Table 4-12. Quality assurance considerations 



QA program guidance available: 



• Environment Canada (1 991 ) 



Draft guidance documents from U.S. EPA National Center for 

 Environmental Research and Quality Assurance 

 EMAP-Surface Waters integrated QA project plan 

 (Chaloud and Peck 1994) 



Controls and audits can be established for all field and laboratory protocols. 

 Performance evaluations can be accomplished using repeat visits or by comparisons 

 to results obtained by recognized experts. 



Data review procedures available: 



Comparison of observed locations of species to known geographic range 

 Exploratory analysis to identify outliers and suspicious values 

 Internal consistency of counts 



Guideline 7: Monetary Costs 



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

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

 or cost per sample may be 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. 



Performance Objective 



1 . Provide information regarding costs associated with implementing the indicator within the proposed 

 monitoring framework. Compare these costs, if possible, to similar costs associated with other 

 indicators that could be implemented within the proposed monitoring framework. 



There are a variety of costs associated with implementing data collection activities for the indicator under the 

 proposed monitoring framework (Table 4-13). These costs are based on collection activities within the MAHA 

 study, using private contract field crews. Also included are costs associated with permanent archival of 

 voucher specimens. Equipment costs are presented on a per-crew basis, under the assumption that new 

 equipment is required. Karr (1991) presents cost-related information that suggests that sampling fish 

 assemblages may be more economical than other types of biological or chemical samples. Yoder and Rankin 

 (1995) present costs required to implement a similar indicator within a statewide network of hand-selected 

 monitoring sites in Ohio. They also show that fish assemblage data are less expensive to collect and analyze 

 than quantitative macroinvertebrate samples, chemical samples, or various types of bioassays. Their costs 

 are based on the capability for a small-sized crew (3) to sample 3 to 6 sites per day. Costs might increase 

 when field logistics or accessibility are difficult (Guideline 4, Table 4-10), but under the proposed monitoring 

 framework this is offset to some extent by visiting fewer sites. 



4-23 



