errors associated with data collected by different people to a minimum. Field and laboratory personnel must be given the opportunity to assess procedures and to suggest improvements. The Standard Operating Procedures for each method are discussed in detail in section V. This section presents only general QA considerations.

Measurement of quality objectives will be determined from manufacturer specifications, analytical methods, and the judgment of experts (if required). The five general quality objectives are discussed below.

Accuracy

Accuracy is the degree to which a measured value agrees with an accepted known value (Taylor 1988). Bias is the systematic error inherent in a method or caused by a particular measurement device. Accuracy will be assessed through the use of standards (manufacturer supplied) whenever such standards exist. Internal standards will be devised for methods where a commercially available standard does not exist. Accuracy is also ensured by field training to be sure that all personnel follow the same procedures.

Precision

Precision is a measure of scatter among repeated independent observations of the same property under controlled similar conditions (Taylor 1988). Precision in the field will be assessed by replicate measurements. Laboratory method precision will be estimated by repeating measurements of a sample standard. The sample precision will be estimated by repeated measurement of a sample or sample split.

Representativeness

Representativeness, or the degree to which data truly characterize a population or environmental condition (Stanley and Verner 1985, Smith et al. 1988), will be assessed by the use of the replicate samples. In the laboratory multiple subsamples will be made, and each of the subsamples will be analyzed in order to determine its variability. This will allow for the calculation of the number of laboratory subsamples needed to adequately describe the field sample.

Representativeness of the environment can only be assessed by examining both the temporal and spatial variability on a given project area. Environmental variability is usually estimated by collecting replicate samples (randomly chosen) over space and time. However, randomly selected samples may not adequately characterize a study area unless a large number of replicates are collected. Where spatial variation within a study area is evident, stratified random sampling may be employed. Temporal variation may be accounted for by restricting sampling to comparable time periods.

Comparability

Comparability is the degree of confidence with which data sets may be compared. Comparability will be ensured for laboratory analyses through the use of standard methods for which there is a known accuracy and precision. Comparability of field data sets will be accomplished by ensuring that the same procedures are followed by all sampling personnel. This is accomplished through the use of SOPs and proper training in field and laboratory techniques.

Completeness

Completeness, which is the ratio of the amount of valid data obtained to the amount expected (Stanley and Verner 1985, Smith et al. 1988), will also be used as an overall index for the program. If the completeness is not high enough the evaluation of a project may be compromised. Completeness for an individual project is defined as the amount of data and samples actually collected as a percentage of the amount of data and samples assigned to the monitoring effort when monitoring begins.

IV.3 Quality Assurance Goals

The quality assurance goals are summarized in table 3, which will serve as the overall guideline for the monitoring program by presenting, for each variable to be monitored, the accuracy, precision, and completeness goals as well as the expected range of values to be encountered. The variables to be monitored and the exact method by which each of these goals will be met for an individual project will be outlined in the project monitoring plan. However, the individual project plan must demonstrate that the goals listed in table 3 will be met. Table 4 lists the types of QC samples that will be employed.

Table 3. Quality Assurance Goals and expected ranges. Accuracy is in absolute units where possible; precision is based on the difference between replicated measurements. Percentages in the accuracy and precision goal columns represent tolerable error. The precision goal refers to individual measurements as well as between sampling crews. Data collected outside the expected range may be real but should be verified.

Type of Measurement Units Accuracy Precision Completeness Expected

Goal Goal Goal Range

1. Habitat Mapping

Photointerpretation habitat 7% NA 100% NA

Photoregistration m 15 m NA NA NA

2. Meteorological and Hydrologic Sampling

Precipitation cm/h 10% 5% 85% 0-15

Wind Speed m/s 0.7 m/s 0.5 m/s 85% 0-5

Wind Direction degrees 5 degrees 5 degrees 85% 0-360

Water Level (Stage) cm 1.0 cm 1.0 cm 85% -50-200

Salinity ppt 0.75 ppt 0.5 ppt 85% 0-36

Conductivity millsiemens 15% 10% 85% 0-50

Temperature centigrade 0.5 C 0.2 C 85% 5-35

pH pH units 0.2 0.1 85% 6-8.5

Discharge

Current Speed m/s 0.1 m/s 0.1 m/s 85% 0-2

Cross-Sectional Area m² 5% 5% 85% 0-500

Suspended Sediments mg/L 2 mg/L 2 mg/L 85% 0-200

Bathymetry cm 4.0 4.0 85% -200-0

Topography cm 4.0 4.0 85% -90-90

3. Soil/Sediment Sampling

Redox mV 20 mV 20% 85% -200-200

Percent Organic Matter % 10% 15% 85% 0-100

Bulk Density g/cm³ 0.1 g/cm³ 15% 85% 0.01-0.90

Percent Water % 10% 15% 85% 0-100

Salinity ppt 0.75 ppt 0.5 ppt 85% 0-50

Sulfides ppm 100 ppm 25% 85% 50-150

Grain Size microns NA 30% 85% 0.2-500

4. Surveying (horizontal)

GPS m 3 m 3 m 85% 0-300

Conventional m 0.3 m 0.3 m 85% 0-300

Table 3. (continued)

Type of Measurement Units Accuracy Precision Completeness Expected

Goal Goal Goal Range

5. Vertical Accretion

Feldspar cm 0.1 cm 30% 85% 0-2

SET Table cm 0.1 cm 30% 85% 0-2

Radionuclide cm 0.5 cm 30% 85% 0-2

6. Subsidence

From Tide Gauges cm/yr 0.5 cm/yr 0.5 cm/yr 85% 0-2

From C-14 Dating cm/yr 0.5 cm/yr 0.5 cm/yr 85% 0-2

From Extensometers cm/yr 0.5 cm/yr 0.5 cm/yr 85% 0-2

7. Marsh Erosion and Soil Creation

Large Scale m 2 m 2 m 85% 0-100

Small Scale cm 5 cm 5 cm 85% 0-200

8. Vegetative Health

Species Composition and relative abundance

Taxonomic ID species 10% NA 85% NA

Percent Cover % 10% 10% 85% 0-100

Number of Stems number/m² 10% 10% 85% 1-2,000

Aboveground Biomass

Clip Plots g/m² 20% 20% 85% 0-2,000

Stem Length cm 10% 20% 85% 1-200

9. Herbivory % 10% 10% 85% 0-100

10. Fisheries Sampling

Taxonomic ID species 10% NA 85% NA

Organism Counts numbers 10% NA 85% NA

Size mm 1 mm 1 mm 85% NA

11. Water Quality Sampling*

a) NH₄ mg/L 15% 15% 85% 0.4-40

b) NO₃ mg/L 15% 15% 85% 1-100

c) NO₂ mg/L 15% 15% 85% 0.1-10

d) Ortho P mg/L 15% 15% 85% 0.2-3

Table 3. (continued)

Type of Measurement Units Accuracy Precision Completeness Expected

Goal Goal Goal Range

e) Organic Carbon mg/L 15% 15% 85% 5-200

f) Volatile Organic Cs ug/L 15% 15% 85% Unknown

g) Pesticides ug/L 15% 15% 85% Unknown

h) Herbicides ug/L 15% 15% 85% Unknown

i) Insecticides ug/L 15% 15% 85% Unknown

j) Triazines ug/L 15% 15% 85% Unknown

k) Carbamates ug/L 15% 15% 85% Unknown

l) Priority Pollutants ug/L 15% 15% 85% Unknown

m) PCBs ug/L 15% 15% 85% Unknown

n) Dioxins ug/L 15% 15% 85% Unknown

* Accuracy and precision goals are dependent on detection level. The following are various detection limits for the nutrients and priority pollutants identified above: (a-d) 0.01-0.001 mg/L; (e) 0.1 mg/L; (f) 3 -0.2 mg/L; (g-h) 0.1-0.01 mg/L; (i) 0.1-0.001 mg/L; (j) 0.2-0.05 mg/L; (k) 0.5 ug/L; (l) 1-0.001 ug/L; (m) 0.1-0.001 ug/L; and (n) 0.001-0.0001 ug/L. Organic compounds are qualified by the percent recovery of the extraction procedures. The U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency typically consider extractions with efficiencies of 30%-140% as acceptable.

Table 4. Summary of QC samples and procedures to be used. Indicated for each type of QC is the purpose for which it is to be used (R = Representativeness, A = Accuracy, P = Precision, C = Comparability).

Type of QC Sample Purpose

Field and Laboratory Standard Methods R, C

Field Replicates at a Sample Location

Spatial R, C

Temporal R, C

Reference Sites R

Laboratory Replicates

Sample Splits R, C

Replicate Field Samples R, C

Laboratory Standards

Multiple Standards (i.e., 5-point calibration) P, A, C

Blanks P, A, C

IV.4 Assessment of Measurement Quality

Periodic QC checks are necessary to ensure that all measurements made will be reliable. Such checks are performed throughout all stages of field sampling, laboratory preparation, and data analysis. Internal checks will be made on no less than 10% of the samples taken, or measurements or estimates recorded. Field QC checks will consist of discussions with the sampling personnel to ensure that all personnel are following the standard field procedures. Each individual must demonstrate consistency and accuracy for the measurement technique during training. Sufficient training of each individual will ensure comparability among individuals and sample sites. In addition, replication of field sampling will allow for an estimate of precision of the field and laboratory procedures.

The formulas discussed below outline the basic methodology for the calculation of each of the five QA objectives. It should be pointed out that these are not the only means that will be employed in assessing the QA objectives. The monitoring plan for each individual project may, depending upon project type, outline alternate methods of assessing the QA objectives. In all cases, the methods used will be reviewed to ensure that they are statistically valid.

1. Accuracy can be assessed by the relative percent difference between the measured value and the true value, as set by a standard, using the following formula:

% difference = | true value ­ measured value | x 100

true value

In cases where more than two samples are involved (multiple readings of a standard), the relative standard deviation (RSD) that is the coefficient of variation (CV) expressed as a percentage can be used (Taylor 1988):

CV = standard deviation / mean

RSD = CV x 100

2. Precision, Representativeness, and Comparability, when based on analysis of replicate samples, will use the following formula for comparing two samples (or two subsamples of a given sample) as A and B:

% difference = | A ­ B | x 100

(A + B) / 2

In cases where there will be more than two replicates, the coefficient of variation can be used.

3. Completeness will be assessed by the percent of data collected as a percentage of the number of proposed samples to be collected and will be determined by the following formula:

% complete = | samples collected ­ proposed samples | x 100

proposed samples

Data quality will be assessed using the above general principles along with the Quality Assurance Goals. During analysis the geoscience specialist or laboratory analyst will keep track of the standard, blank, and replicate readings each time samples are measured to ensure that the values fall within the guidelines. If values fall outside the guidelines, a decision will be made by the geoscience specialist in consultation with the geoscience supervisor regarding the acceptability of the error.

V. STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES

V.1 General Considerations

Introduction

Monitoring standard operating procedures (SOP) provides an established method that can be followed to direct the development and implementation of project-specific monitoring plans. Steyer and Stewart (1992) developed a plan to provide these procedures. The SOPs described in this QMP are taken and expanded from Steyer and Stewart and they describe in greater detail the QA/QC measures employed with each procedure. The SOPs were written by the CWPPRA Monitoring Work Group and refined by LDNR/CRD geoscience specialists and the academic community. Other SOPs not covered in the Steyer and Stewart (1992) document were written by academic experts contracted by the Geoscience Program Manager. All SOPs are reviewed and revised (if necessary) annually by the geoscience supervisors upon approval by the QA Manager. The information provided in each document will have some redundancy but should also compliment each other.

Project Types Requiring Monitoring

Under Act 6 and CWPPRA, all projects were categorized into nine types: freshwater introduction and diversions, sediment diversions, marsh management, hydrologic restoration, beneficial use of dredged material, shoreline protection, barrier island restoration, vegetative planting, and sediment and nutrient trapping.

A critical step in establishing a successful monitoring program is to define the goals used to conduct the monitoring. If the goals are poorly defined, there will be no guidance in the establishment of protocols. CWPPRA requires an evaluation of the effectiveness of each project in achieving its specific goals directed towards creating, restoring, protecting, and enhancing coastal wetlands. For example, a project using dredged material may be built to reduce wave energies and consequent physical erosion, or develop a new soil and sediment base at a proper elevation to restore or maintain vegetated marsh. Each of these projects begins with a hypothesis or set of hypotheses related to the expected change in physical, biological, or chemical variables of the project area. These hypotheses then guide the monitoring program as to which variables will be monitored and how frequently.

Freshwater Introduction and Diversion

Freshwater introduction and diversion projects are designed to introduce fresh water and alluvial material from available sources to shallow marsh estuaries. Areas targeted for freshwater diversion projects are characterized by saltwater intrusion, sediment subsidence, and shoreline erosion. The primary goal of these projects is to enhance wetlands by increasing the use of fresh water, nutrients, and sediment that will be provided by the freshwater diversions. Management of the outfall will route the fresh water through the wetlands and provide greater deposition of sediments in the marsh to offset subsidence, greater availability of nutrients to vegetation, and a more gradual release of fresh water to the benefit of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. Monitoring freshwater diversions will help to determine if any changes or modifications are needed in the operation.

Sediment Diversion

Sediment diversions are projects that increase deposition of river-borne sediment in shallow bay areas that cannot keep pace with subsidence through sediment accretion. A small-scale sediment diversion project is designed around the concept of natural crevasse splay development. Where a breach occurs in the bank of a river, sediment infilling begins within the surrounding distributary bays, and crevasse splay sediment eventually becomes subaerial and established with marsh vegetation. Large-scale sediment diversions on the Mississippi River are designed to be similar to the large natural crevasses such as the one at Baptiste Collette, La. The primary goal of the project is to create and manage crevasses through the natural levee ridges of rivers and major distributary channels so that the natural land-building process can create emergent and submergent aquatic communities critical to the overall productivity of the deltaic systems. Monitoring of sediment diversions will help to determine the management of the crevasses.

Marsh Management

In marsh management projects, structures actively manipulate local hydrology to control water levels and salinity, while concurrently allowing ingress and egress of marine organisms. Marsh management plans generally incorporate existing canal spoil banks, the construction of short levees to connect these spoil banks, the installation of water control structures, and/or the construction of pump and other control structures to introduce fresh water into the managed area and keep out saline water. The main goals of marsh management are to minimize the loss of and promote the growth of emergent and submergent plant communities by reducing salinities, stabilizing water levels, and restricting tidal exchange. Monitoring of marsh management projects will help determine operation schedules for pumps and structures.

Hydrologic Restoration

Hydrologic restoration projects typically try to reestablish former hydrologic pathways and flow regimes, with the goal of redistributing fresh water to influence water levels and salinity. Specifically, hydrologic restoration tends to reduce rapid tidal fluctuations and improve freshwater retention. These manipulations of the local hydrology will aid in the reestablishment of emergent and submergent plant communities. Monitoring will help determine hydrologic effects on biological resources.

Beneficial Use of Dredged Material

Open-water bodies and navigational channels are often sources of dredged sediment material that could be beneficially used to create vegetated wetlands or to restore areas of deteriorating marsh. Sediment can be pumped into confined or unconfined areas to a height conducive to marsh development. Once the dredged material settles, growth of emergent vegetation can be promoted. Monitoring will help determine the applicability of this technique for marsh creation.

Shoreline Protection

Shoreline protection projects use structural and nonstructural measures such as breakwaters, bulkheads, revetments, longyard tubes, wave-damping fences, and levees to reduce wave energies and erosive action. Critical shoreline areas threatened with hydrological breaches could be protected to prevent wave erosion and water exchange from jeopardizing the physical integrity of the shoreline and adjacent marshes. Vegetation could also be incorporated into the shoreline protection design to create habitat as well as an additional erosion buffer. Monitoring will help determine the effectiveness of different shoreline protection techniques in reducing wave erosion and in creating wetland habitat.

Barrier Island Restoration

Barrier islands provide protection to backbarrier bays, estuaries, and marshes. This protection includes reduction of erosional effects and wind and wave energies, dissipation of storm surges, and prevention of saltwater intrusion. Over the last century, Louisiana's barrier islands have been reduced by approximately 40%, resulting in loss of habitat and protection for the coastal mainland. Barrier island restoration projects are needed to reestablish this natural protective zone. Barrier island restoration projects include creation of barrier islands or augmentation of existing islands. The objectives of these projects are to increase the height and width of the barrier island and close any shoreline breaches by using dredged materials and vegetation. Monitoring will help determine the effectiveness of restoration and creation techniques.

Vegetative Planting

Vegetative planting projects are designed to introduce suitable plant species into deteriorating marsh areas and along eroding shorelines to provide a buffer against erosive wave action. Vegetative plantings also provide many other functions such as sediment stabilization, sediment trapping, and habitat value. Monitoring will help determine the success and effectiveness of different vegetative planting techniques in reducing wetland erosional loss and in creating wetland habitat.

Sediment and Nutrient Trapping

Sediment and nutrient trapping projects use structural devices such as brush fences or earthen berms to reduce wave energies, promote the deposition of suspended sediment, and increase water clarity. The goals are to reduce erosion of windward marsh edges, promote the growth of emergent vegetation, and increase the overall productivity of the area. Monitoring will help determine the effectiveness of different sediment- and nutrient-trapping techniques.

Reference Areas

The importance of using appropriate reference areas cannot be overemphasized. Monitoring on both project and reference areas provides a means to achieve statistically valid comparisons, and is therefore the most effective means of evaluating project success.

If appropriate reference areas are available, they should always be included in the design to allow for interpretation of the influence of temporal and spatial variation on projects. When monitoring projects without a reference area(s), differences between pretreatment means and post-treatment means may be misinterpreted. Long-term means are often averages that do not adequately represent rates or conditions that vary in space or time.

Selection of a reference area should ideally be done before project initiation. Reference areas should be ecologically similar to the project area yet located far enough away so as to not be influenced by the project. Potential reference areas can be selected by use of WVA methods or through more basic comparisons of structural and functional attributes. To ensure the selection of appropriate reference areas, an interagency team of scientists should be convened. If there is any question concerning the similarity of the reference and project areas, more than one reference area should be selected. Appropriate reference areas are more likely to be found in smaller project areas.

It is recognized that in many areas of Louisiana, appropriate reference areas cannot be identified. In addition, the extent of wetland modification (both planned and unplanned) occurring in this region often results in the loss of reference areas before monitoring efforts are completed. We also recognize that occasionally, especially in the case of very large projects (e.g., sediment diversions and freshwater diversions from the Mississippi River or watershed projects) it may be difficult to select reference areas that adequately reflect the same marsh type and function as those being affected by the project. In these cases, two strategies can be adopted:

1. Monitoring before and after project implementation. The disadvantages of this strategy include delay in project implementation, temporal variability, and the inability to clearly identify cumulative impacts of the project in comparison to unaffected areas. In addition, before and after monitoring cannot ensure that the same events are being monitored for comparison; therefore, interpretation of the results will be difficult. However, such monitoring would provide some indication of project performance and impact.

2. Baseline data collection. This may be especially important in areas where reference areas cannot be selected for monitoring. As a "once only" data collection program, it would not delay project implementation as much as full-scale monitoring before implementation (as in [1] above). It would provide a datum against which changing biological variables could be compared. In some cases, existing data bases might be considered appropriate as baseline data. If this were to occur, an interagency team of experts or their scientific advisors should be convened to evaluate the suitability of the existing data bases for this purpose.

Although before and after monitoring of the project implementation and baseline data collection do provide valuable information, they do not necessarily provide a statistically valid evaluation of projects.

Statistical Analyses

The size of the project area, the number of different habitats present, and the heterogeneity within those habitats should define the number of statistical strata necessary for an analysis.

Before sampling is initiated, it is important to determine the desired statistical power for the analysis (Fairweather 1991). This procedure involves using a variance estimate to calculate the number of samples required to detect a percentage difference between two means. Initially, the sample size required to achieve this power can be estimated from sample variances reported in the literature, and these estimates can be refined by using data collected in the reference area selection process. It should be recognized that this power will often improve with the use of data transformations and more complex analysis of variance (ANOVA) designs.

Adequate characterization of environmental conditions in project and reference areas requires that temporal and spatial variations are addressed in the statistical design. A statistical comparison is only valid if the statistical parameters being compared have been carefully and adequately estimated by a sampling design that considers heterogeneity. Randomly selected sample sites may not adequately characterize a study area unless a large number of replicate samples are collected. Where spatial variation within study areas is evident, stratified random sampling is a more appropriate approach to adequate characterization. Temporal variation may be accounted for by restricting sampling to comparable time periods. When spatial variations within project and reference areas require replicate sampling within environmental strata, sampling efforts among strata may be uneven. Balance in the data set may be adjusted by weighing where sampling efforts are not equal among strata. Habitat mapping of project and reference areas is useful in defining weighing factors for statistical comparisons.

The adequacy of sampling may be evaluated by plotting the behavior of means and variances against sample size. As the number of samples approaches adequacy, the mean and variance should stabilize (Hurtubia 1973; Pielou 1969).

Data analysis for a project may include a two-way ANOVA with area and habitat as main effects. In the most basic design, the null hypothesis is a two-tail test of whether the mean value for some variable is equal between the project area and the reference area(s), or between the preproject and postproject condition. The alternate hypothesis should be whether the mean value for that variable at the project area is greater or less than in reference areas or whether the preproject condition is greater or less than the postproject condition. It is important to determine whether the mean value for the variable increased or decreased because of the project, taking into consideration other outside influences.

Field Data

A coding scheme will be used to identify the type of project, the project name, the type of data, the date the data were collected, and the location where the data were collected for each sample. The location will be provided in either latitude/longitude or UTM coordinates. These steps are needed to ensure that sufficient documentation exists for verification of data accuracy. Data coding will be the responsibility of geoscience specialists and oversight will verify that all data are properly coded to ensure compatibility with the CWPPRA Regional GIS Data Base.

Spatial Data

All spatial data will conform to an Executive Order dated 11 April 1994, describing standardized methods of data acquisition and access. The proper coding of spatial data will be the responsibility of the Supervisory Geographer and GIS Specialist to ensure compatibility with the CWPPRA Regional GIS Data Base.

Routine QA Procedures

1. Field

For accurate data collection, necessary equipment must be in good working order. The equipment will be checked and calibrated prior to departure from LDNR/CRD or NBS/SSC (appendix B). Proper storage and stowage must be practiced to prevent damage. At each site, equipment will be given a routine check and, if necessary, calibrated before field use.

The entry of data onto a data sheet must be done accurately and neatly. The following general guidelines will be observed and checked by the QA Officer.

A. Ensure you are entering the correct data in the correct place on the proper data sheet.

B. Double check sample numbers and station location ID codes when recording data.

C. If data are entered in a nonstandard location on the data sheet, be sure to document the reason for doing so.

D. All data are to be recorded in pencil.

E. Print all entries legibly, be sure that similar numbers (e.g., 5s, 8s, and 2s) are distinguishable.

F. Double check all entries on the data sheets.

G. Do not erase or use paper correction fluid; cross-out the entry and write the corrected number nearby and initial the cross-out. If there is not room to write the new number, write it in the margin or at the bottom of the page. Be sure to annotate all entries.

Upon completion of sampling but before departing a site, the monitoring manager will examine all data forms for completeness and legibility. All samples must be checked for proper identification and storage. If data are missing or incomplete, the monitoring manager should attempt to collect it before leaving the site. If the situation cannot be corrected, it will be fully documented.

In the case of data readings that are outside the expected measurement bounds (table 3), an attempt will be made to determine the cause of the problem. The SOP will be checked for the method to be sure that the correct procedures are being followed, and the field equipment will be rechecked to be sure that it is functioning properly. If the field equipment is functioning properly, record the data along with a note as to what was done. This will help ensure that any outliers on the data set are real values, and not due to sampling error. This procedure will also be followed on laboratory analyses.

2. Laboratory

The following minimum criteria will be used in routine laboratory analyses and will be checked by the QA Officer. Details of any additional criteria for a specific variable will be discussed in the SOP for that variable.

A. Weighing Accuracy: balances will be checked by weighing standard weights at the beginning of each batch. The number of samples in a batch are defined in the laboratory SOP for the particular analysis. Three standard weights will be weighed and the values recorded on the appropriate data sheet. The values obtained must be within ±5% of the standard weights. If the standard weights are not within 5%, stop the analysis and contact the geoscience supervisor since it is likely that the balance needs repair.

B. Weighing Precision: determined by having 10% of the samples from each analysis run reweighed, and the values recorded on the appropriate data sheet. The samples are to be randomly selected. The weighings are to be done independently and the data from the two weighings merged and analyzed by one of the monitoring managers. The separate weightings must be within ±5% of each other.

C. Temperature and Time Precision: analysis involving drying and/or ashing samples for specified times and temperatures (as set forth in the SOP for the variable being analyzed) shall have the times and oven (or furnace) temperatures (determined with laboratory thermometer) logged on the appropriate data sheet when a batch is placed in or removed from the drying oven (or furnace).

D. Data Completeness: expressed as the percentage of data obtained of the total that was possible from the analysis based upon the number of samples brought to the lab. Data loss arises from improper storage, illegible data sheets, or failure to follow the SOP. The program goal is to have a data completeness value of 85% or greater.

E. Sample Representativeness: an estimate of how well an individual analysis represents the value for the entire sample. This will be assessed by taking three subsamples from every tenth sample. The values obtained from the subsamples should be within the accuracy guidelines listed in table 3.

In addition to the above general laboratory QA guidelines, laboratory personnel are responsible for maintaining a sample custody log (appendix B). The sample custody transfers to the laboratory when the monitoring manager turns in the samples to be analyzed (the laboratory QA Manager signs for the samples upon receipt). While samples are being inventoried and analyzed, data sheets documenting receipt of samples, date of processing, analysis results, and any problems encountered will be filled out and kept on file. The entry of data into the laboratory notebook or onto a data sheet must be done accurately and neatly, following the same guidelines used for field data entry.

Samples will not be discarded until after all analyses have been performed and the quality of the analyses checked. Should an analysis not meet the quality guidelines, the samples will be reanalyzed.

V.2 Project Boundaries

Initial Determination Procedures

The WVA work group initially determines boundaries once a project has been proposed for nomination as a priority project. The NBS/SSC obtains these preliminary boundaries (delineated on various forms of base maps) from the WVA work group. These boundaries are then digitized (either from 7.5-min quad sheets or heads-up digitizing), incorporated into an ARC/Info data base and overlaid on thematic mapper (TM) base maps.

Final Determination Procedures

Once a reduced list of priority projects has been decided upon, a final WVA assessment is conducted. During this process project boundaries may be redefined or modified by the WVA work group. These modified boundaries are then transferred to the NBS/SSC and appropriate changes made to the data base.

The final determination of which priority projects have been approved for the current fiscal year is determined by the CWPPRA Task Force. The list of final projects is entered into the CWPPRA Regional GIS Data Base housed at LDNR/CRD.

V.3 Habitat Mapping

Four dates of photography will be flown for each project. Certain types of restoration projects (such as vegetative plantings or shoreline protection) may only require having the aerial photography flown. Other projects (e.g., hydrologic restoration or marsh management), require detailed habitat mapping in order to assess project impacts in the future. The basic goal of habitat mapping is to provide a consistency of products by using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) wetland classification system (Cowardin et al. 1979) so that wetland habitat changes can be accurately assessed throughout the project life. For those projects where detailed mapping is required, the photography will be prepared and photointerpreted onto stable base mylars. After the photoacquisition and photointerpretation phases, the data will go through a digital conversion stage to be readied for geographic information systems (GIS) analyses.

Aerial Photography

High-resolution, color-infrared aerial photography will be the primary mapping medium for habitat monitoring. The scales of the aerial photography are 1:12,000 or 1:24,000, depending on the project size. The level of effort needed to establish baseline conditions, as described in each site-specific monitoring plan, may differ depending on the project type. All of the restoration projects will have photography flown and will have horizontal controls established in the field using aerial targets and Global Positioning Systems (GPS) for georeferencing. The georeferencing will be used for the development of project base maps, photorectification, and replication of mapping for future trend analysis.

Project areas to be flown will be identified by September 1 each year, to the NBS/SSC Project Manager by the TAG chairman. The boundaries for each unit shall be converted into digital files compatible with MapGrafix^® on the MacIntosh^® for flight planning. Preflight planning will include manipulation of the boundary files in MapGrafix^® to determine number of frames of photography to be acquired and the optimal location of flight lines. Digital flightline files shall be reviewed by the NBS/SSC mapping section leader, Spatial Analysis Branch (SAB) chief at NBS/SSC, and the chairman of TAG. Digital flight planning files shall be delivered to the photoacquisition contractor for coordination of photography coverage. Preflight planning will be coordinated with the contractor in order to provide detail for areas to be covered and to obtain maximum coverage, given potential constraints imposed by weather, seasonal aspects of vegetation, and budget. A communications network shall be developed with the contractor so that researchers can be deployed at the time of the flight to obtain data that will be correlated with the photography. The contractor shall notify the project officer at least 24 hr in advance of any flight to allow researchers enough time to get into the field.

All original aerial photography is duplicated and film is stored at the NBS/SSC photograph archive. All aerial photographs will be indexed by locating the center point of each frame on a 1:100,000-scale U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle. The center points will be labeled with the frame number and joined together to show flight lines. The 1:100,000 will be labeled with the roll number(s) and dates of photoacquisition. Each year's photographs will be indexed on separate 1:100,000-scale quadrangles. The center of points of each frame will be digitized using ARC/Info V.6.1.2. A copy of the final digital flight line data (with ancillary information such as date of acquisition of photographs (month/year), scale, emulsion, and project name) will be submitted to the NBS/SSC Project Manager for inclusion into the CWPPRA Regional GIS Data Base.

Whenever possible natural or human-made permanent features will be used for horizontal ground control since these can be used year after year and will not have to be revisited. GPS readings can be taken on these features at any time, and planning for this part of the operation is not dependent upon when the photographic flight is to take place. Where permanent features are not present, nonpermanent features such as sharp points of marsh, trees, etc., may be used to reduce the number of targets needed and thus time involved in the operation. In order to use these nonpermanent features, recent photography will have to be obtained because these features usually do not show up on available topographic quadrangles, which makes preplanning from the quadrangles virtually impossible.

For areas where these natural or human-made features cannot be found, targets will need to be constructed and placed out in preplanned locations. Planning for target construction will need to be coordinated with the contractor flying the photography so that the targets are placed in the field within two weeks of the flight. GPS readings will need to be obtained on the targets when they are placed in the field.

Photointerpretation

Aerial photography will be field checked in order to ensure correct photointerpretation using a standard check sheet (appendix B). Prior to field checks, a review of available information for background on the ecology of the area to be field checked will be conducted. Examples of materials to be checked include: field guides, plant lists, hydric soils lists, salinity maps, soil surveys, and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps. Photographs will be examined to choose checksites based on: (1) unusual but important signatures; (2) problem signatures; (3) water regime signatures (salinities); and (4) specific signature problems based on forest types.

The checksites should be marked on the photographs and the topographic maps. In order to separate comments written prior to the field trip from those taken while in the field, red and green Pilot pens will be used for prefield notes and black Pilot pens for infield notes.

After the field check, all checksite classifications are transferred onto the photographs and topographic maps. Make sure the field data sheet number corresponds to the topographic map number. Place an asterisk on the aerial photograph as close to the exact spot visited as possible within the wetland polygon.

All photointerpreters should become familiar with the mapping techniques and conventions created by the NWI. These methods will be adapted to the specific needs of CWPPRA. The photointerpreter shall ensure that the overlays are correctly aligned to the fiducial marks on the photographs before beginning the interpretation process.

All delineations and labeling are made with waterproof black ink in legible script. In order to ensure accurate delineations, wetland cover types lying along the outer borders of each photograph should be edge-matched in stereo with interpretations of all previous work. This linework should not overlap the previous work but should stop just short of it. In addition to matching edges, two registration points should be placed in stereo on the overlays of all adjacent boundaries of the photographs. This will be of great help to the GIS operator when the overlays are scanned and mosaicked. The boundary between the fresh and salt marshes along with the appropriate salinity modifier will be determined by using the Chabreck and Linscombe 1988 maps as the first cut for salinity delineation unless field verification overrides.

For the greatest consistency of each project, which will impact precision and accuracy, the same photointerpretor should photointerpret the preconstruction and 1-2 yr postconstruction photography at the same time.

Digital Conversion and Photomosaicking

The digital conversion phase includes the scanning of photographs and also the raster to vector conversion of the photointerpreted data set. The aerial photography will be scanned and rectified using GPS georeferencing points, mosaicked together and plotted to provide an accurate and current base map for each restoration site. The photointerpreted mylars are scanned and converted to binary raster file format. The raster file is registered to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinates using ground-truthed GPS points. The raster file is then converted to vector format using a GIS software package containing algorithms that recognize the difference of the pixel colors, which in turn enables the software to follow the raster edges and create vector lines. All vector linework is then cleaned to remove over- and undershoots, dangling lines, etc., and topologically correct polygons are created, which are then labeled with the appropriate habitat codes from the photointerpretation phase. Raster to vector conversion technology is a more accurate and efficient approach to producing a digital data set in comparison to the manual zoom transfer scope and digitizing process.

Rectified photomosaic digital data for each restoration site will be output in an image format readily useable by ARC/Info such as an ERDAS .lan or .GIS format or an ARC/Info grid format. The NBS/SSC Project Manager will ensure that the photomosaic datum for each site will be made available for incorporation into the CWPPRA Regional GIS Data Base for use by end-users. The photomosaic data will be archived at both NBS/SSC and LDNR/CRD.

GIS Analysis

For each time interval, standard habitat acreage summary reports will be generated utilizing the ARC/Info polygon coverage for each site, and a habitat area change table identifying and quantifying types of change will be generated for each comparison. A summary change table and a simplified change map will also be produced for each site for interpretation and presentation purposes. Large-scale (1:18000 or 1:24000) and small-scale habitat maps (report-sized, 11 x 17 in.) will be produced for each site utilizing either electrostatic, laser, or color-thermal plotting devices. The maps will utilize standard color schemes and a standard cartographic layout. Draft maps and associated wetland trend data will be prepared and sent to the NBS/SSC Project Manager for review. The manager will distribute the draft data to the TAG members for comment. Once a map is finalized, a master version will be produced for distribution. All digital plot files used to produce the maps will be saved in both a device-specific and a PostScript format. The maps will be clearly identified utilizing the NBS/SSC map identification system. The hard-copy maps and digital plot files will be archived at both NBS/SSC and LDNR/CRD.

The NBS/SSC Project Manager will receive copies of the final digital and hard-copy versions of the habitat data. The project manager will then ensure that the hard-copy and digital data are transmitted to LDNR/CRD and the data are properly archived at both LDNR/CRD and NBS/SSC. The digital habitat data will be stored in the CWPPRA Regional GIS Data Base and at NBS/SSC and made available on-line to end-users along with the rectified photomosaic image used to create the habitat data.

Each year of data will be incorporated into the GIS on a project-by-project basis. Individual year maps will be created according to the original classification scheme. As the next time period of data are accumulated on a project-by-project basis, trend maps will be made with the original classification scheme being aggregated to wetlands, uplands, and water for each date in the analyses. For special projects, different combinations of the original classification scheme can be used to determine more specific types of change. For all GIS analyses, hard-copy maps and acreage statistics will be made available to TAG. The importance of using the hard-copy maps in conjunction with the acreage statistics for monitoring purposes is stressed to show the spatial picture of what is happening at each project instead of strictly reviewing numbers.

V.4 Meteorologic and Hydrologic Sampling

V.4.1 General Considerations

The hydrologic and meteorologic sampling is characterized by variables that require monitoring at sampling frequencies ranging from continuous to daily, depending upon the type of variable and the relative stability of the environment in which it is being measured. Winds need to be monitored on a continuous (~5 min sampling interval) basis owing to the highly dynamic character of this variable. In near-coastal situations (salt, brackish, and possibly intermediate marshes) the water movements are characterized by fluctuations at periods ranging from tidal (25 hr) to annual. In these areas, sampling generally needs to be at a 1-hr frequency. The fresh marsh, swamps, and riverine areas are characterized by water movements dominated by larger scale atmospheric frontal events that have time scales on the order of several days, or by seasonal water level patterns. In these areas, daily sampling is usually sufficient to characterize the system. The main QC consideration is proper data entry. The data collection and handling procedures should be carefully followed. Data should be verified independently against field and laboratory notebooks.

V.4.2 Precipitation

Precipitation is measured on the basis of the vertical depth of water that would accumulate on a level surface if the precipitation remained where it fell. Recording precipitation gauges are recommended when continuous records of precipitation are required. The tipping bucket continuous recording gauge is used with equipment (e.g., Handar) for real-time transmission. Other recording gauges include the weighing type gauge and the float type gauge. Precipitation is accrued on an hourly or more frequent basis until the gauge is reset. Standard rain gauges are used when continuous records are not required. These gauges need to be read daily and emptied. Precipitation is reported on a daily basis. The units of measure for precipitation data are generally centimeters per hour (cm/hr).

Precipitation measurements are subject to various errors. Individually the errors are small but cumulatively they could be significant. Errors are smaller for standard rain gauges than recording gauges. In rainfall of 12-15 cm/hr, the bucket of a tipping bucket gauge tips every 6-7 s. About 0.3 s is required to complete the tip, during which some water is still pouring into the already filled compartment. The resulting recorded rate may be 5% too low; however, the water is all caught in the gauge reservoir and can be measured independently of the recorder. The difference can be prorated through the period of excessive rainfall. The most serious error is the deficiency of measurements caused by wind, consequently wind shields are recommended to reduce the error.

Methodology recommended for a project will depend on the uses for which the precipitation data are intended and the site at which the gauge will be located. Where accumulated volume of overland flow is of interest, the depth of rainfall measured by standard rain gauges should be adequate if the site is accessible on a daily basis. Recording precipitation gauges reduce the need for daily visits and can be serviced during the project site visits. Recording gauges also provide hourly or more frequent data. For high-priority projects, the standard protocol recommended is the use of tipping bucket gauges at water level or water quality sampling sites. This practice allows for continuous data collection and real-time transmission. Data of good quality will be obtained by establishing a system of quality control that includes not only periodic inspection of stations and maintenance or repair of equipment, but preliminary checking of data by internal consistency checks.

The uses for which the precipitation data are intended should determine network density. A relatively sparse network of stations would suffice for determining annual averages over large areas. In general, sampling errors in terms of depth tend to increase with increasing areal mean precipitation and decrease with increasing network density, duration of precipitation, and size of area. Average errors tend to be greater for summer than for winter precipitation because of the greater spatial variability. The minimum density of precipitation network recommended for general hydrometeorological purposes for flat regions of tropical zones is 600-900 km² per station. For lower priority projects, records from nearby precipitation stations may be sufficient. Gauges should be added, if necessary, to achieve a good spatial density.

V.4.3 Wind Speed and Direction

Wind speed is measured with anemometers. Both cup and propeller anemometers are commonly used. A wind vane measures the direction from which the wind is blowing. Surface winds are generally reported in miles per hour (mph), meters per second (m/s), or knots. Surface wind directions are generally reported in degrees.

Reported wind speed above 1.5 m/s is nominally accurate to plus or minus 0.75 m/s under steady-state conditions. Wind vanes are constructed to indicate direction within plus or minus 5°.

Ideally, surface wind-sensing equipment should be placed 6 m above the ground on a freely exposed tower over terrain that is relatively level and free from obstructions to wind flow.

For high-priority projects, the standard protocol recommended is to use automatic windspeed and direction equipment linked to communication equipment for real-time data collection. Wind speed and direction equipment would be installed at each water level and water quality data collection station with a data collection platform. The advantages are continuous real-time collection of data and reduced maintenance costs of on-site equipment. This protocol is really the only effective way to measure data of this type.

The recommended frequency for wind speed and direction data collection is continuous. In many cases, the dynamics of the wind data may be more important than the actual data. The same reporting periods at the National Weather Service-hourly, daily, and monthly summations-should be adopted.

Spatial distribution of wind speed and direction equipment will be dependent on the use of the data collected and the complexity of the project area. As data collection efforts move east across the coastal zone, wind data become more important. Wind gauges are important in the Barataria Bay, Breton Sound, Atchafalaya floodway, and Lake Pontchartrain hydrologic basins. Wind gauges should be distributed closer than an 80-km radius in these basins because large-scale wind cells and circulation patterns develop in them. Wind gauges become less important in the Terrebonne and Teche-Vermilion basins, and are generally not important in the Mermentau and Calcasieu-Sabine basins. Because land breezes are different from sea breezes, data at airports should be only cautiously used in the coastal zone. Fewer wind gauges are needed if the data are to be used in conjunction with a wind-field model. Where data collection is a lower priority, continuous records from a second site within a 60-km radius are sufficient if this second site has similar hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics. Wind speed and direction gauges should be installed at existing real-time stage recording sites to achieve a good spatial distribution.

Maintaining data quality is ensured by establishing a system of quality control that includes not only periodic inspection of stations and maintenance or repair of equipment but also preliminary checking of data by internal consistency checks.

V.4.4 Surface Water Levels

Stage is a measure of water level surface in a body of water. Stage can be measured discretely or continuously over a period of time. Depending on the measurement device, accuracy limitations will range from 0.3 cm to 3 cm.

Stage measurements can be made by using several different devices. A staff gauge is the simplest of stage measurement devices. Water level measurements are made by visual inspection of a vertical graduated staff. Water level measurements can also be measured with a continuous stage recorder. The water levels are determined by using a tape-float system or pressure transducer. Readings are recorded on a regular time interval on digital recorders, graphic recorders, or electronic data recorders. Electronic data recorders are devices like basic data recorders, where the stage values are stored in memory and downloaded into a computer during field inspections or into data collection platforms that transmit the data via satellite, radio, or telephone on a real-time basis. Stage recorders can be temporary or built to last over a long period of time and under various environmental and climatological conditions.

Where cost is not a major issue and where water level data are a high priority, real-time data collection platforms (DCPs) are recommended as the standard protocol. DCPs have a high equipment and installation cost for the stage recorders but reduce the cost of collecting other variables such as water temperature, dissolved oxygen, and precipitation because the equipment that measures the other variables can also use the DCP. DCPs reduce maintenance costs; maintenance personnel can see when a gauge is not functioning properly and can perform maintenance on a less frequent basis than without the DCP. Because maintenance is performed immediately rather than on a scheduled basis, periods of bad or missing data are reduced.

The measurement of stage over time can be from one reading at a site to whatever interval is required, such as daily, hourly, or less over a determined period. Measurement of stage at one location can be compared to other water levels within a certain range of the gauge in common hydrologic areas. Spatial distribution of water level gauges will depend on the project type and the hydrologic characteristics of the project area.

At many project areas, existing stage recorders or real-time DCPs in the vicinity will suffice. At some locations, an observer may be hired to daily record stage from a staff gauge. Some sites can be monitored continuously for a short time (i.e., 30 to 180 days) to determine the relationship of stage at the project to a nearby permanent location. Other sites can have a staff gauge installed, which would be read during the site visits. These protocols are best suited for projects where collection of water level data is a low priority.

There will be some projects where the level of the water is not as important as the forces of the waves and littoral transport. Directional wave gauges may be necessary to determine these forces. Wave gauges are placed in deep and shallow water near the area of interest. Data are gathered for a period of two to three years and used to develop a wave model. The wave model predicts the nearshore wave climate based on the deep-water wave gauge data. The model then replaces the shallow-water gauges.

Data quality is maintained by periodic inspection of stations and maintenance and repair of equipment. Internal consistency checks and reviews are employed on all data.

V.4.5 Groundwater Levels

Probably the easiest technique to measure groundwater is to install a shallow piezometer at the same time soil cores are initially taken. The piezometer would be slotted PVC and would need some type of fine gravel pack to minimize siltation, an upper casing, and a protective cap. Height of groundwater could be measured by using a simple ruler from the top of the casing during site visits, or any other data collection event. Piezometer monitoring could be done during site visits or when personnel are in the field for other monitoring. Should continuous monitoring of groundwater levels be necessary, the levels in a well can be monitored through the use of a float-counterweight system (Swenson and Turner 1987; Swarzenski et al. 1991) attached to a data logger.

Quality Control is assured by periodic maintenance of piezometers and replicate ruler measurements.

V.4.6 Surface-Water Salinity and Temperature

Salinity is a measure of dissolved minerals in sea water in units of parts per thousand (ppt). Salinity is typically measured by using either electrical conductivity (or resistivity) or electrical inductance. Salinity is computed using the known relationship between temperature and electrical conductance (or inductance). These instruments can either be internally recording or have a probe for field spot measurements. The accuracy with these types of measurements is about 0.10 ppt. Spot measurements of salinity can also be measured using a refractometer. However, this instrument is only accurate to about 1.0 ppt. Salinity can also be determined in the laboratory (from field-water samples) through the use of an automatic digital chloride titrator. This device works with small sample volumes (less than 1 ml) and can measure salinity with an accuracy of about 0.25 ppt.

There are water level gauges like the Endeco 1159 that also measure temperature and conductivity in addition to stage. Hydrolab H₂O equipment is another gauge that measures all three variables. Both can be used with DCPs. Where water level, conductivity, and water temperature are high priorities, this is the recommended standard protocol. Where salinity is a lower priority, monthly collection is recommended in conjunction with site visits. Salinity can be measured during the site visits by using a field instrument like a YSI 3800, which measures items such as water temperature, pH, conductivity, and dissolved oxygen. Existing data collection platform equipment can also be upgraded to measure and record conductivity and temperature.

The following general guidelines should be employed for all conductivity and temperature measurements. All meters should be calibrated before use, following the manufacturer's guidelines. A log book of the calibration information should be maintained. The meters should be cleaned and properly stored after each use. All personnel should be instructed in the proper calibration, use, and care of the meters. In the case of recording meters, periodic field checks (every 2 weeks to 1 mo) need to be performed on the meters. During these field checks, the proper operation of the equipment should be verified, calibration samples should be collected, and the equipment cleaned.

V.4.7 Discharge

Discharge is the measurement of volume of water passing a given point within a given period of time. Units of measurement for discharge are typically cubic meter per second (m³/sec).

To determine discharge, a measurement of velocity and cross-sectional area is necessary. Velocities are usually measured with mechanical velocity meters, electromagnetic velocity meters, and acoustical velocity meters. Some of these meters can measure only in one direction, while some can measure bi-direction, and others in any direction. The measurement of area is made with physical sounding of depth or by using electronic depth finders. As was the case with the use of salinity meters, the calibration and operation of the flow meters should be verified (according to manufacturer's specifications) before use. During use, the flow meter should be periodically checked to verify proper operation. Personnel using the meter should be trained in the proper operation of the instrument.

Discharge measurements are instantaneous measurements; that is, measured at one point in time. Some projects require that the discharge rate be known over a period of time. Typically, discharge over a period of time is determined by using a stage-discharge relationship. A series of discharge measurements is made at different stage elevations and a relationship between stage and discharge is determined. Unfortunately, this stage-discharge relationship may not apply to tide-affected areas. Another method to determine continuous discharge is to measure continuous velocity and to develop a relationship between velocity and discharge as was done for the Lake Pontchartrain Tidal Passes by Swenson and Chuang (1983). The recording meters should be serviced on a periodic schedule (two weeks to one mo). During servicing, the meter should be cleaned and checked for proper operation. A hand-held meter should be used to obtain measurements of the flow at the recording meter site before the recording meter is serviced. These measurements from the hand-held meter can be compared to the data from the recording meter to verify proper operation.

The standard protocol for data collection will vary with project type and location. For example, large-scale uncontrolled diversions will require discharge measurements to be taken from a boat on a routine basis. Conventional measurements should be taken where cross-sectional geometry fluctuates and where the relation between velocity and discharge will vary over time. Frequency and spatial distribution of discharge measurements will also be project dependent. Discharge measurements could be taken during the project visits.

V.4.8 Suspended Sediment

Suspended sediment is expressed in parts per million (ppm) or milligrams of dry sediment per liter (mg/L) of water sediment mixture. Suspended sediment samples can be collected in several ways. In moving water, samples can be collected by using a number of different types of point samplers. Samples are collected at different points in a vertical profile and combined for analysis or analyzed individually. Suspended sediment samples can be collected in low velocities with wide-mouth samplers or by using a pump system. Automatic samplers are also available to provide unattended sampling at the frequency desired.

Where sediment sampling is a high priority, channel measurements taken with a point sampler should be made or an automatic sampler should be installed. Channel measurements generally require a discharge or velocity measurement for correlation. Automatic samplers require implementation of a good quality control system that includes routine visits for maintenance. The frequency of measurements will be project and site dependent. Sampling should be performed a minimum of six times per year. Sampling could be done during the site visits.

Suspended sediment is determined in the laboratory by filtering a known volume of water through a dry, preweighed filter. Suspended sediment filters are rinsed with distilled water to remove any salt effects of the filters. The filter is then dried in a laboratory oven (at 60°C) and reweighed. The total amount of material in suspension is then determined from the weight of material on the filter. Routine laboratory quality control guidelines should be followed with this procedure.

V.4.9 Bathymetry

Bathymetric surveying is the measurement of depths of water bodies. Bathymetry is generally measured from a boat by using positioning equipment and a Fathometer^®. This equipment should be calibrated before use, following the manufacturer's guidelines. Range lines are laid out to be surveyed on a routine basis. Positioning is usually recorded in x-y coordinates; depth is recorded in feet. Data can be recorded electronically and even transmitted over telephone hookups. Some shallower water bodies may have to be surveyed by using topographic land surveying techniques. The main consideration in bathymetric surveying is to use proper survey techniques to ensure accurate locations for each depth measurement. In addition the water levels at each site, relative to a fixed datum (or average marsh elevation) must be known during each survey. When the surveys are compared they must all be referenced to the same water level datum.

For projects where this variable is a high priority, bathymetry should be measured once before project implementation and at least once during each 3-yr reporting period. Frequency, methodology, and survey coverage will be project and priority dependent. Spot elevations should be taken annually in conjunction with aerial photography to provide supplemental information.

V.4.10 Topography

Topographic surveying is the measurement of the elevation of land. Topographic surveys can be taken by using three different methods: (1) A surveyor can "walk" an area, recording horizontal location and vertical elevation (see section V.6.2). A survey that uses the water surface as a base and measures elevations with a rod is less expensive than a survey that uses positioning equipment and a Fathometer^®. The accuracy of such a survey is about 0.15 m. (2) Surveying with GPS equipment should be used when some smaller error in measurement is acceptable (see section V.6.1). With GPS equipment, the use of range lines to determine location is unnecessary. Data can be recorded electronically. (3) Conventional survey equipment is used when horizontal and vertical accuracy is critical. Range lines are laid out to be surveyed on a routine basis. Positioning is usually recorded in x-y coordinates; depth is recorded in feet.

For projects where this variable is a high priority, topographic surveys should be taken once before project implementation and at least once during the 3-yr reporting period. Frequency, methodology, and survey coverage will be project and priority dependent. Spot elevations should be taken annually in conjunction with aerial photography to provide supplemental information. For the other project types, measuring accretion by using soil cores, feldspar marker horizons, and sediment trapping devices is recommended.

For all bathymetric and topographic surveys, personnel should be instructed in the proper calibration, use, and care of equipment. Proper operation of the equipment should be verified during field checks.

V.5 Soil/Sediment Sampling

Bulk Density, Organic Matter, and Percent Water

Bulk density is defined as the total weight of material in a known volume of sample and is given in units of grams per cubic centimeter (g/cm³). Bulk density includes both the organic and the inorganic fractions. Bulk density may be expressed as either wet bulk density (includes the water in the sample) or as dry bulk density (the sample is allowed to dry). However, since the convention is normally to use dry bulk density, this discussion is confined to that variable. It has been shown (Gosselink and Hatton 1984) that soil density is controlled by the amount of mineral material that infiltrates the organic material framework of the highly organic marsh soils. This organic material framework appears to have a fairly constant ratio of mass to volume. Dry bulk density values generally range from 0.05 g/cm³ to 1.25 g/cm³. In highly organic soils, such as those found in coastal marshes, it is more meaningful to express soil nutrients in terms of volume instead of mass (Clarke and Harmon 1967; Mehlich 1972; Delaune et al. 1979; Rainey 1979). Since vegetation roots invade a given volume of soil as opposed to a given mass of soil, plant biomass shows a better relationship to soil nutrients expressed on a per volume basis as opposed to a per mass basis (Delaune et al. 1979).

A core is carefully collected to obtain a known volume with a minimum amount of compaction. The core must also be treated so as to prevent loss of water or matter. Cores can be collected with a small piston core device such as the one developed at the Coastal Ecology Institute (CEI) at Louisiana State University (Swenson 1982), the Hargis corer (Hargis and Twilley 1994) or with a PVC or metal core tube (if chemical analysis is to be run on the samples, be sure to use a core tube made of appropriate material). The CEI piston corer consists of a sharpened core tube with an internal piston (with an O-ring seal). The whole assembly is mounted on a stand. In use, the corer is placed on the marsh surface and the sharpened tube is pushed into the marsh. As the core tube moves downward into the marsh, the piston remains fixed since it is held by the stand. Thus, as a core is taken, suction is created in the tube by the piston, virtually eliminating compaction. The corer is designed to sample the top 11 cm of the marsh surface, and collects a core with a volume of 50±2 cm³. If a core tube is used (instead of the piston corer), be sure to collect the core in such a manner (by carefully rotating the core tube as it is inserted into the substrate) so as to minimize the compaction. By measuring the distance from the top of the core tube to the sediment surface on both the inside and the outside of the core tube, the compaction can then be calculated by using the total core tube length, as follows:

• Depth tube inserted into marsh = (total core tube length) - (outside measurement)

• Length of sample = (total core tube length) - (inside measurement)

• Compaction = (depth tube inserted into marsh) - (length of sample)

• Percent Compaction = (compaction/depth tube inserted into marsh) x 100

Preparation of the samples for return to the laboratory consists of ensuring that the tubes are tightly sea