Quality Assurance for EPA’s National Coastal Survey 

Marla Smith, Sarah Lehmann, and Treda Grayson 

United States Environmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (4303T), Washington, DC 20460 

smith.marla@epa.gov, lehmann.sarah@epa.gov and grayson.treda@epa.gov 

Abstract 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency maintains a Quality System to ensure that its environmental data have 

scientific integrity. This presentation will describe EPA’s experiences and challenges in defining and monitoring 

quality during the National Coastal Condition Assessment survey. The survey is a coordinated effort among the 

EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, coastal states, and the National Estuary Programs. During the summer of 2010, EPA and its 

partner teams sampled nearly 1400 sites within U.S. coastal waters and Great Lakes. Quality was considered at 

every phase of the survey and started with the creation of a Quality Assurance Project Plan. The QAPP includes 

requirements for field sampling, laboratory analysis, auditing, database development, and the data analysis. 

Background: National Aquatic Resource Surveys 

In the United States, states, tribes, federal agencies and other organizations collect water quality data to respond to 

requirements in the 1972 Clean Water Act. Traditionally, water quality data was largely collected for heavily used or 

problem waters. These targeted assessments provided coverage of only a small percentage of all the nation’s waters. 

In addition, the assessments used widely different methods in field sampling, laboratory analyses, and data 

evaluations. While this approach is consistent with the Clean Water Act and is appropriate for management of state 

waters, it complicates the process of generating a regional and national picture of water quality. At the national 

level, water quality information is needed to inform water program management decisions, direct policy 

development and strategic planning, and track trends in water quality to measure progress toward meeting the 

nation’s clean water goals. Statistically-valid assessments are critical for this evaluation. 

To meet this need, the Environmental Protection Agency conducts National Aquatic Resource Surveys (NARS). The 

surveys use randomized sampling designs and consistent monitoring methods and laboratory protocols to 

assessments of water quality at the national and regional scales. Additionally, the national surveys help to build 

stronger monitoring programs across the country by fostering collaboration on new methods, new indicators and 

new water quality research. Many states are beginning to incorporate statistical surveys in their monitoring designs 

so that water samples are truly representative of the conditions across a specific water resource type, such as streams 

or lakes. These modifications can strengthen state programs as well as support better national assessments. 

The NARS program consists of four surveys conducted on a five-year cycle in the lower 48 states. Each survey 

focuses on a different type of water body: lakes, wetlands, coastal waters, and streams and rivers. The rivers and 

streams survey collects samples at approximately 2000 sites during the summer index periods of two consecutive

years. For each of the other surveys, EPA and its partners collect samples at more than 1000 randomly selected sites 

each year. Due to the staggered scheduling of the surveys, field sampling happens every year, but for only one 

survey at a time. Field sampling was conducted for the rivers and streams survey in 2008 and 2009, coastal survey in 

2010; wetlands in 2011; and lakes in 2012. 

The other years are used for research, survey design, laboratory evaluations, data analyses, and report writing. For 

example, for the coastal survey, research was conducted in 2008; survey designed in 2009; field sampling conducted 

in 2010; laboratory analyses performed in 2011; and data analyses and report writing are ongoing. 

EPA requires quality assurance planning for all projects collecting environmental data. This requirement for quality 

planning is a longstanding policy at EPA. In addition, the QAPP process conforms to guidelines issued by the White 

House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Section 515(a) of the Treasury and General Government 

Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (Public Law 106-554; H.R. 5658). Within the NARS program, EPA 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

develops detailed quality assurance requirements for each survey to ensure consistency by all partners. EPA and its 

partners expend considerable effort in developing a Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) that specifies precision 

and accuracy requirements for each stage of the survey. It is considered to be a living document that evolves as the 

survey planning progresses. 

As a result of the initial research and planning, a draft version of the QAPP will identify the data quality objectives; 

the statistical and survey design; and the biological and chemical indicators to be evaluated in the survey. The draft 

QAPP will include detailed definitions of the locations that collectively make up the target population. EPA then 

uses reliable sources such as the United States Geological Service’s National Hydrography Dataset as the basis of its 

sampling frame. Using a Generalized Random Tessellation Stratified (GRTS) survey design for an area resource, the 

survey design is a stratified design with unequal probability of selection based on area within each stratum. This 

design results in a geographically diverse selection of sites as required by the QAPP. 

Before the field operations stage, the draft QAPP will incorporate, by reference, manuals that describe field 

operations, site selection, and laboratory analyses. It also outlines requirements for auditing, information 

management specifications, data analyses, and reporting. As a final step in ensuring quality and reliable results, the 

final data analyses and documents are released only after extensive peer and formal reviews are completed. 

Throughout the survey planning, draft versions of the QAPPs are reviewed extensively by project staff, 

management, and EPA’s quality assurance experts. As shown in the example provided in Figure 1, all partners must 

sign that they have read the QAPP and will adhere to its requirements. This agreement is generally collected before 

the field component of the survey. Throughout the life of the survey, EPA and its partners routinely identify and 

discuss ways to improve operations for the next cycle. 

Figure 1 Excerpt from QAPP Signature Page for NCCA V 

Coastal Survey 

The formal title for the coastal survey is the National Coastal Condition Assessment (NCCA). Although the NARS 

program is relatively recent, the coastal survey is the fifth of a series of statistically designed surveys of the United 

States coastal waters and Great Lakes. Previously, the efforts were led by EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development. For consistency between the water survey efforts, it was transferred to EPA’s Office of Water a few 

years ago. It is unique among the NARS with its long history of data collection and evaluation. 

According to the 2008 report for NCCA III, the overall condition of the Nation's coastal waters is fair, using five key 

indices of ecological health. The key indicators include water chemistry, sediment toxicity, macroinvertebrates, fish 

tissue, and coastal habitat. For each of these five key indices, a score of good, fair, or poor was assigned to each 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coastal region of the U.S. These ratings were then averaged to create overall regional and national scores illustrated 

in the map below, using "traffic light" color scoring. The conclusions may change for NCCA V, but the underlying 

methodology will be similar to NCCA III. (NCCA IV is in draft form and undergoing final reviews at the time of the 

presentation.) 

Figure 2 NCCA III (2008): Overall Condition 

For NCCA V, the goal was to address two key questions. First question is “What percent of the Nation’s coastal 

waters are in good, fair, and poor condition for key indicators of water quality, ecological health, and recreation?” 

The second question is “What is the relative importance of key stressors such as nutrients and pathogens?” To 

answer these questions, the biological indicators for NCCA V are basically the same as those used in the previous 

four surveys. The most prominent change was the inclusion of coasts along the Great Lakes which required the 

addition of sample collection and laboratory methods for freshwater samples in addition to the coastal saltwater 

samples. Other EPA programs conducted special studies under the NCCA in the Great Lakes only: the Great Lakes 

Human Health Fish Tissue Study and the Great Lakes Embayment Enhancement Study. (Embayments are semienclosed by shoreline features, making them less hydrologically-open to open lake wind and waves.) 

NCCA V was an extensive undertaking with approximately 50 field crews sampling nearly1400 sites in 30 states, 

several territories, and Canada. The states included 23 coastal states and eight Great Lake states. (New York had 

coastal and Great Lakes sites.) The field crews completed seven pages of field data observations. If they also 

collected samples for additional studies, they completed another five pages of field observations corresponding to 

the additional samples. The simultaneous measuring and recording often required a 2-person team. For this reason 

and others, EPA received many comments that the paperwork burden was rather intensive. For typical surveys, 7-12 

pages of paperwork would be considered relatively minor. However, the paper itself was coded for scanning and 

required crews to use precise and legible hand-writing. Windy conditions also made dealing with multiple pages of 

paper difficult and cumbersome. Because of the windy and wet conditions, the paperwork sometimes was completed 

or recopied under cover away from survey operations. For future surveys, EPA is evaluating electronic devices that 

would provide quicker and easier recording under adverse conditions; improve the overall quality of data; and allow 

for and real-time access to field data in the NARS information management system. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For each site, the field team collected and labeled approximately 10 jars of water and sediment samples. To comply 

with short holding times generally accepted for water chemistry analyses, each team either docked soon afterwards 

or made arrangements to somehow transfer the water samples for overnight shipping. Because of the differences 

between water and sediment, the same rigorous requirement for overnight shipping was not required for sediment 

samples. Instead, these samples often were stored and shipped in batches at some later time. 

Twenty-six state and contract laboratories participated in the survey. EPA reviewed certifications and other 

documentation to evaluate the laboratory’s capabilities. EPA did not proscribe any particular analytical method, but 

instead identified QA and quality control specifications such as timing of equipment calibration (e.g., before each 

batch of 20 samples), the number of duplicate samples, and the minimum level of detection required for measuring 

particular chemical parameters. The NARS program encourages analytical method flexibility wherever possible 

because it allows more laboratories to participate, and thus, will improve the water measurement capabilities across 

the country. 

As required by EPA policy and the NARS program, EPA developed a QAPP. As consistent with NARS practice, the 

NCCA team also developed the Field Operations Manual and Laboratory Manual. A fourth document detailing site 

selection was incorporated into the field operations manual. A fifth manual was laminated for use in the field and 

provided the highlights of the Field Operations Manual. 

Consistency and Quality by All Partners 

The more than 50 field crews for NCCA came from a variety of backgrounds. Some were EPA employees, but most 

were state employees who are responsible for implementing state specific programs as well as the NCCA. Other 

partners included the United States Geological Survey, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park 

Service, and the United States Forest Service. Because each of the partners generally have their own protocols for 

sampling, EPA required that each field crew member be trained in the NCCA field sampling protocols to ensure 

consistency in the survey operations. To facilitate the training, EPA conducted the 3 to 5 day sessions at various 

locations throughout the country. As the final step in training, EPA staff conducted assistance visits to evaluate each 

crew’s adherence to the required protocol as evaluated using a lengthy 26-page form that details step by step the 

NCCA protocol. The visit was conducted early in the crew’s sampling assignments, so that corrections could be 

incorporated early in the process. 

Additional consistency is achieved through the use of common sets of materials for the field sampling. Although it 

would be impractical to provide all materials, EPA provided identical supply kits with sample labels, appropriately 

sized bottles and jars, and other materials specifically required for NCCA sampling. 

In contrast to field sampling for which many experts are available for assistance visits, laboratory visits require more 

specialized knowledge. The team consulted with experts elsewhere in the Office of Water. These experts helped the 

team identify the important elements that should be evaluated, the expertise required to perform the evaluation (e.g., 

ability to identify equipment), and the need for such evaluations. For example, certain laboratories had certifications 

that are only granted after intensive week-long audits of the laboratory facilities. If a laboratory passed such a 

rigorous review, the team debated what more would be gained by an onsite visit. In addition, many laboratories 

participate in every survey conducted by the NARS program, and the team determined that it was not necessary to 

revisit the laboratory each year. 

Data reviews are ongoing and the QA aspects continue to evolve. The initial QA elements focused on the field crew

documentation collected during the sampling event itself. The next step was to perform the optical scan of the forms 

and correct obvious errors. The laboratory results have been consolidated and parsed out to subject matter experts 

for additional review. They use their expertise to confirm that the data are consistent with biological and chemical 

conditions associated with such sites. They also are comparing the NCCA V data to the previous versions of the 

survey. 

Example of QAPP Application to Secchi Disk Measurements 
 

 

 

 

The following example demonstrates the interplay between the QAPP requirements and the Field Operations 

Manual in using a Secchi disk to measure the transparency of the water to light. It is simple example for a parameter 

measured in the field, and thus, does not require additional laboratory elements. Figure 3 shows a Secchi disk being 

lowered into the water. 

Figure 3 Secchi Disk 

Figure 4 The QAPP’s Table 5.2-1 (page 46) identifies the NCCA In situ indicators including the Secchi disk. The 

Field Operations Manual (page 43) defines the Secchi disk: “The Secchi disk is used to give a measurement of the 

transparency of the water column, also called the Secchi depth. This measurement is made at every station and is 

recorded on the datasheet. A 20 cm black and white Secchi disk is held by a non-stretch line that is marked in two 

tenths of a meter intervals.” 

Figure 4 QAPP In situ Indicators and Secchi Disk 

The QAPP (page 46) provides followed by a brief summary of the procedure for using the disk (Figure 5). 
 

 

Figure 5 QAPP: Secchi Disk General Procedures 

Although a Secchi disk is a common tool for water quality monitoring, EPA provides even more explicit instructions 

beyond the QAPP requirements. Page 43 of the Field Operations Manual provides step by step instructions for using 

it to obtain appropriate measurements. As shown in Figure 6, the instructions specify that vision be unaltered (e.g., 

by sunglasses), the disk be lowered on the shady side of the boat, and other requirements. It also specifies the 

required number of replications (three times) and the consistency of the measurements (within 0.5 meters). 

Figure 6 Instructions for Using Secchi Disk 

Lessons Learned 

The NARS program, including NCCA, embeds quality within every aspect of planning, field sampling, laboratory 

analysis, and reporting. To ensure consistency, the Quality Assurance Project Plan is essential for each survey and 

necessitates many reviews and extensive supporting documentation to address the many challenges associated with 

environmental surveys. EPA and its partners are always eager to talk about improvements for the next survey in the 

series. 

References 

U.S. EPA 2008. National Coastal Condition Report III, Office of Research and Development/Office of Water. 

Washington, DC 20460. EPA/842-R-08-002. 

U.S. EPA, 2010. National Coastal Condition Assessment Field Operations Manual. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, D.C. EPA/841-R09-003. 

U.S. EPA, 2010. National Coastal Condition Assessment Laboratory Methods Manual. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, D.C. EPA/841-R09-002. 
U.S. EPA, 2010. National Coastal Condition Assessment Quality Assurance Project Plan. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, D.C. 

EPA/ 841-R-09-004.