&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Mail Code 4301
EPA 820-K-94-OQ1
September 1994
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
AND STANDARDS FOR THE
2 IST CENTURY
/0fial
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canda Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
Prepared by Ogden Environmental and Energy Services Company, Inc. and
Science Applications International Corporation under contract No. 68-C1-0033 for
the U S Environmental Protection Agency. The contents do not necessary reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 ' ! / .
OFFICE OF
WATER
Water Quality Criteria and Standards for the 2lst Century
Welcome to the 4th National Conference on Water Quality Criteria and Standards for the
21st Century. We value your expertise and input. I see this as an opportunity for us to
exchange knowledge and to jointly hear the opinions of all interested parties. This Conference
plays an important part in shaping our mutual agenda and enhancing tine water quality program
to best address today's highest risks. Over the next three days I hope you will share your
thoughts and ideas with us.
' ' • ,. i
The purpose for our Conference is to discuss how water quality criteria and standards
can be used in a holistic approach to protect watersheds, and to seek consensus on steps for
further development and implementation of tools and programs to pjrOtect the human health and
the environment.
Our program sessions cover topics identified by you as significant components of water
quality programs for the future. These include:
, o New Ways to Evaluate Risk: Moving Beyond the Water Column
o Addressing Ecological Integrity: Moving Beyond Chemical Toxicity
o Assessing Risk at the Watershed Level j
o Comprehensive Environmental Programs of the Future
o Managing Risk: Lessons Learned and Overcoming Barriers
o Summary Reports of all sessions
o Stakeholder Observations
. i
I am looking forward to these next three days as we interact and discuss the future
directions of the water quality criteria and standards programs. !
Tudor T. Davies, Director
Recycled/Recyclable ,
Primed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that.
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
D
-------
c
Contents:
CONFERENCE
INFORMATION
"r
TUESDAY
WEDNESDAY
THURSDAY
A TTENDEES
-------
-------
o
Conference
Information
r
LT
-------
-------
EVALUATION FORM
-------
-------
. (
V
IU
O
o
1
2"
LU
O
w
^™
^^1
LU
X
:RI'itRIA AND STANDAh.^S FOR
^^
3
^f
_
O
cc
LU
<
^*
, - >
f-
,t
V.. .'
• • .
^.
eo
tn
in
tn
^w
S.
5
h
*s
H
^^
S
0)
T—
ct
0>
(O
if
•o
tn
O)
en
CQ
k
W
*~
S.
to
«n
(8
•o
w
»
^—
c
o
O)
.E S
"w *>
m
8:30 Opening Comments Plaza Balln
9:00 Session 3 Plaza Balln
Ecological Risks at the Watershed Le
Assessments to Solve Complex Probl
i •§
O 4->
O O3
"eo Z
m 03
CD
co >
N ^
— ~o
M- CD
° E
C 0
o o
!E ' • cl
CO
N
JO
Q_
.2
' O co
o S co «
o .2 5 co
O> CO t- 0)
§1 §1
r* cc en O
^
m
£
CO
in
6
§;
6
^
(D
E
co
o
CO;
.6'
in
O
:CO
"E
m
•in
:°'
i ;
o
co
• O
r-.
< < < <
CO fO fO CO
• E E E E
o .0 o o
o o o o
cc cc. cc cc
I
c c c c c
•5 -S .8 -S -8
O £ (o 03 0} co
"88 8 88
t- to to to to
«- >n *- *. «- «-
, c a a a a
_ § 0 0 «S 0
Iff ^JJ _.^ ^W -,^ -W
*" W <(j CQ CO CO
o 8 S " • S-- S ' fi
T- c/J CQ CQ CQ OQ
rf tf tf < tf
CD CD ffl ffl ffl
E E E E E
o o o o o
o o o o o-
cc. cc cc cc. cc
^5
S
S .0 1
10:30-12:00
Session 3 (continued)
• Protecting Endangered Species
• Protection Through Improved Land
Planning
• Competing Demands for Water
• Managing Over-Enrichment from A
and Water
• Conflicting Uses and Their Impacts
How to Manage Them
c -i
o .
O> tj
Z • o
Ui ^.
10 (S
"D C ^
E i w ;
o .. *s
CO 4 QJ '
CO fi> €
™ §-S
n ^
5 "^
Uj 'B
o o '5
9 ** o
pj S.
• e 2 2
O fl> CD ^
»- CO < O
;" -."' "
c
o
JC
1
S
4-
O
«*
c
o
o
1
1
tn
•**•
i
o
o
§
o
c
o
J^
o
c.
3
<••«
0
T**
o
o
«^
c
2
O)
'?
03
CD
•o
CD
E
o
Sg.
2 .
co vO
co 3
N U
_« c
ml
H
^ w
c •
I ..
1 1
CO *•*
^ *C c
c *^* *^
o CO
I .11
1:15-2:30 Plaza Ballr
Session 4
Comprehensive Environmental Progra
Where Are We Now and Where Are
c
o
+-»
O3
f
03
~>
•D
C
co
E
o
O . ' .
"5
CD
CD __
N "O
JS o>
D- 3
C
'•5
b
H
S?~
cVi c
• 0
° 'si
^ CO
«*'
1
CO
-
.£ i .E
Z ™
03 03
CO CO
1 -:1
CO CO
E ' E
0 0
p p
= *> ' :s
co £ eo
CD 5 CO
S5 i 5
CO C CD
51 g E „
2:30-3:30
Stakeholder Ob;
3:30 - 4:00
Closing Remark!
C '
2
OS
_c
03
1
TD
C ' "
CO
o
o
2:45-4:15 Plaza Ballr
Session 4 (continued)
0 "|
I* i
lc Ǥ
03 i4
CD . Oj
5 -S
-0 -Q
C. *$
CD . . •*
E ii
0 ,'W
0 C
= **
CQ _g
CD -C
N CO
JO _CJ
D- G) ^
O *^*
'5 'G
O "5
o
^t CM .C -.
» c § -8
• 0 eg '»
§| :||
m co '^ O
^
£
CO
in
5
j^
£
CO
o
4
in
w
£
m
o
'
O)
pc
*• ^3
- 00
§' i 1 £
co .2 co £
*!°. S o o
CO CC 0. O
Q>
IV
1
1
CC
§
§
'•I
. @
TJ
CD
C
o
c
c
CO
o>
o
H-
1!
H-
-------
s
$_,
si
mS
Ui UJ
*§
o. Q
a|
E«
§2
•••••Mi
h|
L.
ll—
H 5
£3! .
1*
lOOrf
= £
£8
' eg
§^
•»
5 £
2 |
If-
|I
.£ fe*
II
*I
S E
il
II
£ E
ll
^1
«
o
tt
O
I
O
S
o
o
DC
P S
II
11
-» o
i"
m +
6°
glD
m M
t P
gS
Ktt
o>
I 3
SlH
S||
:gz
SSc
I.|sr
J3U€
•o 8 H
e ®
«K_L
03 o
§ £
M-
f(2
'Pi
"-"I
g OJ=
£ o c
u-E o
ill
iil
S P-J
IK|
« 5 I
filf
> .x
.. »**
&
Iff
Hoc
j=2«
'ii§E
5
N
S
il1
o a A*
i w S
-J« = o
_J £0 L. _l
?J
O o » o •
H a^Z
"- £ 8 «
O S^€
*" e 2T °
^|5"
S 5 i: fe
2|sS
o »« 5
uacc^-w
£ S = fe
Q€||
c ° o
I'H
k *s j.
UL x£
•B
o
o>
I
O
^» i 3
a^ s ™ o
CO E J2 K
UJ c"o>x:
O ooo 5
111"
^ Q. M ~
•SeM
« g
S
eo c -
•
05 5
21
o S-
"5 IN
.
00*
» r
0
eo
(A
CO
3 •
> S2
* o
'-1 «
S4 *
Q. O
(B O)
§=!
< o •&
CL-t
•o o
§iS
2 i
=
CD
s
0«
o
LL O V?
-------
PROGRAM AGENDA
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
FOURTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
SEPTEMBER 13-15, 1994
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13
9:00 J WELCOME ' - PLAZA BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
Tudor T. Davies, Director, Office of Science and Technology (OST),
u.s. EPA ;
KEYNOTE PLAZA BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
Carol Browner, Administrator, U.S. EPA
CONFERENCE INTRODUCTION
Margaret Stasikowski, Director, Health and Ecological Criteria Division, -
OST, U.S. EPA
10:30 Break
10:45 SESSION 1 NEW WAYS TO EVALUATE RISK: MOVING BEYOND
CHEMICAL TOXICITY IN THE WATER COLUMN
. , PLAZA; BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
Amy Leaberry, OST, U.S. EPA - Session Moderator
I
, A DIFFERENT FOCUS FOR THE SCIENCE BEHIND CRITERIA:
XENOBIOTIC ESTROGENS: A LINK BETWEEN HUMAN AND WILDLIFE
EFFECTS FROM ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTANTS
James J. Reisa, Ph.D., National Research Council
CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT PAST, PRESENT, AND FIXTURE
Morris Flexner, U.S. EPA, Region 4
Edward B. Swain, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
12:00 Break for Lunch
-------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13 (Continued)
1:30 PANEL
PLAZA BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
Amy Leaberry, OST, U.S. EPA - Panel Moderator
Panel
Robert T. Ange/o, Ph.D./ Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Philip G. Watanabe, Ph.D., Dow Chemical Company
2:45 Break
3:00 SESSION 2 ADDRESSING ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY: MOVING BEYOND
CHEMICAL TOXICITY PLAZA BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
Susan Jackson, OST, U.S. EPA - Session Moderator
ADDRESSING NUTRIENT OVERENRICHMENT AND HABITAT
DEGRADATION
Richard Batiuk, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.Sf EPA, Region 3
Panel
Chris O. Yoder, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Geoffrey W. Harvey, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Tom Fontaine, South Florida Water Management District
ADDRESSING HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION AND HABITAT LOSS
Max H. Dodson, U.S. EPA, Region 8
Jerry Johns, California State Water Resources Control Board
Panel -
Patrick Wright, U.S. EPA, Region 9
Estyn R. Mead, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
David P. Braun, The Nature Conservancy
5:45 End
6:30 - 8:30 RECEPTION
POSTER SESSION
COMPUTER MODELING DEMONSTRATION
FEDERAL HALL
-------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14
8:30 OPENING COMMENTS PLAZA BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. EPA
9:00 SESSION 3 ECOLOGICAL RISKS AT THE WATERSHED
LEVEL: INTEGRATING ASSESSMENTS TO SOLVE j
COMPLEX PROBLEMS PLAZA BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
Suzanne K. M. Marcy, Ph.D., OST, U.S. EPA - Session Moderator
Brian D. Richter, The Nature Conservancy
Donna F. Sefton, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, U.S. EPA
William S. Whitney, Prairie Plains Resource Institute
Kevin J. Beaton, Idaho Office of Attorney General
10:15 Break
10:30 BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS:
• PROTECTING ENDANGERED SPECIES ROOM TBA«
John E. Miller, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
(OSWER), U.S. EPA - Panel Moderator
. ' • 'i '.••.'
Panei-
Bill Kittrell, The Nature Conservancy
Jack Edmundson, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Ren Lohoefener, Ph.D., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Janet McKegg, Maryland Department of Natural Resources
• PROTECTION THROUGH IMPROVED LAND USE PLANNING ROOM TBA*
Susan M. Cormier, Ph.D., Office of Research and Development (ORD),
U.S. EPA - Panel Co-moderator i
Marc A. Smith, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency-
Panel Co-moderator
Panel
Chris O. Yoder, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Thomas R. Schueler, Center for Watershed Protection
Steven I. Gordon, Ph.D., Ohio State University1
Christine R. Furr, Christine Furr Consulting
Alan Randall, Ph.D., Ohio State University
*TBA - To Be Announced
-------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14 (Continued)
• COMPETING DEMANDS FOR WATER ROOM TBA*
Donna F. Sefton, OWOW, U.S. EPA - Panel Moderator
Panel
Richard Anderbery, Tri-Basin Natural Resources District
John Sidle, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Raymond J; Supalla, University of Nebraska
Jeremiah (Jay) Maher, Central Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation
District
Paul J. Currier, Platte River Whooping Crane Trust
• MANAGING OVER-ENRICHMENT FROM AIR, LAND, AND WATER
ROOM TBA*
Maggie Geist, Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve -
Panel Co-moderator
Joseph E. Costa, Buzzards Bay Project - Panel Co-moderator
Panel
Jennie Myers, Consultant to The Nature Conservancy
Latin America - Caribbean Division
Robert Summers - Maryland Department of the Environment
• CONFLICTING USES AND THEIR IMPACTS - HOW TO MANAGE
THEM ROOM TBA*
Pat drone, U.C EPA, Region 10 - Panel Moderator
Panel
Peter Bowler, University of California
Bob Muffley, Gooding County
Larry R. Wimer, Idaho Power Company
Kevin J. Beaton, Idaho Office of Attorney General
Don Brady, OWOW, U.S. EPA
12:00 Break for Lunch
*TBA - To Be Announced
-------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14 (Continued)
1:15 SESSION 4 COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS
OF THE FUTURE: WHERE ARE WE NOW AND WHERE
ARE WE GOING? PLAZA BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
Margarete Heber, OST, U.S. EPA - Session Moderator
Panel
Rob Wood, Office of Wastewater Management (OWM), U.S. EPA
Steve W. Tedder, North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Michael A. Ruszczyk, Eastman Kodak Company |
Jessica C. Landman, Natural Resources Defense Council
2:30 Break
2:45 SESSION 4 CONTINUED , , PLAZA; BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
4:15 Break
4:30 AD HOC SESSIONS:
..-:•' TMDLs AND THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH ROOM TBA*
Russ Kinerson, OST, U.S. EPA - Co-moderator
Don Brady, OWOW, U.S. EPA-Co-moderator
Panel . .
Dale Bryson, U.S. EPA, Region 5
Geoffrey H. Grubbs, OWOW, U.S. EPA
*TBA - To Be Announced
-------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14 (Continued)
• IMPLEMENTING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT ROOM TBA'
David Sabock, OST, U.S. EPA - Moderator
Panel
Robert J. Smith, Competitive Enterprise Institute
Robert F. (Mike) McGHee, U.S. EPA, Region 4
John Christian, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• ASSESSING AND REPORTING TOXICS IN SEDIMENT AND FISH
ROOM TEA*
Thomas M. Armitage, OST, U.S. EPA - Moderator
Catherine A. Fox, OSTr U.S. EPA
William F. (Rick) Hoffmann, OST, U.S. EPA
Jeffrey D. Bigler, OST, U.S. EPA
• MONITORING TO SUPPORT THE WATERSHED PROTECTION
APPROACH ROOM TBA*
Elizabeth Fellows, OWOW, U.S. EPA - Moderator
Panel
James G. Home, OWM, U.S. EPA
Kevin Berry, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
and Energy
Cha.tccA. Kanetsky, U.S. EPA, Region 3
Nancy Lopez, U.S. Geologic?1. Survey
6:00 End of Day
*TBA - To Be Announced
-------
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 15
8:30 SESSION 5 MANAGING RISK: LIMITATIONS AND BARRIERS TO
IMPLEMENTATION PLAZA BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
ChrisZarba, OST,U.S. EPA- Session Moderator \
Robert Paulson, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Julie DalSoglio, U.S. EPA, Region 8 i
Ed Stigall, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. EPA, Region 3
W. William Weeks, The Nature Conservancy
10:00 Break
10:15 BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS ROOMS TBA*
Group 1 - Robert Paulson - Group moderator
Group 2 - Julie DalSoglio - Group moderator '
Group 3 - Ed Stigall - Group moderator
Group 4 - W.William Weeks - Group moderator
11:30 Break for Lunch
1:00 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS PLAZA' BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON.
Betsy Southerland, Director, Standards and Applied Science Division,
OST, U.S. EPA,-Moderator
Reports by Session Moderators
2:15 Break
2:30 STAKEHOLDER OBSERVATIONS PLAZA BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
Betsy Southerland, Director, Standards and Applied Science Division,
OST, U.S. EPA - Moderator
Representatives from: a municipality, state, tribe, industry, and
environmental group
3:30 CLOSING REMARKS PLAZA BALLROOM AND WASHINGTON
Tudor T. Davies, Director, OST, U.S. EPA
4:00 Break
4:15 AD HOC SESSIONS - TO BE ANNOUNCED ROOMS TBA*
1 - ' . • " "'>.-.
5:00 End of Conference
*TBA - To Be Announced
-------
-------
c
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND STANDARDS
FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
4TH NATIONAL CONFERENCE
September 13-15, 1994
Washington, DC
EVALUATION FORM
To help us make future conferences as useful as possible, please take a few minutes to
express your views. Submit this evaluation form at the end^of the conference at the
registration desk. !
PARTICIPANT INFORMATION
AFFILIATION
Local Government
State/Tribe
Federal Government
Environmental Group
Industry .
Academic
Other (describe) ' !
OPTIONAL
Name:
Telephone No.:
f
OVERALL WORKSHOP EVALUATION
- Category
Audience Involvement
Conference Organization
Conference Presentations
Usefulness of Conference Notebook
Usefulness of Audio-Visual Material
Meeting Room .
Overall Conference Usefulness
Excellent (5) Average 13) t-oor(1}
5
4
3
. ', \
\
2
1
,
-1 -
-------
PRESENTATION EVALUATION
Please evaluate sessions, individually. *
SESSION 1 - New Ways to Evaluate Risk: Moving Beyond Chemical Toxicity in the Water
Column
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
Please provide specific comments:
SESSION 2 - Addressing Ecological Integrity: Moving Beyond Chemical Toxicity
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
Please provide specific comments:
SESSION 3 - Assessing Risk at the Watershed Level: Integrating Assessments to Solve
Complex Problems
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
Please provide specific comments:
-2-
-------
c
BREAKOUT GROUP Dli
Protectin
Preventio
Dealing v
Manaqinc
Competir
Very Useful j
Please provide specific
SCUSSIONS (Please ch
g Endangered Species
n Through Improving L
vith Competing Dernan
3 Over-Enrichment frorr
ig Uses-How to Reconc
Useful
comments:
eck (/) which one ^
and Use Planning
ds for Water
i Air, Land, and Wa
:ile
Adequate
- ' . •.''•'
SESSION 4 - Comprehensive Environmental Programs of the Futur
Where Are We Going?
Very Useful
Please provide specific
Useful
comments:
Adequate
AD HOC SESSIONS (PI
TMDLs a
Implemei
Assessin
Monitorir
Very Useful
Please provide specific
ease check {/) which one you attended)
nd the Watershed Protection Approach
iting the Endangered Species Act
g Toxicity in Sediment and Fish
ig to Support the Watershed Protection Af
Useful
comments:
rou attended)
ter
Inadequate
e: Where Are We Now and
Inadequate
-
iproach
Adequate Inadequate
'
•'"-.• • , - " -•
-3-
-------
SESSION 5 - Managing Risk: Limitations and Barriers to Implementation
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
Please provide specific comments:
FINAL PLENARY SESSION
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
Please provide specific comments:'
STAKEHOLDERS SESSION
Very Useful
Useful
Adequate
Inadequate
Please provide specific comments:
FUTURE CONFERENCES
Which additional topics should have been covered or what topics should have been covered
differently? ,
-4-
-------
c
Opening Session
n
TT
i i
-* i
-------
-: J
-------
WELCOME
Tudor T. Davies
Director
Office of Science and Technology
.Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
-------
., KEYNOTE
Carol Browner
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
-------
CONFERENCE INTRODUCTION
Margaret Stasikowski
Director
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
-------
c
Session 1
New Ways
To Evaluate Risk:
Moving Beyond Chemical
Toxicity in the Water Column
n
TT
-------
x ,11
-------
NEW WAYS TO EVALUATE RISK:
TOXICITY IN THE WATER COLUMN
MOVING BEYOND CHEMICAL
Amy Leaberry
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Session Manager
This session covers background on the traditional Criteria—Standards—TMDL—
Permits—Enforcement approach to water quality protectiojn and how it is evolving to
address the dispersion of contaminants through different media: water, sediments,
air, and tissue. The session provides information on how criteria can be used to
address effects from pollutants in media other than the v/ater column and provides
approaches on how to use criteria to solve environmental problems. The session will
include a review of the environmental gains and benefits! of chemical water quality
criteria achieved to date and gives insight on how chemical water quality criteria,may
be developed and applied in the future.
-------
3
•. i
-------
CHANGE, CHALLENGE, AND OPPORTUNITY IN EVALUATING RISK
James J. Reisa, Ph.D.
Director
Environmental Studies and Toxicology
National Research Council
Washington, DC
New concepts and methods for assessing the risks that environmental toxicants pose
to human health and ecological resources are needed, inevitable, and rapidly evolving.
Although toxicological risk assessment is still an immature field of applied scientific
practice, the enormous demand for such information brings impatient scrutiny and
pressure for improvement, ready or not. Only a decade since the "red book" paradigm
for risk assessment was proposed, revolutionary changes are underway on several
fronts. Deficiencies in current risk assessment practices concerning default
assumptions, uncertainty, and variability have been identified and are beginning to be
addressed by EPA, Congress, and risk assessment practitioners. Efforts are also
underway to remedy past overemphasis of human cancer risks; more robust and more
effective approaches are being pursued in reproductive and|developmental toxicology,
neurotoxicology, immunotoxicology, and ecotoxicology. VVithin this context, some of
the most important challenges and opportunities in risk assessment today are being
posed by the grbup of phenomena associated with xenoestrogens and other hormone-
related toxicants—sometimes called "endocrine disruptors"—in the environment.
Various pesticides and industrial chemicals-especially certain persistent,
bioaccumulating organohalogens—have been reported or suggested to produce
reproductive impairment and developmental abnormalities'in wildlife and a variety of
developmental and other adverse health effects in humians through alterations of
hormonal homeostasis. The need to understand- and address these phenomena is
likely to force development of new and more sophisticated risk assessment
approaches with respect to elucidating toxicological and pharmacokinetic mechanisms,
defining adverse effect "end points", integrating human health and ecological risk
assessments, assessing multiple chemical exposures, and assessing environmental
loading, transport, fate, ecological comparmentalization, and exposure pathways for
environmental toxicants. These challenges potentially represent great opportunities
.for improving both risk assessment and regulatory practices.
-------
-------
.' • " , •' '
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE WATER QUALITY BASED APPROACH IN
/ REGION IV: ENVIRONMENTAL GAINS/ BARRIERS AND
V RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CHANGE BAKKIERS AND
Morris Flexner
Environmental Scientist
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta, GA
It is the mark of an instructed mind to rest easy with the degree of
precision which the nature of the subject permits and1 not to seek an
exactness where only an approximation of the truth is possible."
; - Aristotle -
Environmental Gains
During the past two decades,, we have succeeded in reducing i^ome forms of serious
lant^P Th0nr,eSPMally fr°m P°int S°UrCes (e'9" Atones aind sewage treatment
5 «?-' h^Jr'T Water A of |the bleach'kraft S
in Reg.on IV comply w,th State water quality standards for dioxin. In 1 990, 30 mills
•n the Region discharged detectable levels of dioxin. Today,! only 12 ml Is (30%)
discharge detectable levels of dioxin. y * /o;
Correspondingly, fish consumption advisories for dioxin in Region IV have also
decreased. Four of these States are in Region IV. In 1990 therje were 13 advisories
for dioxm in s.x of the Region IV States [AL(3), FL(2), MS(1), NQ(5), SC(1) & TN(1)1
M? f£ re are °n'y 5 advisories for dioxin in four Region IV States [FL (1) MS (1)"
NC (2) and TN (1)]. Nationally, 22 States have fish advisories for dioxin.
r • EPA/S pulp and PaPer industry proposed effluent guidelines should
»nr, pi« xinate al1 dl°xin discharges from industry to water. JTrre American Forest
detect PeVptSSatCIn,'?Q ^ "^ ^ industrV's P^dge to cut dioxin emissions to non-
mnSr, f 7 Jea°h kraft PU|P mills by 1'996. This approach will hopefully
move us closer to one of the goals of the CWA: zero discharge of pollutants by 1985
-------
By jointly providing air and water requirements, EPA is prompting pollution prevention —»v
while allowing industry to more effectively plan compliance strategies. This integrated N• J
approach focuses on the multi-media nature of pollution control and allows each
facility to determine the pollution control approaches that should be implemented.
Barriers to Meeting Clean Water Act Goals
7 • '
In many respects we are actually losing ground in pur efforts to restore aquatic
ecosystem health. This problem is primarily due to massive pollution running off of
farms, city streets and other intensive land uses (known as nonpoint source pollution
or polluted runoff) coupled with large-scale destruction of wetlands, floodplains,
stream channels, and other important aquatic habitat. Without additional tools and
resources, controlling runoff pollution will remain one of the nation's most formidable
water quality challenges. Barriers to achieving results have included the inability to
adequately install or require BMPs, the lack of nutrient criteria (including chl a criteria
for lakes) and sediment criteria and State exemptions for certain agricultural and
silvicultural activities.
Other barriers include the overwhelming number of agencies and regulations that we
must engage to address water quality issues. According to a report issued last year
by Water Quality 2000, water quality issues are handled by 18 agencies in seven
departments plus seven independent agencies with 25 separate water programs. By
necessity, environmental regulations have cropped up on an emergency basis, crisis "•*.
by crisis, pollutant by pollutant. Today we have 16 major national environmental laws )
overseen by some 74 Congressional committees and subcommittees. Too often, our
environmental activities have been compartmentalized, law by law, pollutant by
pollutant.
Recommendations for Overcoming Barriers and Implementing Change
We must recognize the integration of our air, water and land. The vold, way of
regulating on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis is not enough to adequately protect
watersheds and ecosystems. In the EPA Great Waters Program Report concentrations
of compounds of concern in precipitation like PCBs, dieldrin, dioxin, DDT, chlordane,
and mercury are reported at levels above EPA water quality criteria. This information
clearly indicates the need for multi-media approaches to environmental problem
solving. We need to preserve and strengthen the principles of environmental
protection while changing the means by which we achieve this protection.
Several States in Region IV have embarked on geographic or "place-based"
approaches to address both point source and nonpoint source inputs into a watershed
or river basin. In Georgia and South Carolina, a comprehensive assessment of water
quality conditions in the Savannah River watershed has been underway since 1990.
This effort includes the coordination of analyses in the basin by both States, a
Regional EMAP Study, and a use attainability analysis (UAA) for the Savannah Harbor. ~v
The UAA hopes to 1) develop harbor criteria for protection of the endangered J
-------
shortnose sturgeon and other estuarine species and 2) develop a dynamic flow, water
quality and sediment model to evaluate the effects of existing stressors, and to also
predict the effects of and allocate future pollutant loadings for Total Maximum Daily
Loads (TMDLs). Section 303(d) of the CWA has resulted, in the initiation of over 40
TMDLs in Region IV alone, in which the wasteload allocation for point sources and the
load allocation for nonpoint sources for specific streams reaches has been or is being
determined. The TMDL process affords a more holistic, multi-source approach to
basinwide permitting. In the coming years, we must look: at how the changes in the
way we derive criteria (including biological criteria) factor into the TMDL process.
Another approach to addressing the presence of toxic chemicals in toxic amounts that
has gained favor in recent years is the implementation of wjhole effluent toxicity (WET)
limits in NPDES permits. Through 1992, Region IV States had issued over 1000
NPDES permits with WET limits. WET tests have the advantage of measuring the
combined effects of many potentially toxic substances in an effluent and provides an
integrated assessment of the potential toxic effects of Jan'effluent discharge on a
receiving water. We need to investigate the application of WET into the criteria and
standards programs.
Despite attempts to meet the goals of the CWA for over 20 years, we still have a long
way to go. Although the failures of the CWA outweigh the handful of successes, we
must "never give up" and remain committed to restoring jthe chemical, physical and
biological integrity of the nations waters with improved water quality tools and
approaches that we must continue to refine into the 21st century.
-------
-------
'I FROM SOURCES TO FATE AND EFFECTS!: AN INTEGRATED
V APPROACH TO MERCURY CONTROL
Edward B. Swain
Research Scientist
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
St. Paul, MN
It is entirely possible for all point discharges to meet the ElbA criterion for mercury but
for the water body to yield fish that exceed fish consumption advisories. The EPA
mercury criterion is outdated in light of recent data and is too high at 12 ng/L. The
current national criterion does not account for food chain! sources of mercury, which
are now thought to be the main source of mercury to fish1. Certainly some lakes that
have ambient levels of only 1 to 2 ng/L produce fisli that have high mercury
concentrations. On the other hand, the bioaccumulation factor (BAF) varies a great
deal from lake to lake and is difficult to predict because background chemistry affects
the BAF to a great degree. Some of this variability is doubtless from differences in the
efficiency of methylation of mercury in a given lake, because only methyl mercury
bioaccumulates in the food chain.
Even if water quality managers reduced mercury to zero ini point discharges, fish may
still exceed the FDA action level of 1.0 ppm. Nonpoint sources of mercury have been
shown to be the origin of mercury contamination of a broad range of lakes, ranging
from small seepage lakes in Wisconsin to Lake Superior. Although geological sources
may be significant in a few parts of the world, most cf the nonpoint mercury is
deposited from the atmosphere to soils, where a portion (about 20 percent) is
transported to lakes and streams. Once in water, a small but variable proportion
(about ten percent) is methylated arid can be bioaccumulated. Some of the mercury
evadbs back to the atmosphere, but the majority falls to the bottom of the lake. It is
likely that little of the sedimentary mercury is available to the food chain. The
connection between air emissions and fish mercury is highly complicated and subject
to mechanisms that would require considerable research for a full understanding. For
instance, it is unclear how mercury vapor is removed frorri the atmosphere. Mercury
vapor needs to be converted to a water soluble form to be washed out, but dry
deposition may be a significant mechanism. Some mercury is emitted in a water-
soluble form, so that deposition around some sources may be enhanced.
It would be possible to research the mercury path between air and fish for years and
not be able to construct a useful mechanistic model. We do know, however, that
most of the mercury in the atmosphere is human-generated, and that reducing
emissions will reduce fish contamination. Air emissions are split between energy
production and product manufacturing/disposal. Water managers need to work with
-------
Si '
air and solid waste managers in their pursuit of mercury control. Point source control,
while necessary, is not sufficient to reduce mercury to acceptable levels.
The EPA should provide leadership for integrated approaches to airborne pollutants
such as mercury. Communication among EPA's water, air, and solid waste offices
should be fostered. A mechanism to coordinate .guidance and rules should be
established.
•;')
-------
CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT PAST, PRESENT, Al\ D FUTURE
Robert T. Angelo, Ph.D.
Chief, Science and Standard Section
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Topeka, KS
-------
-------
CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE
Philip G. Watanabe, Ph.D.
Director
Health and Environmental Sciences
Dow Chemical Company
Midland, Ml
-------
-------
c
I
Session 2
Addressing Ecological
Integrity:
Moving Beyond Chemical
i
Toxicity
n
TT
-------
•o.
-------
ADDRESSING ECOLOGICAL INTEGRITY: MOVING BEYOND
CHEMICAL TOXICITY
Susan Jackson ," Session Manager
Environmental Scientist
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC ;i
This session covers approaches for managing environmental stressofs that are
adversely affecting water quality and aquatic ecosystems: but are not part of EPA's
regulatory program. These stressors include habitat degradation, nutrient enrichment,
and hydrologic modification. At this session, participants'are presented information
on how to estimate the cumulative impacts of all stressors in a watershed, available
tools for addressing them, and ways to build close working partnerships with other
federal, state and tribal agencies in developing and implementing water quality and
resource management. Technical, legal, and implementation issues will be a part of
the discussions. . i
-------
-------
NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT, HABITAT, AND RESOURCES
RESTORATION GOAL SETTING IN THE CHESAPEAKE
BAY PROGRAM
Richard Batiuk
Topics Coordinator
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 111
Annapolis, MD
Building from the 1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement's goal for the "restoration and
protection of the Bay's living resources, their habitats, the ecological relationships",
there has been a consensus-based evolution within the Chesapeake Bay Program
towards developing and adopting increasingly quantitative habitat and resource
restoration goals. This presentation will highlight five sets of goals, methods used in
their development, implementation within habitat restoration and pollution abatement
programs, and resultant recommendations to the national program.
Dissolved oxygen restoration goals .
Nutrient and light attenuation habitat requirements
Submerged aquatic vegetation restoration goals
Benthic community restoration goals j
Living resource restoration goals under development.
These goal setting efforts will be presented in the context of a larger effort to
institutionalize links between resource management, habitat restoration and pollution
reduction/prevention. ...... ;
-------
-------
ADDRESSING NUTRIENT OVERENRICHMEIMT
DEGRADATION
AND HABITAT
Chris O. Voder
Manager _
Ecological Assessment Section
Division of Surface Water
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Columbus, OH
Current methods to develop biological criteria and habitat
on addressing impacts of nutrient enrichment and
communities.
assessment, with emphasis
habitat degradation on aquatic
Habitat assessment as an integral component of biological assessments.
Recommendations to EPA National Program for developing
biological and habitat assessment.
future/needed methods for
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR UNCONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Geoffrey W. Harvey
Senior Surface Water Analyst
Division of Environmental Quality
Northern Idaho Regional Office
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Coeur d'Alene, JD
Key Points:
• In many western states uncontaminated sediment is the most prevalent
contaminant of water.
• Uncontaminated sediment occurs as a natural product of erosion, but
erosion rates and sedimentation are accelerated by nonpoint source
activities making sediment a contaminant.
• Any criteria or standards promulgated to piotec't beneficialuses from
accelerated sedimentation must consider sediment impacts on the water
column and the stream bed load to adequately
especially freshwater biota habitat as related 1o these uses.
• Criteria and standards must be chosen which are directly related to the
protection of the beneficial use's habitat.
• Since sediment is primarily generated from
protect the beneficial uses,
nonpoint source activities
• (irrigation, logging* grazing etc-.) sediment criteria are often used to assess
the effectiveness of best management practiciss.
Impacts of Uncontaminated Sediment on Freshwater Biota Beneficial Uses
• Interference with sight feeding fish species (e,|g., salmonids).
* • . • "| . • - • .
1 i ''''''
• Loss of juvenile and over-wintering habitat; cobble interstitial space.
• Loss of adult holding habitat; pool filling.
• Loss of spawning habitat: oxygen transport: interference arid sediment
retardation of fry escape from the redd.
-------
EXAMPLE: WATER COLUMN BASED SEDIMENT CRITERIA
Salmonid Sight Feeding Criterion
In surface waters supporting or capable of supporting salmqnid fisheries, turbidity, as
the result of nonpoint source activities, shall not exceed background turbidity .
measured at comparable discharge by 50 NTU instantaneously or 25 NTU for 10 days.
EXAMPLE: STREAM BED BASED CRITERIA
Salmonid Holding Habitat Criterion
Residual pool volume of a representative stream reach may not be significantly (95%
confidence interval) altered by bedload sedimentation.
Salmonid Rearing Habitat Criterion
Natural baseline interstitial space index of the cobble and boulder substrate of a
representative stream reach shall not exhibit a statistically demonstratable decrease
at the ninety-five percent (95%) confidence interval. Impacts of sedimentation on the
interstitial space habitats important to salmonid rearing and refuge will be assessed
by measurement of the cobble and boulder interstitial space index. Baseline interstitial
space index will be determined by a quantitative technique in stream reaches with
similar geomorphology and stream power which re unaffected by human induced (i.e., )
nonpoint source) sedimentation. An interstitial space index value will consist of a
mean at the ninety-five percent (95%) precision level of the t statistic.
Salmonid Spawning Criterion
Nonpoint source activities shall not cause intergravel dissolved oxygen in spawning
gravels to decline, below a weekly average of 6 milligrams per liter.
-------
ADDRESSING NUTRIENT OVERENRICHMENT AND
HABITAT
Tom Fontaine
South Florida Water Management District
West Palm Beach, FL
-------
-------
WATER QUALITY IN THE ARID WEST: IS THERE A ROLE FOR EPA IN
( -. ADVANCING SOLUTIONS TO THE CONFLICTS BETWEEN INSTREAM
FLOW AND HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION?
Max H. Dodson
Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
Denver, CO
The objective of the Clean Water Act establishes a brciad ecological goal aimed at
restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters. However, the substantive part of the Act, implementing that
objective, is principally constructed to address the discharge of pollutants, and it is
this control of pollutant discharges which has appropriately occupied EPA's attention
over the last twenty years. There is now, however, a gr'owing awareness within the
Agency of the need to address impacts to the water resource as a Whole and refocus
attention on the Act's ecological integrity objective. This new focus is evident in the
Agency's growing interest in landscape level approacheslto water resource protection
such as watershed protection and ecosystem management. Clearly, the presence of
water will be a key component in satisfying an objective aimed at maintaining the
ecological integrity of aquatic ecosystems. As a result, the Agency's interest in
watershed protection and ecosystem management, necessarily, will force a somewhat
more active Agency role in water quantity issues. In the arid west, there is a
somewhat more active Agency role in water quantity isssues. In the arid west, there
is a continuing conflict between maintenance of instrearh .flows for the protection of
aquatic ecosystems and hydrologic modifications which dewater streams to meet
offstream demands. This conflict is compounded by western water laws which view
water as a property right. The right to allocate water is acknowledged in the Clean
Water Act in Section 101 (g); however, the courts ancl EPA have interpreted this
provision as requiring an accommodation of quantity and quality demands.
Furthermore, the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling, in a case addressing instream flow
requirements in the State of Washington, appears to strengthen the standing of the
ecological integrity objective of the Act. Is there a role, then, for EPA in negotiating
an accommodation between instream flows needed tcj> meet the Act's, ecological
objective and hydrologic modifications designed to satisfy legitimate offstream
demands also recognized by the Act? Three case studies in Region VIII will be used
to illustrate the conflicts and a potential role for EPA in negotiating accommodation.
-------
Y
-------
ESTABLISHING STANDARDS FOR CALIFORNIA'S SAN FRANCISCO
BAY/ SACRAMENTO - SAN JOAQUIN DELTA ESTUARY
Jerry Johns
Assistant Division Chief
Division of Water Rights
California State Water Resources Control Board
Sacramento, CA
California's San Francisco Bay / Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Bay/Delta
Estuary) is not only the largest estuary on the west coast of the United States but is
also the critical water supply link between the water surplus iareas in the northern part
of California and the Water deficient areas in the southern and coastal regions of the
State. The factors influencing the biological resources in the Bay/Delta Estuary will
be discussed. Also, State and Federal approaches to stop the current decline of the
biological resources and improve estuarine habitat will be presented.
One factor affecting the biological resources in the Bay/Delta Estuary Is the reduction
in flow out of the freshwater Delta, portion of the estuary ir»to the saline bay portion
of the estuary. Numerous studies show a positive relationship between freshwater
flow out of the Delta and the populations of various trophic! levels of organisms that
live in or depend on the estuary for a portion of their life cycle. 'As is typical for
estuaries, flows and salinities are closely correlated. Decreases in flows result in
increases in salinity. The relationships between flows and biological production have
been reformulated to show similar relationships between salinity and tropic response.
The. pros and cons of setting standards on either flows or salinity will be discussed
from a scientific, regulatory and political viewpoint. ! /
' '•• - - J ' •'
• • "\ ~ • ' • •
Another large factor affecting the biological resources in the Delta portion of the Bay
Delta Estuary is water diversions from the Delta. These diversions occur to satisfy
both the 550,000 acres if agricultural land within the Delta and the approximately six
million acre-feet of water exported from the Estuary for use Jin areas to the south and
west. Controls on the timing and amount of these exports Ihave been placed on the
operators of these export facilities as requirements under the Endangered Species Act
to protect winter run salmon and Delta Smelt. Additional c'ontrols are likely needed
to protect other species. Factors other than flow (salinity) and diversions have also
affected the biological resources of the Bay Delta Estuary, but these two factors are
the most controllable factors which have the largest effect on these resources.
All of the standards for Bay Delta Estuary affect the available water supply for much
of the State's agricultural land and most of it's people, j The establishment and
enforcement of these standards must strike a reasonabje balance between the
legitimate needs of both in stream and out of stream uses cif water. They must also
-------
be sensitive to the State's long guarded desire to have control over water allocation
decisions and the Clean Water Act's structural inability to allow the kind of balancing
needed when two beneficial uses of water compete for the same resources.
-------
ADDRESSING HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION /^ND HABITAt LOSS
Patrick Wright
Chief, Bay/Delta Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 9
San Francisco, CA
Collaboration with other Federal agencies to develop and apply methods to address
the impacts of water withdrawal on aquatic communities, development and application
of methods within context of watershed approach to! comprehensive ecosystem
protection. .
-------
-------
ADDRESSING HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION AND HABITAT LOSS
Estyn R. Mead
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Branch of Federal Activities
Division of Habitat Conservation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arlington, VA • ,
Current methodologies and approaches to measure habitat
(quality and quantity) and effects on aquatic communities
indices).
degradation^ and loss
(e.g., IFIM, suitability
-------
-------
ADDRESSING HYDROLOGIC MODIFICATION AND HAfelTAT LOSS
David P. Braun
Hydrologist Water Quality Specialist
The Nature Conservancy
Arlington, VA
Methodologies and approaches to assess the impacts of \hydrologic modification on
aquatic biota and their habitat—Eastern perspective. Wetlands hydrology—gw/sw
interaction. Monitoring for ecological significance (on limited resources)—how set
monitoring objectives and endpoints. ;
-------
-------
Opening
Comments
r
1
-------
-------
OPENING COMMENTS
Robert Perciasepe
Assistant Administrator
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC
-------
\
-------
c
1J
Session 3
Assessing Risk At
The Watershed Level:
Integrating Assessments to Solve
Complex Problems!
-------
-------
ECOLOGICAL RISKS AT THE WATERSHED LEVEL: INTEGRATING
ASSESSMENTS TO SOLVE COMPLEX PROBLEMS
Suzanne K. M. Marcy, Ph.D. , Session Manager
Biologist
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC •
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Offiibe of Water have identified
watershed ecosystem protection as a top priority. To meet this challenge, we need
to use available assessment tools in more integrated and!innovative ways. We need
to develop a new process that allows us to evaluate and predict ecosystem
vulnerability to diverse human activities impacting watersheds and placing them at
risk. • ' ..., - ' • './'. . -. ' l '.'"'. ••:
Assessment of ecosystem level risk can be based on current ecological risk
assessment methodology as described in the Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment {USEPA 1992). Ecological risk assessments contain three primary
components: problem formulation, analysis (encomp'assing characterization of
exposure and ecological effects) and risk characterization;. These basic principles are
now being modified and expanded to develop a scientific process for assessing risk
at the watershed ecosystem level. Principal differencejs identified in the process
include the high level of manager involvement required, ^nd a primary focus on the
ecological resources to be protected. , r
'"•'•'' ' • i •-..'."•
To develop the process, a multi-agency Technical Panel, cx>sponsored by the USEPA
Office of Water and Risk Assessment Forum, was established in 1993 to develop case
study examples of Watershed level ecological risk assessments. These case studies
are featured in Session 3. Although each case study watershed is subject to complex
interactive problems from.many sources of stress, the five case studies will be used
here to target some of the more difficult issues facing watershed managers today. For
example, endangered mussels in the Clinch River Valley, VA, are already being
carefully managed but they continue to decline. Big Darby Creek, OH, is a relatively
unimpaired ecosystem subject to increasing land development. In the Middle Platte
River, NE, farmers working in America's agricultural bread basket compete with the
birds of the Central Migratory Flyway for a limited supply bf water and wet meadows
in a complex hydrologic system. Waquoit Bay Estuary, MA, is suffering the effects
of over-enrichment from air, land and water. Finally, the jSnake River, ID/ beset by a
cycling interaction of sediments, nutrients and low flows has many conflicting
stressors and human demands. The purpose for the following panel discussions is to
explore how ecological risk assessments help to evaluate and increase our
-------
understanding of the complexities of these problems and provide the basis for better
watershed management. -
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is placing increased emphasis on
achieving integrated ecosystem protection. The Office of Water is working to meet
Agency goals through the development of watershed protection programs. This shift
in emphasis is based on a recognition that despite major advancements in
environmental protection, and significant observable improvements, degradation of
ecological resources continues. More integrated assessments of ecological resources
at risk in watersheds are needed to solve remaining problems.
Background v
Under the Clean Water Act and Clear Air Act, implementation of best available
technology and establishment of criteria and permit limits continues to reduce direct
discharge of pollutants into surface waters and air. Implementation of regulations
under FIFRA, TSCA and CERCLA controlling land application and clean up of toxics
is reducing soil, ground water and surface water pollution. The outcome of these and
other programs has been a resurgence of aquatic life in surface waters, increased
productivity of wildlife, and a significant increase in human quality of life. However,
despite decreasing pollution and improved environmental protection, ecological
degradation continues. Surface waters supporting aquatic life contain communities
with lowered diversity, non-native species and in many cases advisories restricting
human consumption of resident fish. Reproductive success of many birds and
mammals is decreasing and extinction of species within all classes of organisms,
except humans, is increasing. This degradation can be attributed to many factors
including physical loss of habitat, reproductive defects from bioaccumulative
chemicals, human misuse of surface and ground water, and the introduction of non-
native species. Such human induced changes are some of the stressors recognized
as degrading ecosystems. Often the cause of degradation is not known.. Past
program success in reducing pollutants in water, land and air through media specific
programs has served to highlight the diversity of continuing environmental problems.
To meet the challenge of a changing environmental focus, a process to understand
and predict ecosystem vulnerability to many stressors is needed. This process must
take into account the combined and cumulative effects of chemical, physical and
biological stressors, the dynamic relationships of biotic communities interacting with
each other and their physical environment, and the need to evaluate risk within a
definable ecosystem, where stressors from one medium, such as air, can transfer to
others like water or soil. Assessment tools are now available, and others are under
development to evaluate the effects of specific stressors. However, we need to use
these tools in more integrated and innovative ways.
Developing a New Process
-------
Ecologies riskassessmems have n use^eS^S^'"' methodol°8V-
-------
A second important difference in watershed risk assessments is the primary focus on x
assessment endpoints, and the degree of involvement of local, state and federal )
managers in selecting them. Management input about watershed ecological goals and
the translation of these goals into assessment endpoints by risk assessors, provide the
driving force for the risk assessment. Instead of asking what organisms are likely to
be impacted by a particular stressor, more typical of traditional risk assessments, the
question becomes which stressors are likely to impact the ecological resource of
concern. This shift in emphasis results in significant changes in how the risk
assessment team evaluates information and structures the risk assessment. It also
promotes an evaluation of the combined and cumulative risk of exposure to multiple
stressors based on a rigorous analytical design.
Case Study Examples .
The watershed ecological risk assessment case studies each provide an opportunity
to evaluate the value added when choosing to conduct an ecological risk assessment.
Each of these watersheds is already managed, and has been for some time. Each is
subject to a significant variety of human induced stressors that range from chemical
contamination (e.g., Superfund sites, agricultural run-off or point-source dischargers),
and physical alterations (wetlands loss, dredging, sedimentation and erosion), to
biological impacts (e.g., algal growth, domesticated animals, introduced non-native
species). Each watershed was selected in part because significant information was
already available on the watershed. In each case the risk assessment has provided
new ways of evaluating available information and new ways of looking at the /
problems. A few of these are briefly described below; for additional discussion refer
to summaries of the break-out sessions in Session 3.
Endangered species are protected under the Endangered Species Act and of significant
concern to resource managers/The Clinch River Valley in Virginia contains among the
most diverse endemic communities of mussels in the country. Many of these musse
species are now endangered. Local managers are working hard to protect mussel
habitat to save these species, but the effort has not achieved what was hoped for.
In some areas, older mussels are still alive but no young are being successful^ ,
reproduced. One of the significant outcomes of the ongoing risk assessment of .the
Clinch River is the increasing consideration of other possible causes for the decline,
including the simultaneous change in the fish community in the river. Since many
endangered mussel species young must attach to a particular.spec.es of host fish
during a critical life stage, the loss of the fish host in the community will result in the
continued failure of mussels to recruit young. To save the mussels it may be
necessary to develop more effective management of the fish.
The Big Darby Creek in Ohio is a relatively unimpaired ecosystem based.on aquatic
community measures and habitat structure. However areas of impa.rment can be
identified along different reaches of the stream. The purpose of the first phase of this
risk assessment is to evaluate the relationships among different land use act.v.t.es, . •
theirproximitytothestreamandtheobserveddifferences.ntheb.ot.ccommunit.es. }
-------
In the second phase, a more detailed evaluation of land use stressors will be
conducted to evaluate what kinds of changes are most likely to be causing adverse
effects. Each land use is a complex of stressors that rhust be evaluated. The Big
Darby Partners, a local management organization, want to use the results of the risk
assessment to refine their current planning efforts.
The Middle Platte River in Nebraska is a exceptionally valuable natural resource that
supports major agricultural production, serves as the primary feeding and resting area
for the internationally important migratory bird central flyway, and supports a
significant diversity of resident birds, amphibians and fisih. Historically described as
a mile wide and an inch deep, the river's character has crianged significantly over the
years because of increasing demands for water, both within and upriver of the Middle
Platte. Although highly managed, the hydrology of the system is unique and not easily
understood. The risk assessment process, which included going to the watershed to
talk with local managers and the public, has helped identify conflicting interpretations
of the river's hydrology. This, and the importance of the river's diminishing wetlands,
prompted the risk assessment team to focus one aspect of the risk assessment on
more systematically evaluating the natural and human managed hydrology of the river
and its relationship to habitat needs for selected biota. This'information will hopefully
aid resource managers in achieving consensus on an effective management plan for
the river to protect ecological resources and sustain agriculture and industry. >
Waquoit Bay Estuary on Cape Cod in Massachusetts has been the focus of intensive
research on nutrient cycling for several years because of observed problems caused
by over-enrichment. Despite this effort relatively little data are yet available on the
actual ecological effects that over-enrichment is having on the bay. Nor is much
known about the condition of the freshwater component of the watershed.
Researchers are still grappling with the relative contribution of different sources of
nutrients to the system. The risk assessment in this case will more closely associate
the nutrient .inputs from the three primary sources (septic systems, fertilizers, air
deposition) to Observable ecological effects on the eel grjass community most at risk
in the estuary. l,n addition, the risk assessment will I include evaluations of the
freshwater component. Finally, the risk assessment will (ecornmend further research
in the bay, fresh water ponds and streams to more fully characterize the ecology of the
system and risk from stressors.
The Middle Snake River in Idaho is highly degraded from agricultural return flows, fish
hatcheries and dams. Sedimentation, over-enrichment, impoundment and water
withdrawals are taking their toll on native species, river jflow and human enjoyment
of the river. The risk assessment in this case is focused1 on understanding the inter-
relationships among water flow, nutrients and sediments. They each impact the other
and managing one without managing all is problematic. The risk assessment will help
to clarify these relationships, information of value to mianagers trying to determine
how best to meet human needs and aquatic life goals. |~
-------
These brief descriptions highlight a few of the issues being addressed in the
watersheds, and a few of the approaches being used by the risk management and
assessment teams developing the case studies. Our first steps in developing these
case studies have been difficult. Traditional approaches to ecological risk assessment
were not as effective for watersheds. The risk assessors had to refocus on
management goals and assessment endpoints to make progress. As we develop
analysis plans, more rigorous experimental design must be applied. Throughout, the
learning process has been rich and characterized by new understanding of the power
of applying the scientific method to problems of understanding and managing risk.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Framework for Ecological Risk
Assessment EPA/ / 7001, pp.
-------
ECOSYSTEM ANALYSIS FOR BIODIVERSITY CONSERVATION SOME
PERSPECTIVES FROM THE NATURE CONSERVANCY '
Brian O. Richter
Biohydrology Team Leader
The Nature Conservancy
Boulder, CO
Background
'nlunnS ?ntT Y8?™'J"6 Nature-Conservancy (TNC) has taken a headlong
££«• m°raSS ecosVstem management." As with many other land
manag.ng organ.zat.ons, the Conservancy had come to understand that the
management of isolated, fragmented preserve areas for conservation purposes sUly
nmn^0tKSUCCLeed wheTn our, management influence was constrained within our own
property boundanes. Through our experience in managing a network of more ft™
1500 preserves across the U.S., we could well appreciate the challenges of
conservmg b.od.versity within a landscape matrix of diverse land uses, watershed
processes, spec.es migrations and gene flows. While senior 'managers within the
organization were boasting of being a quiet, "science-driven' conservatSn
oroam^nn our sclentists were quietly driving the organization into ecosystem
Fortunately, we had a history of critical thinking about applied conservation biology
With 0the°CnnnCpantmaT9Tent ^^ *"* ™™' and-8Ven 3 f'*W SCJentistS fa™^
mil cotncePts of/lsk assessment to guide our early forays into ecosystem
.management. So when the Conservancy decided four years ago to launch a
fundra,s,ng campa.gn to fuel.the initiation of more than 70 individual ecosystem
rtT6018 (C^ "bioreserves")' Conservancy scientists felt re^sonab"
t that they could "walk the talk." As more than 70 Conservancy planning
lThUltann°USlr ^°Ve int° Strategic plannin9 for thelr respective ecosystem
, they all worked w.thin a planning and analysis structure we call "The Six S's-
'" S6S/ S°UrCeS' Situation
-------
The Six S's framework has had an immeasurably beneficial influence on the x
Conservancy. For the first time, Conservancy managers and scientists are being " /
recognized and rewarded for sharing their knowledge about how ecosystems work, '
and for investing resources in planning their conservation activities strategically (based •
upon ecosystem knowledge). Bioreserve strategic plans are based upon current, local,
interdisciplinary knowledge of current and past human activities within targeted
watershed areas. This knowledge is used to assess what is stressing the system and
the biological implications of those stresses. Although this planning process is quite
time-consuming, few of the Conservancy's planning teams dispute the merits (and
necessity) of adding this level of rigor to decisions involving considerable investment
of organizational resources. The ability of such conceptual discussion and analysis to
improve our conservation effectiveness is now well established within our
organization.
What Else Can Ecological Risk Assessment Do For Us?
While the Six S's planning framework has elevated the Conservancy's strategic
planning standards, these analyses of ecosystem stresses are generally based upon
qualitative information and intuitive reasoning. A common realization derived from
these planning exercises is that large holes exist in our understanding of present and
historical conditions and functions in our targeted ecosystems. For many of us, the
idea of committing millions of dollars and years of our time to conservation actions
founded upon a weak knowledge base and tentative hypotheses about the causes of
ecosystem stress is terribly unsettling. At the same time, many others within the )
organization are openly nervous about investing resources in research activities that
hold no guarantee of substantially influencing our decisions about how to conserve
biodiversity.
The scientific rigor embodied in the "analysis phase" of EPA's ecological risk
assessment process (EPA 1992) holds great promise for minimizing these conflicts
between science and applied management concerns wjthin our organization. The
ecological risk assessment framework outlines a methodology for strategically
engaging scientific methods in the resolution of real world, applied ecosystem
conservation issues. If the application of ecological risk assessment principles can
reduce the risk of investing in poorly designed and directed research and lead us to
better identification of the causes of ecosystem stress, we expect that it will be
quickly adopted within our organizational culture.
Challenges for Watershed Analysis
During the past couple of years, the Conservancy has begun to make some careful but
increasing investments in applied ecosystem research. The purposes of this applied
research closely parallel the intentions of the analysis phase of ecological risk
assessment, as outlined in the EPA framework document (EPA 1992): i) to
characterize ecosystem stresses in time and space; and ii) to characterize biological
responses to these stresses (ecological effects). While this analytical strategy appears •.'• )
-------
conceptually sound, its application to watersheds and hydropic stresses is proving
, to be quite challenging., We would like to briefly summarize some of the challenges
V , we have identified in some of our early investigations of watershed stresses.
Hydrologic regimes clearly play a preeminent role in structuring ecosystem conditions
processes and functions within watersheds. The rates and timing of water flows over
the land surface,,through ground water systems, and within channels directly shapes
aquatic hab.tat conditions such as water depths and velocities, and indirectly
influences water temperatures arid chemistry. Hydrologic regimes dictate the degree
of connectivity between floodplain habitats {such as backwater lakes and sloughs) and
primary river channels, thus influencing exchanges of nutrient? and other materials
between these habitats and controlling access to floodplain habitats for feeding
resting, and reproduction by aquatic organisms. Hydrblogic regimes structure wetland
or riparian environments by affecting flood inundation, drought stress, and other
critical environmental conditions that affect the distributions of plants and animals in
, these ecosystems.
Although many of these hydroiogically-driven ecosystem processes and functions are
intuitively understood by ecologists, four constraints are substantially limiting our .
abilities to adequately characterize hydrolbgic stresses in timje and space:
1. Existing hydrologic data collection networks and technologies are grossly
inadequate. The data needed to adequately assess hydrologic changes over
time are available for only a finite number of monitoring stations. Watershed
analysts are commonly constrained by the limited transferability of these data
to their study areas, and the limited utility of thes'e data for calibrating''
simulation models. Stated simply, we need more data'.
2. Statistical summaries of hydrologic data {prepared by data collection agencies)
are generally limited to a handful of summary statistics such as monthly means
These statistics are quite useful to planners and engineers concerned with
human water supply and flood protection, but most of tHe commonly published
statistics are meaningless to ecologists trying to; evaluate ecosystem
relationships. New computational tools capable of more fully characterizing
such hydrologic phenomena as the magnitude and duratibn of flood and drought
pulses, the timing of extreme water conditions, and £he rate of change in
hydrologic conditions are needed to support ecosystem analysis.
3. Hydrologic data generally needs to be translated Jnlto associated habitat
characteristics (such as flow velocities or depths, or duration of inundation)
before it can be used in ecosystem analyses. Few scientists are familiar with
the tools hydrologists use (such as hydraulics models) to perform such
translations. Therefore, ecologists need to be able to ask hydrologists for
assistance in characterizing hydrologic stresses in the language of ecologists
-------
4. Hydrologic processes alter physical habitats over time. The hydrologic variation x
(such as water table or river fluctuations) that influences ecosystem functions \ )
and biotic distributions operates within the physical structure of the
environment (i.e., the river channel, floodplain, wetland pond, etc). When the
physical structure of the environment changes, the distribution of habitat
characteristics such as flow velocities and depths may change substantially as
well.
The degree of physical habitat change important to ecological components such
as fish (e.g., changes in the relative abundance of riffles and pools) may be
relatively inconsequential to other components such as a riparian forest.
Therefore, we need to understand the nature and rates of geomorphic change .
occurring within the ecosystems we are studying, we need to assess its
significance to the ecological components we are analyzing, and we need
models capable of simulating these effects over time.
Beyond these challenges in characterizing hydrologically influenced habitats and
stresses in space and time, we are also challenged in our attempts to link such
stresses to changes in ecosystem biota. Within the Conservancy, we have assembled
a team of hydrologists and ecologists to advance our understanding of the role of
hydrologic regimes in biological systems (which we call "biohydrology"). Through
involvement in research efforts across the country, the biohydrology team is beginning
to recognize some common pitfalls in our attempts to link hydrologic regimes to biotic \
changes over time. . - /
Many of the problems just described for characterizing hydrologic stresses are equally
pertinent to biohydrologic analysis. We seldom have adequate data^on historical
distributions and abundances of native species and communities. It's ,difficult to
identify the specific hydrologic characteristics that might best explain changes in the
ecological component of interest, due to the limited availability of information about
life history strategies and hydrologic dependencies. Changes in ecological patterns •
have to be characterized at spatial and temporal scales compatible with hydrologic
characterization. . , .
If all the hurdles mentioned previously in this paper could be overcome, we will still
be hindered by the absence of a general theoretical framework for linking hydrologic
and biotic change at various spatial and temporal scales, and the lack of successful
research designs for other researchers to emulate. To build such a general framework .
for biohydrologic analysis, an extensive review of currently available data collection
technologies and networks for monitoring both current and past hydrologic arid
ecologic conditions needs to be undertaken. Ecologists specializing in research design
at different levels of biological organization (e.g., populations, communities,
ecosystems) need to collaborate with hydrologists and fluvial geomorphologists to
seek common intersections between data, processes, and life histories. Opportunities
for making substantial contributions to the emerging field of biohydrology are clearly v
abundant. : '
-------
SELECTING WHAT TO PROTECT IN THE WATERSHED ECOSYSTEM:
USING MULTIPLE ASSESSMENT ENDPOINTS FOR THE MIDDLE
PLATTE RIVER SYSTEM
William S. Whitney
Director
Praire Plains Resource Institute
Aurora, NE
The Objective of the Middle Platte ERA is to provide dejcision-makers, i.e., people
involved with various watershed resource aspects and regulatory procedures, with a
tool to assist them in seeing beyond parochial concerns to a basin-wide perspective.
With information on ecological risks associated with potential land and water
management options within a basin, it is our hope that (Decisions can achieve more
balance among varied objectives. It is vital to realize thai! ecological risk assessment
is a fluid process relying on communication among i many people with many
perspectives and an every-changing body of information. The process, however, can
reveal a concrete framework of ecological relationships and factual information
acceptable to all stakeholders. Subsequently, on this framework can grow a broad-
based understanding of what alternate management strategies might do or what kinds
of research information is needed. ':. . !
The Middle Platte is an extremely complex system. The challenge in developing a risk
analysis for the basin is to: 1) Identify ecosystem components along with assessment
and measurement endpoints, 2) rate assessment endpoints as to susceptibility,
societal Value, and ecological relevance, and 3) correlate changes in land use and
hydrology (the Platte may be unique in regard to the[ ecological and economic
importance of both surface and underground water) with changes in species and
ecological community structure. Historic trends in stressors and effects have been.
developed to serve as the basis for predicting the effects of a range of potential
management alternatives within the basis. !
A focus on the landscape habitat .mosaic derives from a general hypothesis that there
is a critical mix of habitat to support both the natural biodiversity and the economy of
the basin. The task is to identify the optimum structure and then evaluate
management strategies in light of their ability to establish that structure. Risks
associated with a particular strategy are measures of how far its endpoints deviate
from the optimum structure. !
-------
. V
-------
MANAGING CONFLICTING USES IN THE MIDDLE SNAKE RIVER
Kevin J. Beaton
Deputy Attorney General
Environmental Affairs
Idaho Office of Attorney General
Boise, ID
The speaker will highlight complex ecological problems in the Middle Snake River
arising from multiple uses. Developing management plans to restore ecological
integrity to the river whjle maintaining the agricultural based economy has no simple
answers. Watershed ecological risk assessment of the Snake is helping to broaden
understanding of river dynamics to support better management.
-------
-------
PROTECTING ENDANGERED SPECIES
John E. Miller Panel Moderator
Environmental Scientist
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency • ! •
Washington, DC
Endangered species are sentinels of the larger problem;of ecosystem degradation.
Protection of a single species is not possible without protecting the ecosystem upon
which it depends. Participants in this session will discuss how the goal of protecting
endangered species may improve through the use of watershed, management based
on ecological risk assessments. The session will use (endangered mussels in the
Clinch River, Virginia as the starting point for discussion.
-------
-------
PROTECTING ENDANGERED SPECIES
Bill Kittrell
Clinch Valley Bioreserve Manager
The Nature Conservancy
Abingdon, VA
-------
-------
PROTECTING ENDANGERED SPECIES
Jack Edmundson
Branch Chief
Environmental Analysis and Documentation
U..S. Department of Agriculture
Hyattsville, MD
-------
-------
PROTECTING ENDANGERED SPECIES
Ren Lohoefener, Ph.D.
Chief
Recovery and Consultation Branch
Division of Endangered Species
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Arlington, VA
-------
-------
PROTECTING ENDANGERED SPECIES
Janet McKegg
Director
Natural Heritage Program
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Annapolis, MD
Maryland's Nohgame and Endangered Species Conservation Act establishes the
Department of Natural Resources as the agency responsible for the identification and
.protection of threatened and endangered species in Maryland. The Maryland Natural
Heritage Program is the Department's lead for implementation of the Act. As with the
Federal Endangered Species Act, Maryland's Act authorizes the listing of species that
are threatened with extinction within the State and sets put prohibitions to prevent
their extinction. One of these prohibitions allows the Department to include conditions
for the protection of listed species in State-issued permits, projects that use State
funds, and projects that are proposed by State departments and agencies.
The Maryland Endangered Species Act provides some 'fundamental tools for the
protection of listed species, such as a mandate to conserve listed species. Without
this authority, the State could take no actiora to identify or protect these species.
However, the prohibitions and restrictions contained in the Act can be considered as
primarily stopgap actions, such as inserting conditions in permits, until recovery plans
can be developed for a particular species. Because fesw funds are available for
developing of comprehensive recovery plans for listed species, this type of temporary
protection, gained through environmental review, may belthe only type of protection
that many listed species receive. Over the long term, the cost of providing protection
through environmental review can be high, but the results can often be poor.
••-.,.- - •.•••!'.'.'• ^ • .• . i
The Program's most successful approach to maintaining endangered species is to
conduct research into the distribution, life history and habitat needs of the species and
then develop a protection and management strategy based on the needs of the
species. Although the initial costs of this approach can be high, the results are long-
lasting. . '
! • • • ,
EPA Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment {Februarjy 1992) defines ecological
risk assessment .(ERA) as a "a process that evaluates the likelihood that adverse
ecological effects may occur or are occurring as a result of exposure to one or more
stressprs." The process described in,the.above paragraph as the Program's most
successful approach to maintaining endangered species] is essentially an informal,
intuitive, simplified seat-of-the pants ERA where threats identified are used to guide
protection and management actions. When the maintenance of an endangered species
population is among the assessment endpoints for; an ERA, then the risk
characterization would identify threats to that population eind lead to the development
-------
of options to maintain the population. Therefore, ERA appears to have a great
potential to contribute to the protection of endangered species. EPA could adopt a
policy that one of the sets of data to be obtained for any ERA is the presence of
known locations of listed species in the project area. This would be a major step
towards making ERA a significant tool for endangered species protection.
-------
LAND USE: A CRITICAL ELEMENT FOR RELATING WATERSHED
SCALE PROCESSES TO ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Susan M. Cormier, Ph.D. ; Panel Co-moderator
Ecological Monitoring Research Division
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory f
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .
Cincinnati, OH >
* - - r • •
and • ' • .''••'' - ' "'' ' ''
Marc A. Smith Panel Co-moderator
Environmental Supervisor ,..'•"..
Ecological Assessment Section
Division of Surface Water
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Columbus, Ohio -
In order to learn better ways to scientifically predict environmental risk, an ecologipal
risk assessment was undertaken in the Big Darby Creek watershed. The Big Darby
.Creek watershed is a freshwater, stream ecosystem in central Ohio. The watershed
is a high quality ecosystem which is still relatively free of pollution problems.
However, this exceptional stream is threatened by fan assortment of stresses
originating with day-to-day activities of people in the watershed. Some of the key
stressors include sedimentation, nutrient enrichment, changes in hydrology and
geomorphology, loss of a riparian zone and chemical contamination. Approximately
90% of land use is agricultural, but there is increased residential development in the
eastern portion of the watershed near Columbus, Ohio, i
The ecological risk assessment has identified land use as-k critical element for relating
watershed scale processes to ecological effects. Thej case study has elected to
characterize the system by correlating land use with biological effects at the
ecoregional scale for agricultural, forested, residential and industrial land uses. These
data will then be used to forecast changes to the bicjlogical communities in the
mainstem and tributaries of the Big Darby Creek Watershed. Some specific
management concerns will be examined including presence of, riparian zones,
residential density and storm water control. The risk assjessment will then become a
tool to generate the information needed for sound decision-making by county
commissioners and engineers, by township trustees andj other local officials, and by
voters. The processes and analyticaf methods used to develop the risk assessment
will provide a concrete example of how an ecological risk assessment might be done
in other ecosystems.
-------
t.
-------
INCORPORATING ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTS AND BIOLOGICAL
CRITERIA IN ECOLOGICAL RISK AND WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
Chris O. Voder
Manager
Ecological Assessment. Section
Division of Surface Water
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Columbus, Ohio
Current strategies for the assessment and management of ecological risk, while
allowing for the incorporation of ecological information, aiie largely dependent on non-
ecological measures and principles. Water quality program managers, being hampered
by a lack of adequate funding and mandates to produce evidence of environmental
improvements quickly, have historically relied on surrogate indicators such as
administrative actions (e.g., permits issued, funding awards, legal actions) and
relatively simple physical/chemical indicators of aquatic ecosystem integrity. Recent
developments and refinements of reliable biological measures have enhanced our
ability to produce comprehensive and ecologically relevant expressions of aquatic
ecosystem integrity. The availability of these measures and tools close an important
gap in our ability to successfully manage water resources both locally and on a
watershed scale. ',-.
The condition and well-being of aquatic resources is the c'pmbined result of chemical,
physical, and biological processes as reflected in Clean Water Act goal statements
(e.g., maintenance and restoration of biological integrity), to be truly successful in
meeting these goals via an ecological risk approach to watershed management,
monitoring and assessment tools which portray and integnate the interacting chemical,
physical, and biological processes and the integrated result of those processes are
needed. This condition is reflected directly by biological criteria which are numerical
and narrative expressions that describe the reference condition of a waterbody of a
given use classification (i.e., designated use). This is especially relevant to watershed
level assessments because many of the effects at this level are a direct result of the
interaction of multiple chemical, physical, and biological factors. Impaired aquatic
ecosystems lack integrity and thus show evidence of dejDartures from the reference
condition which is embodied by the biological criteria.
Many logic ecosystems are seriously impaired nationwide!/ an indication that existing
frameworks for water resource protection and watershed imanagement have achieved
only partial success. Aquatic faunas, particularly those impacted by watershed level
such as land use changes, wetlands degradation, habitat degradation, riparian
encroachment, excessive sedimentation, and nutrient enrichment, continue to decline
despite our current national efforts in pollution control. Biological criteria offer the
-------
type of evaluation framework that is needed to more effectively target ecological risk ,
and watershed management efforts, better define management goals, and more )
accurately measure program effectiveness. A landscape partitioning framework such
as ecoregions is also required to account for natural landscape variability. This
variability can frustrate uniform and overly simplified approaches to watershed
management.
There are a number of areas of watershed management in which biological criteria and
assessment methods can and do play a key role. As a criterion for determining use
impairments biocriteria have played a central role in the. Ohio Water Resource
Inventory (305b report), Nonpoint Source Assessment, and watershed specific
assessments. As an environmental end-point, biological criteria represent a goal for
watershed management efforts. However, biological assessments must also be
accompanied by appropriate chemical/physical measures, land use, and source
information necessary to establish linkages between the watershed use activities and
instream responses. Utilizing this type of environmental feedback loop makes sense ,
given the spatial and temporal uncertainties involved with assessing and controlling
varied point and nonpoint source impacts on a watershed scale.
-------
CHALLENGES IN DEVELOPING ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS TO
ASSESS THE CUMULATIVE IMPACT OF WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT
Thomas R. Schueler
Executive Director
Center For Watershed Protection
Silver Spring, MD
Many communities across the country have become interested in the use of
environmental indicators to assess the individual and/or cumulative impact of
watershed development on streams. Environmental indicators are a broad series of
biological measures and responses that can often integrate the numerous impacts
produced by urban storm water. Although they have yetlto be systematically applied
to urban watersheds, the results so far indicate that stream biodiversity sharply
declines even with modest increments of development. 'Several case studies on the
application of environmental indicators will be presented from around the U.S.
' " ' . ' i ' ]' • • • i
Environmental indicators are a more attractive alternative to traditional regulatory
tools, such as end-of-pipe discharge limits. Since they integrate the effects of land
use, they have the potential to become a credible and defensible planning and zoning
tool. Jo achieve this potential, however; several technical and programmatic
challenges must be surmounted. These include the problems of scale, resolution,
standardization, benchmarks and confounding sources. Ejach of these methodological
problems will be critically analyzed, and some suggested'watershed protocols for the
use of environmental indicators will be presented. j
-------
-------
LAND USE PLANNING AT WATERSHED SCALE TO REDUCE
ECOLOGICAL RISK: CONFLICTS BETWEEN NATIONAL AND LOCAL
CONTROLS
Steven I. Gordon, Ph.D.
Department of City and Regional Planning
Ohio State University
Columbus, OH
Ecological risk assessment at the watershed scale seeks to establish the relationships
between changes in land use and the potential increases injrisk for the survival of our
valuable aquatic resources. Recent studies in the Big Darby Creek Basin near
Columbus, Ohio demonstrate that local planning and zoning approaches will not
reduce the overall risk of environmental degradation and may in fact exacerbate the
level of damage. Coordinated'regional strategies aimed at controlling land use,
providing for regional storm water control facility construction and maintenance, and
continuing monitoring of the impacts on stream quality a|nd flow appear to be the
preferred method for avoiding these problems. Yet, the control over land use
decisions, storm water drainage, and related facilities 'management lies mainly with
local municipalities that have strong political incentives to maintain that local control.
Past attempts at regional planning have met with strong resistance and have mostly
resulted in failure. If the current focus on ecological risk assessment is to be
successful, new, compromise approaches to coordinated Ipcal and regional land use
management that are acceptable to local communities wil| need to be found.
-------
-------
SALAMANDERS IN SUBURBIA: MEETING THE CHALLENGES OF
CRITICAL RESOURCE PRESERVATION WHILE MAINTAINING PRIVATE
PROPERTY RIGHTS
Christine R. Furr
Land Use Planner
Christine Furr Consulting
Dublin, Ohio
Critical resource preservation goals are often made jat the macro-level, while
implementation is most likely to be effective at the micro-level whereby individual
properties are affected. The connection between the goals and the avenues for
implementation are often incomplete.
\ ' - ---.,!•-• " ...
Land use decisions are influenced by market forces, given shape to some extent by
local land use plans, then ultimately modified by locally-applicable subdivision and
zoning regulations. Land with a variety of aesthetically attractive features (such as
rolling meadows, waterways and woods) is often sought by residential developers and
home buyers; however, the same features are already home to functioning, sensitive
ecosystems which are of significant value as local, regional and national resources.
\ ' ' i- '
Land use planning is a first vital step toward translation of critical resource
preservation goals into policies in a given jurisdiction. Land use plans must be
supported With appropriate subdivision and zo'ning regulations for implementation of
the higher critical resource preservation goals (upon whi;ch plans are based). And,
further, the role of strong private property rights in a given jurisdiction does not
necessarily serve to weaken or invalidate critical resource goals as implemented
through subdivision and zoning. ;
-------
-------
A PRACTICAL MORALITY FOR CONSERVATION AT THE WATERSHED
LEVEL '.'••."'•. • . . 1- • • - : •
Alan Randall, Ph.D. \
Professor
Department of Agricultural Economics
Ohio State University
Columbus, Ohio
The moral foundations are surprisingly robust of a conservation policy decision rule
based on benefits and costs, but subject to a safe minimum standard (SMS) of
conservation. The benefit cost rule provides an account of the net contribution of
policy to the satisfaction of human preferences. The SMS constraint provides direct
protection of ecosystems for their own sakes, or humans seek prudently to avoid the
risks entailed in ecosystem destruction. !
-" -1 '
Nevertheless, commitment to a SMS policy is unlikely to be iron-clad. Moral reasoning
might find circumstances in which the sacrifice that would ensure conservation is too
much to ask of particular groups of people. Practical reasoning suggests that people
asked to bear an enormous cost in order to keep a conservation commitment may well
defect. These considerations suggest some general principles for designing a
workable conservation policy. First, the objective should!focus on the sustainability
of ecosystems rather than the preservation of particular species. Second, in order to
maintain the commitment to conservation, the costs impoised on any particular group
of people must be kept tolerably low. Costs tend to be high, for last-ditch
preservation efforts made in a crisis atmosphere: so] early warning and early
implementation of conservation strategies makes sense. Local conservation efforts
sometimes impose high costs within a watershed in order to provide benefits for
society at large; in such case, compensation mechanisms are both equitable and
effective in facilitating local cooperation.
-------
-------
COMPETING DEMANDS FOR WATER
Donna F. Sefton ., Panel Moderator
Watershed Approach/Platte Watershed Coordinator
Watershed Branch
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds ,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Water is an essential resource for all living things. It is also essential for agriculture,
industry and other human endeavors. The removal of wa|tef from natural watersheds
to support increasing human populations and economic development is changing
watershed ecosystems. This panel will explore how demands for water
simultaneously impacts natural ecosystems and human interests in sometimes
unexpected ways. Participants will begin by outlining water management problems
in the Middle Platte River watershed and discussing what value ecological risk
assessment may have in developing management plans for more balanced and
effective-water use.
-------
-------
LOCAL INPUT IN ASSESSING RISK AT WATERSHED LEVEL
Richard Anderbery
Water Quality Coordinator
Tri-Basin Natural Resources District
Holdrege,NE
I have been involved in the Risk Assessment Study of the Middle Platte River since the
study began in September of 1993. Having lived in the Platte Valley all my life, I am
very much aware of the changes that have taken place on the Platte River. The river
is an extremely complex system. The results of this study could have a positive effect
on the Platte River providing that the proper information is provided in doing this
study. The river has a direct effect on the economy of the area because of its many
uses and needs. Some factors involved in this Risk Assessment are Upland Game
Habitat, Central Fly way for migrating birds, Hydro Electricity, Surface Water Irrigation,
Groundwater Irrigation, Recreation, and Agriculture to njame just a few.
The Middle Platte River is unique in that it is a very wide flat river with intermittent
flows' feeding it. This is the reason for the changes that have taken place on the
Platte and one reason for the need for local input in doing a Risk Assessment. The
hydrology of the river is very complex as a result of storage facilities, surface and
groundwater irrigation, migrating birds, flows, and wetlahds all having a direct effect
on each other. It is very difficult to understand or do a Risk Assessment Study if you
have not.seen the river.
- • • - ' i • ' •• • •
Local districts have adopted and enforced many new management practices that have
created a positive effect on river water quality and quantity.
-------
-------
COMPETING DEMANDS FOR WATER
John Sidle "
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Grand Island, NE
-------
-------
, COMPETING DEMANDS FOR WATER
Raymond J. Supalla
Professor ;
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE
-------
-------
COMPETING DEMANDS FOR WATER
Jeremiah (Jay) Maher
Relicensing Coordinator
Centra/ Nebraska Public Power & Irrigation District
Hdldrege, NE
-------
y
-------
COMPETING DEMANDS FOR WATER
Paul Currier
Deputy Director
Plane River Whooping Crane Trust
Grand Island, NE ' : , -
-------
-------
NUTRIENT ENRICHMENT OF WAQUOIT BAY, MASSACHUSETTS
Maggie A. Geist Panel Co-moderator
Research Translator
Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve
Waquoit, MA ;
•j • .. -' ' •'
Waquoit Bay is a shallow, poorly flushed embayment on the south coast of Cape Cod.
Its watershed covers 23-square miles of diverse habitats including barrier beaches,
dunes, marshes, and uplands. In the Waquoit Bay watershed, valued resources are
at risk from a suite of biological, physical, and chemical stressors that have
accompanied the approximately fifteen-fold increase in population in the past 50 years.
• ' - ' i • '- ,
The waters of Waquoit Bay show signs of degradation primarily due to nutrient
loading. Ecological effects include loss of eelgrass habitat, a valued resource, and
their replacement with mats of opportunistic macroalgal species, and concomitant
changes in the vertebrate and invertebrate communities that utilize eelgrass beds. A
proliferation of docks and excessive boating use are othe;r human activities that may
add suspended solids and toxics to the Bay, compounding the effects of other
stressors. Additional chemical impacts in the watershed are connected with the
Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR) which has been declared a Superfund site
by the EPA. MMR activities contribute phosphorus and possibly other contaminants
to nearby freshwater ponds, In addition, herring runs andj trout streams that feed into
the Bay are under potential stress from development which will add nutrients and may
alter flow rates. I . ',' •
.The Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve is cooperating with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency in an ecological risk assessment case study. This
study will aid the Reserve in examining and evaluating multiple ecological effects from
anthropogenic stressors in the watershed, with the goal of helping risk managers make
informed coastal policy decisions. >
Among the stressors, a most; pervasive agent of change is the increased nutrient
loading to the Bay, associated with changing land usie patterns. 'Research has
identified subwatersheds of Waquoit Bay that have experienced different rates of
development and have different rates of nitrogen-loading. Studies show that the
primary producers in the receiving waters of the siibwatersheds reflect these
differences. Several models, which differ in assumptions and parameters, have been
developed to calculate nitrogen loads to receiving waters in coastal watersheds
underlain by glacial soils. Some model parameters are sources of nitrogen (septic
systems, fertilizers, atmospheric deposition, run-off), transport of nitrogen through the
terrestrial and aquatic components of the system, losses of nitrogen through
dispersion, dilution, dehitrification, the size of the watershed, the number of residents
-------
and residences, the distance to the receiving water body, the size of the receiving v
body of water, and the flushing rate of the receiving body. " /
As part of the ecological risk assessment, model outputs will be compared and
analyzed and attempts made to establish minimum and maximum contributions from
major nitrogen sources. The models will be used in conjunction with land use data to
calculate past, present and future loading of nitrogen and to relate that nutrient load
to changes in the abundance and distribution of eelgrass, an indicator of estuarine
health. This information may help coastal planners target a nitrogen loading limit for
Waquoit Bay. v •
-------
NITROGEN TMALs FOR BUZZARDS BAY EMBAYMEINTS
1. . — -• . ——- •r—
Joseph E. Costa h Panel Co-moderator
Director-
Buzzards Bay Project
Marion, MA
\ • , - -' • ; '.
The Buzzards Bay Project, a participant in the U.S. Environments;! Protection Agency's
National Estuarine Program, developed a strategy to manage anthropogenic nitrogen
sources to protect and restore water quality and living resources in Buzzards Bay. The
recommended nitrogen management strategy focuses on implementation on land use
and sewage management controls which are based on annual! nitrogen mass loads
estimated from land use evaluations. The mass loading approach (as opposed to-a
water quality standard) was deemed the most defensible management strategy based
on existing scientific knowledge, and was also the strategy most likely to be
successfully implemented.
In the recommended approach, Total Maximum Annual Loads j (TMALs) for nitrogen
impacted embayments are established based on historical trends in water quality and
estimates of historic inputs of nitrogen based on land use. For unimpacted
embayments, or impacted areas where historical data is lacking, a tiered system of
TMAL limits was established that could be applied to any embiayrnent of known size
and hydraulic flushing. This tiered system was based on the bpst available scientific
information from experimentalmesocosm manipulations and ecosystem studies where
nitrogen loadings were estimated and ecosystem response documented. Since it is
meaningful to characterize nitrogen loading rates as either annual loadings per unit
area or loadings per unit volume during the water turnover time, both methods were
used to establish nitrogen loading limits. Turnover time, using a["Vollenweider model
flushing cpefficient like that used for setting phosphorus limits to lakes, is used to
establish the nitrogen loading limits. ' .
Recommended'nitrogen TMAL limits are tiered to reflect existing water quality
management classifications as well as bathymetric and hydrographic features of the
embayment. The tiered system enables different ecosystem eridpomts to be targeted
based on existing embayment conditions and uses. Managers! and local officials can
choose a water quality goal for an embayment by changing its water quality
designation (i.e., by defining what degree of environmental degradation is acceptable
in that embayment). Once the essential data about embayment hydrology, and
existing and potential future watershed loadings are evaluated, this approach
establishes an objective process for federal, state and local [authorities to manage
nitrogen inputs from both point and non-point sources in coastal embayments.
. The response of coastal ecosystems to nitrogen loading is [complex and poses a1
challenge to the ecological risk assessment approach. To evaluate the appropriateness
-------
of its recommended limits, the Buzzards Bay Project is currently evaluating the
relationship between nitrogen loading and embayment water quality and living
resources through its Citizen's Water Quajity Monitoring Program.
-------
VALUE OF WETLAND TRANSITION ZONES IN PROTECTING THE
NUTRIENT BALANCE OF COASTAL WATERSHED ECOSYSTEMS:
TALAMANCA-CARIBBEAN BIOLOGICAL CORRIDOR, COSTA RICA
Jennie Myers
Consultant to The Nature Conservancy
Latin America-Caribbean Division
Cambridge, MA
Background
The coral reefs, lagoons, and wetlands of Costa Rica's, Talamanca region link the
Gandoca/Manzanillo National Wildlife Refuge with Cahuita National Park to the north,
and forrn the lowland and marine component of the bi-na1:ional La Amistad Biosphere
Reserve, a World Heritage Site included in.the Nature Conservancy's Last Great Places
initiative. Together, these areas contain more than 60 percent of Costa Rica's
biodiversity, and are further linked ecojogicafly with Panama's San San N.W.R. to the
south and to critical coastal habitats along the Nicaragu
-------
if qualitative understanding of ecosystem relationships, focusing education and ^
planning efforts, refining rapid ecological assessments, capitalizing upon strengths of x )
spatial analysis, designing cost-effective monitoring regimes, etc. -.-'
Objectives:
a) Characterize nutrient transformation processes that occur in soils of
representative transition zones between terrestrial environments and water
bodies;
b) Examine the effects of current deforestation, drainage, and other hydrologic
alterations on accepted indicators of transformation functions; - •
c) Recommend suitable bio-indicators and monitoring strategies to identify
nutrient enrichment trends and related turbidity shifts in receiving waters;
and
d) Work with local partners to develop practical methods and predictive tools
for evaluating cumulative nutrient management needs, planning sound
development patterns, and setting management priorities that are effective
in preserving and restoring important transition zone functions. -'
Expected Products and Results .-v'
Part 1
1) Characterization of nutrient flow pathways affecting transition zone
functions of case study lagoons, fringe wetlands and streams <
2) Data on the nutrient transformation potential of representative transition
zone soil classes under natural and disturbed conditions, with mappable
factors prepared in a format suitable for entry into GIS systems
Part 2
1) Tested bio-monitoring methods suitable for anticipating trends in nutrient
enrichment and evaluating ecosystem protection needs
2) Identification of easily recognizable patterns in macro-invertebrate behavior
which can be related to increased turbidity or nutrient availability associated
with basin land use change
3) Recommendations for the use of bio-indicators in ecological assessment
protocols for tropical streams and aquatic systems which can reveal shifts
in nutrient availability and/or turbidity. V
-------
Part3 .
1) Nutrient loading assessment for representative coastal floodplain settings
I '
2) Recommendations for protecting and restoring nutrient transformation
functions in study area transition zones i
3) Basis for a standardized "rapid assessment method "to be used in predicting
the potential of different ecosystem components to function as buffer zones
for nutrients, and in evaluating the effects of alteration upon buffering
functions | ,
4) Recommendations for development patterns, densities and land management
practices needed to preserve and restore transition zone functions
= - ' - " . . - - ' "S " .'i . ''.•,•;
5) Tested nutrient loading spreadsheets suitable for local use in objectively
quantifying development capacity and focusing land planning and
management efforts. ;
Collaborating Institutions ' T ' • ..
• '.•'"'• / I
The Nature Conservancy; Univ. of Costa Rica/ClMAR; Institute of Ecosystem Studies;
Woods Hole Oceanographies Inst.; Univ. of New Hampshire Dept. of Water Resources;
Univ. of Georgia Inst. of Ecology; Watershed Management Institute; Local NGO staff.
-------
-------
MANAGING OVER-ENRICHMENT FROM AIR, LAND, AND WATER
Robert Summers :
Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Management Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment
Baltimore, MD
-------
-------
CONFLICTING USES AND THEIR IMPACTS-HQW TO MANAGE THEM
Pat Cirone
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
Seattle, WA
Panel Moderator
Managers of many rjver watersheds must address diversje and seemingly conflicting
uses of the river, each of which has at least one and possible many impacts. How do
we determine which, among the bewildering array of problems, are most important?
How can private, local, state and federal interests agree Jon a course of action? The
Snake River watershed is a textbook example of multiples, conflicting uses that have
resulted in nutrient enrichment, sedimentation, reduced flow, and loss of indigenous
species. This panel will use the Snake as a starting poirjt to discuss how ecological
risk assessment may provide the needed interpretation for stakeholders to reconcile
conflicting demands and protect their resource. i
-------
-------
CONFLICTING USES AND THEIR IMPACTS-HOW TO MANAGE THEM
Peter Bowler
University of California
Berkeley, CA
-------
-------
CONFLICTING USES AND THEIR IMPACTS-HOW TO MANAGE THEM
Bob Muffley
Goading County, ID ;
-------
-------
V-
A RIVER DIVIDED
Larry RL Wimer
Manager
Hydro Relicensing and Compliance
Idaho Power Company
Boise, ID
It is generally agreed that multiple uses of an aquatic environment will result in
multiple stressors and risks. To assume that a single set; of water quality standards
and criteria fits all aquatic resource protection initiatives will not pass the test of time.
Criteria and standards must be developed that fit |specific conditions. The
development of such criteria and standards must reside in a dynamic process which
employs a more holistic view of the aquatic environment]. Likewise, to assume that
a single entity must shoulder the responsibility for the; protection, mitigation and
enhancement of water quality conditions is unrealistics. | Specifically, in the middle
Snake River, multiple point and nonpoint sources of pollution upstream of main stem
hydro projects affect the water quality of the river. As a result, water quality
conditions, measured for compliance at hydroelectriib project discharges, are
essentially the consequence of cumulative impacts upstream.
A process which incorporate the buy-in of all stakeholders!, and the participation of all
contributing and regulating agencies is necessary. To'this end the hydroelectric
industry accepts its responsibility, and is working toward that goal through the
development of a relicensing reform initiative now being
evaluated nationwide.
-------
-------
MIDDLE SNAKE RIVER: CONFLICTING USES
Kevin J. Beaton ,
Deputy Attorney General
Environmental Affairs j
Idaho Office of Attorney General
Boise, ID
The Snake River begins in Teton National Park and flows hundreds of miles throughout
the State of Idaho. The Snake River and the underlying aquifer have been, and
continue to be, the lifeblood of irrigated agriculture throughout arid southern Idaho.
Numerous federally operated dams along the river create storage reservoirs to ensure
water deliveries to the agricultural industry, while majny other dams divert and
impound the river for hydroelectric generating facilities. The Snake River, Idaho's so-
called "working river," is therefore instrumental to Idaho' maintaining its role as one
of the most productive agricultural economies in the United States while enjoying
some of the most inexpensive utility rates in the nation. |
Idaho's successes in the agriculture and hydroelectric industries has not occurred
without cost to water quality in the river. . Currently, the middle Snake River, an 87
mile stretch of river flowing through source central Idaho/ has degraded to the point
that the public has demanded action to "clean up", the river. As a result of low flows,
nutrient-rich sediments from agricultural runoff, five impoundments, nutrient-rich and
clear spring water recharged to the river, and nutrient-rich point sources from sewer
treatment plants, food processing industries and aquaculture facilities, the river has
become over-enriched and is exhibiting classic signs of advanced eutrophication.
Many native aquatic species that were found in the river are in decline, or have been
displaced by pollution-tolerant species, and in the summer months the river is
blanketed with algae and rooted aquatic plants. All applicable regulatory agencies,
affected industries,and the public are working together toj attempt to solve seemingly
intractable water quality problems in the river. The question of;how the river can be
restored while maintaining the agricultural-based economy in southern Idaho is often
raised without any simple answers. The middle Snake River is therefore a classic
example of the conflicting uses society has ascribed to our nations waters.
-------
-------
CONFLICTING USES AND THEIR IMPACTS-HOW TO MANAGE THEM
Don Brady
Watershed Branch
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
\
V
-------
. V
-------
>-, « *ff, 'ft • -ffS'.'-^ s." •*
I
Session 4
Comprehensive
••••'•Environmental-••
Programs Of the
Future:
Where Are We Now And
Where Are We Going?
1_
I
TT
i i
-------
-------
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS OF THE FUTURE:
WHERE ARE WE NOW AND WHERE ARE WE GOING?
Margarete Heber Session Manager
Health and Ecological Criteria Divfsion
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , >
Washington, DC
Historically the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) water quality-based
permitting program has focused on controlling individual chemicals from specific point
sources through chemical specific criteria. Chemical specific water quality criteria are
allowable concentrations of a chemical pollutant whicih* if not exceeded in the
receiving water, are protective of aquatic life for an individual chemical. More
recently, whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing was developed to protect aquatic life
from the effects of complex mixtures of chemicals, with known and unknown toxicity,
being discharged from point sources.
'- i - - ,
'-••-. . ^. '.- i '
In addition, other types of chemical specific criteria/methodologies are being developed
in an attempt to protect other parts of the aquatic ecosystem which are not currently
protected by aquatic life criteria. These include sediment |criteria for the protection of
benthic organisms, wildlife criteria, and a methodology to more Consistently address
highly lipophilic compounds in all of the above types of criteria.
All of the criteria and or methodologies serve as both yarcf sticks to measure pollution
and as assessment tools for monitoring the health of ei waterbody or watershed.
Another type of assessment tool which has been developed, which directly measures
the health of the ecosystem, as opposed to measuring stressor levels, are biological
assessments or biological criteria.
Environmental stressors «to an, aquatic ecosystem can! be chemical, physical or
biological in nature, and likewise can impact the chemical, physical, and biological
characteristics of an aquatic ecosystem. As our focus shifts to overall watershed
protection, biological criteria and assessments are important tools to add to detect the
cumulative effect of stressors to aquatic ecosystems, r
EPA's Office of Water 1991 "Independent Applicability" (1A) policy builds on all these
water quality-based programmatic pieces (chemical specific:aquatic life criteria, whole
effluent toxicity tests and biological assessments and critejria). The policy stresses the
integration of all of the three types of criteria/assessment tools and states that "each
of these three methods can provide a valid assessment of designated aquatic life use
impairment. Thus, if any of the three assessment methods demonstrate that water
quality standards are not attained, it is EPA's policy that appropriate action should be
-------
taken to achieve attainment, including use of regulatory authority." The policy gives v
equal weight to all three tools and their complementary abilities to detect impairment v J-
in a waterbody. Critics of the IA policy have argued that if one type of measurement -
indicates attainment, it should override the two that indicate nonattainment. An
example of this is when either or both chemical criteria and effluent toxicity are
exceeded but biological surveys in the receiving water indicate no impact. This has
led to a heated controversy between the states and EPA over the last several years.
Since the promulgation of the National Toxics Rule (1993), all the states now have
adequate chemical specific water quality criteria in their standards so that the overall
baseline of information on chemical pollution in watersheds will increase nationally.
Those states which have had chemical specific water quality criteria in their standards
and have utilized WET in their NPDES permitting programs have established strong
databases and continue to move their water quality programs ahead.
A good example of a state that has moved ahead with their water quality-based
programs is North Carolina. They have implemented the watershed permitting
program which in turn allows them to use TMDLs as they were intended. They also
have an active Pretreatment program and an extensive and strong enforcement record
with WET. The State believes that they have a very good monitoring database
composed of WET, chemical specific data and biological criteria/assessments for most
of their dischargers and waterbodies gathered over a number of years. They are also
making strides to assess and control non-point source problems in those same ,
waterbodies. Based on this extensive database they have recently chosen to propose )
not re-adopting some chemical specific criteria in some waterbodies.
As attention is focused on implementation programs in watersheds, shouldn't the
definition of a good, state water quality-based program be broadened to include all the
water programs (criteria, standards, non-point source programs, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permjts, .enforcement, TMDLs, monitoring, or
groundwater protection etc.), instead of the narrow programmatic focus we've taken
in the past? Shouldn't the definition of a good state water quality program be
comprehensive and flexible using all the tools available to provide a balance in our
decision making in watersheds? Won't this result in overall environmental benefit to
the watersheds we are trying to protect, support the state's environmental programs
and improve our overall ecosystem management by providing states with flexibility
based on good supporting data which has been gathered over many years?
The participants of this session will be representatives from EPA, states, industry, and
an environmental group. They will be looking into their crystal balls to try and address
.these issues, as well as the implications this type of approach might have for Clean
Water Act reauthorization, the Endangered Species Act, and current EPA Office of
Water policies.
-------
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS OF THE FUTURE:
i WHERE ARE WE NOW AND WHERE ARE WE GOING?
Cynthia Dougherty
Director, Permits Division
Office of Wastewater Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC.
-------
-------
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS OF THE FUTURE:
WHERE ARE WE NOW AND WHERE ARE WE GOING?
Steve W. Tedder
Chief
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Raleigh, NC
-------
REGULATED COMMUNITY'S PERSPECTIVE ON WATERSHED TYPE
APPROACHES TO POLLUTION CONTROL
Michael A. Ruszczyk
Environmental Chemist ,
Corporate Health, Safety and Environment
Eastman Kodak Company
Rochester, NY
Many in the regulated community believe that a well-crafted program for
comprehensive watershed planning can be the best approach to water quality
protection. A successful program must: 1) prioritize watersheds in order to focus
resources on the more significant problems; 2) allow for a cooperative effort among
stakeholders; 3) clearly identify the problems causing impairments; 4) ensure a long-
term phased approach based on sound scientific and technical information; 5) ensure
equability in terms of funding sources; 6) be implementable through an appropriate
balance of incentives and enforcement.
A watershed approach should be a program which supplants existing programs to
some degree rather than overlying additionalburden on regulatory authorities and the
regulated community. Watershed planning decisions should be allowed to supersede
certain existing restrictions, such as the NPDES antibacksliding provisions.
Lakewide Management Plans (LaMPs) being developed for the Great Lakes may
provide an attractive model. Properly developed LaMPs offer great potential as an
integrating mechanism for Federal, State and local programs, watershed management
plans, Remedial Action Plans and other voluntary and regulatory programs; This
holistic and integrated approach offers a better process to achieve water quality
standards.
-------
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS OF THE FUTURE:
WHERE ARE WE NOW AND WHERE ARE WE GOING?
Jessica C. Landman
Senior Attorney
Natural Resources Defense Council
Washington, DC
-------
__.'
] :—~ [
Ad Hoc Session
TMDLS And The
Watershed Protection
Approach
1
I I
— I
-------
TMDLS AND THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
Russ Kinerson Co-moderator
Standards and Applied Science Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S, Environmental Protection Agency •
Washington, DC
-------
TMDLS AND THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
Don Brady Co-moderator
Watershed Branch
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds ^
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ,
Washington, DC .
-------
TMDLS AND THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
Dale Bryson
Director
Water Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5
Chicago, IL
-------
TMDLS AND THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
Geoffrey H. Grubbs
Director
Office of Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
Ad Hoc Session
Implementing The
Endangered Species
Act
1
-------
IMPLEMENTING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
David Sabock
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Moderator
-------
IMPLEMENTING THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Robert J. Smith
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Washington, DC
-------
AN ALTERNATE VIEW ON THE ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT AND
ERA'S WATER QUALITY CRITERIA DEVELOPMENT AND STANDARDS
APPROVAL ^^^^___
Robert F. (Mike) McGhee
Acting Director
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
Atlanta, GA
Duncan M. Powell
Endangered Species Act Coordinator
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency '
Region 4
Atlanta, GA
An integrated national committee, with representatives from the Department of
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Commerce's National Marine
Fisheries Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/Office of Water staff
investigated development of procedures which would streamline and make more
efficient use of inter-agency relationships for EPA's federal actions involving the
development of water quality criteria [Section 304(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA)L
approval of state water quality standards [Section 303(c) of the CWA], and the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System programs [Section 402 of the CWA1,
A draft Memorandum of Agreement was developed by this committee.
-------
AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION THROUGH THE ENDANGERED
SPECIES ACT
John Christian
Assistant Regional Director
Fisheries and Federal Aid
U^S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ft. Snelling, MN
This presentation will summarize the requirements, of the Endangered Species Act and
outline Water quality factors which lead to the endangerment of aquatic species. The
author will explain why current water quality standards and criteria may not be
adequate to protect some endangered species and why additional compliance with the
Endangered Species Act may be necessary. The principal recommendations and
'conclusions of the author are: 1) to conclude that Jibted and threatened and
endangered species are still being impacted by water qualify concerns; 2) to conclude
that for the most part existing water quality criteria and standards are beneficial for
Endangered Species; 3) to recommend that additional analysis is needed to identify
any unique or specific water quality requirements for elndangered species; 4) to
recommend a collaborative and cooperative process between EPA, the States,-and.the
Service to develop water quality criteria and standards that are fully protective of
listed species; 5) to recommend that specific procedures be adopted to ensure
appropriate compliance with the Endangered Species Act gnd; 6) to recommend that
an ecosystem approach is the preferred method to avoid or minimize the application
of any of the regulatory provisions of the Endangered Species Act.
-------
Ad Hoc Session
Assessing Toxicity in
Sediment and Fish
l
-------
ASSESSING AND REPORTING TOXICS IN SEDIMENT AND
FISH-TOOLS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS AND DECISION-
MAKERS
Thomas M. Armitage Moderator
Acting Chief
Risk Assessment and Management Branch
Standards and Applied Science Division
Office of Science and Technology *!
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
EPA has developed national guidance for assessing the risks of consuming chemically
contaminated fish. The Agency is also developing nation
-------
THE NATIONAL SEDIMENT INVENTORY: A TOOL FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS AND DECISION-MAKERS
Catherine A. Fox
Environmental Scientist
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
EPA is nearing completion of a four-year national study to assess the nature, extent,
and causes of sediment contamination in the United States. Data collected during the
study are being compiled in EPA's National Sediment-Inventory. EPA program offices
will use the information in the National Sediment Inventory database to target sites for
management action including: monitoring, pollution prevention, source control, and
dredged material management.. As a requirement of the Water Resource Development
Act of 1992, EPA will also continue to update and use the National Sediment
Inventory to, prepare a biennial Report to Congress on sediment quality in the United
States. This presentation provides an overview of the types of information contained
in the National Sediment Inventory, and a discussion of the methodology used to
evaluate the data. The presentation also describes the results of a preliminary
evaluation of the sediment chemistry and point-source release data contained in the
database to identify areas, chemicals, and industries of concern for the nation's
aquatic ecosystems.
-------
ERA'S FISH TISSUE DATA REPOSITORY
William F. (Rick) Hoffmann
Environmental Scientist
Fish Contamination Section
Standards and Applied Science Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
A variety of federal, state, and private organizations currently collect data on chemical
contaminants in fish and shellfish tissues. New national guidance has been issued by
EPA on collection and analysis of fish tissue for development of fish consumption
advisories. One important use of fish tissue contaminant data is to evaluate the
potential risks to recreational and subsistence anglers from chemical contaminants.
Although agencies could perform more sophisticated analyses by comparing data from
other sources, they are currently unable to share data sets! National analyses are also
difficult to perform because of difficulties assessing the data and inconsistencies in
data sets. In response to state and other requests, EPA h|as begun to implement and
maintain a national repository known as the National Fish Tissue Data Repository
(NFTDR). The NFTDR is a powerful system designed for users with various levels of
computer experience. It offers user-friendly menus, help screens, and technical
dictionaries that make retrieving data relatively easy. Users can also transfer data to
other software formats (i.e., SAS, ARC/lnfo, PC spreadsheet) for further analysis. In
addition, EPA provides documentation that describes th'e NFTDR system, its data
Structure and reporting options. Technical assistance is provided to users of the
system. The NFTDR, a component of EPA's Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES),
is maintained on EPA's mainframe at the National Computing'Center in North Carolina.
Prior to FY94, EPA focuses on establishing the NFTDR. fn FY94, EPA is continuing
with the development and implementation of the NFTDR. Activities include:
conducting training-workshops forstates and other within each of the EPA Regions;
developing an NFTDR demonstration package; and creating a database utility to verify
that minimum data elements are maintained. EPA is also vjvorking with several states
and other data collectors to test several pilot data sets. The experience gained from
the pilot tests will be used to develop a data management pjolicy and to identify further
changes to the NFTDR. EPA will work with states and other data collection groups
to expand the NFTDR database. '
-------
NATIONAL GUIDANCE FOR ASSESSING THE RISKS OF CONSUMING
CHEMICALLY CONTAMINATED FISH
Jeffrey D. Bigler
Fisheries Biologist
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
v •
The Office of Science and Technology's (OST) Fish Contamination Program (FCP)
provides technical assistance and guidance to State, Federal, and Tribal agencies for
assessing human health risks associated with dietary exposure to chemically
contaminated noncommercial freshwater and estuarine fish and shellfish. Technical
assistance provided by the FCP includes the development of'national databases and
guidance documents for developing fish consumption advisories. This presentation
provides an overview of the FCP guidance for assessing the risks of consuming
chemically contaminated fish.
The FCP is producing guidance documents designed to provide the States, Tribes, and ,
other interested parties with a scientifically defensible, cost effective methodology for
developing, implementing, managing and communicating risk-based fish consumption
advisories. All guidance is developed in a cooperative fashion With the States, Tribes,
industry and environmental groups. The first volume of four guidance documents,
titled Volume I: Fish Sampling and Analysis, was released in September 1993. This
volume provides recommended methods for fish collection, sampling strategies, field
collection procedures, chemical analysis, and data management. The guidance also
provides profiles of 24 chemicals which have been identified as analytes of concern
with respect to dietary exposure to chemical contaminants in fish. The second volume
of the guidance series, Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits, was released
in June 1994. It provides chemical specific fish consumption limits for 24 analytes
based on the amount and frequency of individual fish consumption. Specific fish
consumption limits and advice for the general population and women of child-bearing
age are provided. The third volume of the series, Risk Management, is under
development and scheduled for release in late 1994. This document will identify and
review management options and issues which should be considered in the
development of fish consumption advisories. Topics covered include: variations in
consumption patterns, health and nutritional benefits, cultural, societal and economic
impacts, and options forjimiting consumption. The fourth volume in the series, Risk
Communication is also under development and scheduled for release in the fall of
1994. This document will address effective communication of fish consumption
advisories to targeted audiences.
-------
I
Ad Hoc Session
• • ~ • ' -• •
Monitoring To
Support The
Watershed Protection
Approach
-------
MONITORING TO SUPPORT THE WATERSHED PROTECTION
APPROACH
Elizabeth Fellows Moderator
Chief
Monitoring Branch
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ' -
Washington, DC ,
-------
MONITORING TO SUPPORT THE WATERSHED PROTECTION
APPROACH
James G. Home
Special Assistant to the Director
Office of Wastewater Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
MONITORING TO SUPPORT THE WATERSHED PROTECTION
APPROACH __^___
Kevin Berry
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
Trenton, NJ
-------
MONITORING TCI SUPPORT THE WATERSHED PROTECTION
APPROACH
Charles A. Kanetsky
Region Water Quality Monitoring Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Philadelphia, PA
-------
MONITORING TO SUPPORT THE WATERSHED PROTECTION
APPROACH '.
Nancy Lopez
Chief
Office of Water Data Coordinator
U.S. Geological Survey
Reston, VA
-------
i
Sessions
i '
Managing RNk:
i
Limitations And Barriers
To Implementation!
-------
MANAGING RISK:
IMPLEMENTATION
LIMITATIONS AND BARRIERS TO
Chris Zarba
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Session Manager
This session covers how creative, well planned risk management strategies have been
successfully implemented in watersheds. Case studies will be used to show how risk
managers have used innovative approaches to solve problems within resource
limitations. Of particular interest is a discussion on barriers that were encountered and
the successful approaches that were adopted to overcome them.
-------
NATURE CONSERVANCY BIORESERVE
Robert Paulson
Environmental Toxicologist
Bureau of Water Resources Management
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Madision, Wl
-------
MILLTOWN RESERVOIR-CLARK FORK RIVER/ MONTANA:
COMPREHENSIVE ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT PROJECT
Julie DalSoglio
Remedial Project Manager
Montana Operations Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 8
Helena, MT
U S EPA initiated an innovative ecological risk assessment at the Milltown.Superfund
Site in August 1989. The site is located in the Clark Fork River basin of Western
Montana, and consists of 80 river miles and an 820 acre wetlands. The focus of the
risk assessment is to identify and chronic impacts from contaminated sediments in
these environments. Lack of established sediment quality criteria, the extent of
habitats at the site, and anticipated complex sediment chemistry led to a unique
laboratory and field based approach for the risk assessment. Ecological and
toxicological studies were conducted by a term of government, university and
contractor scientists. This integrated risk assessment will help determine-remedial
action for the reservoir and sets the basis for additional studies within the basin.
-------
THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM EXPERIENCE WITH NUTRIENT
LOAD ALLOCATIONS 1
Ed Stigall
Chief
Technical Programs
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 3
Annapolis, MD
The nitrogen and phosphorous load allocations for Chesapeake Bay will be presented
and discussed as a case study. The various barriers and information gaps that had to
be overcome will be discussed along with the processesithat had to be followed to
reach consensus by all parties on the appropriateness of the resulting load cap. This
will include how environmental models were utilized to synthesize scientific knowledge
and bring about paradigm shifts. !
-------
NATURE CONSERVANCY BIORESERVE
W. William Weeks
Chief Operating Officer
The Nature Conservancy
Arlington, VA
-------
i
Final Plenary
Session
1
TT
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Betsy Southerland
Director
Standards and Applied Science Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Moderator
-------
Stakeholders
Session
TT
-------
STAKEHOLDER OBSERVATIONS
Betsy Southerland Moderator
Director
Standards and Applied Science Division
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ,
Washington, DC
-------
j
Closing Remarks
-------
-------
CLOSING REMARKS
Tudor T. Davies
Director
Office of Science and Technology
U.S. Environmental.Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
-------
o
Speakers List
r
l
-------
-------
c
Speakers'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia 1
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Richard Anderbery
Water Quality Coordinator
Tri-Basin Natural
Resources District
1308 Second Street
Holdrege, NE 68949
(308)995-6688
Mr. Kevin J. Beaton -
Deputy Attorney General .
Environmental Affairs
Idaho Office of
Attorney General
1410JN. Hilton Street .'
2nd I'loor
Boise, ID 83706
(208) 334-0494 FAX (208) 334-0576
Robert T. Angelo, Ph.D.
Chief
Science and Standards Section
Kansas Dept. of Health
& Environment
Forbes Field, Bldg. 740
Topeka,KS 66620-0001
(913) 296-8027 FAX (913) 296-6247
Mr. Robert Berger
East Bay Municipal
Utility District
P.O. Box 24055
Oakland, CA 94623
(510)1287-1617 FAX (510) 287-1351
Mr. Thomas M. Armitage
Acting Chief, Risk Assessment Mgmt. Branch
Standards and Applied Science Division
u.s: EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Room E 939D
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5388
Mr. Kevin Berry
New Jersey^ept. of Environmental
Protection & Energy
401 E. State Street
4th Floor
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 633-1179 FAX (609) 984-2147
Mr. Richard Batiuk
Toxics Coordinator
U.S.'EPA-Region 3
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
410 Severn Avenue
Suite 109-110 ,
Annapolis, MD 21403
(410) 267-5731 FAX (410) 267-5777
Mr. Jeffrey Bigler (4305)
Fisheries Biologist
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington; DC 20460
(202)'260-1305 FAX (202) 260-9830
-------
Speakers'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Peter Bowler
Dept. of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
University of California
Irvine, CA 92717
(714) 856-5183 FAX (714) 725-2181
Mr. Dale Bryson
Directdr, Water Division
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, JL 60604-307
(312)353-2147 '
Mr. Don Brady (4503F)
Watershed Branch
U.S. EPA
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5368 FAX (202) 260-7024
Mr. John Christian (H652)
Assistant Regional Director
Fisheries and Federal Aid
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
1 Federal Drive
BHW Federal Bldg.
Fort Snelling, MN 55111
(612)725-3505 FAX (612) 725-3343
Mr. David P. Braun
Hydrologist/Water Quality Specialist
The Nature Conservancy
1815 N. Lynn Street
Arlington, VA 22209
(703) 841-8784 FAX (703) 841-1283
Pat Cirone
Environmental Services Division
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 Sixth Street
Seattle, WA-.98101-
(206)553-1597 FAX (206) 553-0119
Ms. Carol Browner (A-100)
Administrator
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
RoomW1200
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-4700
Susan M. Cormier, Ph.D- .
Ecological Monitoring Research Division
U.S. EPA - Office of
Research and Development
26 W. Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
(513)569-7995 FAX (513) 560-7609
-------
Speakers'List ;
Water Quality Criteria and Standards 'Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Joseph E. Costa
Director
Buzzards Bay Project -
2 Spring Street
Marion, MA 02738
(508) 748-3600 FAX (508) 748-2845
Mr. Max H. Dodson (8WM)
Director .',-_,
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA - Region 8
999 18th Street
Suite 500 !
Denver, CO 80202-2405
(303) 293-1542 FAX (303) 294-1386
Mr. Paul J. Currier
Deputy Director
Platte River
Whooping Crane Trust
2550 N. Diers Avenue
Suite H
Grand Island, ME 68803
(308) 384-4633 FAX (308) 384-4634
Mr. Jack Edmundson
Branch Chief
USDA/APHIS/BBEP
Envir. Analysis & Documentation
6505 Belcrest Road
#543 ! .
Hyattsville, MD 20782
(301) 436'-8274 FAX (301) 436-3368
Ms. Julie DalSoglio
Remedial Project Manager
U.S. EPA - Region 8
Montana Operations Office
301 S. Park - Drawer 10096,
Federal Building
Helena, MT 59626-5432
(406)449-5720 FAX (406) 449-5434
Ms. Elizalbeth Fellows (WH-553)
Chief, Monitoring Branch
Assessment & Watershed Protection Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
401 M Street,.SW
Room E8 35
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7062 FAX (202) 260-7046
Mr. TudorT. Davies (WH-551)
Director
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
RoomE737A
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5400
Mr. Morris Flexner
Environmental Scientist
Water Management Division
U.S. EPA - Region 4
345 Couitland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3555 x6549 FAX (404) 347-5204
-------
Speakers'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Tom Fontaine
South Florida Water
Management District
3301 Gun Club Road
West Palm Beach, FL 33416
(407) 686-8800 FAX (407) 687-6442
Steven I. Gordon, Ph.D.
Dept. of City and Regional Planning
Ohio State University
289 Brown Hall
190 W. 17th Avenue
Columbus, OH 43210
(614)292-3372
Ms. Catherine A. Fox (4305)
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1327 FAX (202) 260-9830
Mr. Geoffrey H. Grubbs(4503)
Director
Office of Assessment & Watershed Protection
U S EPA
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7040 FAX (202) 260-7024
Ms. Christine R. Fun-
Land Use Planner
Christine Furr Consulting
6579 Strathcona Avenue
Dublin, OH 43017
(614) 792-7545
Mr. James A. Hanlon (WH-551)
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
RoomE737B.
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5400
Ms. Maggie Geist
Research Translator
Waquoit Bay National
Estuarine Research Reserve
P.O. Box 3092
Waquoit, MA 02536
(508) 456-0495 FAX (617) 727-5537
Mr. Geoffrey W. Harvey
.. Senior Surface Water Analyst
Divison of Environmental Quality
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare
. Northern Idaho Regional Office
2110 Ironwodd Parkway
Coeurd'Alene.ID 83814
(208)769-1448 FAX (208)769-1404
-------
c
Speakers'List
' ', -
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Ms. Margarete Heber (4304) ,
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
RoomElOOlA
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7144 FAX (202) 260-5394
Mr. Jerry Johns , , '
Asst. Division Chief
Division of Water Rights
California State Water
Resources Control Board
P.O. Box 2000
Sacramento, CA 95812-2000
(9165 657-1981 FAX (916) 657-1485
Mr. William F. (Rick) Hoffmann (4305)
Environmental Scientist
Standards'and Applied Science Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW -
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-0642 FAX (202) 260-9830
Mr. Charles A. Kanetsky •' ^
Regioir Water Quality Monitoring Coordinatoi
U;S.EPA- Region 3
841 Chestnut Building
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 597-8176 FAX (215) 597-7906
Mr. James G. Home (WH-546)
Special Assistant to the Director
U.S. EPA
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
RoomNE201C
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5802 FAX (202) 260-1040
Mr. Riiss Kinerson (4305)
Standards and Applied Science Division
U.S. EPA
Officej of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Room[E935
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1330
Ms. Susan Jackson (4304)
Environmental Scientist
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
RoomE1016
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1800 FAX (202) 260-5394
Mr. Bill Kittrell
Clinch- Valley Bioreserve Manager
The Nature Conservancy
102 S.,Court Street
Abingdon, VA 24210
(703) 676-2209 FAX (703) 676-3819
-------
Speakers'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
D
Ms. Jessica C. Landmah
Senior Attorney
Natural Resources
Defense Council
1350 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 300
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 783-7800 FAX (202) 783-5917
Mr. Jeremiah L. (Jay) Maher
Relicensing Coordinator
Central Nebraska Public Power &
Irrigation District
415 Lincoln Street
P.O. Box 740
Holdrege, NE 68949
(308) 995-8601 FAX (308) 995-5705
Ms. Amy Leaberry (4304)
Biologist
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Room E1043 A
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6324 FAX (202) 260-1036
Suzanne K. M. Marcy, Ph.D. (4304)
Biologist
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA . • •
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
RoomElOOlC
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-0689 FAX (202) 260-1036
Ren Lohoefener, Ph.D. (452-ARLSQ)
Chief, Recovery and Consultation Branch
Div. Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 358-2171 FAX (703) 358-1735
Mr. Robert F. (Mike) McGhee
Acting Director, Water Management Division
U.S. EPA- Region 4
345 Courtland Street, NE ,
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-4450 FAX (404) 347-5204
Ms. Nancy Lopez
Chief, Office of Water Data Coordination
U.S. Geological Survey
12201 Sunrise Valley Drive
MaU Stop 417
Reston, VA 22092
(703) 648-5014 FAX (703) 648-6802
Ms. Janet McKegg
Director
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources
Natural Heritage Program
580 Taylor Avenue /
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 974-2870 FAX (410) 974-5592
-------
Speakers'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia 'j
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Estyn R. Mead ;
Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Division of Habitat Conservation
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive
400 Arlington Square
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) 358-2183 FAX (703) 358-1869
Mr. Robert Paulson
Environmental lexicologist
Bureau of Water Resources Management
Wisrisin Dept. of,
Natural Resources
Box7921
WR12 . • ' ' .'.
Madison, WI 53707-7921
(608) 266-7790 FAX (608) 267-2800
Mr. John E. Miller (5204G)
Environmental Scientist
U.S. EPA - Office of Solid Waste
arid Emergency Response
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 603-9076 FAX (703) 603-9103
.Mr. iRobert Perciasepe(4101)
Assistant Admini'strator
U.S.! EPA
Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Room E1032
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5700
Mr. Bob Muffley
122 5th Avenue West
Gooding, ID 83330
(208) 934-4781 FAX (208) 934-5648
Alain Randall, Ph.D.
Professor
Dept of Agricultural Economics
Ohio State University
2120 Fyffe Road '
Coliimbus, OH 43210-1099
(614) 292-6423 FAX (614) 292-0078
Ms. Jennie Myers
Consultant to The Nature Conservancy
Latin America^Caribbean Division
13 Standish Street ,
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617)492-7360
James J. Reisa, Ph.D.
Director
Environmental Studies & Toxicology
National Research Council
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
HA254 ..
Washington, DC 20418
(202) 334-3060 FAX (202) 334-2752
-------
Speakers'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Brian D. Richter
Biohydrology Team Leader
The Nature Conservancy
2060 Broadway
Suite 230
Boulder, CO 80302
(303)541-0339 FAX (303) 449-4328
Ms. Donna F. Sefton (4503F)
Watershed Protection Approach/
Plane Watershed Coordinator
U.S. EPA
Office of Wedands, Oceans, and Watersheds
401 M Street, SW .
Washington, D, C 20460
(202) 260-7105 FAX (202) 260-7024
Mr. Michael A. Ruszczyk
Environmental Chemist
Eastman Kodak Company
Corporate Health, Safety and Environment
1100 Ridgeway Avenue
Rochester, NY 14652-6263
(716)722-3805 FAX (716)722-3695
Mr. John Sidle
U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service
203 W. 2nd Street
Grand Island, NE 68801
(308) 382-6468 FAX (308) 384-8835
Mr. David Sabock (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U S EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW .
RoomE919A
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1315 FAX (202) 260-5394
Mr. Robert J. Smith
Competitive Enterprise Institute
lOOlConnecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(2020331-1010
Mr. Thomas R. Schueler
Executive Director
Center for Watershed Protection
8630 Fenton Street
Suite 910
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 589-1890 FAX (301) 589-6121
Mr. Marc A- Smith .
Environmental Supervisor
Ecological Assessment Section
Ohio EPA
Division of Surface Water
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 728-3384 FAX (614) 728-3380
-------
c
Speakers'List .
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Ms. Betsy Southerland (WH-585)
Director,
Standards and Applied Science Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
RoomE835
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-7046
Mr. Raymond J. Supalla
Professor j
Dept. of Agricultural Economics
University of Nebraska
307 Filley Hall
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
(402) 472-J792 FAX (402) 472-3460
Ms. Margaret Stasikowski (WH-586)
Director
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401M Street, SW
RoomE735C
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-5389
Mr. Edward B. Swain
Research Scientist
Minnesota Piollution
Control Board Agency
520 Lafayette Road . •
St. Paul, MN 55155
(612)296-7800 FAX (612) 297-8701
Mr.EdStigair.
Chief, Technical Programs
U.S. EPA - Region 3
Chesapeake Bay Program Office
401 Severn Avenue
Suite 109-110
Annapolis, MD 21403
(410) 267-5740 FAX (410) 267-5777
Mr. Steve Vj/. Tedder
Chief, Wate'r Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Dept. of Environment,
Health & Natural Resources
P.O. Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
(919) 733-f>083 FAX (919) 633-9919
Mr. Robert Summers
Chesapeake Bay & Watershed Mgmt. Admin.
Maryland Dept. of
the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410)631-3902 FAX (410) 631-3873
Philip G. Watanabe, Ph.D. .
Director ;
Health & Environmental Sciences
Dow Chemical Company
1803 Building ,
Midland, MI 48674 ;
(517) 636-1313 FAX (517) 636-1875
-------
Speakers'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Mr. W.WiUiam Weeks
Chief Operating Officer
The Nature Conservancy
1815 N. Lynn Street
Arlington, VA 22209
(703)
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Patrick Wright (W-2-4) ,
Chief, Bay/Delta Section
U.S. EPA - Region 9
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 744-1993 FAX (415) 744-1078
Mr. William S.Whitney
Director
Prairie Plains
Resource Institute
1307 "L" Street
Aurora, NE 68818-2126
(402) 694-5535
Mr. Chris O. Yoder
Manager, Ecological Assessment Section
, Division of Surface Water
Ohio EPA
1685 Westbelt Drive
Columbus, OH 43228
(614) 728-3382 FAX (614) 728-3380
ig and Compliance
Mr. Larry R. Wimer
Manager, Hydro Relicehsin
Idaho Power Company
P.O. Box 70
Boise, ID 83707
(208) 383-2727 FAX (208) 362-4385
Mr. Chris Zarba (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science land Technology
401 M Street, SW
RoomElOOlB
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1326 FAX (202) 260-5394
Mr. Rob Wood
U.S. EPA
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
Room NE2104A
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-9536
10 ,
-------
c
I
Pre-Registered
%J? • -. - T
Attendees List
1
I
-------
;/-'-¥rt*7 "^^'•?'*'';L*i-.:;"i'::'v^'''^ »•''.".'•- • '.-•• '
C-"\; '',?:'--;
• ' " f \
• 'x
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia |
September 13 - 15, 1994
Ms. Joan Abbott
NCASI
Tufts University - Anderson Hall
Medford, MA 02155
(617)627-3254 FAX (617) 627-3831
i •. ^^
Mr. Eugene T. Akazawa ~
Clean Water Branch
HI Dept. of Health
919 Ala Moana Blvd.
RoornSOl .
Honolulu, HI 96814
(808) 586-4309 FAX (808) 586-4352
Mr. Taylor Adams (4304)-
Budget and Program Management Staff
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Lisa Almodovar (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Officje of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 2046Q
Mr. Charles Adams
U.S. GAO
800, - K Street
Suite 200
Washington, DC 20001
(202) 512-8010 FAX (202) 336-6501
Mr. Terry P. Anderson
KY Division of Water ,
14 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY 40601
(502) 564-3410 x401 FAX (502) 564-424£
Mr. Harlan Agnew
Pima County, AZ
Attorney's Office
32 N. Stone Avenue.'
Suite 1500
Tucson, AZ 85701
(602)740-5571 FAX (602) 620-6556
Ms. Jude Andreasen (4603)
U.S.|EPA - Office of Groundwater
and Drinking Water
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5555 FAX (202) 260-3762
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Robert W. April (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Larry Ausley
NC Div. of Environmental
Management
4401 Reedy Creek Road
Raleigh, NC 27607
(919)733-2136 FAX (919) 733-9959
Mr. Peter Archuleta
Eastern Municipal
Water District
P.O. Box 8300
San Jacinto, CA 92581-8300
(909) 925-7676 x311 FAX (909) 929-0257
Ms. Caryn Bacon
Potomac Electric Power
1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20068
Mr. Neal E. Armstrong
Dept. of Civil Engineering
Universtiy of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
(512) 471-4616 FAX (512) 471-4995
Mr. Alfred J. Baginski
Arco Chemical
16 Campus Blvd.
Newtown Square, PA 19073
(610) 359-4851' FAX (610)'359-7785
Sue Anne Assimon, Ph.D.
Food and Drug Administration
200 "C" Street, SW
Washington, DC 20204
FAX (202) 260-0498
Mr. Larry Bahr
Fairfield-Suisun
Sewer District
lOlOChadbourneRoad -
Fairfield, CA 94585
(707) 429-8930 FAX (707) 429-1280
-------
Registrants1 List
' • ' i ' - -
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13-15, 1994 j
Mr. David E. Bailey
Manager .
Water & Land Programs
Potomac Electric Power
1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20068-0001
(202)331-6533
Ms.AnnBeier(4503F)
U.S. EPA j
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
401 M Street, SW
Washington,, DC 20460
(202) 260-7108 FAX (202) 260-7024
Mr. Rodger Baird
Los Angeles County
Sanitation District
1965 S. Workman Mill Road
Whittier.CA 90601
(310)699-0405 FAX (310) 695-7267
Mr. Hedrick Belin
Izaak Walton League
1401 Wilson Blvd.
Level B j
Arlington, VA 22209
£703) 528^818 FAX (703) 528-1836
Mr. Charlie Bare
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Ms. Wendy Bell (4203) ,
U.S. EPA-J Permits Division
401 M Street, SW
Washingtoh, DC 20460
(202) 260-9534 FAX (202) 260-1460
Mr. Kenneth A. Bartel
PA DepL of Environmental
Resources
400 Market Street
10th Hoor
Harrisburg, PA 17105-8465
(717)787-9637 FAX (717) 772-5156
Mr. Kenneth T. Belt, P.E. ;
Pollution Control Analyst Supervisor
Environmental Services Division
City of Baltimore, Maryland
3001 Druid Park Drive ;
Baltimore,; MD 21215
(410)396-0732 . •: .
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Steve Bennett
Prince William County
Service Authority
P.O. Box 2266
Woodbridge, VA 22193-0266
(703) 670-8101 FAX (703) 670-8101
Ms. Mary Blakeslee (4304)
Policy and Communications Staff
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Marian Berkowitz
Environmental Health Services
NJDept. of Health
CN-360
Trenton, NJ 08625-0360
(609) 984-2193 FAX (609) 984-2192
Ms. Linda Blankenship
Water Environment Federation
601 Wythe Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-1994
(703) 684-2473 FAX (703) 684-2492
Mr. Steve Bieber
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3681 FAX (410) 631-3873
LonieBoens
Three Affiliated Tribes
HC3 Box 2
New Town, ND 58763
(701)627-4569 FAX (701) 627-3805
Mr. Nizam bin Basiron
ASEAN-CPMS H
Malaysia
195 Pemberton Avenue
North Vancouver, BC Canada, V7P 2R4
(604) 986-4331 FAX (604) 662-8548
Michael Bolger, Ph.D.
Food and Drug Administration
200 "C" Street, SW
Washington, DC 20204
FAX (202) 260-0498
-------
Registrants'List..
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Robert Boone
Anacostia Watershed Society
5110 Roanoke Place
#101
College Park, MD 20740
(301) 513-0316 FAX (301) 513-9321
Mr. Ross Brennan (4203)
U.S. EPA - Permits Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington,! DC 20460
(202) 260-6928 FAX (202) 260-1460
Mr. Denis R. Borum (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
,U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. George A. Brinsko
Director j
Pima County, AZ
Wastewater Management
201 N. Stonje Avenue
Tucson, AZ 85701
(602) 740-6^25 FAX (602) 620-0135
Mr. Dan Boward
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore,,MD 21224
(410) 631-3681 FAX (410) 631-3873
Ms. Mary BVockmiller ,
Amoco Oil Company
200 E. Randolph Drive, MCI 103
Chicago, 111 60601 ,,.
(312) 856-5879 FAX (312) 616-0529
Mr. D. King Boynton (4304)
Standards and Applied Science Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW .-
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Melviri' Brown „
Law Environmental, Inc.
112 Townp'ark Drive <
KennesawjGA 30144
(404) 421-3471 FAX (404) 421-3454
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - IS, 1994
Mr. Dan Bruinsma
City of San Jose
Environmental Services
777 N. First Street
Suite 450
San Jose, CA 95112
(408) 277-5533 FAX (408) 277-3606
Ms. Mary Buzby
Merck & Co., Inc.
P.O. Box 100
MerckDrive .
Whifehouse Station, NJ 08889-010P
(908) 423-7237 FAX (908) 735-1109
Ms. Sara Burgin
Attorney
Brown McCarroll &
Oaks Hartline
1400 Franklin Plaza
111 Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
(512) 472-5456 FAX (512) 479-1101
Mr. F. Paul Calamita
McGuire Woods, Battle & Boothe
901 E. Gary Street
.Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 775-1099 FAX (804) 775-1061
Mr. John Burkstaller
Boyle Engineering
5845 Onix
Suite 400
El Paso, TX 79912
(915) 581-5902 FAX (915) 581-5372
Mr. Robert F. Cantilli (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Robert Burm
U.S. EPA - Region VHI
999 - 18th Street
Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 293-1655 FAX (303) 294-1386
Ms. Debbie Cappuccitti . ,
Water Quality Certification Division
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410)631-3609 FAX (410) 631-4883
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia ^
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. D. Bumell Cavender
Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority (SAWPA)
11615 Sterling Avenue
(909) 352-3422
Mr. Theodore P. Clista
PA Dept. of Environmental
Resources !
400 Market Street
10th Floor ;
Harrisburg,PA 17105-8465 .
(717) 787-9637 FAX (717) 772-5156
Ms. Kathleen M. Chavez
Pima County Wastewater
201 R Stone, 8th Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701 .
(602) 740-6549 FAX (602) 620-0135
Mr. David li. Clough
Vermont DEC
103 S. Main Street
Bldg. 10 North
Waterbury,jVT 05671-0408 .
(802) 241-3770 FAX (802) 241-3287
Mow-Soung Cheng
Prince George's
County Government •
9400 Peppercorn Place
FAX (301) 883-5923
Ms. Carol Collier
BCM Engineers, Inc.
1 Plymouth! Meeting
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 _
(610) 825-3800 FAX (610) 834-8236
Dr. Pornsook Chongprasith
ASEAN-CPMSH
Thailand
195 Pemberton Avenue ^
North Vancouver, BC Canada, V7P2R4
(604) 986-4331 FAX (604) 662-8548
Mr. Stewajrt Comstock
MD Dept,: of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore!, MD 21224
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Anthony Conetta
William F. Cosulich Associates
330 Crossways Park Drive
Woodbuiy,NY 11797
(516) 364-9880 FAX (516) 364-8675
Vs.;
Mr. Rodney Cruze
City of Riverside, California
5950 Acorn Street
Riverside, CA 92504
(909) 351 -6011 FAX (909) 687-6978
Mr. Terry Cooke
Woodward-Clyde
500-12th Street
Oakland, CA 94607-4014
(510) 874-1736 FAX (510) 874-3268
Ms. Naney Cunningham (4203)
U.S.EPA-OWM
Storm Water Section
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. JeffCorbin
TX Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512) 239-4587 FAX (512) 239-4444
Mf.EdCurley
Pima County Wastewater
201 N. Stone, 8th Floor
Tucson, AZ 85701
(602) 740-6638 FAX (602) 620-0135
Ms. Ellen M. Crocker
U.S. General Accounting Office
Ten Causeway Street
Suite 575
Boston, MA 02222
(617) 565-7469 FAX (617) 565-5909
Mr. Gregory W. Currey (4203)
U.S. EPA
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1718 FAX (202) 260-1460
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia i
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. James Curtis
Water Quality Program
MDDept of the Environment ,
2500 Broening Highway .
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3610 FAX (410) 633-0456
Mr.:;Charles G. Delos (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.SJEPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 |M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Paula Dannenfeldt
AMSA
1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Suite 410
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-4654 FAX (202) 833-4657
Ms. | Beth Delsoh (4502-F)
U.S'i EPA - Wetlands Division
401 |M Street, SW ;
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6071 FAX (202) 260-8000
Mr. Michael Davis
•The White House
Room 360
Old Executive Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20501
(202)456-6224 FAX (202) 456-2710
Mr. j Gregory M. Den ton
Division of Water Pollution Control
TN Dept. of Environment
and (Conservation
7th Floor, L & C Annex
4011 Church Street
Nashville, TN 37129
(615) 532-0699 FAX (615) 532-0046
Mr. David G. Davis (4501-F)
U.S. EPA
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms.jEllaDeocadiz
ASEAN-CPMS H
Phillipines • '
195iPemberton Avenue
North Vancouver, BC Canada, V7P 2R4
(604) 986-4331 FAX (604) 662-8548
-------
Registrahts'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Andrew Der
MD DepL of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410)631-3609 FAX (410) 631-9883
Ms. Cynthia Dougherty
Director
U.S. EPA - Permits Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DG 20460
Ms. Frances A. Desselle (4305)
U.S. EPA
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1320 FAX (202) 260-9830
Ms. Maureen Driscoll
U.S. General Accounting Office
Ten Causeway Street
Suite 575
Boston, MA 02222
(617) 565-8870 FAX (617) 565-5909
Mr. Jerome Diamond
Tetra Tech, Inc.
10045 Red Run Blvd.
Owings Mills, MD 21117
(410) 356-8993 FAX (410) 356-9005
Mr. Mitch Dubensky ,
American Forest &
Paper Association
1111 - 19th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 463-2434 FAX (202) 463-2423
Ms. Irene Suzukida Dooley (4203)
U. S. EPA - Permits Division
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9531 FAX (202) 260-1460
Ms. Sherelle Dugas ;
Reedy Creek
Improvement Dist. ,
2191 Bear Island Road
Lake Buena Vista, FL 32830
(407) 824-7313 FAX (407) 824-7309
10
-------
c
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. George Duval
Swift Creek Water
Plant Lab.
13400 Hull Street Road
Midlothian, VA 23112
(804) 744-1345 FAX (804) 763-4431
Mr.TimDwyer(4203)
U.S. EPA - Permits Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6064 FAX (202) 260-1460
Mr. Donald Elmore
Water Quality Program
MD Dejpt. of the Environment
2500 Biroening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3610 FAX (410) 633-0456
Mr. Mbhamed Elnabarawy
3M ! •'.•'•'• "'
900 Bush Avenue
Bldg.21-2W
St. Paul, MN 55144
(612) 778-5151 FAX (612) 778-7203
Ms. Kelly Eisenman
U.S. EPA
Chesapeake Bay Program
410 Severn Avenue '
Annapolis, MD 21403
(410) 267-5728 FAX (410) 267-5777
AyoFalusi , *
Amocci Corporation
200 E. Randolph, MC 4905
Chicago, EL 60601
(312) 856-7570 FAX (312) 616-0152
Ms. Kathryn M. Elliott '
Environmental Scientist
Permits & Licensing Dept.
Potomac Electric Power
1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20068
(202) 331-6706 FAX (202) 331-6197
Mr, Joseph G. Farrell
University of Delaware
Sea Grant
700 Pilottown Road ,
Lewes;! DE 19958
(302) M5-4250 FAX (302) 645-4007
11
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and-Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 • 15, 1994
Ms. Lynn Feldpausch (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology ,
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Frank Foley ,.-,..
NE Ohio Regional
Sewer District
4747 E. 49th Street -
Cleveland, OH 44125
(216)641-6000 FAX (216) 641-8118
Mr. Benjy Picks (4502F)
Program Analyst
U.S. EPA
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, & Watersheds
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-2364 FAX (202) 260-8000
Mr, James Fraser
DynamacCorp.
2275 Research Blvd. -
Rockville.MD 20850
(301) 417-6081 FAX (301) 417-6075
Mr. Robbin Finch
City of Boise, Idaho
Public Works Dept.
P.O. Box 500
Boise, ID 83701
(208) 384-3900 FAX (208) 384-4384
Mr. Dwayne Frye
Knoxville Utilities Board
2015NeylandDrive
Knoxville, TN 37916
(615) 594-7610 FAX (615) 594-7564
Ms. Nicole Fisher
TX Natural Resources
Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, TX 78711-3087
(512) 239-4587 FAX (512) 239-4444
Mr. Harold Gano
Olivenhain Municipal
Water District
1966 Olivenhain Road
Encinitas, CA 92024
(619) 753-6466 FAX (619) 753-1578
:);
12
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Robin L. Garibay
Advent Group, Inc.
1925 N. Lynn Street :
Suite 702
Rosslyn, VA 22071
(703) 522-9662 FAX (703) 522-2416
Mr. George R. Gibson, Jr. (4304)
Health land Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Mary Jo Garreis
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3610 FAX (410) 633-0456
Ms. Maria Gomez-Taylor (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA .
Office |of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Trish Garrigan
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg. - WSS
Boston, MA 02203-2211
(617) 565-2987 FAX (617) 565-4940
Dr. Frank Gostomski (4304)
Health'and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA ,
Officeiof Science and Technology
401M: Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-1321
Mr. Jeroen Gerritsen
Tetra Tech, Inc. '
10045 Red Run Blvd.
Owings Mills, MD 21117
(410) 356-8993 FAX (410) 356-9005
Mr. Normand Goulet
Northern Virginia • . '
Planning Commission ,
7535 Little River Turnpike
Annandale, VA 22003 ,
(703)M2-0700 FAX (703) 642-5077
13
-------
Registrants'List •
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Mark B. Graham
Arlington County
2100 Clarendon Blvd.
Suite 801
Arlington, VA 22201
(703) 358-3613 FAX (703) 358-7134
s
' ^,
Ms. Jean W. Gregory
VADept.of
Environmental Qualty
P.O.Box 10009
Richmond, VA 23240-0009
(804) 527-5093 FAX (804) 527-5267
Ms. Karen Graham
American Planning Association
1776 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
4th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 872-0611 FAX (202) 872-0643
Mr. Michael Gritzuk
City of Phoenix, AZ
Water Services Dept.
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 262-6627 FAX (602) 495-5542
Ms. Sharon Green
County Sanitation Districts of
Los Angeles County
P.O. Box 4998
Whittier, CA 90607
(310)699-7411 FAX (310) 692-5103
Ms. Sara Gropen
Attorney/Environmental Engineer
SAIC
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Churchr.VA 22043
(703)821-4710 FAX (703) 821-4721
Mr. Charles N. Gregg
The Nature Conservancy
1815 N.Lynn Street
Arlington, VA 22209
(703)841-8792 FAX (703) 841-7400
Mr. Don Grothe
Monsanto Company
800 N. Lindbergh Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63167
FAX (314) 694-1531
14
-------
Registrants'List
/
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
': \
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994:
Mr. Tom Grovhoug r .
Larry Walker Associates
509-4th Street
Davis, CA 95616
(916) 753-6400 FAX (916) 753-7030
Mr. Lee Hachigian
Environmental & Energy Staff
General Motors Corp.
485 W. Milwaukee Avenue
Detroit, MI 48202-3220
(313) 556-7658
Mr. Ben Grumbles
House of Representatives
2165 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-4360 FAX (202) 225-4623
Mr. Samuel J. Hadeed
Assn. ;of Metro.
Sewerage Agencies :-
1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW~#410
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-4655 FAX (202) 833-4657
Mr. Patricio Guerrerortiz, P.E.
Water Quality Director
City of Santa Fe, New Mexico
73PaseoReal
Santa Fe,NM 87501
(505) 474-0650 FAX (505) 474-0677
Dr. Mohammed Habibian
Washington Suburban
'Sanitary Commission
14501 Sweitzer Lane
8th Floor EE&SS
Laurel, MD 20707
(301) 206-8077 FAX (301) 206-8290
Mr. Alan Hais (4304)
Health! and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Officej of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Carol Haley (HF_ V-152)
Food and Drug Administration
7500 Standish Place
Rock\iIle,MD 20855
(301) 594-1682 FAX (301) 594-2297
15
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Will Hall (4203)
U.S. EPA - Permits Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1458 FAX (202) 260-1460
Ms. Kim Hankins (4203)
U.S.EPA-OWM
Storm Water Section
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Eric Hall
WQP
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3533 FAX (617) 565-4940
Mr, George Harmon
MD Dept.. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3681 FAX (410) 631-3873
Mr. Raymond E. Hall
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
M/S 1199
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9304 FAX (202) 260-7509
Ms. Pamela J. Harris
U S EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-8077 FAX (202) 260-1977
Ms. Dawn Hamilton
American Oceans Campaign
235 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 544-3526 FAX (202) 544-5625
Mr. Todd Harris
Denver Metro Wastewater
Reclamation District
6450 York Street
Denver, CO 80229-7499
(303) 286-3255 FAX (303) 286-3030
16
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
,• ' ' '-i'..,,1",'
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Ms. Claire Harrison
Eastern Municipal
Water District
P.O. Box 8300
San Jacinto, CA 92581-8300
(909) 925-7676 x526 FAX (909) 929-0257
Ms. Judy Hecht (4102)
U.S EPA •.•-.'••
Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5682 FAX (202) 260-0587
Mr. Jim Harrison
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-3396 x6638 FAX (404) 347-1799
Mr. Ray D. Hedrick
Salt RiVer Project
P.O. Box 52025
Phoenix, AZ 85072-2025
(602) 236-2828 FAX (602) 236-3407
Mr. Glenn B, Harvey
Alexandria Sanitation
Authority
P.O. Box 1987
Alexandria, VA 22313
(703) 549-3381 FAX (703) 519-9023
Mr. Lawrence H. Hentz, Jr.
PBS&jJ , . -
4201 Nj. View Drive '
Suite 302 ,
Bowie,j MD 20716 '
(301) 4'64-5700 FAX (301) 464-5701
Mr. Richard Healy (4304)
Standards and Applied Science Division
, U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Li$fa Herschberger
Barr Erigineering Co.
8300 Njorman Center Drive
Minnealpolis, MN 55437
(612) 832-2642 FAX (612) 832-2601
17
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Craig Higgason
U.S.EPA-RegionIV
Office of Regional Counsel
345 Courfland Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
(404) 347-2641
Mr. Alan Hock
Prince George's County
Health Department
9201 Basil Court
Sutie318
Landover, MD 20706
.(301)883-7680 FAX (301) 883-7601
Ms. Patricia K. Hill
American Forest &
Paper Association
1111 19th Street, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036.
(202) 463-2581 FAX (202) 463-2423
Mr. William Hodgins
Union Camp Corp.
P.O. Box 1391
Savannah, GA 31402
Ms. Helen Hillman
NOAA HAZMAT Program
%USCG (G-MEP)
2100 Second Street, SW, •
Washington, DC 20593
(202) 267-0422 FAX (202) 267-4825
Ms. Elise Hoerath
The National Wildlife
Federation
1400-16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202)797-6898 FAX (202) 797-6646
Mr.MikeHirshfield
Chesapeake Bay Foundaiton
162 Prince George Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 268-8816 FAX (410) 268-6687
Mr. Bryan Holtrop (4203),
U.S. EPA - Permits Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460 '
(202) 260-6814 FAX (202) 260-1460
18
-------
Registrants'List
'< ' .
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994 j
Mr. Jim Home (4203)
U.S. EPA
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Malikusworo Hutomo
ASEAN-CPMS H ••••'••
Indonesia
195 Pemberton Avenue
North Vancouver, BC Canada, V7P 2R4
(604)5186-4331 FAX (604) 662-8548
Mr. Larry Houck
Texas Institute for Applied
Environmental Research ,
BoxT-258
Tarleton Station
Stephenville, TX 76402
(817) 968-9561 FAX (817) 968-9568,
Mr. Leie W. Ingram
Environmental Scientist
Permitis & Licensing Dept.
Potomac Electric Power
1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20068
(202) 872-0389 .FAX. (202) 331-6197
Mr. John F. Houlihan
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101 ,
(913) 551-7432 FAX (913) 551-7765
Mr. John Jackson
Planning Manager
Unified Sewerage Agency
of Washington County, OR
155 N. First Avenue, M/S 10
Hillsbciro, OR 97124
(503)648-8644 FAX (503) 640-3525
Edythe M. Humphries, Ph.D.
Wetlands & Subaqueous Lands Section
Dept. of Natural Resources & Envir. Control
Delaware Division of Water Resources
89 Kings Highway
P.O. Box 1401
Dover, DE 19903
(302) 739-4691 FAX (302) 739-3491
Dr. Joe1 Jacob
The Nature Conservancy
P.O. Box 2267
Chapel! Hill, NC 27515-2267
1?
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Joe Jacob
The Nature Conservancy
P.O. Box 2267
Chapel Hill, NC 27515-2267
(919) 967-5493 FAX (919) 967-1575
Mr. Paul Jiapizian
Water Quality Program
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410)631-3610 FAX (410) 633-0456
Ms. Helen Jacobs (4303)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5412 FAX (202) 260-7185
Mr. Kent Johnson
Asst. Manager, Water Quality
Metropolitan Council
Wastewater Services Area
Mears Park Centre
230 E. 5th Street
St. Paul, MN 55101
(612)772-7117
Ms. Shari Jaeger
SAIC
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22043
(703)734-3140
Mr. David A. Jones
San Francisco
Dept. of Public Works
1680 Mission Street
San Francisco, CA 94103
(415)554-8231 FAX (415) 554-8203
Ms. Carolyn Jenkins
NEIWPCC
255 Ballardvale Street
2nd Floor
Wilmington, MA 01887
(508) 658-0500 FAX (508) 658-5509
Mr. Ron Jones
Texas Institute '
for Research
BoxT-258 .
Stephenville, TX 76402
(817) 968-9569 FAX (817) 968-9568
. 20
-------
i
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
. . ^*- » i .
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994J
Mr.OngKahSin
ASEAN-CPMSH
Malaysia
195 Pemberton Avenue, -
North Vancouver, BC Canada, V7P 2R4
(604) 986-4331 FAX (604) 662-8548
Pat Keith
Health' and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EiPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW ...
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5678 FAX (202) 260-1036
Mr.TimKastin(4304)
Policy and Communications Staff
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Allison Kerester
American Petroleum
Institute
1220 L Street, NW ,
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 682-8346 FAX (202) 682-8031
Ms. Laurie Keefe ,
SAIC
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22043
(703) 734-3113 FAX (703) 821-4784-
Mr. Bernard C. Kersey
City of San Bernardino
Municipal Water Dept.
300 Nibrth "D" Street . ,
San Bernardino, CA 92418 ,
(909) :584-5091 FAX (909) 384-5475
Mr, Aaron M. Keel ,'
Wetlands Speciah'st
Nontidal Wetlands and Waterways Division
MD Dept. of Natural Resources
Tawes State Office Bldg.
Annapolis, MD 21401-2397
(410) 974-3841 FAX (410) 974-3907
Mr. Roger Kilgore
Green'tiprne & OMara
9001 lEdmondston Road
Green belt, MD 20770
(301) 982-2887 FAX (301) 220-2595
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
. September 13 - 15, 1994
•—»1l
Mr. Jim King
Dyn Corp Viar
300 N. Lee Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 519-1380 FAX (703) 684-0610
Mr. David Klauder
U.S. EPA
Office of Research & Development
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-0536 FAX (202) 260-0507
Mr. Preston Kinne
Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
P.O. Box 1269
Monastery, ID 83805
(208) 267-3519 FAX (208) 267-2960
Mr. BobKlepp
Permits Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Jessica Kinsall
Water Quality Supervisor
DOE-O
TN Dept. of Environment &
Conservation
761 Emory Valley Road
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
(615) 481-0995 FAX (615) 482-1835
Ms. Karen Klima (3405R)
U S EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(703) 235,5590 . FAX (703) 557-3186
Mr. Ken Kirk
Assoc. of Metropolitan
Sewerage Agencies
1000 Connecticut, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 833-4653 FAX (202) 833-4657
Mr. Greg Knapp
Asarco, Inc.
3422 S.-700 West
Salt Lake City, UT 84119
(801) 263-5210 FAX. (801) 261-2194
22
-------
Registrants'List ;
' ' ' . . ' .'/''"',"'
Water Quality Criteria and Standards/Conference
Arlington, Virginia 1
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Melvin Knott
Water Quality Program
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3610 FAX (410) 633-0456.
Ms. Jan Kourmadas
Ogden Environmental
ISAllysjsum
Rancho Santo Marg., CA 92688
(714) 5819-4301 FAX (714) 459-5863
Mr. Monty D. Knudsen
Division of Habitat Conservation
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4401 N. Fairfax Drive -
400 Arlington Square
Arlington, VA 22203 ,
(703) 358-2201 FAX (703) 358-2232
Ms. Rosanha Kroll
Water Quality Program >
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3610 FAX (410) 633-0456
Ms. Karen Kochenbach (CECW-OE)
Army Corps
of Engineers
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
.Washington, DC 20314-1000
(202)272-1784 FAX (202) 504-4054
Mr. F. Edward Krueger
Senior Project Scientist
Water &' Land Programs Dept.
Potomac; Electric Power
1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20068-0001.
(202)33;l-6539
Ms. Christine Koppel ,
Water Environment
Federation
601 Wythe Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 684-2460 FAX (703) 684-2413
Mr. Arnold Kuzmack (4304)
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW .-• •
Washington, DC 20460
23
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Ms. Marcia Lagerloef
U.S. EPA - Region 10
1200 - 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
(206) 553-0176 FAX (206) 553-0165
Dr. G.Fred Lee
G.Fred Lee & Associates
27298 E. El Macero Drive
El Macero, CA 95618
(916) 753-9630 FAX (916) 753-9956
Mr. Jeffrey Lape (4203)
U.S. EPA
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5230 FAX (202) 260-1460
Mr. Ben Lesser (4204)
U.S. EPA ' /
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5692 FAX (202) 260-1827
1
Mr. Gerald LaVeck (4304)
Standards and Applied Science Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Frederick Leutner
Standards and Applied Science Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street,.SW (Mail Stop. 4305)
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Norman E. LeBlanc
Chief of Technical Services
Hampton Roads
Sanitation District
1436 Air Rail Avenue
Virginia Beach, VA 23455 '
(804) 460-2261 FAX (804) 460-2372
Ms. Nancy H. Lin
Mobil Oil Corp.
REEAHQ
P.O. Box 1031
Princeton, NJ 08543-1031
(609) 737-5223 FAX (609) 737-6010
24
-------
•, -'• Registrants'List s
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
i. •' ' '
Arlington, Virginia ;
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. BobLinett
SAIC
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22043
(703) 821-4797 FAX (703) 821-4721
Mr. Jalnes W, Lund (4304)
Policy! and Communications Staff
U.S. EPA
Office! of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Keith J. Linn
NE Ohio Regional
Sewer District
4747 E. 49th Street ,
Cuyahoga Heights, OH 44125
(216) 641-6000 FAX (216) 641-8118
Mr. Jeffrey S. Lynn
International Paper
6400 Poplar Avenue Tower n
Merhphis.TN 38197
(901) 763^6721 FAX (901) 763-6939
Mr. Dennis J. Long
Malcolm Prime, Inc.
2603 W. Market Street
Akron, OH 44313
(216) 867-0053 FAX (216) 867-1622
Mr. John Lyons,
Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228
(513)231-7719
Mr. Steven Lubow
NJDEP
274 Glenn Avenue
LawrenceviUe, NJ 08648
(609) 633-1179 FAX (609) 984-2147
Mr. Morris Mabbitt (4304)
Policy! and Communications Staff
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
25
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
S^f
\
Ms. Siti Amin Mahali
ASEAN-CPMS H
Brunei Darussalam
195 Pemberton Avenue
North Vancouver, BC Canada, V7P 2R4
(604) 986-4331 FAX (604) 662-8548
Ms. Dawn Martin
American Oceans Campaign
235 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 544-3526 FAX (202) 544-5625
Mr. Martin Maner
ARDept. of Pollution
Control and Ecology
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, AR 72219-8913
(501) 570-2130 FAX (501) 562-0297
Ms. Pam Mazakas (4203)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6599 FAX (202) 260-1460
Ms. Robin Mann
Sierra Club
266 Beechwood Drive
Rosemont,PA 19010
(610) 527-4598
Ms. Beth McGee
NC Division Of
Environmental Management
P.O. Box 24535
Raleigh, NC 27626-
(919) 733-5083 FAX (919) 715-5637
Ms. Mary Marra
National Wildlife Federation
1400 - 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036
(202) 797-6886 FAX (202) 797-6646
Mr. Alan W. Mclntosh
University of Vermont
332 Aiken Center, SNR ' .-.-...
University of Vermont
Burlington, VT 05401
(802) 656,4057 FAX (802) 656-8683
26
-------
c
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
. Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Ms. Sharon Meigs
Prince George's
County Government
9400 Peppercorn Place
Landover.MD 20785
(301) 883-7163 FAX (301) 883-5923
Mr. Mark Montague
American Bottoms Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility
1 American Bottoms Road
Sauget, IL 62201
(618) 3217-1710 FAX (618) 337-8919
Mr. Edmund D. Miller ,
Department of Defense
DUSD(ES)/CM
400 Army Navy Drive, #206
Arlington, VA 22202-2884
(703)604-5775 FAX (703) 604-5934
Ms. Susan Moore
Environmental Scientist
SAIC
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22043.
(703) 734-3102 FAX (703) 821-4721
Mr. Bruce S. Mintz (4304) -
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Bruce Moore
WIDept. Of
Natural Resources
3911 Fish Hatchery Road
Fitchburg,WI.53711 ..
(608)276-3205 FAX (608) 275-3338
Mr. Jon G. Monson
Public Utilities Director
City of Hollywood, Florida
• 1715N. 21st Avenue
P.O. Box 299045
Hollywood, FL 33022
(305) 921-3301 FAX (305) 921-3304
Mr. Mark Morris (4304)
Great Lakes Task Force
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
27
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 > 15, 1994
Mr. Ted Morton
American Oceans Campaign
235 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 544-3526 FAX (202) 544-5625
Mr. Steve Nelson
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Ms. Deidre Murphy
Water Quality Program
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3610 FAX (410) 633-0456
Mr. William K. Norris
Technical Resources International; Inc.
3202 Tower Oaks Blvd. ,
Rockville,MD 20852
(301) 231-5250 FAX (301) 231-6377
Ms. Catherine Myrick
U.S. General
Accounting Office
6108 Holly Tree Drive
Alexandria, VA 22310
(202) 512-2927 FAX (202) 336-6501
Ms. Angela Nugent (2127) .
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202). 260-5871 FAX (202) 260-1935
Ms. Deborah G. Nagle (4203)
Permits Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Wastewater Management
401M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-2656 FAX (202) 260-1460
Mr. Thomas P. O'Farrell (4304)
Engineering and Analysis Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
28
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards;Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Robert Oberthaler
NJDEP
401 E. State Street .
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 633-1179 FAX (609) 984-2147
Mr. Darren Olsen
Nez Perce Tribe
Box 365 ,
Lapwai.ID 83540
(208) 843-7368 FAX (208) 843-7371
Mr. Ernest Ochsner
Prairie Plains Resource Institute
Fidelity Bldg.
Aurora, NE 68818
(402)694-6045
Mr. Dkn Olson (M/S-452)
Division of Endangered Species
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.,
4401 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22203
(703) J358-2106 -
Mr. Edward Ohanian (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW ; '
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Ray T. Orrin; Jr.
Weste'm Carolina Regional
Sewer Authority
561 Mauldin Road
Greenville, SC 29607
(803) 299-4014 FAX (803) 277-5852
Ms. Carolyn Hardy Olsen
Brown & Caldwell
53 Perimeter Center East
Suite 500
Atlanta, GA 30306
(404)344-2997 FAX (404) 396-9495
Mr. David E. Ortman
Friends of the Earth
4512 'University Way, NE
Seattle, WA 98105'
(206) 1633-1661 .
29
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 • 15, 1994
Mr. Bob Overly
James River Corp.
P.O. Box 23790
Green Bay, WI 54305-3790
(414) 433-6177 FAX (414) 431-6877
Mr. Jim Parker
SAIC
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22043
(703) 734-3106
Ms. Cheryl Overstreet(6W-QT)
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202-2733
(214) 665-6643 FAX (214) 665-6689
Ms. Sharon Fancy Parrish
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue .
Dallas, TX 75044
(214) 665-7145 FAX (214) 665-6689
Mr. Bill Painter
U.S. EPA - OPPE
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5484 FAX (202) 260-2300
Mr. John Pate
Alabama Dept. of
Environmental Mgmt. -
1751 Cong. W. L. Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL 36109
(205) 270-5662 FAX (205) 270-5612
Ms. Karen L. Pallansch
Alexandria Sanitation /
Authority
P.O. Box 1987
Alexandria, VA 22313
(703) 549-3381 FAX (703) 519-9023
Mr. Yogendra Patel (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology ,
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
30
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and 'Standards' Conference
Arlington, Virginia ,
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Nilesh M. Patel (4304)
Engineering and Analysis Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
4Q1 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Dr. Sam R. Petrocelli
Dynamac Corporation
2275 Research Blvd.
Rockville, MD 20850
(301) 417-6038 FAX (301) 417-6075
Ms. Cynthia Paulson
Brown & Caldwell =
7535 E. Hampden Avenue #403
Denver, CO 80231-4838
(303) 750-3983 FAX (303) 750-1912
Mr. David Pfeifer
U.S. EPA - Region 5
77 ,W.j Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60604
(312) 353-9024 FAX (312) 886-7804
Ms. Karen Peltp
MA Dept. of Fisheries, Wildlife,,
& Envir. Law Enforcement
100 Cambridge Street
Room 1901
Boston, MA 02202
(617) 727-1614 x359 FAX (617)727-2566
Ms. Laura Phillips (4203)
U.S. EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9522 FAX (202) 260-1460
Ms. Sandra Perrin
U.S: EPA
Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7382 FAX (202) 260-1827
31
Mr. Daniel C. Picard
Nez Perce Tribe
Box 365
Lapwjii, ID 83540 .
(208) 843-7368 FAX (208) 843-7371
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. David W. Pierce
Chevron
100 Chevron Way
Richmond, VA 94802-0627
(510) 242-4875 FAX (510) 242-5577
Ms. Marjorie Pitts (4304)
Standards and Applied Science Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Mark T. Pifher
Anderson, Gianunzio,
Dude, Pifher
104 S. Cascade Avenue
Suite 204
' Colorado Springs, CO 80903
(719) 632-3545 FAX (719) 632-5452
Mr. Mike Plehn (4203)
U.S. EPA - OWM
Storm Water Section
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Dave Pincumbe
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Bldg.
Boston, MA 02132
(617) 565-3544 FAX (617) 565-4940
Mr. Jim Pletl
Hampton Roads
Sanitation District
1436 Air Rail Avenue
P.O. Box. 5911
Virginia Beach, VA 23455
(804) 460-2261 FAX (804) 460-2372
Mr. Fred Pinkney
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
177 Admiral Cochrane Drive
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 473-4521 FAX (410) 269-0832
Ms. Arleen A. Plunkett (4304)
Policy and Communications Staff
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
:)
32
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Gerald C. Potamis
Water Division
U.S. EPA - Region I
John F. Kennedy Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
(617) 565-3575 FAX (617) 565-4940
Ms. Bejerly Randolph (4304)
Policy sind Communications Staff
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Kennard W. Potts (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Randall Ransom
Dow Corning Corp.
3901 S. Saginaw -
Midland, MI 48686-0995
(517) 496-5644 FAX (517) 496-5419
Ms. Elizabeth Power
:ASEAN-CPMSn
Canada "
195 Pemberton Avenue
North Vancouver, BC Canada, V7P 2R4
(604) 986-4331 FAX (604) 662-8548
Mr. Kenneth Ratliff
Health, Environment & Safety
Phillips' Petroleum Co.
13 Clffhillips Building
Bartles^lle, OK 74004
(918)661-1063 FAX (918) 661-5664
Ms. Theresa Pugh /
American Petroleum Institute
1220 L Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 682-8036 FAX (202) 682-8031
Ms. Dianne Reid
NCDEM '
P.O. Box 29535
Raleighi, NC 27626-0535
(919) 733-5083 x568 FAX (919) 715-5637
33
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Ms. Lynn Riddick
DynCorpViar
300 N. Lee Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 519-1380 FAX (703) 684-0610
Ms. Karen Rothstein (1199)
U.S. EPA
Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7519 FAX (202) 260-7509
Mr. Jack D. Riessen
Iowa Dept. of
Natural Resources
Wallace State Office Bldg.
DesMoines,IA 50319
(515)281-5029 FAX (515) 281-8895
Ms. Christine Ruf
U.S. EPA-OPPE
Waterside Mall
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5484 FAX (202) 260-2300
Ms. Doreen Robb (4502-F)
U.S. EPA - Wetlands Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1906 FAX (202) 260-8000
Mr. Peter Ruffier
City of Eugene, Oregon -
410 River Avenue
Eugene, OR 97404
(503) 984-8600 FAX (503) 984-8601
Ms. Nancy Roth (4502F)
U.S. EPA
Wetlands Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5299 FAX (202) 260-8000
Mr. Richard Sachs
Green Bay Metropolitan.
Sewage District
P.O. Box 19015
Green Bay, WI 54307
(414) 432-4893 FAX (414) 432-4302
34
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia ,
September 13 - 15, 1994
Ms. Jackie SaVitz
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
164 Conduit Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 268-8833 FAX (410) 280-3513
Mr. Stephen Schaub (4304)'
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA .-. '
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Brenda Sayles
MIDeptof
Natural Resources
Box 30273
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-4198 FAX (517) 373-9958
Mr. Daniel Schechter,
Water Environment Federation
601 Wythe Street
Alexandria, VA 22314 ,
(703) 684-2423 FAX (703) 684-2492
Mr. Eugene J. Scarpulla
City of Baltimore
Reservoir Natural Resources Office
5685 Oakland Road
Eldersburg, MD 21784-6828
(410) 795-6151 FAX (410) 549-9327
Mr. Duane Schuettpelz
WIDep|t. of Natural
Resources
P.O. Bpx 7921
Madiscin, Wl 53707
(608) 266-0156 FAX (608) 267-2800
Ms. Kari Schank
Labat-Anderson, Inc.
2200 Clarendon Blvd.
Suite 900 ' • •
Arlington, VA 22201 . ' '
(703) 525-0553 FAX (703) 525-0201
Mr. Richard F. Schwan
DuPont Company
1007 Market Street ' •
Wilmirigton, DE 19898
(302) 774-8024 FAX (302) 774-8110
• 35
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Ronald F. Scott
City of Columbus
1250 Fairwood Avenue
Columbus, OH* 43206-3372
(614) 645-7429 FAX (614) 645-8893
\
**.?!.,
Dr. Tang Seung Mun
ASEAN-CPMSn
Singapore
195 Pemberton Avenue
North Vancouver* BC Canada, V7P 2R4
(604) 986-4331 FAX (604) 662-8548
Salvador J. Sedita, Ph.D.
Head, Biology Section
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
6001 W. Pershing Road
Cicero, IL 60650
(708) 222-4074 FAX (708) 780-6706
Mr. Michael Sevener
Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission
14501 Sweitzer Lane
8th Floor EE&SS
Laurel, MD 20707
(301) 206-8284 FAX (301) 206-8290
Mr. Kenneth R. Seeley
Dames & Moore
7101 Wisconsin Avenue
Suite 700
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301) 652-2215 FAX (301) 652-6717
Mr. Jay Shah
USAF-HQ
• Environ. Quality Directorate
1260 Air Force
The Pentagon • .
Washington, DC 20330-1260
(703) 697-3360 FAX (703) 697-3378
Mr. Kurt Segler
City of Henderson, Nevada
240 Water Street
Henderson, NV 89015
(702) 565-2328 FAX (702) 564-2530
Mr. Larry J. Shepard
U.S. EPA - Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City,'KS 64101
(913) 551-7441 FAX (913) 551-7765
36
-------
Registrants-List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Jim Shuster
U.S. EPA
Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 2046Q
(202)260-5829 FAX (202) 260-1827
Mr. Timothy J. Sinnott •
NY Dept. of Environmental
Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Room 530
Albany,-NY 12233-4756
(518) 456-1769 FAX (518) 485-8424
Ms. Ellen Siegler
American Petroleum Institute
1220 "L" Street, NW -
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 682-8271 FAX (202) 682-8033
Ms. Jennifer Smith
Prince George's
County Government
9400 Peppercorn Place
Landoyer, MD 20785
(301) 883-7169 FAX (301) 883-5923
Shon Simpson
Oklahoma Water
Resources Board
600 N.Harvey
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
(405) 231-2541 FAX (405) 231-2600
Ms. Lori-Smith
Oklahoma Water
Resources Board
600 Nl Harvey
Oklahoma City, OK 73101 ,
(405) 231-2541 FAX (405) 231-2600
Mr. Ganjindar Singh
DCRA
Water Management Div.
2100 Martin Luther King, Jr. Avenue, SE
#203
Washington, DC 20020
(202)645-6601 x3037 FAX (202) 645-6622
Mr. Tony Smith
Permits Division
U S EPA
-401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1017 FAX (202) 260-1460
37
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Derek Smithes
Oklahoma Water
Resources Board
600 N. Harvey
Oklahoma City, OK 73101
(405)231-2541 FAX (405) 231-2600
Mr. Raffael Stein (4304)
Engineering and Analysis Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW .
Washington, DC 20460
C.S. Sodmi
Chehalis Indian Tirbe
P.O. Box 536
Oakville,WA 98568
(206) 273-5911 FAX (206) 273-7558
Mr. Jim Sn'ne
Baltimore Gas & Electric
7609 Energy Parkway
Suite 101
Baltimore, MD 21226
(410) 787-6649 FAX (410) 787-5199
Dr. Tong Soo Loong
ASEAN-CPMS H
Malaysia
195 Pemberton Avenue
North Vancouver, BC Canada, V7P 2R4
(604) 986-4331 FAX (604) 662-8548
Mr. Michael Sullivan
Lirnno-Tech, Inc.
1155 Connecticut Avenue, NW
#910
Washington, DC 20036.
(202) 833-9140 FAX (202) 833-9094
Mr. Mark T. Southerland
Versar, Inc.
9200 Rumsey Road
Columbia, MD 21045
(410) 964-9200 FAX (410) 964-5156
Mr. Philip Swamp
• Environment Division
St. Regis Mohawk Tribe
Box 8 A .Route 37
Hogansburg, NY 13655
(518)358-3141 FAX (518) 358-2797
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, i 1994
Mr. Bill Swietlik (4203)
U.S.EPA-OWM
Storm Water Section
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-9529
Mr. David S. Taylor
Madison Metropolitan
Sewerage District
} 610 Moorland Road
.Madison, WI 53713
(1608)222-1201x276
FAX (608) 222-2
Mr. Mark Symborski
Prince George's
County Government ,
9400 Peppercorn Place
Landover, MD 20785
(301) 883-7165 FAX (301) 883-5923
I
Mr. Peter Tennant
Ohio River Valley
Water Sanitation Commission
5735 Kellogg Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45228
(513)231-7719
Prakasam Tata, Ph.D.
Coordinator of Research
Metropolitan Water Reclamation
District of Greater Chicago
6001 W, Perching Road
Cicero, IL 60650
(708) 222-4059 FAX (708) 780-6706
Nls. Cassondra Thomas
Technical Resources, Inc.
3202 Tower Oaks Blvd.
Rpckville, MD 20852
(301) 231-5250 FAX (301) 231-6377
Mr. Bill Tate (4203)
U.S. EPA - OWM
Storm Water Section
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Erick M. Tokar
Rayonier
409 E. Harvard
Sh'elton, WA 98584
(206) 427-8245 FAX (206) 426-7537
39
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
John Toll, Ph.D.
Senior Environmental Engineer
Enseroh Environmental Corp.
10900 NE 8th Street .
Bellevue,WA 98004-4405
(206) 451-4561 FAX (206) 451-4187
Mr. Dave W, Tucker
City of San Jose, California
700 Los Enteros
San Jose, CA 95134
(408) 945-5300 FAX (408) 945-5442
Mr. Jim Tracy
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
Mr. Gary Ullinskey
City of Phoenix, Arizona
200 W. Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003
(602) 534-1360 FAX (602) 495-5542
Mr. Paul J. Traina
Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc.
P.O. Box 1121
Tucker, GA 30084
(404) 934-5251 FAX (404) 934-5251
Mr. George Utting (4203)
U.S. EPA - Permits Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Theresa Tuano (4503F) .
U.S. EPA '
Office of Water
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7059 FAX (202) 260-7024
Ms. Valerie Uyeda
Unocal Corp.
1201 W. 5th Street
Los Angeles, CA 90017
(213)977-6073 FAX (213) 977-6364
40
-------
C
Registrants'L.ist
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Charles P. Vanderlyn (4204)
U.S. EPA .
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-7277 FAX (202) 260-0116
Ms. Cliirig Volpp , •
NJ DEP ' • • .
401 E.jState Street
Trenton, NJ 08625
(609) 633-1179 FAX (609) 984-2147
E. Fitzgerald Veira
Environmental Engineer '
Permits & Licensing Dept.
Potomac Electric Power
1900 Pennsylvania Avneue, NW
Washington, DC 20068
(202) 872-2782 FAX (202) 331-6197
Mr. Fritz Wagener
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlantik,GA 30365
(404) 347-3555 x6655
FAX (404) 347-1799
Ms. Edna Villanueva (4504F)
U.S. EPA
Office of Water .
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6059 FAX (202) 260-9960
Ms. M,ary V. Waldron
SAIC;| •'.' .
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Cphurch, VA 22043
(703)734-3124
Mr. Burnell, Vincent (8105)
U.S. EPA ' !
Office of Research and Development
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460 ''.
(202) 260-0591 FAX (202) 260-6932
Ms. Sl?erry H. Wang
Division of Water Pollution Control
TN Dept. of Environment
and C()nservation .
7th Floor, L & C Annex .'-
401 Church Street
Nashville,TN 37129,
(615) 532-0699 FAX ,(615) 532-0046
41
-------
. Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Ms. Marsha Waters
TNDept. of Environment
and Conservation
761 Emory Valley Road
Oak Ridge, TN 37830
(615) 481-0995 FAX (615) 482-1835
Ms. Betty West (4203)
U.S. EPA
Storm Water Section
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202)260-8486
Mr. Dwight Watson
ASEAN-CPMS n
Canada
195 Pemberton Avenue
North Vancouver, BC Canada, V7P 2R4
(604) 986-4331 FAX (604) 662-8548
Ms. Norma 1C Whetzel (4304)
Health and Ecological Criteria Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-1313 FAX (202) 260-1036
Mr. David Webb
WI Dept. of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 264-6260 FAX (608) 267-2800
Ms. Carmelita White (4203)
U.S.EPA-OWM
Storm Water Section
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Mr. Daniel Weese (4203)
Permits Division
U.S. EPA
Office of Wastewater Management
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-6809 FAX (202) 260-1460
Ms. Charlotte White
U.S.EPA-OPPE
401 M Street, SW •-.
Waterside Mall
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5484 FAX (202) 260-2300
42
-------
c
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and
Arlington, Virginia
September. 13 ••' 15, 1994
Ms. Marian Whiteman
Sidley & Austin
One First National Bank
Chicago, IL 60603
(312) 853-4572 FAX (312) 853-7036
Standards Conference
Lind B.Wilbur (4304)
Budget and Program Management Staff
U.S. EPA
Office of Science and Technology ,
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Ms. Molly Whitworth
U.S. EPA-OPPE
Waterside Mall •'
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 260-5484 FAX (202) 260-2300
Ms. Diana Wilder
Save the Bay
434 Smith Street
Providence, RI 02908
(401J 272-3540 FAX (401) 273-7153
Mr. Robert Wichter
Richmond Dept. of
Public Utilities
600 E. Broad Street
Room 821
Richmond, VA 23219
(804) 780-5183 FAX (804) 649-9661
Mr. Erik L. Winchester
Dames & Moore
7101! Wisconsin Avenue
Bethesda, MD 20814
(301)652-2215 FAX (301) 652-6717
Mr. Ron Wicks
Water Quality Program
MD Dept. of the Environment
2500 Broening Highway
Baltimore, MD 21224
(410) 631-3610 FAX (410) 633-0456
Ms. Carol Winston
SAIC
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22043 ' '
(703) 821-4639 FAX (703) 821-4721
43
-------
Registrants'List
Water Quality Criteria and Standards Conference
Arlington, Virginia
September 13 - 15, 1994
Mr. Philip C. Woods (W-3-2)
U.S. EPA - Region DC
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-3901
(415) 744-1997 FAX (415) 744-1078
Mr. Carl Young
U.S. EPA - Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75202
(214) 655-6645 FAX (214) 655-6689
Ms. Jennifer Wurzbacher
Hunton & Williams
2000 Pennsylvania, NW
#9000
Washington, DC 20QQ6
(202) 778-2243 FAX (202) 778-2201
Ms. Claudia Zahorcak
Brown & Caldwell
9620 SW Barbur Blvd. #200
Portland, OR 97219-6041
(503) 244-7005 FAX (503) 244-9095
Ms. Gerri Wyer
Wyer Management Associates
P.O. Box 1310
10275 Little Skyline Drive
Orange, VA 22960
(703) 672-2221 FAX (703) 672-9201
Ms. Eve M. Zimmerman
U.S. EPA - Region 4
345 Courtland Street, ME
Atlanta, GA 30365 ' ' .
(404) 347-3396 x6637 FAX (404) 347-1799
Ms. Carey Yates
Ogden Environmental
DoD/DECIM
200 Stovall Street
Room 12549
Alexandria, VA 22332-2300
(703) 325-0002 FAX (703) 325-6777
44
------- |