The complex information management requirements of EMAP were necessary to ensure that the large amounts 

 of data from this national monitoring program were consistently documented, standardized, and made available 

 to end-users in a timely and efficient manner. These might not be necessary for smaller monitoring programs. 

 At a minimum, the benthic taxa identifications and counts could be entered electronically into a spreadsheet 

 or database format and all calculations for the benthic index could be accomplished there. In this case the 

 hardware and software required would be a high-end PC with a package such as Excel, Lotus, or dBase 

 installed. 



Guideline 6: Quality Assurance 



For accurate interpretation of indicator results, it is necessary to understand their degree of validity. A 

 quality assurance plan should outline the steps in collection and computation of data, and should identify 

 the data quality objectives for each step. It is important that means and methods to audit the quality of 

 each step are incorporated into the monitoring design. Standards of quality assurance for an indicator 

 must meet those of the targeted monitoring program. 



EMAP-E emphasized the collection of data via standardized methods. This ensured the comparability of 

 data collected by different field teams across large geographic areas. Rigorous quality control (QC) was 

 necessary to achieve this goal. All field crew personnel were trained prior to the sampling season in, among 

 other things, the proper techniques for grab sampling, sieving, and preservation of benthic samples. Both the 

 field crews and the laboratory personnel were provided with manuals that outlined the correct techniques for 

 handling the samples (see Macauley 1991 and U.S. EPA 1995). Random QC audits were performed by the 

 Quality Assurance Officer both in the field and at the laboratory. Table 3-4 lists the various aspects of quality 

 control for field and laboratory operations as well as information management for EMAP-E Louisianian Province 

 benthic data (Heitmuller and Valente 1 991 ). 



Guideline 7: Monetary Costs 



Cost is often the limiting factor in considering to implement an indicator Estimates of all implementation 

 costs should be evaluated. Cost evaluation should incorporate economy of scale, since cost per indicator 

 or cost per sample maybe considerably reduced when data are collected for multiple indicators at a given 

 site. Costs of a pilot study or any other indicator development needs should be included if appropriate. 



It is difficult to separate the cost of implementing this particular indicator from the overall cost of implementing 

 EMAP. The cost of personnel, vehicles, and travel are spread across all indicators measured by the program. 

 Even the cost of the equipment is spread across several indicators (i.e., benthos, sediment characterization, 

 sediment toxicity, and sediment chemistry) as the same gear is used to collect all of these samples. The 

 Young-modified Van Veen grab cost $1250 to purchase initially. The sieve boxes, forceps, Nalgene bottles, 

 labels and other miscellaneous equipment for one team cost $350 for one year. The entire process of 

 collecting, sieving, and preserving benthic samples took an average of 1 hour per station. Given that each 

 team sampled an average of 50 stations per year and assuming that the grab lasts for four years, the average 

 equipment cost per station would be only $13. 



3-12 



