vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Policy, Planning,
And Evaluation
(2134)
An Inventory Of
EPA Headquarters
Ecosystem Tools
EPA 230-S-95-001
February 1995
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
EPA 230-S-95-Q01
February 1995
An Inventory of EPA Headquarters
Ecosystem Tools
Compiled by |.
; -- - - ..--.'-' '.-- \'s". , . '-, H " , *
' ' - ':'-, ' " .-',/. ,''. " ''. ' ".*'[.' ;
.,-"-.. Program Evaluation Division (2134)
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW -,..;
Washington, DC 2Q460 I
-------
Notice
For information about this inventory, please contact John Moses, Project Manager, US EPA, Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Program Evaluation Division (202) 260-3333.
This report should be cited as:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. An Inventory EPA Headquarters Ecosystem Tools.
EPA-230-S-95-001. Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (2134), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
This document can be obtained, free of charge, by sending a written or faxed request to:
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)
P.O. Box 42419, Cincinnati, Ohio, 45242 ' . , '
Fax: (513)891-6685
An electronic copy-of this document, without Figures 1 through 5, can be obtained by connecting
to EPA's All-in-One Videotex (VTX) utility or the Agency's LAN Services Information Menu.
-------
EPA HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
ABOUT THE INVENTORY ; '.'. . . ....... . . < . . . i
FINDINGS: EPA HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOLS i
FINDINGS: EPA REGIONAL AND GEOGRAPHIC OFFICE NEEDS/GAPS/BARRIERS ..... iv
OVERALL RECOMMENDATIONS ,. .,. ... ..........:....,.,...... ... ...... v
BACKGROUND ..... . ...... ... . . . . . . . . .... ..... ...... .'. . ./, . . . . vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . .."... ..... ... .... . . ... . ... .-;..>.. ... .'.V. viii
CATEGORY DEFINITIONS . ..... . : . . ... . ..... . . . ........... ... . . . . ...... . . ix
EPA HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
DATABASE TOOLS . . . ...;... . . ............ I '...".'. 1
AQUIRE (AQUatic toxicity Information REtrieval Database ..;......!. . . . . . '.'.. 3
ASTER .....:... .....I...........,,:. 5
CLEAN WATER ACT 305(B) NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INVENTORY ............ 7
ECOSAR DATABASE .;...........,;.. .8
ECOTOX (ECOlogical TOXicity) DATA BASE . . ............. . ; . . 9
ECOVIEW ...-.-. ;'.';...........;....! 11
EMAP INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (IM) SYSTEM . . .... ;., -..' .....:... 13
EMAP MULTI-RESOLUTION LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION ..: ... . . .... . . . . . . 14
FISH TISSUE DATA BASE ....... . . . .... ; . . . . . . . 15
GATEWAY/ENVIROFACTS- . . . .... ... . ... . ... 16
INTERAGENCY TAXONOMY INFORMATION SYSTEM (ITIS) ................. .-'. 17
LANDSCAPE PATTERN TYPES (LPT) MAPPING ......... ... . , . . . . . 18
MOSAIC - GULF OF MEXICO DATAFILE ....... . . .......;................ 20
EPA REACH FILE (VERSION 3.0) . .!. . . ..'. J 22
NATIONAL FISH TISSUE DATA REPOSITORY . ." . . ; . . J . . . . . . . -.,; ...... . 24
NATIONAL SEDIMENT INVENTORY . . ... . ... . . . ...... , . . .! . . . . . . . . ...... 25
ESDB LINK with REACHSCAN ... . . ., . . , . . . ,.......... J . 27
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM L ............................ 28
POPULATION ESTIMATE CHARACTERIZATION TOOL (PECT) . . . /. ..;.......... 29
PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM ..... .,. ........ . . , . ... . . . . . . , . .'.4 . . . 30
PESTICIDE ECOTOXICITY DATABASE ...............;...,.............. 31
THE PESTICIDE INFORMATION NETWORK . .!.... ... . . .: .:.....:.. . . . ... ... 33
PESTICIDES IN GROUND W^ATER DATABASE 35
RELATIVE RISK INDEX ............... i. . . ........ . . ...... . . ........ 37
REACHSCAN DATABASE . . . ... . . , . . ... , . . .. '.' ... 38
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES COUNTY LOCATION REFERENCE ...... 39
DATA COLLECTION, MEASUREMENT AND ASSESSB1ENT TOOLS . . . . . ... . . . . ... . ... 41
ADVANCE IDENTIFICATION OF DISPOSAL AREAS (ADID) ... . . .;. .......... . . . 43
ADVANCED TECHNIQUES SUPPORT FOR USING SATELLITE AND !
AERIAL EARTH OBSERVATION DATA . . . .'.....- . . . . . . . . ... . . ...... . . . . 44
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ... ... 'i.. ". V'.''.,'-..'. . . . .:.....'.. . ., . . . 46
, ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTIES AND VARL\BILITY IN WILDLIF1E^^ TOXICITY
DATA ...".. . ..... : . . . . ., . . . . . . . . . . .;. . . . ... ....... 48
-------
COMPUTER APPLICATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT TARGETING FOR .ECOSYSTEM
PROTECTION . . .. . . '..'.- ...................... . . 49
CONSTRUCTION OF AQUATIC-BASED FOOD WEBS ........................ 50
CULTURE AND TEST METHODS 51
CWA SECTION 106 GUIDANCE FOR WATER QUALITY MONITORING . ..... 52
EMAP'S ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS FOR AQUATIC SYSTEMS ......:........... 53
ECOREGIONS .' . . 54
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM 56
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING APPROACH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEDIMENT
QUALITY CRITERIA FOR METALS . . . . ., . . . . . .;. . . . v 58
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING APPROACH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEDIMENT
QUALITY CRITERIA FOR NON-IONIC ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS 59
GUIDANCE FOR STATE WATER MONITORING AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
> PROGRAMS ;...,.. 60
GULF OF MEXICO ESTUARINE ASSESSMENT TOOLS . . . . . ... .... 61
HANDBOOK - STREAM SAMPLING FOR WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION
APPLICATIONS ,. . . .................... 62
THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) AND SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS ......... 63
INLAND TESTING MANUAL FOR EVALUATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL . . . . 64
INTEGRATED ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION NETWORK 65
METHOD TO DERIVE WILDLIFE CRITERIA . . 66
METHODS FOR EVALUATING THE ATTAINMENT OF CLEANUP STANDARDS .67
MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF ESTUARINE MICROORGANISMS . ..... 68
NUTRIENT THRESHOLD ASSESSMENTS TECHNIQUES AND THEIR USE IN
DEVELOPING SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA IN FRESHWATER
ECOSYSTEMS . . . 69
PATHOLOGY OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE ORGANISMS TOOL ................ 70
REMOTE SENSING AND IMAGE PROCESSING ....... . . ............ . . ...... 71
RIPARIAN CHARACTERIZATION TOOL . . . . . .;.......................... 73
SEDIMENT CLASSIFICATION METHODS COMPENDIUM . . ...... .... 75
SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTING METHODOLOGY GUIDANCE ...... . . ..; . ... 76
SELECTING REMEDIATION TECHNIQUES FOR CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT ...... . 77
TEST SYSTEMS FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS 78
WATERSHED SCREENING AND TARGETING TOOL (WSTT) . . . . . . . . . 79
VOLUNTEER MONITORING ...;.;....!. 80
WETLANDS MAPPING TOOL : . . . 82
WETLANDS RESEARCH PROGRAM . . . . . 84
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TOOLS . . . . ..... . . . . , 85
CWA SECTION 104(B)(3) GRANT FUNDING GUIDANCE ... ............ 87
CLEAN WATER ACT TMDL MINI-GRANTS i ...... . . . . . . ... 88
GRANTS FOR WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECTS ... 1 .......:............ 89
REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INITIATIVES PROGRAM (OROSLR) 90
STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM . . . . . . . . ............ . . . . . . . . . .'. . .... 92
WATERSHED INTEGRATION GRANTS TEAM (WIG) . ..... . 93
ENVIRONMENTAL GOAL SETTING TOOLS ..... ... . .'.'.. :"'.'.'. .':. . . ... . . .95
AQUATIC LIFE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY .................... . . . . . 97
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA: NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR SURFACE
WATERS ..... . . . . ..:,.., .... . 98
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR APPLICATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE TO
FORESTS AND RANGE LAND . ....... . . . . . .... . . . 99
ECOTOXTHRESHOLDS . ... . : . ..... . .,'. . . . . 100
-------
EMAP'S ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS ....'. . . . , . . 101
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS . . ... . . . . '. , . . . . . . . . .... . 102
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON SUPPLEMENTARY STREAM DESIGN CONDITIONS
FOR STEADY STATE MODELING .... ..... .... . ....... .... . .... . . 103
GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING SITE SPECIFIC SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA ;, . : 1Q5
OVERENRICHMENT GUIDANCE ... . . . . . .;. . .... ... ... . . . . . 106
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS . . . 107
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DOCUMENT TO DELINEATE AREAS OF GROUND WATER/
SURFACE WATER INTERACTION ... . . '. .'. . . . . . .108
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT: HOW TO DEVELOP AND USE METAL
TRANSLATORS .......,......:....;,..... .....109
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY.LOADS
(TMDLS): INTEGRATING STEADY-STATE AND EPISODIC POINT AND
NONPOINT SOURCES ...!....;.. 110
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUALS FOR PERFORMING WASTE LOAD
ALLOCATIONS ...........;......,.........,......... v ....... Ill ,
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR DEVELOPING TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY
LOADS, BOOKII .' 112
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR PERFORMING WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS -
SIMPLIFIED ANALYTICAL METHOD ....... f ......... /. . . ........ . 113
USER'S GUIDE TO THE SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA . . , ....!.. . ......... /. . 114
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND STAND ARDS PROGRAMS VIDEOTAPES ......... 115
WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES SYSTEM ... 116
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR WETLANDS .. .^. ...... .1. .............. 117
WATERSHED ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE ................... 118
WETLANDS BIOCRITERIA DEVELOPMENT :. . . . ... ................:, . 119
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TESTS: .".. .... ^ ...... 120
, WATER EFFECT RATIO (BIOAVAILABILITY) GUIDANCE , , . ... 121
MODELING TOOLS . . .', ,'. . ...... . . . . . .-,. . . . . . . . .!.... . . . . 123 - ' V
ACUTE AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT .MODEL . J . . . . . . . :'. ... . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . 125
AQUATIC RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL . .... . . .... ... . . . ........ .... ... . . . 126
AQUATOX '-'.-.........;.................. .4.;.......-...... 127
ASSESSMENTS OF IRRIGATION DRAINWATER CONTAMINANT RISKS TO
ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES ........ v.:., ...!........;...... 129
COMPARATIVE TOXICOLOGY MODELS .... ...... ....................... 130
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC POLICY EVALUATION SYSTEM
(CEEPES) . . . ... .... . .::.-. .......: . i . . .'.'.. . . ...... .... . . . . . . . 131
CORNELL MIXING ZONE EXPERT SYSTEM (CORMIX) . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . ...' 132
DYNAMIC TOXICS WASTE LOAD.ALLOCATION MODEL (DYNTOX) ....... ... 133
ECONOMIC VALUATION MODEL ....... 1 . r ... ....... . .;......... . 134
ECOSYSTEM/ECONOMIC MODELING PROJECT (OPPE) ....... .:. . .... . . 136
EXAMSy.2.95 . . . :'. . . . . ... ...:...., ... ...:.. .... . . '.-< . 137
FEMWATER/LEWASTE ;. . :.......;...... 138
FOOD AND GILL EXCHANGE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES (FGETS) . L .............; 139
GRAPHICAL EXPOSURE MODELING SYSTEM (GEMS)/PCGEMS . . . . . . . . . , . ... . .^. 141
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR SITING;RCRA FACILITIES (OSW) :.'.'.; . . 142
"HIGH PERFORMANCE GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY MODELING ....... . ...... 143
HYDROLOGICAL SIMULATION PROGRAM - FORTRAN (HSPF) . . L . . 145
LAKE MICHIGAN MASS-BALANCE PILOT PROJECT . ., . . . . . ., ............. . . 147
MINTEQA2 ... . .... .... .... . . . . . . . '.. . ... . .-'..:. : . . . . .1 ....:...: . . ; . ,148
MODEL OF ACIDIFICATION OF GROUNDWATER (MAGIC) . . . . . . ... . . . . . .... , . 149
MULTIMEDIA EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT MODEL (MULTIMED) . . ;. . . . . . ......... 150
PATRIOT . . ; . . . . .... /, ........ ...... . . .-'. .........':.,'.:'. ...'. ..'. ... . . . .152
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
REFERENCE REPORTS AND STUDIES . ................. 209
ACID DEPOSITION STANDARDS STUDY . ........... . . . . . . , . ; 211
AN ANALYSIS OF EPA'S AUTHORITIES TO FURTHER THE PRINCIPLES AND .
PROCESSES OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT . . . . : . . . ..... . . .'. .... . . .212
-BTAG FORUM ....". .-. .-..-.«...,... . . . ... . . , .:.:.. . . . ....... ... . 213
ORD'S BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (BBS) ...... , . . . . . . . . . ... ..... 214
CASE STUDIES IN THE USE OF RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS . 215
' COMPENDIUM OF ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS ................... 216
CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 403 . . . .... [ . ... .... . .!. . .,'':-. ... . -.-. 217
ECO UPDATES .... ..... . ; . . . T, 1 .\ .......... ..Tr ..... . . . ; . . . 7. 219
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS BULLETIN BOARD/INFORMATION SOURCE ....... 220
1993 EXPOSURE MODELS LIBRARY/IMES CD-ROM . . . . , . 221
GREAT WATERS STUDY . ............. 1 '. ,............;..,,:........ ; . 223
GUIDE TO SELECTED NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS IN THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT .......... .t. .. .i .........;... .!. .... '.'.:. ....... 224
LAKE MICHIGAN OZONE STUDY (LMOS) .......;.. . ..-...... I. ; . 226
METHODS FOR ASSESSING NONPOINT SOURCE CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATERS 227
NATIONAL STUDY OF CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FISH. Volume I and II 228
PESTICIDE USAGE DATA .....:...... 229
A PHASE I INVENTORY OF CURRENT EPA EFFORTS TO PROTECT ECOSYSTEMS .... 231
RATES, CONSTANTS, AND KINETICS FORMULATIONS IN SURFACE WATER QUALITY
MODELING ....... ... ........ i :'.-,.'. . . ... ......... 233
SEVENTEEN PEER-REVIEWED ECOLOGICAL RISK CASE STUDIES "I . . ... 235
REVIEW OF NATIONAL LISTS OF PRIORITY NATURAL RESOURCES ... . , . ....... 236
, STORET/BIOS/ODES/WQAS TOOLS INVENTOELY . .\ .'..-. . . : . . .............. . 237
WILDLIFE EXPOSURES FACTORS HANDBOOK i. .............. 238
TRAINING TOOLS ..... . . .... .-. . . . ... . ..... .... 239
1995 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION CONFERENCE . .'. . . . . . . . .!.,. .... . . : ...... 241
ECOLOGICAL RISK AND DECISION MAKING WORKSHOP .. .... L .'.. . ; ".".' .242
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GROUND WATER ECOLOGY , .........].... 243
STREAMBANK RESTORATION WORKSHOPS . . . ..... . . . . . 244
TRAINING COURSE ON THE STATEWIDE BASIN MANAGEMENT APPROACH . . ..... 245
TRAINING FOR PERFORMING REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES . . .246
TRAINING INTMDL DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICABLE MODELS . . . ........ 247
WATER QUALITY STAND ARDS ACADEMY/REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STAND ARDS
WORKSHOPS ., ,...,,...;..... .................... 248
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: EPA HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY SURVEY FORM/INTERVIEW
GUIDE ... . ,...,'. * . . ... ... . . .-'. . ... j ... . ,, _; ... ... : . . . . . ..... . . . Al
APPENDIX B: EPA HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY INDEX .......... Bl
-------
-------
Introduction
About the Inventory I
' - . . ' . .'>':''' . . ' !.-,-". ' -; .. .
The purpose of this inventory is twofold: 1) to assist EPA's Ecosystem Protection Task
Force in its characterization of the" present state of the Agency's ecosystem protection efforts;
and, 2) to inform managers and staff throughout EPA about the myriad of ecosystem tools
developed by and available from EPA Headquarters offices.
This document consists of an introduction^ an inventory of ecosystem tools, and two
appendices. The introduction presents a summary analysis of the ecosystem tools submitted by
Headquarters program and cross-program offices, project recommendations, and a
characterization of the ecosystem needs of three Regions and three Geographic Programs. The
introduction also presents background information cin methodology, definitions, the project team.
.The inventory, which constitutes the bulk of this document, is comprised of 180 EPA
Headquarters ecosystem tool descriptions, organized into nine functional categories. The
inventory does not contain ecosystem tools developed by EPA Regional Offices, other federal,
state or local government agencies, or non-government organizations. Appendix A contains a
copy of the survey form/interview guide the project team used to collect HQ tool information.
Appendix B contains an index of the inventory of EPA Headquarters ecosystem tools.
Findings: EPA HO Ecosystem Tools !
In summary, there is little understanding of ecosystem protection and no common
definition of an ecosystem tool among EPA Headquarters and Regional Office staff and
managers. This confusion largely results from the lack of a clearly-airticulated, Agency-wide
ecosystem approach. Consequently, this inventory comprises a wide range of functions, media,
intended userSi applications, arid scope. "<"-'
FIGURE 1: HQ ECOSYSTEM TOOI^ SUBMISSIONS BY OFFICE
OA OAR OARM OECA OGC OPPE OPPTS ORD OSWER OW
The Office of Water and the Office of Research and Development submitted the greatest
number of tools: QW (48%), ORD (24%). !
-------
Approximately two-thirds (63%) of the ecosystem tools submitted by OW were
classified as environmental goal setting, data collection/monitoring/measurement,
and policy/planning tools.
The majority of tools submitted by the Office of Research arid Development
(70%) were models-and data collection/monitoring/measurement tools.
Rounding out Headquarters submissions include: the Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation (10%); the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (8%);
Office of Administration and Resources Management (3%); the Office of Solid Waster
and Emergency Response (3%); the"Office of Air and Radiation (2%); the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (1%); the Office of the General Counsel; and
the Office of the Administrator (Office of Regional Operations and State/Local Relations,
and the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management) (1 %j.
FIGURE 2: HQ ECOSYSTEM TOOLS BY FUNCTIONAL CATEGORIES
Data Collection/Monitoring
19%
Models
20%
Databases
14%
f TBB£l%&il^&3%&55$S6tS!SS3S&cSSSSSg&m$5B&
Fin Asst
3%
Outreach
4%
Training
4% XL T^^tSS^^*!/ "\V&
f teS \&^J&r
Policy & Planning
11% , References
The largest proportion of tools can be placed into three categories: models (20%), data
collection/monitoring (19%), and database (14%) tools.
- There are very few financial assistance (3%), stakeholder/outreach (4%), and
training (4%) tools.
Models, databases, and policy/planning tools are generally not well-integrated: with one
another, by media, or by program.
Status
According to Headquarters Offices, nearly three-quarters of ecosystem tools (73%) are
in-use. Slightly more thari one quarter of the remaining tools (27%) were characterized
asm-development.
-------
FIGURE 3: HQ ECOSYSTEM TOOLS BY MEDIA
multi-media
35%
soil 1%
air 1%
water
63%
Although the majority of tools are single-media, about one-third are multi-media tools
(34%). Two-thirds of all ecosystem tools have an aquatic basis or application.
No.
160-
140-
120-
100-
FIGURE 4: HQ ECOSYSTEM TOOLS BY USERS
.154- .' ''''-.'.'' ' ;' ' ' :- : : -
ATA
of
tools 80"
60-
4O-
20-
O
131
-98
7s*h
r
-T7.
tttt
r
Regions States/ HQ Other Local Acadma Reg. NGOs Gen.
. Tribes Feds Govts Cmty Public
The most commonly specified users of ecosystem tools by submitters are Regions (85%),
States/Tribes (76%), and Headquarters (55%), Roundmg out specified users of
ecosystem tools are: other federal agencies (49%), local governments (40%), academics
(28%), the regulated community (25%), non governmental organizations (15%), and the
general public (13%). s ;
-------
FIGURE 5: HQ ECOSYSTEM TOOLS BY SCOPE
Scientific/Technical
Tools
82%
Economic Tools
6%
Planning/Management
Tools
10%
SociorPolitical
Tools
2%
Eighty-two percent (82%) of the ecosystem tools address scientific-technical issues (the
remainder focus on planning/management 10%, economic analyses 6%, and socio-
political issues 2%). .
Among scientific-technical tools, almost one-half (46%) of the tools address abiotic
resources. Also, among scientific-technical tools, the majority of models arid databases
address chemical strcssors having a chemical impact on the environment.
Findings: EPA Regional and Geographic Office Ecosystem Needs/Gaps/Barriers
The project team also collected information from Regional and Geographic Program
Offices to guage the general needs, gaps, and barriers experienced by EPA staff and managers
who direct or oversee ecosystem projects, which has been summarized below:
Ecosystem Tools
EPA needs to develop and promote tools and approaches specifically-designed .or
modified for ecosystem/place-based management.
- For example, Regions requested new datasets, maps, and data collection
methods to implement ecosystem management.
Ecosystem management will require, a greater investment in tools to: 1) improve
ecological risk assessments; and 2) enhance communication among all ecosystem
stakeholders (e.g., bulletin boards, Internet access, and EPA's computer resources).
Skills/Training
Regions need training to enhance ecosystem management capabilities.
- For example, although EPA has invested in the past on developing ecosystem
geographic information systems and related databases, it needs to provide more
training to staff on how to analyze such data.
IV
-------
Resources , ;"'.. . - ; .
Regions would like greater budget flexibility, more consistent funding, and targeted
resources for ecosystem-related projects (e.g., seed grants for ecosystem stakeholders),
' Data /'--" . .' ' ':.".-' ' - ,'r. " * '.."'.'
Regions, States, and local governments need greater access arid skills to use EPA and
non-EPA ecological databases. ;
Some Regional staff are concerned about the planned funding reduction of ORE)'s EMAP
program.
. Communication ; : . .('..
Regional Offices would like help from Headquarters to share information and knowledge
about ecosystem projects and activities across Regions. \ ;
Policy and Management
Regional Offices would like flexible policy guidance from Headquarters on how to
institutionalize ecosystem management within program offices.
Overall Recommendations
The following recommendations were derived from an analysis of the ecosystem tools
submitted by Headquarters and from an analysis of the ecosystem gaps, needs, and barriers
expressed by Regional and Geographic Program Offices to the project team,
EPA should develop an Agencywide. ecosystem strategy, with clearly articulated and
measurable goals for Headquarters and Regional Offices.
,' EPA should select ecosystem tools in accordance with its goals, the problems it wants
to solve, and the questions it wants answered. j
HQ should invest in meeting the ecosystem management needs of Regions and
Geographic Programs, such as:
-develop new or modify existing tools specifically for,an ecpsystem/place-based
approach; :-_' . ;^ ,
-provide more training; I
-increase budget flexibility; !
-change EPA data/information policies to miprove data quality, data uitegration,
and data exchange..
HQ should conduct a comprehensive Regional and Geographic Program ecosystem needs
assessment on a regular basis to track changing ecosystem needs.
HQ should establish a mechanism or process for-,Regional aid Geographic Program
Offices to sha^e ecosystem mformation and tools.
-------
Background
The Ecosystem Protection Task Force
EPA's Ecosystem Protection Task Force (EPTF), comprised of Jon Cannon (Assistant
Administrator, OARM), Cjiuck Clarke (Regional Administrator, Region 10), David Gardiner
(AA, OPPE), John Hankinson (RA, Region 4), Robert Huggett (AA, ORB), and Robert
Perciasepe (AA, OW) was established in March 1994 to develop a framework to redirect EPA
from a "program-driven" approach to a "place-based", ecosystem approach to environmental
protection. ,
In August 1994, the EPTF asked the Program Evaluation Division (PED) in the Office
of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation to assist the Task Force in its characterization of EPA's
existing ecosystem protection efforts. Specifically, the goals of this project were to:
identify, describe, and categorize ecosystem tools developed by, or available from EPA
Headquarters: and,
characterize general ecosystem needs of a limited sample of Geographic Programs and
Regional Offices.
The EPTF directed the project team to be inclusive in their identification of ecosystem
tools in order to gauge the range and variety of efforts underway at Headquarters.
Protect Methodology
Data Collection
To collect information on EPA Headquarters ecosystem tools, PED staff worked with
EPTF contacts from every HQ program and cross program office. ;to , distribute a survey
throughout the office or to identify the appropriate program staff to interview. Specifically, the
project team asked each Headquarters office to provide the following information for each
ecosystem tool submission: tool name; description of tool use and purpose; intended and/or
actual users; tool development and status; special requirements for use;
programmatic/media/geographic transferabiUty; and an EPA contact person.
Since the data collection process was entirely voluntary, the inventory is not a
comprehensive compilation of every ecosystem tool developed by or available from EPA
Headquarters. Excluding minor editorial changes, PED staff did not alter the tool descriptions
contained herein and they appear as submitted. , .
The project team also interviewed EPA staff in three Regional Offices (Region 3, Region
5, and Region 10), and three Geographic Program Offices (the Chesapeake JBay Program, the
Great Lakes National Program Office, and the Gulf of Mexico Program). These Ipcations were
chosen to ensure regional diversity and to facilitate the collection of information from EPA's
major, national geographic programs. ,,
VI
-------
Data Analysis
The project team first conducted a screening analysis of more than 230 Headquarters
submissions for completeness and appropriateness. A significant portion of the original
submissions were incomplete or inappropriate and were not included in this compilation. In
addition, another group of the original submissions were duplicates and were consolidated. The
remaining 180 ecosystem tool summaries were categorized into nine; functional, groups and
prepared for further analysis.
FED staff next convened a technical advisory group, comprised of 5 Regional and 8
Headquarters staff familiar with ecosystem management, to review a sample of ecosystem tool
summaries and to provide advice on categorizing and analyzing the submissions. Finally, the
project team conducted a qualitative content analysis of the Headquarters ecosystem tool
submissions and Regional interviews. The project team did not evaluate EPA's overall
ecosystem management capabilities nor did they assess the content of individual tool descriptions
or the effectiveness of individual tools, i
Project Definitions ,
Because ecosystem protection is a relatively new direction for the Agency, there is a
dearth of information about such activities and a wide range of interpretations of the meaning
of an ecosystem protection tool. Therefore, the FED team used relevant documents from EPA's
March 1994 Senior Management Retreat on Ecosystem Protection ("the Edgewater. Consensus")
and EPTF proceedings to develop a working definition of an ecosystem protection tool, listed
below: >
An ecosystem protection "tool/activity" is defined as a solitary or linked action,
mechanism, or capability that directly supports/facilitates the maintenance,
protection, or restoration of living resources (e.g., human, plant, and animal
species) and non-living resources (e.g., physical or chemical
properties/characteristics of an area), integrating air, water, and. land protection:
Ecosystem management "tools/activities" can include: ecological or economic
models, databases, grants, monitoring efforts, program guidance, policy
standards, remediation activities, workshops or training courses. Each "tool"
may be expressly designed for use in ecosystem management or having been
designed for single-media or program use-- is being applied towards ecosystem
management.
Project Team .. ';....:--- .-'.-''... ; .': . .. .' \ _. \-J.\-.- '-: J. ' ... .--.. :'. . f:,
---;' ..." '.>',-- - ... - -".-',.'" .'-'' .. : -" ' ' '"'; *-: ' > '','' " '
The EPA project team that compiled and analyzed this inventory and wrote this document
includes: Evyonne Harris, Gabriella Lombardi, Gwen Wise, and John Moses (Project Manager).
MichaelMason served as Project Advisor. Elvira Dixon was the Project Secretary.
- "' '' '".'. - -; - . - - "" '. '-'- '"' ' -. . ' - vii ! '..:.".' '' . '."'.. .; "
-------
Acknowledgements , '.: ''"
The project team would like to thank the countless EPA staff and managers hi
Headquarters, Regional Offices, and Geographic Programs for taking tune to speak with us
about this project as well as for submitting ecosystem tools for the inventory. We are grateful
for your insights and assistance. .,
In particular, we would like to thank those people who served as technical advisors to
the PED team and who facilitated our data collection: Bob April (OW), Anne Barton (OPPT S),
Michael Brody (OPPE), Evert Byington (OPPTS), Jon Capacasa (Chesapeake Bay Program/
Region 3), Tom DeMoss (Region 3), Gerald Emison (Region 10), Jerry Filbhi (OPPE), Bill
Franz (Region 5), Tricia Garrigan (Region 1), Eric Ginsburg (OAR), Robert Lackey (ORD),
Maurice LeFranc (OPPE), Menchu Martinez (OW), William Matuszeski (Chesapeake Bay
Program/Region 3), John Miller (OSWER), Tom Nessmith (Region 4), Bill Painter (OPPE),
David Ullrich (Region 5), John Schneider (Region 5), Michael Slimak (ORD), and Arvella Weir
(Region 10). .
viu
-------
Category Definitions
DATABASE TOOLS - includes databases, datafiles, and tracking systems containing ecological
or socioeconomic information which may or may not be integrated with geographic information
systems (GIS) or spatial mapping systems.
DATA COLLECTION, MEASUREMENT, AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS - includes data
collection/monitoring programs or efforts, assessment methods, measurement tools, evaluation
indicators, and test procedures.
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TOOLS - includes grants, loan programs, and cooperative
agreements.
ENVIRONMENTAL GOAL SETTING TOOLS - includes tools that establish environmental
goals hi the form of criteria, standards, and indicators. j ' ' -;
MODELING TOOLS - includes mathematical, conceptual or computer models which analyze
data or integrate databases and geographic mapping capabilities in order to predict or measure
the impact of policy options on selected environmental and socioeconomic variables, and/or
determine the risk, fate, and transport of specific chemicals within the environment.
OUTREACH TOOLS - includes tools which facilitate external stakeholder involvement,
communication, compliance assistance, and-standing stakeholder committees staffed by EPA.
POLICY AND PLANNING TOOLS - includes general policy statements and related
documents, long-range strategic plans, annual program plans, and tools that assist in developing,
organizing, and implementing a planning process. V
REFERENCE REPORTS AND STUDIES - includes reports and studies bn ecological/
ecosystem management and other related matters published by EPA and referral and search
services (e.g., clearinghouses, hotlines, electronic bulletin boards) developed by EPA staff for
use at Headquarters and Regional Offices. y |
TRAINING TOOLS - includes training courses, workshops, and conferences that involve
lectures and/or hands-on experience with various; ecological and ecosystem principles and
approaches or other related matters.
-------
-------
HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
DATABASE TOOLS
-------
-------
AQUIRE (AQUatic toxicity Information REtrieval) Database
L .' Tool Description
~ AQUIRE was designed to provide up-to-date, high quality ecotoxicological information for aquatic
organisms to support a wide variety of research and regulatory actions. There are over 1,000 EPA, other
Federal, State, local, and international'governmental sites that use AQUIRE. The tool's use ranges from
permit development, to Superfund site assessments, to ranking of hazardous air pollutants, to basic
research, etc. ,
II. Tool Users ':
Users mclude governmental employees and/or governmental contractors or cooperators, who are'
the intended and actual users. AQUIRE data tapes and software are made available to the private sector
through NTIS. : ; " . " "
User outreach is on-going. Users can provide input on-line through E-Mail, site visits and user
meetings held periodically. Feedback is very positive, AQUIRE is used heavily and meeting the users
needs. Expansion of AQUIRE to include sediment bioassays and field studies is commonly expressed.
Literature reviews are an on-going process to ensure that AQUIRE provides current information.
It is critical that AQUIRE. remain current, which requires a yearly effort to secure funds.
Expansion of the database will include sediment/chemical mixture toxicity data and field studies requested
by users. EPA's Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth is developing an action plan to convert
the database from a VAX-based system to a UNIX environment. ;
III. Tool Development i ' '
In 1981, AQUIRE was developed to support TSCA decisions for new and existing chemicals.
Since that time, AQUIRE has been used by every EPA Program and Regional Office, numerous Federal
agencies, and many state and local governments.
Federal staff at ERL-Duluth and ADP contractors developed AQUIRE. Data from countries
outside of the U.S. is being gathered through coordinated efforts within the OECD and the European
Union. Significant coordination currently with components of Dutch, French, German and Russian
governmental laboratories and agencies. ' , ; "' I
Resources: Since 1981, approximately $275,000 and 1.25 FTE per year has been required to
develop and maintain AQUIRE and provide user outreach. - !
IV. Special Requirements for Use
AQUIRE is available to all governmental entities at no charge, the data ba'se can be accessed
using an EPA network via the VAX system or, through a modem and personal computer. International
and U.S. users are increasingly using the Internet to access the system.^ A technical support document
is provided with AQUIRE and user outreach provides technical support. AQUIRE is a user-friendly,
menu driven program that requires little or no training to use. , , ,
V. Program/Media/Geographical Transferabilitv
AQUIRE is used in every EPA Program and Regional office, numerous Federal (e.g., DoD,
DoE, Dbl, NOAA, USDA, etc.) and state and local agencies and other governmental agencies in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia as well as the U.N.
-------
VI, Other Information
The research mission of EPA's Duluth environmental research laboratory is focused on
ecotoxicology and freshwater ecology, with the goal of advancing the scientific foundation of ecological
risk assessments and ecosystem management decisions. The laboratory is also respdnsible for undertaking
and facilitating ecological research within the. Great Lakes and Great Plains. As part of its research
mission in ecotoxicology, the laboratory develops and supports data bases and predictive models that are
used world-wide in ecological risk assessments for chemical stressors. '
VII. Program Contacts
Steven Bradbury ORD, Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth, .Predictive Toxicology
Branch, (218) 720-5527
i '
Christine Russom ORD, Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, (218) 720-5709
-------
ASTER (Assessment tools for the Evaluation of Risk)QUatic
L Tool Description
, ASTER (Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk)QUatic- The purpose of ASTER is to
provide an expert system-based integration of the AQUIRE (AQUatic toxicity Information REtrieval)
toxic effects data base and the ERl-Duluth QSAR (Quantitative Structuxe Activity Relationships)
modeling system. ASTER is designed to provide high quality data, when available in associated data
bases, and QSAR-based estimates when data are lacking to support a wide variety of research and
regulatory actions. Intended and actual purpose are identical.
IL Tool Users . ; T '
There are over 1,000 EPA, other Federal, State, local and international governmental sites that
use ASTER. Users include governmental employees and/or governmental contractors or cqoperators,
who are the intended and actual users. Data tapes and software are made available to the private sector
throughNTIS. '
The model is in-use world-wide since 1989, literature reviews are an on-going process to ensure
that AQUIRE provides current information; software maintenance is on-going to meet user needs and
update QSAR models. Use ranges from permit development, to Superfund site assessments, to ranking
of hazardous air pollutants, to basic research, etc. User outreach is on-going, users can provide input
on-line through E-Mail, site visits and user meetings held periodically. Feedback is very positive,
ASTER is used heavily and meeting the users needs,
III. Tool Development i
The tool was developed in 1989, and was initially developed to support Superfund site
assessments and TSCA decisions for new and existing chemicals. Since that tune used by every EPA
Program and Regional Office,, numerous Federal agencies, and many state and local governments for
activities that range from permit development, to Superfund site assessments, to ranking of hazardous air
pollutants, to basic research, etc. ; >
The model was developed by Federal staff at ERL-Dululh and ADP scientific support through
contracts. Collaboration with countries outside of the U.S. to share data and QSAR models. Significant
coordination currently with components of the Dutch government and the European Union research
center in Ispra, Italy. Since 1989 approximately $85,000 per year (fiscal year 1995) and 0.25 FTE per
year has been required to develop and maintain ASTER and provide user outreach.
data base can be accessed
IV. Special Requirements for Use :,
ASTER is available to all governmental entities at no charge. The
using an EPA network via the VAX system or through a modem and personal computer. International
and U.S. users are increasingly using the Internet,to access the system. A technical support document
is provided with ASTER and user outreach provides technical support. ASTER is a user-friendly, menu
driven program that requires little or no training to use, ; .
V. Program/Media/Geographical Transferability !
ASTER is used in every EPA Program and Regional office, numerous Federal (e.g., DoD, DpE,
Dol, NOAA, USDA, etc.) and State and'local agencies and other governmental agencies in North
America, Europe, Asia, and Australia, as well as the U.N.'.'.-
-------
VI, Other Information . . ^_
The laboratory's research mission is focused on ecotoxicology and freshwater ecology, with the
goal of advancing the scientific foundation of ecological risk assessments and ecosystem management
decisions. The laboratory is also responsible for undertaking and facilitating ecological research within
the Great Lakes and Great Plains. As part of its research mission in ecotoxicology, the laboratory
develops and supports data bases and predictive models that are used worldTwide in ecological risk
assessments for chemical stressors. " .
VII. Program Contacts
Steven Bradbury Office of Research and Development, ERL- Duluth, Mnl, (218) 720-5527
Christine Russom Office of Research and Development, ERL - Duluth, Mn., (218) 720-5709
-------
CLEAN WATER ACT 305(B) NATIONAL, WATER QUALITY INVENTORY
L Tool Description ' ' '
The biennial National 305 (b) Inventory Report compiles state-reported ,data regarding the
attainment of designated uses for waters of the United 'States, including aquatic life support, fish
consumption, shellfish consumption, primary and secondary recreational activities, drinking water supply,
and'agriculture,as well as causes and sources of impairment to these uses.
IL Tool Users j
State 305(b) reports are used to report to the EPA every two years, and are aggregated into the
National Report described above. /
III. Tool Development
The reporting requirements are stipulated in section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, A
state/EPA/federal agency workgroup of approximately 60 people is responsible for developing specific,
guidance on improving compatibility and consistency of use support information.
IV. Special Requirements for Use - V
Guidance for the preparation of state 1996 305(1?) Reports is being finalized and will be issued
in the spring of 1995. .Regional and state training will commence in late spring to inform states of
changes. - ;
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Tools are being developed to assist in 305(b) reporting to include total waters, an enumeration
of all rivers, lakes and estuaries in each state.
. . --- ' ' ' ,., ; . "' . I , -
VI. Other Information
See associated activities for indicators, the Waterbody System, geo-referencing, and GIS.
VII. Program Contacts ,
Barry Burgan Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, (202) 260-7060) .!.""."" V
-------
ECOSAR DATABASE
It Tool Description
This database estimates the ecotoxicity of industrial chemicals (how hazardous a chemical can be).
Estimates have a wide use in hazardous assessments, ecological risk assessments and general aquatic
toxicology.
fl. Tool Users
Users of this tool generally are experts with a. background in chemistry and toxicity. Users must
have a knowledge of the chemical structure of the material to be assessed and adequate knowledge of
chemistry to select the appropriate SAR chemical class. Primary users to date have been in OPPTS to
estimate the ecotoxicity of industrial chemicals. This tool can also be used by testing laboratories to help
establish range-finding levels for aquatic testing and by researchers hi the field of aquatic toxicity.
HI. Too! Development ^ /
ECOSAR was originally developed to estimate the aquatic toxicity of chemicals reviewed by EPA
in response to Premanufacture Notices mandated by Section 5 of TSCA. ECOSAR was developed by
Environmental Effects Branch in OPPTS.
*" "
ly. Special Requirements for Use
None -
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Unknown ., ,
VI, Other Information
Further adaptations on ECOSAR may include areas where users will not have to be an expert to
use it. Uncertainty factors are an area of concern. The quotient method is crude but effective.
VII. Program Contacts '
Maurice Zeeman " Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Health and Environmental Review Division, (202) 260-
1237 ' ' -..' .' '''.. ':.
-------
ECOTOX (ECOlogical TOXidty) DATA BASE
L Tool Description , !
Intended & Actual Purpose: The goal of this project is to develop a comprehensive computer-
based system that provides chemical-specific toxicity values for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and
wildlife, It is intended that this database will support consistent ecologically-based regulatory and
research activities within EPA, DOD, DOE, DOI and other Federal, state, local and international
agencies. Release of the ECOTOX system will represent an integration and stabilization of AQUIRE,
PHYTOTOX, and TERRETOX, which are three existing EPA databases that contain ecotoxicity
information for aquatic life, terrestrial . t , :
plants, and wildlife, respectively; , ' !
IL Tool Users , . ' . i
The tool will be available for use in 1995. Over 1,000 EPA, other Federal, state, local and
international governmental sites that will use ECOTOX, based on current users of the AQUIRE system.
Users will include governmental employees and/or governmental contractors or cooperators. Data tapes
and software will be made available to the private sector through NTIS. Usage will range from permit
development, to Superfund site assessments, to ranking of hazardous air pollutants, to basic research, etc.
User outreach is on-going through meetings and limited release of the prototype system; users
can provide input on-line through E-Mail. Feedback has been very positive.
III. Tool Development V
The AQUIRE, PHYTOTOX and TERRETOX data bases were .initially established in the early
1980s. The AQUIRE data base is current; however, until recently no data had been entered into
PHYTOTOX and TERRETOX for the last 8 years. Access to these two data bases has been extremely
limited. During fiscal year 1994 literature reviews for these two databases was resumed and software
modifications were undertaken. A pilot version of ECOTOX was produced in fiscal year 1992 and a
prototype was established in fiscal year 1994. The beta-version of ECOTOX is scheduled for release in
the spring of 1995. Federal staff at ERL-Duluth, ERL-Corvallis, OPP/ Environmental Fate & Effects
Division and associated ADP scientific support through contracts.
, Reason for Development: Government agencies, including EPA, are confronted with the need
to establish scientifically-defensible hazard assessments, clean-up goals, and-permits that provide
compliance with environmentally-based regulations. EPA and related agencies are also establishing
ecological research approaches to reduce uncertainties in chemical risk assessments. The lack of a
comprehensive and current database of ecotoxicolqgicail information has hampered efficient and cost-
effective collection and evaluation of hazard effect levels that are needed for these activities. The
AQUIRE data base, which contains aquatic life toxicity data, is being used by every EPA Program and
Regional Office, numerous Federal agencies, and many state and local governments for activities that
range from permit development, to Superfund site assessments, to ranking of hazardous air pollutants,
to basic research, etc. These users also need toxicity data for plants and wildlife. The ECOTOX effort
is designed to re-establish the PHYTOTOX and TERRETOX data bases and to develop the software
needed to link these data bases into a single system. : . i
' - - "',''" ' ' ' i - ~ - ' L " .''-
A pilot version of ECOTOX was produced in fiscal year 1992 and a prototype was established
in fiscal year 1994. The beta-version of ECOTOX is scheduled for release in the spring of 1995.
- '" '. ''- '.'--.-. '.;.--. ' ' .:..'. -./ ' - 9
-------
Fiscal year 1992/93 seed money ($450,000) was provided by ORD, OW, and OSWER. During
fiscal year 1994/95, one-time funding of $1,300,000 provided by DOD through the Strategic
Environmental Research and Development Program. Approximately 2.5 Federal FTE are involved.
IV, Special Requirements for Use
ECOTOX will be available to all governmental entities at no charge. The data base can be
accessed using an EPA network via the VAX system or through a modem and personal computer. It is
anticipated that International and U.S. users will increasingly use the Internet to access the system. A
technical support document will be provided with ECOTOX and user outreach will provide technical
support. The prototype ECOTOX system is a user-friendly, menu driven program that requires little or
no training to use. : ,
V. Program/Media/Geographical Transferabilitv
Based on current users of AQUIRE, and feedback from outreach efforts and user-group meetings,
ECOTOX will be used in every EPA Program and Regional office, numerous Federal (e.g., DoD, DoE,
Dol, NOAA, USDA, etc.) and state and local agencies and international governmental agencies.
VI. Other Information
The laboratory's research mission is focused on ecotoxicology and freshwater ecology, with the
goal of advancing the scientific foundation of ecological risk assessments and ecosystem management
decisions. The laboratory is also responsible for undertaking and facilitating ecological research within
the Great Lakes and Great Plains. As part of its research mission in ecotoxicology ,t the- laboratory
develops and supports data bases and predictive models that are used world-wide in ecological risk
assessments for chemical stressors.
Program Contacts ,
Steven Bradbury Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory -
Duluth, Predictive Toxicology Branch, (218) 720-5527
Christine Russom Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratbry-Duluth
(218)720-5709
10
-------
.."- i . -.-. ECOVIEW ' , ' ' . '
L Tool Description
ECOVIEW is an easy-to-use, desktop computer-based, mapping and data visualization tool
designed to provide easy access to geographic and environmental data and information. The concept of
ECOVIEW is to provide a spatial analysis tool that will promote multi-media, cross program, and
ecosystem analyses at yariable geographic scales with e:nvironmental data, j-
The primary goal of the ECOVIEW project is to provide communities (public, private, and
governmental) with a data access and visualization ;tool which promotes the creation and use of
environmental information in establishing and attaining the goals of sustainable development. This project
has two major components: an innovative, desktop mapping technplogy combined with digital,
multi-media information management capabilities and the data and networks necessary to create
information sources related to .ecosystem and community sustainability. ECOVIEW will increase".the'
opportunities for the integration and access of environmental, economic and social/demographic
information, the use of this information in the policy, regulatory, and compliance framework, and the
ability of parties -involved in environmental analysis aind management to use a common information
platform for consensus building. ; -
H. Tool Users . - !
The intended users of ECOVIEW would be anyone interested in visualizing geographic and
environmental data in a computer mapping system. The initial target clients are EPA and state
environmental planners, analystsj and managers that need quick and easy access to environmental
indicator data. EPA staff have been using the ECOVEIW prototype since late 1992 and are currently the
only users .'"!"
of ECOVIEW. i
Staff from OPPE's Environmental Results Branch (ERB) have been conducting focus groups and
demonstrations of the ECOVIEW prototype with EPA, state, and other non-governmental groups. The
^response has always been very favorable and potential clients are eagerly awaiting delivery of an
ECOVIEW-type system, ,/;v .-' -" ''''-'~ :- ' .-,.-.' - ;'. . ' ..- " '-'' .. .'- -. U'.' . ':,'.'-. .-''.'.'. ' '
III. Tool Development , . '
The development of ECOVIEW was prompted by an exhaustive commercial market review which
showed that no off-the-shelf software met,the performance requirements of the ECOVIEW functional
specifications. These specifications were initiallybased on the needs of ERB staff for conducting spatial
analyses with environmental indicator data. Subsequent focus groups and demonstrations with ERB
clients supported and enhanced/these specifications, "i , i _
ECOVIEW is'not currently available as a functional tool., The initial design was created by EPA
employees and a prototype was developed with contractor support in 1992 from an inter-agency
agreement with the Federal Emergency Management Agency. ERB conducts focus groups;-and
demonstrations using this prototype, ERB is currently negotiating a Cooperative Research and
Development Agreement. (CRADA) with two major .GIS/vendors'to develop a commercial version of
ECOVIEW. The Agreement would include the development and pilot testing of a new prototype version
of a commercial ECO VIEW product in mid-1995. ERB is currently lookingfor possible pilot test groups
inside and outside EPA. The future versions of ECOVIEW will be developed .through the CRADA
process and will involve a partnership between EPA and the private, sector r
-------
Increased management support and resources are needed for the continual development of
ECOVIEW. ERB is developing ECOVIEW on a resource budget of a minor branch project. ERB has
submitted an Environmental Technology Initiative proposal for funding which could help this situation.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
One of the primary requirements of ECOVIEW is ease-of-use. The system is being designed for
those with limited computer skills or time constraints. The system will need computer technology that
is readily available on commercial .and government markets (Minimum requirements: high-end 486,
200Mb HD, 8Mb RAM, CD-ROM preferred). " ' . .
V, Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ,
The tool is designed to promote multi-media, cross program, and ecosystem analyses at variable
geographic scales with all types of data. ERB's initial pilot project worked with data from Ohio EPA
and consisted of data on abandoned hazardous waste sites, facility emissions and discharges, facility
regulatory compliance, ' ,
biological monitoring, habitat condition, threatened species and habitats, and geographic base maps of
hydrography, streets and highways, political boundaries, and ecoregion and watershed boundaries.
VJL Other Information
ERB is currently working with.the Chemical Emergency Preparedness Program to use their
mapping product, LANDVIEW, as an interim ECOVIEW prototype. This system is oriented toward '
impacts of toxic releases on human populations, but could have some very basic functionality to
ecosystem analysis.
VII. Contact Person ,
Nathan Wflkes Outreach and User Support, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office
of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, Strategic Planning and
Management Division, 202-260-4910
Elizabeth Porter
Technical Design and Implementation, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental Data, Strategic Planning and
Management Division, 260-6129
12
-------
-.',/. EMAP INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (IM) SYSTEM
L Tool Description , .
The purpose of the EMAP Information Management System is to provide support to the Program
by providing the capability to assess and manipulate EMAP and external data for analysis and
dissemination. ' , i. '
IL Tool Users ; ]'..'
The tool has been designed to be of use to scientists doing analysis within and outside of EMAP,
policy makers and the public. :
III. Tool Development '!"-'"
Development of the System begin in April 1992 and is on-going. Some groups started utilizing
the EMAP IM System in 1994.The development effort has been set up as a continuous improvement
process. And a great deal of feedback has been received and used to improve the system. The IM
System is being managed by EPA under contractor support; to date, approximately.5 FTE and 4 million
dollars have been devoted to development and implementation of this tool.
TV. Special Requirements for Use ' . , . '
There are training and equipment costs for using the tool,
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv I '
The EMAP databases can be assessed by other Programs within and outside the Agency.
Development of the tool has been performed using Agency standard Information resource management
(IRM) approaches allowing it to be part of the Agency JRM infrastructure enabling access to Regions,
states, universities, and other EPA programs. '. .'
VI. Other Information
There are numerous additional hardware and software products that could improve the tool. A
detailed equipment list can be provided upon request.
VII. Program Contacts
Robert Shepanek Office of Research and Development, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program, a02) 260-3255 , K. ;^
13
-------
EMAP MULTI-RESOLUTION LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION
L Tool Description !,.'..
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) has organized-an interagency
partnership called Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) to address the Federal need for land cover
information and satellite imagery. The intended purpose is to provide the Federal government and the public
with current land cover information derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper satellites, the land cover data
can be used for a wide range of applications including ecosystem protection, modeling, risk assessment and
sustainable development. .
IL Tool Users
The intention of EMAP's role in MRLC is to provide the data to as many users as possible. This
includes the EPA Regions, Program Offices and laboratories. MRLC currently provides data to researchers
in each of these areas. " ' '
III, Tool Development
The need for this activity grew from the lack of data and adequate resources by any one Federal
agency or program to provide this type of data. The program is well underway; the imagery has been
collected and processed; an information management system is in place to support it and wee are projecting
completion of land cover data for the US by the end of 1997.
MRLC was initiated by EMAP and is an interagency consortium consisting of the following agencies:
the Environmental Protection Agency, the US Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the National Biological Survey. MRLC was initiated in March of 1993.
The data are used to provide a spatial context for environmental and natural resource activities and
research. The data (remotely sensed digital imagery) has been used for 20 years. -
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Efficient use of the tool would require the training of at least 1 full time person in each site in which
it was utilized. Dollar investment for each site would be about $20 thousand.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The "tool" we provide can be used with any Geographic information System software or hardware.
The raw imagery requires more sophisticated remote sensing software. ~ '
VI, Other Information
- . . . : >
' : '' . ' '
VII. Program Contact
Denise M. Shaw Office of Research and Development, EMAP - Landscape Characterization, (919)
541-2698
14
-------
FISH TISSUE DATA BASE
L Tool Description
. This database identifies waters with State-issued fish consumption advisories. The data are o
data base management system. Location, chemicals and species are identified fdr each advisory. .
IL Tool Users ;
A broad spectrum of individuals that are involved with developing, issuing, communicating and
evaluating information on fish tissue contamination. L
* ' ' , ' ' J ' '-"!"'
III. Tool Development
In 1989, the American Fisheries Society at the request of EPA conducted a survey of State fish and
shellfish consumption advisory practices. The survey documented that monitoring and risk assessment
procedure used by States in their fish and shellfish advisory programs varied widely. The survey also report
on State requested Federal assistance including providing consistent approaches for State agencies to use in
assessing health risks from consumption of chemically contaminated fish and shellfish, guidance on sample
collection procedure and uniform, cost-effective analytical methods for quantification of contaminants.
IV. Special Requirements for Use i
"' None. -. ' . * .;._;' ' .-"'''I'...'...," . '\ .-
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Applicable to other media and a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information !
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Centei (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D.C. at no cost. ; ,
VII. Program Contact
Tom Armitage Office of Water, Office of Science arid Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division. (202) 260-5388 :
15 ;
-------
GATEWAY/1ENVIRQFACTS
la Tool Description
EnviroFacts is an assembly of EPA databases (CERCLIS, RCRIS, TRI, PCS, etc.) which can be
accessed through any standard query language to provide answers to specific questions (eg: what are the
major chemicals in town X...)- However, these query languages are difficult to use. Gateway is a graphics
user-interface which enables easy access to Envirofacts, as well as provides the capability to transport data
between other software applications (eg: import into WordPerfect, relational databases, etc.), answer queries
such as "what is the demographic profile of city Y", and to bundle data for transmission. ,, . ' -
JL Tool Users . '
All agency personnel, as well as interested members of the public, are the intended users. The Great
Lakes Program has been using their regional version for the past nine months. Feedback has been good so
far; only minor modifications have been suggested. Other users are anticipated in upcoming months.
|H. Tool Development
Two years ago, the need for data integration (easily accessed, centralized source of information)
prompted its development. The work has been done through a combination of in-house and contractor effort.
The Great Lakes has been using a regional version for the past nine months; a national version, which will
include new features and Internet access, is under development and will be made available in 1995.
IV. Special Requirements for Use ,
A high-end PC with good graphic capabilities, Windows, and Internet access are required.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ,"
It is designed for use by all program offices. This tool will help with ecosystem management by
helping people define, locate, and target important regional stressors. It should also help produce readable,
understandable information products which are more digestible by managers.
VI, Other Information . ,
The system would greatly benefit from consistent national data and improved locational data for
facilities (latitude/longitude coordinates). , . - '
VII. Program Contacts
Jeff Byron Office of Administration and Resource Management, Office of Information Resource
Management, Program Systems Division, (703) 235-5589
16
-------
INTERAGENCY TAXONOMY INFORMATION SYSTEM (ITIS)
L Tool Description !
The Interagency Taxonomy Information System (ITIS) is a relational database of nomenclatural and
taxonomic information that is easily accessible, scientifically credible, and ensures continuous improvements
in data quality. The ITIS will track'basic taxonomic information for all categories of botanical and
zoological taxa from aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The tool's intended purpose is to facilitate the storage
of biological data, and the sharing of these data among agencies by providing a common framework for
taxonomic data that is scientifically credible, consistent, accessible, and regularly updated. The database will
enable agencies thatmight not be able to afford to maintain a taxonomic database on their own, to have
access to high quality taxonomic information.
IL Tool Users
Field biologists and natural resource managers will use the ITIS as a reference of the current
nomenclature for organisms when recording biological data collected in ecosysitem management activities.
Use of the ITIS will facilitate data exchange and data sharing among agencies.
III. Tool Development
The tool is still under development. Planning for the ITIS began two years ago when agencies came
together to address the common need for a taxonomic database. The ITIS is being developed through a
partnership of the following agencies: The Department of Interior's National Biological Survey (NBS) and
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Agriculture Research
Service (ARS) and Soil Conservation Service (SCS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the
Smithsonian Institution's Museum of Natural History. Two OIRM Program Systems Division personnel
serve as .co-chairs on working groups that are overseeing the development of the database and ensuring
scientific credibility of its contents. Implementation of the prototype ITIS:is scheduled for August 1995.
TV. Special Requirements for Use :
Special requirement for using ITIS are a high-end PC with internet connection. Future plans include
CD-ROM and diskette distribution where applicable. T
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv " I
ITIS will be available to all EPA programs. Geographic Coverage for the ITIS is world-wide with
a North American emphasis. ,;
'-.-"- ' ' I- "- - '-"-'..
-" . i '-''' - * I
VI. Program Contacts
Barbara Lamborne Office of Administration and Resource Management, Office of Information Resource
Management, Program Systems Division, 703/235-5609
17
-------
LANDSCAPE PATTERN TYPES (LPT) MAPPING
I. Tool Description
The purpose of LPT mapping is to systematically classify and map zones of consistent landscape
pattern and composition at intermediate scales (across tens to thousands of square kilometers), for subsequent
use as strata in a variety of ecological monitoring, landscape or watershed analysis, environmental planning,
or ecosystem management activities. - .<-.
Any mapping process delineates units at a chosen scale ranging from the very localized scale to
broad, regional or continental scales. LPT mapping delineates landscapes at a scale intermediate between
localized land cover mapping and large scale ecoregion mapping; LPT units may range from 5 to 100+ km.
in size.
LPTs are based on the widely accepted Forman and Godron definition of "a heterogeneous,
kilometers-wide mixture of interacting ecosystems consistent in'form and pattern throughout." The LPT
classification first identifies pattern (undisturbed matrix, matrix with patches, mosaic) and then classifies the
dominant ecological components forming the pattern (e.g., forest matrix; agricultural matrix with forest
patches; agricultural/suburban/forest mosaic). The LPT units are delineated on 1:500,000 scale Landsat
scenes by conventional photo-interpretation methods with use of supporting ground data for verification.
LPTs are then digitized into GIS, where they can be composited with other factors (e.g. watershed
boundaries, population density, landownership, species distribution) as needed.
H. Tool Users
EMAP Landscape Ecology program, Desert Research Institute, EMAP Landscape Characterization
program, OWOW/AWPD Watershed Branch.
III. Tool Development
Developed, applied and published by the EMAP Landscape Characterization group' during the period
1991-1994. LPT mapping methods are operational and published hi Landscape Ecology spring 1994 issue
(Wickham and Norton, "Mapping and Analyzing Landscape Patterns"). Methods were developed and tested
on a 40,000 square mile study area in the Southeast, around which the published paper is based.
TV. Special Requirements for Use .
The publication provides sufficient directions for use. This is a pattern recognition and visual
classification process that can be carried out without advanced training; however, better results would be
obtained by an experienced photointerpreter who would be familiar with identifying consistent, "signatures"
and delineating a boundary around them. Either the ability to recognize gross categories of land use/land
cover (e.g. forests, agriculture, urban, open water) or a source of current land use information for the study
area is needed. Photographic reprints of satellite images can be purchased from Eros Data Center, USGS.
V, Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Broadly applicable in a variety of federal, state and local programs. The method for classifying and
mapping landscape .types can be used, with regional modification, anywhere in the nation and presumably
in other countries since over 40 non-US scientists have requested reprints of the method article. Method is
adaptable to use with small-scale aerial photography as well as satellite imagery.
VI. Other Information
18
-------
VII. Program Contact
Doug Norton Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds,
Protection Division, (202) 260-7017
Assessment and Watershed
19
-------
MOSAIC - GULF OF MEXICO DATAFILE
L Tool Description v
MOSAIC is a graphic-based, menu-driven (windows) electronic platform which is accessible through
Internet. A communication tool for the Gulf of Mexico Program has been developed by creating a datafile
on the MOSAIC platform containing information about the Program.
The Gulf of Mexico datafile's purpose is to provide information and interactivity to federal, state,
local and citizenry partners. The system contains a great diversity of information about the effort of EPA,
federal and state partners in managing the Gulf including organizational and activity information, indicators
information, pollution and environmental degradation data, monitoring data, etc. It enables the pictorial
viewing of GIS sessions, incorporating data from agency databases such as STORET, CERCLIS, etc. It will
also enable users to access the raw data behind graphs and charts.
As it is a networking tool, it will enable multiple users to simultaneously access information; for
example, Stennis Lab, Region 4, the state of Florida, and HQ could all participate in a conference call,
looking at the same document on screen. ,
IL Tool Users
The MOSAIC Gulf of Mexico datafile's intended users are the Agency's various federal, state, local
and citizenry partners, including scientific and academic users, policy makers and regulatory personnel,
advocacy groups, interested members of the public. It is to be used as a means of providing a centralized
source of on-line information about EPA programs (presently focusing on the Gulf of Mexico).
Anyone with Internet access and the appropriate computer equipment will be'able to access/the
datafile. There are also interactive features which permit user-feedback about the system. Within the
agency, the tool will be supported by the National Data Processing Division Service Agreement; all LAN
administrators are suppo'sed to be internet proficient, and they should be able to set up Agency, computers
to access MOSAIC at the user's request. ' ,
HI. Tool Development , . ,
Development of the tool was prompted by the Gulf of Mexico Program, which expressed an interest
in the development of such a program or tool for communication. The idea was conceived in January, 1994;
funds were committed in May of the same year. The Program Systems Division in OIRM did half of the
programming required to tailor MOSAIC for the Gulf Program tool, and then contracted out the remainder
of the development to a contractor, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC). Development
costs are estimated at 1 FTE and $300,000 - $400,000. ,
Some information about the Gulf Program and its various partners is still being uploaded, but the
MOSAIC Home Page is essentially complete and is now available for mass distribution. It is important to
note that one of the program's essential features is that new information can be continually and easily be
uploaded through the system administrators.. .
TV. Special Requirements for Use
An Internet account is necessary to access information, as well as high-end PC equipment with
graphics capabilities and MOSAIC software (free). The syste.ni is icon-driven (click on an icon to call up
additional text information/information options about a particular topic) to facilitate use. .
20
-------
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
. The platform can be used for similar purposes by anyone who is interested - in fact, another group
is undertaking the same type of effort for the Great Lakes Program.
VI. Other Information
As additional information is generated about the Gulf Program (eg: newsletters, program summaries),
it would facilitate uploading if this information can be. transmitted to the system administrator in digital form.
VII. Program Contacts
Andy Battin Office of Administration and Resource Management, Office of Information Resources ,-
Program Systems Division, (703) 235-5591 !
_ , " . ' '* -'.--. t '"" ' '
Pat Garvey Office of Administration and Resource Management, Office of Information Resources,
Program Systems Division, (703) 235-5571)
21
-------
EPA REACH FILE (VERSION 3.0)
L Tool Description .
The Environmental .Protection Agency's (EPA) Reach File (Version 3.0), known as RF3, is a
national hydrologic database that interconnects and uniquely identifies the 3.2 million stream segments or
"reaches" that comprise the nation's surface water drainage system. .',.
RF3 is being developed by the EPA's Office of Water from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1:100,000 scale hydrography data. The RF3 production process assigns a unique reach code to each stream
segment contained within the USGS hydrography and determines the upstream/downstream relationships of
each reach, allowing them to be connected together to form a national hydrologic transport network. The
reach codes provide a common nomenclature that provides a geographic framework for Federal and State
reporting of surface water conditions as required under the Clean Water Act. In addition the hydrologic
transport network defined within RF3 enables the modeling of water borne pollution associated with both
point and non-point sources. ' '
RF3 production is a two-step process: (1) initial compilation of spatial and attribute data from a
variety of different sources; and (2). the subsequent validation of the resulting file to ensure the integrity of
the reach numbers and hydrologic connectivity that defines RF3. RF3 compilation is complete for the
conterminous United States and Hawaii, except for the Pacific Northwest region. As part of the RF3
validation processing, EPA is coordinating closely with USGS to synchronize RF3 feature definitions and
linework with the hydrologic component of the new USGS Digital Line Graph Enhanced (DLG-E) product.
RF3 Version 3.0 will be available for use in fiscal year 1995.
EL Tool Users
The intended and actual users of this tool are EPA Headquarters and Regional Offices, and States.
An important use of this tool will be to index waterbodies identified hi a State's Clean Water Act 305(b)
reports to RF3 data using GIS. Once this is done, States will have the capability to tie-in monitoring data,
(e.g., STORET, TRIS) and begin modeling ambient water quality. Several States have already completed
this step, including South Carolina. New Hampshire, and Virginia. Other secondary uses for RE3 include
flood modeling, Coast Guard navigation, and linking wetlands with other hydrologic data. Feedback onRF3
has been fairly positive to date. There is no current mechanism, however, about how EPA should deal with
local corrections/enhancements to RF3 although several options are being considered.
III. Tool Development
The Reach File system began its development in the mid 1970's prompted by a need to link water
quality data together. RF3 Version 3.0 is being developed with contractor assistance through partnership
among USGS and EPA's OW, ORD, and OIRM. Initial re^urces for development of RF3 is approximately
$800,000. It is projected that incorporation of the Northwest data and quality assurance/quality control may
cost another $800,000. ; :
IV. Special Requirements for Use . -
The only special requirement for using RF3 are access to an IBM mainframe computer. OW is in
the process of piloting its use on Internet.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
It is expected that RF3 will be useful to other programs, especially the Superfund program's NPL
ranking system.
i * - " ' . - "" .
22 . -"' ' "' ''* ' ' " / '"' ' '-
-------
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts ....'.
Thomas G. Dewald Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Management Division; Monitoring Branch, (202) 260-2488
23
-------
NATIONAL FISH TISSUE DATA REPOSITORY
L Tool Description .. ,
The data base can be used in the development of fish consumption advisories or for studies related
to the ecological effects of contaminants. The data base includes levels of fish tissue contaminants in many
different species-taken from many sites'across the country. .
IL Tool Users
A broad spectrum of individuals that are involved with developing, issuing, communicating and
evaluating information on fish tissue contamination. -
ID. Tool Development ,
In 1989, the American Fisheries Society at the request of EPA conducted a survey of State fish arid
shellfish consumption advisory practices. The survey documented that monitoring and risk assessment
procedure used by States in their fish and shellfish advisory programs varied widely. The survey also report
on State requested Federal assistance including providing consistent approaches for Stale agencies to use in
assessing health risks from consumption of chemically contaminated fish and shellfish, guidance on sample
collection procedure and uniform, cost-effective analytical methods for quantification of contaminants.
IV.. Special Requirements for Use . '.'-
None. . ,
y_a Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Applicable to other media and a wide range of ecosystems..
VI. Other Information
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S: EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost. , , ,
VII. Program Contact . .
Tom Annitage Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-5388
24
-------
NATIONAL SEDIMENT INVENTORY
L Tool Description
The National Sediment Inventory (NSI) contains geo-referenced, site-specific data on sediment quality
and pollutant source information for the United States. This information is being used to assess the nature
and extent, including causes,- of sediment contamination in the nation's freshwater and estuarine ecosystems.
The results of this effort will be presented in a biennial Report to Congress required by Section 503 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1992.
The NSI contains over 1.5 gigabytes of data from national and regional databases around the country,
including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) S&TP and COSED databases and,
EPA's STORET, ODES, EMAP, Gulf of Mexico Inventory, Region IV, V, VI arid X Sediment Quality
Inventories. Also included is 1992 point source release data from EPA's TRI and PCS databases.
Additional,data, including non-point source data will be added to the NSI within the next two years. Specific
data types include sediment chemistry data, toxicity data, fish tissue contaminant levels, benthic community
data, fish histopathology data as well as point source loadings data. The information is currently being
evaluated to identify chemicals, geographic areas and industrial categories of concern for the nation, EPA
Regions, and States. Several reports describing the compilation of this data and the results of the analyses
are currently available. The data and evaluation tools will be available on EPA's mainframe in SAS files
and on CD-Rom in dBase 3+ format. ''- >
n.
m
Tool Users !
Managerial and technical federal, State, local and tribal personnel.
Tool Development
Development of the NSI was initiated several years ago through a series of pilot inventories in
Regions IV, V and VI. A national interagency workshop was held in March 1993 to finalize the plan for
developing the NSI database. Individuals from NOAA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, and the U.S. Geological Survey, several Regions and States attended the workshop. After the
data was compiled, we held a second, well attended interagency workshop to identify a methodology for
evaluating the NSI. This methodology has been refined over the past year and is about to be applied to the
data. In addition, a preliminary evaluation of the data, along with the data, was distributed to State and
regional sediment quality experts for review. Their comments are currently being integrated into the NSI.
It is anticipated that the Report to Congress will be completed sometime this fiscal year. The report will
undergo extensive review by scientists and engineers both inside and outside the Agency before it is released
to the public. - .. /; /
IV. Special Requirements for Use
The reports themselves have; no special requirements for use. Decision-makers interested in using
the detailed monitoring data will need to have a system capable of handling a large amount of data.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The NSI is useful to many water and waste programs ,and is transferable aicross media. -The NSI data
contains latitude and longitude information on each sample (though the reliability of this information has not
been verified). Geographic coverages are currently being added to the data. Consequently, the data can be
used for geographic analyses on many levels. :
.25
-------
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Catherine Fox Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science Division,
(202) 260-1327
26
-------
ESDB LINK with REACHSCAN
. . "' * ' .,..' " '
L Tool Description <
A database obtained by Exposure Assessment Branch, Exposure and Technology Division/OPPTS,,
from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, modified to include state and county identification codes, and
'linked' with the Reachscan Model/database. Lists all US Endangered and threatened species with relevant
data on that species. Permit identifies potential impacts from the release of chemical to surface water.
fl. Tool Users [.'.,''
Exposure Assessment Branch (OPPTS) ^
III. Tool Development ; _,[,..'.-
OPP made minor changes to the database and linked it to facilities at the county level to
search/identify a specific facility the user needs on NPDES facility, name, as an input. .
IV. Special Requirements for Use -
IBM AT Compatible1 PC with sufficient storage space. ;
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ! ,
No limit. '; " ;
VI. Other Information
Fish and Wildlife Service can be contacted to identify an endangered species for specific location
ie., what river, and mile segment along the river an endangered species is located. This source of
information may be limited to the extent the protection plan has been developed. ,
VII. 'Program Contacts .
Sid Abel Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, (202) 260-3920
27,
-------
NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
L Tool Description
Annually, each EPA region sets aside 5% of its entire Section 319 Grant Program allocation to
support more intensive, long-term water quality monitoring of selected projects, based upon requirements
described by EPA's "Watershed Monitoring and'Reporting for Section 319 National Monitoring Program
Projects," August, 1991. The Nonpoint Source Management System (NPSMS) is a PC-based system
developed to facilitate data input and reporting for these long-term Nonpoint Source Watershed Monitoring
projects.
NPSMS provides states with the ability to enter, track, and transfer the required watershed project
information to EPA where the data is managed on a central PC also using the NPSMS software. NPSMS
allows EPA and states to view, update, generate reports and graphics, and export project .data to EPA's
mainframe computer for statistical analysis using SAS. .
IL Tool Users
Copies of the software have been distributed to all EPA Regional Offices and States. While this
software is targeted for use with the National Monitoring Programs Projects, copies of the software have
been made widely available by the EPA. \
III. Tool Development
The Office of Water (OW) developed the NonPoint Source Management System, NPSMS Version
3.01, in 1992 to support OW's guidance, "Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National
Monitoring Program Projects." The NPSMS is funded by the 5% Regional set-aside.
The software package and user's guide were developed by a contractor, with oversight provided by
EPA personnel.
IV, Special Requirements for Use ,
The software is PC-based and requires a computer with at least an 80286 chip, and some level of
technical familiarity with water quality and monitoring on the user's part.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The software package could be used by anyone conducting long-term monitoring of water quality.
VI. Program Contacts '
Steve Dressing Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, (202) 260-7110
28
-------
POPULATION ESTIMATE CHARACTERIZATION TOOL (PECT)
L Tool Description , i ,
This tool is a spatially-based computer program which allows the user to select a facility of interest
(eg: a TRI facility) and query about user-defined demographic characteristics (eg: population density, %
minority, % above/below the poverty' line) in rings around the facility site with radii up to 4 miles.
Additional data sets can also be incorporated into the program (eg: TRI; CERCLIS; NPL).
II. Tool Users ::'-'. .. . - '-;'.-';. ', ./.'"..'.;- :' !':-. , . . * - :'. ' '-: ..' ;
The tool is intended /or use by anyone interested in demographic inibrmation; it has especially
powerful analytic capabilities for .application to environmental justiceissues.
HI. Tool Development ; .
The Superfund Program sponsored (eg: funded) me tool's development, spurred by recurring
Congressional interest in Census demographics. It is being developed through a combination of in-house
and contractor efforts.
; . ' ' ' ' ' -''.-!. : '-.''
A PC-based prototype/pilot has been developed for the state of New Jersey and delivered to the
Superfund program; the program is slated for availability throughout the agency in the third quarter of FY
'95. The program will be available through RTP when it goes nation-wide; a partnership with program
offices (the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assistance
(OECA) is making this broader distribution possible. The feedback has been gcfod; OECA, especially, has
been very pleased with the capabilities.
IV. Special Requirements for Use '..";.. .'; "'-..''' .,'.,- " :
, A high-end PC, windows, and LAN connectivity .are required. !
'' - ". , . ,-"._- '' ' ' } ' -i' ' - - ' '
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The program is applicable to anyone with an interest in demographic infbrmation or in characterizing
the proximity of populations to sources of chemical exposure. : :
VI. Other Information ; :
Nationally consistent data processing formats and .data standards are essential. Additional data is
also key (eg: the agency does not have accuratelat/long for-many facilities). Key data elements (similar to
the WENDB data elements for NPDES/PCS) must be identified and the data'collected consistent with
standard protocols. ; . , -!,-'!
VII. Program Contacts " . K
Andy Battin ' Office of Administration and Resource Management, Office of Information Resource
, Management, Program Systems Division, (703) 235-5591 !
David Wolf Office of Administration and Resource Management, Office: of Information Resource
Management, Program Systems Division, (703) 235-5592 j
29
-------
PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM
L Tool Description .
The Wetlands Research Program at ERL-Corvallis has developed a data management system to
simplify the process of entering and analyzing ecological information about wetlands and mitigation projects
involved in wetland permitting. The Permit Tracking System is user-friendly, PC-based program, designed
to track information from three types of wetland permit systems, Section 404 and Section 410 of the Clean
Water Act and state permit systems. The program includes an option to track data from other permit
systems or wetland projects.
H. Tool Users
Several state agencies and EPA Region n are considering using the tool.
HI. Tool Development
The Approach was developed based on pilot studies hi California, Texas, Louisiana, Alabama,
Arkansas, Washington, and Oregon. A number of State agencies and EPA Region II are considering
adopting it. It was released in 1991. The Permit Tracking System.was field-tested and the manual and
software was widely reviewed and accepted.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
A PC with a hard drive and adequate memory is required. Someone familiar with installing and
running software on a PC could use it or teach someone totally unfamiliar with PC's to use it. A user's
manual and software are available. The only costs are for the hardware and the person to do the data entry
and queries.
V. Program/Media/Geographic TransferabMitv
Transferability unknown. .
VI. Other Information
VII, Program Contacts , , . .
Mary E. Kentula Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory -
Corvallis, (503) 754-4478.
30
-------
PESTICIDE ECOTOXICITY DATABASE
L Tool Description V.
The Ecological Effects Pesticide Toxieity Database is expected to provide a rapidly accessible source
of ecotoxicity data for all registered pesticides in active use nationwide. Most of the thousands of studies
presently contained in OPP's Ecological Effects Branch files have never been stored electronically and now
exist only as hard copy. The database will effectively track, record, and summarize this vast library of
lexicological data. It will be the most comprehensive and current database of its kind in the world.
In keeping with many of the reduced risk initiatives presently favored by the Administrator, the
database will prove to be an extremely valuable tool in enabling the EPA, other federal agencies, state and
local governments, and the agricultural community to more quickly assess the risks associated with various
alternative pesticide uses. The use of the database within the OPP Ecological Effects Branch will allow
increased efficiency in completing registration and reregisitration actions. ,
II. Tool Users
The database has been and is being utilized effectively in numerous OPP division projects in EFED
and SRRD. Within the Agency, requests for information from the database have been received from offices
in OPPTS, ORD, OW, Region 3 (Chesapeake Bay Program Office), Region 5, Region 6 and Region 7. All
.have indicated the need for such a database. In keeping with the policy initiatives expressed by the Office
Director the database will provide the outside customers with rapid 'access to information regarding
pesticides. The existing database has already provided users with rapid access to toxicity data on hundreds
of pesticides of interest. . , ,
Outside customers have included USDA's Agricultural Research and Soil Conservation Services,
U.S.. Fish and Wildlife Service, natural resource and agricultural agencies in over 10 different states,
agricultural departments of universities, and private landscape consulting firms. The United Nation's
Environmental Program Office has expressed interest in incorpbrating this data into the International Register
of Potentially Toxic Chemicals(IRPTC) databank. . ;
III. Tool Development
In 1991 initial plans were developed with the Chesapeake Bay Program to create a computerized
database of acute and chronic toxicity values contained within OPP ecological effects data files. The
terrestrial and aquatic organism data includes plant data as well as vertebrate and invertebrate studies. The
pesticides were originally prioritized according to the most recently collected pesticide use surveys for
Pennsylvania, Virginia, arid Maryland counties within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. ~ ' ' '
The need for such a comprehensive and current source of scientifically reviewed toxicity studies has
become readily apparent with increased requests', from state, federal, and international agencies for
information contained within the- database. As a result, the Ecological, Effects Branch sought and has
received additional funding to continue this effort. QPP's Environmental Fate: and Effects Division has
allocated 0.1 FTE for oversight of the project. Actual data entry is performed by personnel obtained through
the Agency's AARP program. !
IV. Special Requirements for Use > -
The program requires a standard personal computer equipped with DBase HI + software. Other than
some familiarity with this program no other special training is required. A guidance booklet describing the
31
-------
fields contained in the database and pertinent abbreviations used in these fields will accompany any diskette
copy of the database.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv .
The database is easily transferred using standard postal networks. The database has been developed
in DBase III+ dialect. This database program is readily available software. The data is transferable to
DBase IV if a windows type program is preferred. Due to the size of the database it is preferred that it be
compressed using PKZIP. It presently contains over 2 megs of data. Eventually this database will, be
incorporated into at least 2 internet type platforms, the Pesticide Information Network and the EGOTOX
database under development by EPA's Environmental Research Lab in Duluth, Mn. ,
VL Other Information ,,
It is estimated that the database saves OPP scientists an average of 2-3 manhours of research needed
to extract the toxicity data contained in one pesticide file, summarize it, and then incorporate it into a single
document. The same task can be completed in 11 seconds using a 486 computer and the present database.
The time savings for a multiple pesticide comparative analysis will be even more notable. Multiply this
time savings fay the number of yearly actions or special projects requiring this type of data nationwide and
the savings can be multiplied hi thousands of manhours saved. The present database contains over 7000
individual study reports on over 290 registered pesticides which comprise a major component of the nation's
present agricultural and industrial pesticide use. Eventually the database is expected to expand to over 12000
toxicity records for up to 600 pesticide active ingredients ' ,
' '
Program Contacts
Brian Montague Project Lead, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, (703) 305-6438
Doug Urban Program Oversight, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office
of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, (703) 305-5746.
-------
THE PESTICIDE INFORMATION NETWORK
L Tool Description
' The Pesticide Information Network (PIN) is a computerized collection of files each containing current
and historic pesticide information. The PIN was designed to: enhance the Office of Pesticide Programs' data
gathering efforts; aid States agencies and others in obtaining needed information on a timely basis, thereby
improving their ability to respond to local pesticide situations and Federal requirements; save EPA resources
through automated dissemination and updating of public information; and enhance cooperative efforts
between EPA and other Federal Agencies through a -convenient method of information' sharing. The
following types of information are now or will soon be available on the PIN. I
Monitoring
The PIN contains a compilation of pesticide monitoring projects arid ecological incidents caused by
exposure of a non-target species to a pesticide. This infoirmation is supplied to QPP by Federal, State, and
local governments and private institutions. Information in the PIN includes a short synopsis of each project,
or incident, chemicals and substrates monitored or involved in the incident, location, species, sexes, ages
and numbers affected, route of exposure, analysis of tissue and environmental residue,, dates of occurrence
and contact person information. Some ground water monitoring projects also include well description and
location information and results of sample analysis. :
Regulatory Status
A regulatory, status is provided, which may,include: Active, Canceled, Suspended, Restricted Use,
Special Review and Reregistration. Additional information'includes the Pesticide identification (name and
various ID numbers), EPA Product Manager number, criteria for classification, formulations and uses acted
upon, final decisions, references, the EPA actions that led to classification and effective dates. x An EPA
Registration number and product name list is included for active ingredients that have Restricted Use
Products. _'".'''-'"'-. ! .' '
s ''.." ~ [ . - " i '.
Other regulatory datasets include the Pesticide Applicator Training Bibliography (PAT) and the
Biological Pesticides Dataset (BPD). PAT provides a listing of the educational materials available for
.pesticide handling. BPD contains information that States require concerning biotechnology and biological,
pesticide decisions, rules, documents, meetings etc. '
Miscellaneous Pesticide Information
CAS Numbers, PC Codes and synonym names; Chemical classification and pesticide use categories;
Lifetime Health Advisory level and Maximum Contaminant Level.
Pesticide Properties (Under development)
Environmental Fate and Ecological Effects Data will contain the results -of studies submitted to
OPP/Environmental Fate and Effects Division to support the registration or reregistratiqn of pesticides
including physical/chemical characteristics of pesticides; environmental fate, mammalian, avian, and aquatic
lexicological end points. This dataset will be available in 1996.
II. Tool Development
The Network began operation in April of 1987 with a single file, the Pesticide Monitoring Inventory
,(PMI), and was expanded through the addition of two more files to become the PIN in November of 1989.
The original PMt file was developed to encourage states and other Federal agencies to share pesticide
33
-------
monitoring information with EPA and each other. The current PIN is being expanded again to accept multi-
users and to include the above list of expanded information. The new PIN will be available in early 1995.
Ill, Tool Users
The largest PIN users groups are state agencies, EPA Regional Offices and the pesticide industry.
Other users include other Federal agencies, .universities, environmental groups, and private companies. The
monitoring information has been used as a reference by state agencies and universities who are planning new
projects. The regulatory information is used largely by EPA Regional Offices and State pesticide agencies
who are responsible for pesticide enforcement or pesticide user education. , .
IV Special Requirements for Use
The PIN is a free service offered by the Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide
Programs (OPP). It is accessible to anyone who has a computer, modem and any communications software
that will emulate a VT100 terminal. It is operational 24 hours/day seven days/week. It is completely menu
driven and very easy to use. Set communication software to dial 703-305-5919, Databits=8, Parity=None,
Duplex=Full, StopBit=l, Emulation=VT100. ,
' / '- ' ' '
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The PIN was designed as and information tool for environmental management and would be of
interest to environmental managers, regulators, and scientists in a national and international arena.
/ i ' - ' ,
VI. Other Information ,
User support is available by calling (703) 305-7499 from 7am-4pm EST. Leave a message after
hours. (
VEL Program Contact
Constance Haaser Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Fate and Effects Division, (703) 305-5455
34
-------
PESTICIDES IN GROUND WATER DATABASE
L Tool Description
The Pesticides in Ground Water Database (PGWDB) was created to provide a more, complete picture
of ground-water monitoring for pesticides in the United States. It is a collection of ground-water monitoring
studies conducted by federal, state and1 local governments, the pesticide industry and private institutions.
It consists of monitoring data and auxiliary information in both computerized and hard-copy form.
- - =. " . - ; . - ' I ,'"..", '.
II. Tool Development
The Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) began collecting ground-water studies for the PGWDB in
the- early 1980s. In 1988, an effort was made to review and catalog these data. Summary results of this
effort were computerized and then published in the Pesticides in Ground Water Database: 1988 Interim
Report. Since the 1988 Interim Report was issued, many things have changed. State-sponsored projects,
initiated in the late 1980s, have been completed and digitized, monitoring methodologies and computer
technology have improved, and the quality and quantity of data have increased! Based on extensive use of
the 1988 database by OPP's Ground Water Technology Section and the comments received from other users,
both within and outside of OPP, the computerized database and the hard-copy report were restructured. The
new computerized structure is more appropriate for the quality and quantity of the information currently
available, as well as for that expected in the future. The new structure is both well and sample specific; that
is, it contains description and location information for each well sampled and the results of each analysis.
This structure allows ground-water monitoring data to be sorted in a variety of ways, such as by well depth,
well location, and sampling date. The new report, Pesticides in Ground Water Database A Compilation
of Monitoring Studies: 1971 -1991, also has an improved structure. It provides national, regional, state and
county summaries so that readers can select the resolution appropriate for their needs.
- - . ' - \ ' '- ' . r _'._,'
III. Tool Users .
The PGWDB and its new report are being used routinely by OPP to reassesses the impact that
registered pesticides have on the quality of groundrwater resources. The database is used to support ongoing'
regulatory activities, such as ground-water label advisories, monitoring studies required for pesticide re-
registration,and special review activities. Iri addition, combining the information in the PGWDB with other
environmental fate data and usage data will assist OPP, at an early stage in the regulatory process, in refining
criteria used to identify pesticides that tend to leach to ground water. !
State and local governments can use the PGWDB as a reference so that a state may access data from
neighboring states. Evidence that pesticide residues occur in ground water can be used to target a state's
resources for future monitoring and to re-assess pesticide management practices to prevent future degradation
of ground-water quality. The information presented in this report will also be useful to state and regional
agencies when implementing two pollution-prevention measures being developed by EPA; the Restricted Use
Rule and the State Management Plans outlined in the Pesticides, and Ground Water.Strategy.
,'''. ' ' < " ' ! , " !!
IV Special Requirements for Use .t .. ;'.' ,
.' ' . .None-.; . -,;_. . ... - - -" -.. -;.-;. '; ;' ;; (_'_ .' 1 : ; "( * ...
V. ' Program/Media/Geographic Transferability ;
The Pesticides in Ground Water Database A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 - 1991 was
prepared to summarize and share the results of the studies in the PGWDB.. It consists of 11 volumes: a
National Summary and ten EPA regional summaries. Each volume provides a detailed description of the
computerized PGWDB and a guide to reading and interpreting the data.
"... . - ' " ' ' - : . ' ')
' . ;- ' - ,"-. 35 '.;: .;.''- ; . ' ; ' ', ' '
-------
The National Summary contains summary results of the data collection effort for all states and a
discussion of the data. The regional volumes contain data from the individual states in each EPA Region.
Each regional volume contains state summaries, which consist of: 1) a short overview of the state's
philosophy and pertinent regulations concerning ground-water quality and pesticides, 2) a summary or
abstract of each study or monitoring effort sent to OPP, and 3) summary data for each state presented in
tables, graphs and maps.
To make this information available to as many decision makers in state and other federal agencies
as possible, all of the study descriptions and the computerized portion of the monitoring data will become
a part of the Pesticide Information Network (PIN). '".'.'
VI, Other Information
The Pesticides in Ground Water Database A Compilation of Monitoring Studies: 1971 - 1991 is
available from the National .Technical Information Service.
VII, Program Contact .
Constance Haaser Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs,
' Environmental Fate and Effects Division, (703) 305-5455
36
-------
RELATIVE RISK INDEX i
L Tool Description '-;
This index provides information about the risk posed to a variety of human health (dietary, worker
exposure, chronic and acute exposure) and environmental (avian, aquatic, groundwater) endpoints by the
pesticides associated with specific crop's. The index is designed to be ;coupled with usage data about the
amount of pesticide used in a particular community. The goal is to be able to determine whether, over time,
patterns of pesticide usage associated with particular commodities are leading to reductions in risk exposure.
Information on environmental endpoints has presently been developed for potatoes and apples; it is hpped
that human health information for these crop pesticides will be available in the fall of '94. An assessment
will also be conducted in the fall to determine whether the. index is providing useful information, whether
the correct endpoint are being used, etc. Eventually, data will be included for additional commodities.
H. Tool Users - ; ;" . " , : \, . " , : ' '- -!:: -.'._ ' ''-. '
The index is intended for internal agency use, as well as for the preparation of summary report for
release to Congress and4he public. : v ,
_ " ' . '' - ";. - r - ' '
III. Tool Development
The index has been developed as part of the agency's coordinated pesticide use reduction initiative,
announced in June 1993, involving the Agency, The Department of Agriculture (USDA) and me Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). Although the Agency has always stressed pesticide risk reduction as its goal,
traditional programs have focused on individual,chemicals that present risks to humans or the environment
that exceed Agency-determined levels. This chemical-by-chemical approach has not enabled the Agency to
develop an overall strategy designed to prioritize and focus its regulatory activities on reducing pesticide use
and its associated risk.
TV. Special Requirements for Use '" ' ' / ' - . ,' '"-] '" .
To be useful, one must have information about the quantity of pesticide being used. However, usage
data is difficult to come by. The US Department of Agriculture and various marketing services do provide
some usage data, typically in large, complex databases.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabiliiv '.',. " ';-'/.' . .
The risk index can be useful to other media/prbgram offices. The Office of Solid Waste has
expressed an interest in using the index to help determine how to control for the safest use mix.
VI. Other Information
The Agency will be required to maintain annual usage data for all, chemicals used on the selected
use sites. This data will be obtained from relevant sources including USDA, States and;proprietary sources.
Usage information necessary for incorporation into the measurement scales will include acre treatments by
chemical, pounds of active ingredient applied by chemical, base acres treated by chemical and, where
available, volume, acre treatments and base acres treated by application method. Where base acre
information's not available, the Agency will be required to provide supportable estimates. It is important
to note that additional sources of pesticide usage data will need to be developed.fqir particular use sites where
currently no reliable usage data exists before that site can be included m the program.
VII. Program Contacts -'-._'. / >
Martin Lewis Office of Prevention, Pesticides and ;Toxip Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Biology and Economic Analysis Division, (703) 308-8144 i
-------
REACHSCAN DATABASE
L Tool Description
Reachscan is an OPPT model/database containing an inventory of river flows, industrial dischargers,
and drinking water utilities. Program reports in stream chemical concentrations and chemical concentration
at drinking water intakes from releases by upstream industrial dischargers. Concentrations :can be determined
by simple dilution or an environmental fate model can be accessed to determine concentrations after removal.
This system 'links' with the probabilistic Dilution Model (which estimates the number of days an aquatic
concern concentration is exceeded) and the endangered species database.
n. Tool Users , ,
EPA Headquarters (OPPTS, OPPT, EETD, Exposure Assessment Branch).
III. Tool Development
The Exposure Assessment Branch acquired the data elements used to develop the system from
standard OW mainframe databases and the U.S. Geological Survey's database. , .
IV. Special Requirements for Use .,
IBM AT Compatible PC with sufficient storage space.
X& Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
No limits.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts , '.'''''..-''.
Sid Abel Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, OPPT, Economics Exposure and
Technology Division, Exposure Assessment Branch, (202) 260-3920 ,
38
-------
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES COUNTY LOCATION REFERENCE
L Tool Description [ . ; V
It is EPA policy that Programs and Regions comply with the letter and spirit of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) (refer to Administrator Browner memos of October, 1993 and 1994). In order for EPA
to comply with ESA Section 7, staff and management must know,whether listed species exist within the
effective range of any given action. This tabular database, maintained by the Office of Pesticides Programs,
was updated in 1994 in cooperation with Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation and the Endangered
Species Coordinating Committee. The revision is complete and is being distributed to Regions and
Headquarters Program Offices.
H. Tool Development . .
The project was completed in 1991/92 by a contractor to meet an agency need and support ecological
objectives within ,OPPE and the Agency (e.g. Habitat Cluster). The project's EPA manager initially
identified the need for this reference. -_.."_' ; : M
ra Tool use ;
This reference is complete and has been "sold out" since soon after its availability; 50 completed
copies and 150 summaries have been distributed, many to EPA Regions. This is a ready reference which
has seen successful use in many applications both within EPA and at state and private levels. Much positive
feedback; requests still being made. ; I , ,
IV. . Special Requirements for Use ' ,;
Technical/legal familiarity with the ESA. > ;
V. Program/Regional Transferability
In its current form, this tool is directly usable by all programs, Regional Offices, and across all
'media.' " ,''.'-; .'."' . : '-" '"..':''' ;-. . . .-.',' " V
VI. . Other Information , .'- , , . | ' . ,
This dataset will be continually updated by OPP and verified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
appropriate use is cautioned due to legal constraints.. f
VII. Contact Persons '
Molly Whitworth Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy Analysis, Water Policy
Branch, (202) 206-7561
Larry Turner
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticides
Programs, (202) 305-5007 i i '
39
-------
40 '
-------
HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
DATA COLLECTION, MEASUREMENT AND
ASSESSMENT TOOLS
41
-------
-------
ADVANCE IDENTIFICATION OF DISPOSAL AREAS (ADID)
L. Tool Description
Advance Identification of Disposal Areas (ADID) is an advance planning process under which EPA,
in cooperation with the Army Corps of Engineers, and after consultation with the State, may identify wetlands
and other waters which are either generally suitable or unsuitable for the discharge of dredged or fill material
prior to the receipt of a Section 404 permit application.
The ADID process generally involves the collection and distribution of site-specific information on
the functions and values of wetlands areas. This information provides the local community with information
on the wetland areas that may be affected by their activities as well as a preliminary indication of the factors
which are likely to be considered during review of a Section 404 permit application.
The ADID process is intended to add predictability to the wetlands pennittuig process as well as to
better account for the impacts of wetlands losses from multiple projects within a geographic area. The
process also informs the local population of .the values and functions of wetlands in their area, and generates
information valuable for other purposes. As of December 1992V there were 35 completed ADID projects,
and 36 are ongoing. " '
IL
III.
Tool Users
States and localities. This process is most useful in the preparation of local development plans.
Tool Development
Under Section 230.80 of the Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines, EPA and the Section 404 permitting
authority can act jointly to identify aquatic sites likely to be generally suitable or unsuitable for all or certain
types of discharge. .
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Selection of sites for ADID should take into account the ecological and societal values associated
with the site, and the threat(s) to the site.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv .
Data collected through the ADID process can be useful in more comprehensive watershed/regional
planning efforts. ;
VI. Other Information S
ADID development can be resource intensive, and funds available for the process are limited.,
VII. Program Contacts j . ,
JohnEttinger Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans pd Watersheds, Wetlands
Division, (202) 260-1190
43
-------
ADVANCED TECHNIQUES SUPPORT FOR USING SATELLITE AND
AERIAL EARTH OBSERVATION DATA ,
L, Tool Description ,
OPPE has been playing a major role in interagency efforts for developing new techniques for
applying satellite and aerial-based remote sensing data to a variety of ecological, studies. The project
involves a detailed comparative analysis of a variety of current civilian, military and commercial aerial and
satellite sensor systems and their potential applicability for use in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. The
project is also conducting research to determine the recommended spatial and spectral resolution, and
temporal parameters such as optimal data acquisition time(s) for making measurements.. Programmatic links
through the conduct of this project provide an interface to the technology agencies such as NASA
Commercial Remote Sensing Program, the DOE Advanced Remote Sensing Research Office, and DOD
Environmental Program, and to the remote sensing applications groups within the mission agencies such as
EPA, USGS, USFS, NBS, COE, SCS and USFWS.
IL. Tool Users ''_'-'
The actual techniques identified or developed under this effort are intended for use by ecosystem or
resource managers who need to map or monitor ecosystems. The results of' the investigations are intended
for use by policy analysts, ecosystem project managers and decision makers to augment their ground data
collection efforts. The results are also useful for any ecosystem manager contemplating the use of wide-area
assessment tools such as satellite imagery or aerial photography. .
v, _ - i '-
' - ' , - I
III. Tool Development
This work was initiated in FY94 and is slated to continue beyond FY95. The initial major sponsor
of this effort is the DOD Environmental Program, in support, of studying the de-classification issue of
intelligence system data. DOD funded the effort for FY94 only; an Environmental Technology Initiative
proposal is pending to continue the funding of this effort. ETI funding would link:the results from the
FGDC study, the DOD study and add a commercial component via the NASA Commercial Remote Sensing
Program. If ecosystem managers are to use the new generation of high resolution "sntallsats" that various
international and commercial entities have proposed to.launch within the next 2-5 years, it is necessary that
we conduct our feasibility studies to determine their value to ecosystem analyses.
TV. Special Requirements for Use
The most difficult requirement for the use of remote sensing data is the need for skilled personnel
to process and interpret the data. While the cost of image processing software now is very reasonable (under
S10K for "turn key" systems) and the "cost of obtaining data is getting more affordable with increased
competition and miniaturization of sensor systems. However, the technical skills required in this area
typically take years to acquire. Ecosystem managers should learn the basics so that they can be an informed
buyer of contracted support. Also, it is useful to work with other agencies to share the critical personnel
resources and defray the costs of the study. '
..." ''T ,
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabfilitv ,
The remote sensing techniques identified or developed in these projects can be used for making
terrestrial and aquatic earth observations anywhere. Specific observables include vegetation and surface
geomorphological (including hydrological) characterization, soil moisture and microtopography (very high
precision terrain relief mapping). Atmospheric and oceanographic sensing techniques are NOT within the
scope of these investigations. , .
44
-------
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Elizabeth D. Porter
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Strategic Planning and
Environmental Data, Environmental Results Branch, (202) 260-6129
45
-------
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
Ii Tool Description
When analyzed by skilled photo interpreters yields information on the location and distribution of
natural and cultural resources on the earth's surface, and the change in these resources over time due to
natural or man-made impacts. The tool 'is in continuous use in support of on-going EPA programs including:
water, hazardous waste, and environmental assessment programs; enhancements to this tool by converting
it to digital format are planned. This will make the tool suitable for use in Geographic Information Systems
(GIS) and other spatial data analysis systems. .
IL Tool Users .
The intended and actual users of this tool and products/services derived from the use of the tool are
EPA regional and program offices, particularly the water, hazardous waste management, and EMAP program
offices.
The tool is used to provide the EPA offices the following products and services: fully-illustrated,
site-specific photo analysis reports containing aerial photographs and image analysis overlays; emergency
response through the documentation of events and conditions using new aerial photographs; enforcement
support in the form of expert image analyst witness testimony to support EPA cases; courtroom* documents
in the form of aerial photos illustrating site conditions; thematic maps made from aerial photo analysis
showing the location and distribution of topographic maps; accurate measurements (using photogrammetry)
of dimensions of features such as heights, depths, volumes of material, etc.. ,
Within the EPA the tool has been used for the past twenty years. Regular feedback has been
received from our EPA customers both formally and informally. With, each aerial photo analysis report we
include a return addressed critique sheet requesting the customer to rate the product on quality, and
timeliness of delivery for meeting their needs.
HI, Tool Development
This tool was originally developed back in themid-1800's, but has undergone substantial
improvements over the years. Initially available as a black & white image only, natural color, and b&w
infrared, and color infrared have also come into use and increased the ability of man to see beyond the
visible spectrum seen by the naked eye. .
The tool, originally developed by private industry, has evolved substantially through the needs of
the military for reconnaissance, mapping, and military intelligence gathering purposes. Within EPA the tool
is used by EPA and support contractor staff who are multidisciplined natural resource scientists. These
scientists are involved in enhancing the use of the tool through the acquisition and use of new equipment for
making accurate measurements on aerial photographs (photogrammetry), and for converting the tool to digital
form for use in computerized spatial data analysis systems. ,
Within EPIC, approximately 10 government FTE, and 30 contractor staff.use the tool and related-
technology, and about $4,000,000 is spent annually to.develop and apply the tool to EPA's needs.
The use of this tool is continually being improved, i.e., improved hardware and software for
maximizing the information which can be extracted from the photographs and improved derivation products
and services to meet changing customer needs. There is a need to upgrade and/or evaluate new technology
46
-------
when it comes on line, to ensure that the use of th<; technology is maximized for meeting EPA's
requirements. - : " ; '.'> .-' //.''
IV. Special Requirements for Use ! . -'-
The use of this tool requires skilled professional scientists trained in the field of remote sensing and
image analysis. Natural resources scientists in the fields of biology, botany, geology,-geography, ecology,
and other fields normally provide a multi-disciplined approach to the use of the technology. They are natural
resources scientists first, who require special academic and professional training in the field of remote
sensing including image processing and image analysis, specifically aerial photo interpretation. The tool also
requires the use of specialized equipment such as.variable illumination light tables, zoom stereoscopes, and
photogrammetric measuring devices. If converted to the digital realm the use of the tool can be maximized
through the application of image processing software and hardware, and integration of the tool into spatial
analysis .systems such as GIS. Alsoy related professional and technical skills needed to maximize the use of
the technology include photbgrammetrists, cartographers, computer scientists, and GIS specialists, as well
as those knowledgeable of global positioning arid georectification. ;
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv .
The tool is especially a cross-media tool which has broad application to v/ater, land, and air program
needs. The tool has traditionally arid is currently used to .support a wide variety of EPA programs. Being
a spatial (geographic) tool with variable scale it has use from very detailed site-specific applications to the
broader regional and even global applications. :'.'
VI. Other Information .
The aerial photograph has great flexibility as an ecosystem management tool. It is one of the few
tools and may be the only tool available) which show ecosystems as they exist today, and through historical
records, how they looked up to fifty years in thepast. F|or this reason it is an excellent change detection
tool for illustrating both natural and man:made impacts on environments and ecosystems, and for
documenting baseline conditions at a specific point in time and space and to assess future change.
VII. Program Contact V .."'. ,
Donald Garofalo ORD, EMSL-LV/Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC),
environmental monitormg and assessment programs (703) 342-7503
47
-------
ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTIES AND VARIABILITY IN
WILDLIFE TOXICITY DATA
i
I. Tool Description
This assessment of the uncertainty and variability hi wildlife toxicity data will be prepared so that
it can Be consulted to determine appropriate extrapolation factors when the effepts of chemicals on wildlife
species are an important stressor to consider in carrying out an ecological risk assessment.
: . , _ /,'«'
IL Tool Users
EPA Program offices (e.g. OW, OSWER, OPPT); other Federal Agencies (U.S.Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce); State, local, and Tribal
governments
BL Tool Development
The Office of Water began this effort in FY 92 with limited funds and is currently seeking
approximately $40K in additional funding to complete the project and prepare a guidance manual.
It is hoped that a guidance document (and a scientific paper prepared for publication in a peer-
reviewed journal) will be prepared by the end of FY95. If adequate funds can be found, the guidance
manual can include separate chapters describing its use within the Agencies different program offices.
IV. Special Requirements for I'se
None. , .
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
This tool has no programmatic or geographic limitations in its application.
VI, Other Information
VII, Program Contacts -
Cynthia L. Nolt Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, (202) 260-1940
48
-------
COMPUTER APPLICATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT TARGETING
FOR ECOSYSTEM PROTECTION
L Tool Description
This set of tools consist of several different computer applications for geographic targeting to focus
pollution prevention and enforcement activities on the protection of ecologically sensitive areas. The purpose
of these tools is to geographically assess the potential impacts of EPA regulated facilities on sensitive
ecological areas. These computer applications will help identify facilities for source reduction/technical
assistance, multimedia inspections, and compliance activities.
The tool consist of three types of computer applications:
use of ARC/INFO GIS computer software for mapping and spatial analysis;
the retrieval and formatting of EPA program data sets for use in GIS applications;
x air and water diffusion modeling to determine the extent of dispersion of key contaminants within
the environment. , . ^
... .. . ' .-' ' ' ! ''' ,' '' ''.,-.. '
IL Tool Users ' " - ' '"',/.' _~ ..- .' -' . ; i .<'..''-''.,'' .;. '
This enforcement targeting tool will be used by EPA Regional Office and perhaps State enforcement
staff to assist in developing an enforcement and compliance assistance agenda. Once the tool is developed, .
Regional Office staff will be able to log on from their PCs and retrieve information from EPA's program
databases on the agency's mainframe computer. This information will be automatically reformatted into a
spatial/mapping configuration for use with currently available ARC/INFO software.
Once the computer applications are all in place EPA will sponsor one or more application
development workshops to obtain feedback on the quality of the applications and map products.
III. Tool Development ~ ';.- , ; >
This set of tools is in the process of being developed. The idea for .the tool originated from the
Edgewater Consensus meeting in March 1994 as a way to focus EPA problems and activities in geographic
.-places.-. '.. -."'.'./.' .' ';"".'.:, '.' ', '''.-''' ': . ' . ... " :.
The tool is being developed by a ^contractor(contract #68-Wl-0055; delivery order #65) through a
joint funding project between the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE) and the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assistance (OECA). Cost for development of the tool and map production
is currently at $260,000. , , ..'./ .'<,-''
IV. Special Requirements for Use ;
.'-',. There are no special requirement for use for this tool. Currently all EPA Regional Offices have
ARC/INFO application software. There will be no cost to users.
V. Program/Media/Geopraphic Tramsferability
Since these tools are being designed for multi-media analysis, it can be :used by any EPA program,
for any media, or any geographic area. ; -',
VI. Program Contacts
Tom Born Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental
Data, Strategic Plannhig and Management Division, (202) 260-4905
49
-------
CONSTRUCTION OF AQUATIC-BASED FOOD WEBS
L Tool Description
Ecological risk assessments are becoming more widely accepted and incorporated into the programs
of EPA and other Federal agencies. As Agencies and offices attempt to extrapolate the impacts of
contaminants to higher-trophic level consumers, quantification of exposures of higher-level consumers is an
essential element in assessing the impacts of chemical stressors on wildlife species. This tool provides a
compilation of the quantitative exposure parameters of wildlife species and estimations of their trophic levels
and the variability associated with these estimates.
H. Tool Users . . .
EPA Program offices (e.g. OW, OSWER, OPPT); other Federal Agencies (U:S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Commerce); State, local, and Tribal
governments.
HI. Tool Development
This Office of Water effort grew out of the joint OW, ORD, OSWER preparation of the EPA
document: Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (EPA/600/R-93/187a&b).
It is hoped that a guidance document will be prepared by the end of FY95 which will present the
information compiled and appropriate extrapolation techniques! If adequate funds can be found, the guidance
manual will include separate chapters describing its use within the Agencies different program offices.
IV, Special Requirements for Use
None.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
This tool provides some of the essential information to derive wildlife criteria appropriate for
different geographic areas. ' '
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Cynthia L. Nolt Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, (202) 260-1940
50
-------
CULTURE AND TOST METHODS
L Tool Description
A variety of culture and test methods have been developed for representative bay and estuarine fish
and invertebrates species. Most, but not all, have been published in ASTM, official EPA methods manuals
that support the NPDES Permitting process, the California Water Plan methods manual, and others are
published in scientific journals. ~ -
IL Tool Users ;
Intended and actual users are mainly government and industry representatives. The tools are used
to determine (a) if an effluent may pose an environmental risk, (b) what concentrations of toxic
chemicals/pesticides may be harmful to individual organisms, populations, and/or communities, (c) determine
the cause of environmental deterioration, etc. -
Feedback has been positive. .
Additional test methods/procedures are needed to determine effects of effluents on reproductive
processes in fish and invertebrates. Indicator species should be available, along with testing protocols for
Arctic/sub-arctic estuaries and near shore environments; e.g., Prince Williani Sound, Alaska; Barents Sea,
Russia. \
III. Tool Development
This is an on-going process. These tools were/are developed mainly in-house with assistance from
university cooperators. ;
TV. Special Requirements for Use ~ ,',
Needs depend on the specific method(s) and organism(s) used. ;
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Transferrable to the extent that the test species are; representative of the area of interest, or
interspecies correlations exist. ,
VI. Other Information . '-I
EPA's Gulf Breeze laboratory studies ecosystem processes in order to understand and solve near-
coastal environmental problems resulting from toxic chemicals, pesticides, pathogens, and introduced
organisms. ' - , , .
- -. 'Y ' > - ' -.' ' v; ' " '' " , -",
VII. Program Contact ' \
Dr. Douglas Middaugh ORD, Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research; ERL - Gulf
Breeze, Fl., (904) 934-9310
-------
CWA SECTION 106 GUIDANCE FOR WATER QUALITY MONITORING
L Tool Description , , ,
The CWA Section 106 Guidance for Water Quality Monitoring was developed to promote and
support EPA's multi-year State monitoring strategy. The overall monitoring strategy includes monitoring
for the purposes of 1) determining status arid trends, 2) identifying causes and sources of problems and
ranking them in priority order, 3) designing and implementing water management programs, 4) determining
compliance and program effectiveness, and 5) responding to emergencies. The multi-year State monitoring
strategy called for in the Section 106 guidance will bring the agency's State partners into this multi-scale
framework. " '. .' , ' '
The Secion 106 Guidance is a key tool in GW's efforts to work with agency partners to improve the
water quality monitoring across the country and meet a number of monitoring program, goals, including:
monitoring more of our waters, but do so more cost-effectively by employing monitoring techniques
appropriate to the condition of and goals for,the water;
greater comparability hi monitoring parameters and methods; . - -:'
reporting of water quality using common indicators to measure our progress toward meeting our
agreed-upon water quality goals;
working more closely and share information more easily with our many public and private
monitoring partners. __ . "
The 106 guidance supports all these efforts, and is a tool that can be effectively used in working with
States to revitalize monitoring programs and report core information in a comparable fashion.
IL Tool Users
State and Regional monitoring agencies. .
III. Tool Development
The Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD) in the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds, has worked on this guidance with members of the Intergovernmental Task Force, on Monitoring
Water Quality, whose framework for water quality monitoring programs this incorporates j and also with
members of the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators. AWPD has
worked with individual State staff, with Regional Monitoring Coordinators, Water Quality Branch Chiefs
and Field Branch Chiefs, and members of various water programs within the Office of Water.
IV. Special Requirements for Use -
Regions will need to work with States; States will need to have personnel available to develop the
strategy and implement it.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Transferable nationwide; aspects of it can be used for all water monitoring activities.
VI. Other Information ,
VII, Program Contacts
Mary Belefski Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans arid Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, (202) 260-7061
'": ' . ' - 52 '-.' "'' " '"'. : ' '.'". .'.-'.',- " '. ",
-------
EMAP'S ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS FOR AQUATIC SYSTEMS
" " ... . .^ ^ ^ ^ ^ , t
L Tool Description " .
Ecological Indicators for Aquatic systems of biological integrity for lakes, streams, and wetlands are
being developed as part of the EMAP Surface Waters program. These indicators have their basis in the
concepts of the RBPs developed by the Office of Water and are refinements of the same approach.
Reference conditions will be defined for ecoregions across the country as a yardstick against which to
compare results of monitoring efforts by the regions and states. ;
IL Tool Users _ v
The indicators have been evaluated in EPA Regions I & n for lakes arid Regions HI, IV, VII, VIII,
IX, and X for streams. Wetland indicators are being developed for the Prairie Pothole area in the upper
midwest. :
III. Tool Development .: .. ; . ;
The total cost to develop the protocols to date has been approximately 2 million dollars.
FV. Special Requirements for Use , i
Minimal training in field biology is required to use the field protocols.-|
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability ,
Intentions are to define the indicators for each region but have them available for the entire United
...States. '. ' '. ' - '"..' ''' ''. : i-'"'. '--'..,'
' - ' ' , ' ' . V . ' ' ', - . .-
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts , .
Steve Paulsen, ORD, Envuronmental Research Laboratory - Corvallis, (503) 754-4428
53
-------
ECOREGIONS
|. Tool Description
A hierarchial framework of ecological regions has been developed for the continental United States.
Two hierarchial levels have been mapped for the U.S., and more detailed maps depicting a third level of
regions, boundary transition widths, and locations of sets of regional stream "reference sites" have been
prepared for some States and ecoregions. These ecoregions are based on patterns of combinations of
geographic characteristics that cause or reflect spatial differences in the quality and quantity of ecosystems
and their components. The approach is similar to that developed hi Canada to compile a small-scale map
of Ecological Areas of the two countries. Development of a complete map of North American Ecological
Areas (to include Mexico) is underway.
The intended use is to provide spatial structure for the .research, assessment, management, and
monitoring of ecosystems and their components. Need for the framework exists at all .scales. Immediate
applications of the North American Ecological Areas map include regionalizing North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) decisions that may have an effect on environmental quality, and evaluating the
representativeness of "protected areas" internationally, particularly in ecological regions that cross
international boundaries. .
H. Tool Users
This tool was originally developed to provide a mechanism to allow state and regional water quality
resource managers to structure their regulatory programs more effectively, (in tune with the regional
tolerances and resiliency of the environment), the maps provide a critically needed means to effectively set
goals and strategies for managing ecosystems at all scales,
°» . . i ...
Continued collaboration with state and regional resource management agencies in development and
refinement of the regions at all scales, and clarification of ecoregion boundary transition widths, is necessary
to meet the programmatic needs of state and national resource management agencies.
Tool Development
The underlying scientific 'basis for the EPA ecoregion approach as been widely reviewed and
accepted. The original ecoregion map and explanatory text appeared in the Annals of the Association of
American Geographers in 1987. More than fifteen papers on the approach and its evaluation and application
have appeared in the peer review literature. The EPA Science Advisory Board reviewed the program in the
1991 Report on Evaluation of the Ecoregion Concept and strongly endorsed the approach stating, "The
Ecoregion Concept is a defensible classification technique for large areas that is superior to the classification
methods that are currently being used by most environmental managers". They added that it is "one of the
few techniques available to address ecological issues on a broad regional and global scale that is needed to
reduce ecological risk". The total cost (EPA salary and extramural support) to develop the ecoregion maps
to their current state is approximately $1,500,000. , , .," . K
IV. Special Requirements for Use
No special requirements required for use. .''--,
V, Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv .
There are existing and potential uses for mis tool on an international, national, regional, and local
level. . ' ' . ' ,
54
-------
VI. Other Information
One of the strengths of the ecoregion framework lies in the spatial consistency in its development,
and therefore, usefulness across political boundaries. This allows management agencies to share one
another's ecoregional reference site information and to calibrate sampling methods by natural rather than
political region. Because the regipns are based on spatial coexistence1 in a combination of landscape
characteristics, with the relative importance of each characteristic varying from one region to another, careful
coordination in the development of the framework is imperative. ERL-Corvallis has coordinated the effort
to prevent creation of a less usefuLpatchwork quilt-type map, such as those developed by multiple authors
each with'their regional and subject bias. -
VII. Program Contacts V
James Omernick ORD, Environmental Research Liiboratory-Corvallis, (503) 754-4458
55-
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (OVERALL PROGRAM)
L Tool Description
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is an innovative rhultiagency
monitoring assessment and research program designed and organized to provide decision-makers with
reliable, scientifically-sound data and integrated ecological risk assessments on which to base environmental
and risk management decisions. EMAP provides a framework for collaboration among 17 Federal agencies.;
n. Tool Users
EPA Regional offices, states, local agencies, public, NGOs, and other Federal agencies. EMAP has
been providing reports and scientific techniques since FY 1991. States and National Estuary Programs for
instance have adapted our monitoring design and methods to save themselves tune and money. The scientific
community has reviewed our accomplishments. For instance, the,American Statistical Association's (ASA)
Section on Statistics and the Environment presented Distinguished Achievement Awards to three EMAP
statisticians for their environmental monitoring design and statistics efforts. . .
III. Tool Development '
EMAP's development responds directly to the Agency's Science Advisory. Board's 1988 and 1990
recommendations that the Agency initiate a program to monitor and assess ecological status and trends,
develop ecological indicators and provide data and analytical methods that support comparative ecological
risk assessment. ,
EMAP continues to conduct research through demonstration projects across the nation to monitor
and assess the condition of biogeographic provinces and ecosystems. The Program is participating in an
integrated ecological assessment of the MidrAtlantic Highlands region. Intensive research efforts to refine
the use of biological and ecological indicators, information management, methods, sampling design and other
integrating components of the program continue. The Agency is maintaining the quality of EMAP science
as the Program proceeds. < ,
The EMAP was developed by EPA's Office of Research and Development in conjunction with
participating Federal agencies (from the Departments of Agriculture, the Interior, Energy and others).
EMAP's budget hi Fiscal Year 1994 was 39.3 FTE and $37.1 million extramural. '
IV. Special Requirements for Use .
EMAP products are available to resource managers, decision makers and the scientific community
and are designed for these clients, with consideration of their background and needs. No special requirements
are needed. -
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
This tool is highly transferable. ''-- :
VI. Other Information ; /
Most notable FY 1994 accomplishments of value to the states and regions: ,
Assisted the Tampa Bay National Estuary "Program (NEP) and the Galveston Bay National Estuary
Program in the design of monitoring systems using EMAP technology. This saved them from the costly task
of developing a monitoring design.
5.6
-------
.; ' Aided the Alabama Department of Environmental Management in developing a state-wide estuarine
monitoring plan. Their plan is based on the EMAP-Estuaries Louisianian Province design.
Assisted and acted as a catalyst for the development of a collaborative and cooperative effort that
created a regional monitoring partnership,in the Southern California Bight.
Three of the ten EPA Regions have used EMAP-Estuaries protocols and its design to evaluate
estuarine condition under projects in the Regional EMAP.
Six of the ten EPA Regions have used EMAP protocols and its design to evaluate lake and stream
condition under projects in the Regional EMAP. -
The State of Delaware conducted a survey of streams using EMAP-Surface Waters biological
protocols and probability design and obtained new and different results by using the EMAP design.
Most notable FY 1994 accomplishments of value to the Agency's Regulatory Program Offices:
/ EMAP-Estuaries and Surface Waters conduct analyses for pesticidal, organic, and metal compounds.
Data is provided on pesticides found in sediments, fish anil shellfish tissue. EMAP activities provide aquatic
effects monitoring data arid information, such as describing conditions of Northeastern lakes and evaluating
responses of Northeastern lakes and Mid-Atlantic Highlands streams toacidic precipitation.
EMAP developed indicators of ecological condition and indicator protocols for aquatic life use
support and fish and shellfish consumption. Data was provided for the 1994 305(b) Report to Congress.
Guidance was provided on designing cost-effective projects for sampling procedures and monitoring
techniques of ambient conditions in lakes, streams, and wetlands.
EMAP is making the most of available resources through partnership agreements. We continue to
refine the usage of indicators,,biological and chemical methods, information management, and statistical
sampling design to improve the monitoring and assessment of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems capabilities.
VII. Program Contact
R.L. Linthurst, Ph.D.
ORD, EMAP Center (MD-75), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, (919)
541-4909
,57
-------
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING APPROACH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA FOR METALS: Lead, Nickel, Zinc, Copper,
! Cadmium
L. Tool Description
This tool outlines the theory, 'research, assumptions, and uncertainties behind the equilibrium
partitioning theory as it applies to divalent cationic metals evaluating sediments and deriving sediment quality
criteria. The method provides for the evaluation of any sediment for its potential impact on benthic
organisms by the five divalent cationic metals: lead, nickel, zinc, copper, and cadmium.
\ ' ,''''..
The methodology is applicable to the five metals (lead, nickel, zinc, copper, cadmium) in any
sediment. It allows the comparison of sediment toxicity due to these metals across sediment types by
accounting for the bioavailability of the metals in the sediment.
fl. Tool Users
This methodology is designed for use by Region and State surface water regulators in the NPDES
program. Is also being used by industry, public, and environmental groups to evaluate sites.
III. Tool Development , ,
The methodology is being presented to the EPA Science Advisory Board in January, 1995. Their
recommendations will be incorporated and research needs addressed before advancing the method to draft
criteria documents). , ,
Resources: Development of the proposed method required the involvement of five EPA
Environmental Research Laboratories, two contractors and several subs, and four universities over
approximately 7 years. EPA (Headquarters and Labs) FTE's: 2/year
Extramural: 300K/year ,
IV. SpecialTRequirements for Use ; '
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The method has been picked up by Superfund arid RCRA to assist with site evaluation and
determination of remediation alternatives. It is intended for use in the Dredging Program as well.
VI. Other Information
' ' t * t '
VII. Program Contacts
Mary C, Reiley Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, (202) 260-9456
58 '
-------
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING APPROACH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEDIMENT
QUALITY CRITERIA FOR NON-IONIC ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS FOR THE
PROTECTION OF BENTfflC ORGANISMS
(TECHNICAL BASIS DOCUMENT)
i ; , ; _ ' :
' ~ , '* - ! ..-'"'
L Tool Description '
This tool outlines the theory, research, assumptions, and uncertainties behind the equilibrium
partitioning theory and how
it applies to evaluating sediments and deriving sediment quality criteria. The method provides for the
evaluation of any sediment for its potential impact on benthic organisms by non-ionic organic contaminants.
This ecological risk assessment methodology is broadly applicable to non-ionic organic contaminants
in any sediment with total organic carbpn. greater than 0.2%. It allows the comparison of sediment toxi'city
across sediment types by accounting for the bioavailability of the contaminant of concern in the sediment.
IL Tool Users
The tool is designed for use by Region and State surface water regulators in the NPDES program.
It is also being used by industry, the general public, and environmental groups to evaluate sites.
III. Tool Development
Status: The method was made available for public comment in January, 1994. Public comment
ended in June 1994; comments have been compiled and. responses are being prepared. Anticipate final
document in approximately 1 year. .
". ' ' - ' ' ' > - ': ' '"'!' '"~ :- : '.'
Development of the method required the involvement of five EPA Environmental Research
Laboratories, two contractors and several subs, and four universities over approximately 7 years. EPA
(Headquarters and Labs) FTE's: 2/year Extramural: 200K/year.
IV. Special Requirements'for Use . -
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The method has been picked-up by the Superfuhd and RCRA programs to assist with site evaluation
and the determination of remediation alternatives. The tool also is intended to be used in the Dredging
Program as well. i
VT. Other Information - ,
VII. Program Contacts '."...
Mary C. Reiley Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, (202) 260-9456
59
-------
GUIDANCE FOR STATE WATER MONITORING AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION
PROGRAMS, EPA 440/4-85-031, October 1985.
' - i
L, Tool Description
The first part of the document outlines the objectives of the water monitoring program to conduct
assessments and make necessary control' decisions. The second part describes the process of identifying and
calculating total maximum daily loads and waste load allocations for point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
H« Tool Users 7
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases
assisted in their testing. . .
Tool Development ''.'"
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based
controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish priorities for these waters based on the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for
the particular waterbody or segment thereof. Since 1983, the primary impetus for developing the guidance
is the need to provide the technical and management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements
and Agency programmatic priorities. Thus the guidance focused first on conventional pollutants, then toxics
and now nonpoint sources and other wet weather discharges. .
IV. Special Requirements for Use ,
None. Readability depends on the topics covered.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv " . :
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information
The TMDL process is the back bone of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint
sources and background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and sediment).
The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to
examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect of different
strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals water quality standards. The TMDLs
maximize real environmental gams and minimize the need for unnecessary regulation;.
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
"» " " * '" - -''' "
yil. Program Contacts , . :
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330
60
-------
GULF OF MEXICO ESTUARINE ASSESSMENT TOOLS
s -- - -: ' ; ; - ', . - ' ' - ' '"-'
L ; Tool Description , I .
A1 variety of diagnostic tools have been used during'the past two years to assess the ecological
condition of estuaries in the Gulf of Mexico. Tools include a combination of laboratory and field assessment
methods that monitor the responses of single species, populations and communities of plants, animals and
invertebrates to point and non-point source pollutants. Standard and innovative structural and functional
community end-points are being evaluated, as well as biochemical, histopatholpgfcal,and immunological
biomarkers. The diagnostic techniques and assessment protocol developed in this research program will be
used by State, Federal and U.S.EPA regional offices to manage the natural resources associated with Gulf
of Mexico nearshore areas. , . s
- ' ," ",' i ' - . ." . --""'',
'" \ ' ' -''"',.' ' ''-,''''
II. Tool Users ,-.'/'
The ecological assessment tools and associated protocol will be used by U.S.EPA Regional and
Program Offices and regional state environmental departments to conduct watershed and regional risk
assessments for coastal nearshore areas. An advisory committee has been assembled which provides annual
input on research progress, results and future direction. Title Committee consists of Federal, state, academic
and industrial representatives. : t i
III. Tool Development i .
Ecological assessment of several geographic areas; in the Gulf of Mexico has been in progress for
two years. This research was initiated due to the belief that the ecological condition of Gulf of Mexico
estuaries is deteriorating although scientific evidence for this conclusion is scattered and sometimes
inconsistent. The usefulness of the protocol would be enhanced by applying it to additional geographic
areas, particularly reference estuaries. The lack of a Validated and pragmatic estuarine assessment protocol
for these estuaries contributes to the uncertainty of-the extent and cause(s) of the deterioration.
-------
HANDBOOK - STREAM SAMPLING FOR WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION APPLICATIONS,
EPA 625/6-86/013, September 1986.
L Tool Description ,
Provides guidance on the development of wasteload allocations, including the design of stream
surveys to support modeling applications for waste load allocations. It describes the data collection process
for model support, and it shows how models can be used to help stream surveys. In general, the handbook
is for field personnel on the relationship between sampling and modeling requirements.
fl. Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases
assisted in theirtesting.
HI. Tool Development
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based
controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish priorities for these waters based on the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for
the particular waterbody or segment thereof. Since 1983, the primary impetus for developing the guidance
is the need to provide the technical and management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements
and Agency programmatic priorities. Thus the guidance focused first on conventional pollutants, then toxics
and now nonpoint sources and other wet weather discharges.
IV. Special Requirements for t'se
None. Readability depends on the topics covered.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems.
VI, Other Information
The TMDL process is the back bone of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint
sources and background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and sediment).
The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to
examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect of different
strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals' water quality standards. The TMDLs
maximize real environmental gains and minimize the need for unnecessary regulation..
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
VII. Program Contacts .'.', '".,.'
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330 , 1
62
-------
THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) AND SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS
L Tool Description i .
The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is the primary screening tool for determining whether a site is
to be included on the National Priorities List (NPL). An HRS score for a site is determined by evaluating
four pathways (e.g., ground water migration, surface waiter migration, soil exposure, and air migration).
The HRS was published as a Federal regulation on December 14, 1990 (55 Federal Register 51532).
The HRS evaluates environmental threat in all pathways except ground water for a specified set of
sensitive environments that meet certain criteria. Sensitive environments include: those defined by statute
(e.g., National Parks, Designated Federal Wilderness Areas); and those sites that meet a particular
classification (e.g., spawning areas critical for the maintenance of fish/shellfish species, habitat known to
be used by a proposed Federal endangered species) or statutory definition (e.g., wetlands) but are not
delineated by statute. ! i
II. Tool Development
The Federal Register rule resulted from the Superftind Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
of 1986, -. . ; ';;. '.:. / ' v ; : _,.'...; . '. ' . ' .' -...
III. Tool Users " -.'" - . ' :' -, ' '
People who prepare or review HRS packages. !
IV. Special Requirements for Use
HRS course training:
", V. Program/Media/Geographic TransferaBilitv
Transferability unknown.
VI. Other Information
The Hazard Ranking System Guidance Manual (EPA540-R-92-026/OSWER Directive 9345.1-07)
provides general and technical guidance for individuals involved hi determining HRS scores and preparing
HRS scoring packages. Appendix A of this Manual pertaining to sensitive environments contains working
definitions of all the sensitive environments listed in HRS Tables 4-23 ,and 5-5, as well as wetlands.
VII. Program Contacts :
Youlanda Ting Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, (703) 603-8835
Sharon Frey Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, (703) 603-8817
63
-------
INLAND TESTING MANUAL FOR EVALUATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL
]L Tool Description .
This document provides guidance on evaluating contaminated dredged material for discharge in open
water. The tiered testing framework provided in the document is designed to evaluate both the human health
and ecosystem impacts of discharging contaminated dredged material into fresh water bodies, estuaries, and
near coastal waters. Mixing zone models are also provided for instantaneous discharge of dredged material.
The final guidance is expected to be completed by April, 1995.
H. Tool Users .
Managerial ^and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel.
IIIr Tool Development ,,
More than ten Federal statutes provide authority to many EPA program offices to address the
problem of contaminated sediment. This resulted in fragmented, and in some cases contradictory or
duplicative efforts to evaluate and manage, contaminated sediments. EPA developed the Contaminated
Sediment Management Strategy to streamline decision-making within and among EPA's program offices by
promoting and ensuring the use of consistent sediment assessment practice, consistent consideration of risks
posed by contaminated sediment, the use of consistent approaches to management of contaminated sediment
risks, and the wise use of scarce resources for research and technology development.
IV, Special Requirements for Use ,
None.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Applicable to other media and a wide range of ecosystems.
Contaminated sediment poses ecological and human health risks in many watersheds throughout the
United States. Sediments serve as a contaminant reservoir from which fish and bottom dwelling organisms
can accumulated toxic compounds and pass them up the food chain until they accumulate to levels that may
be toxic to humans*. Significant ecological impacts are also reported at contaminated sediment sites,
including impairment of reproductive capacity, and impacts to the structure and health of benthic and other
aquatic communities. '
VI. Other Information
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost. , ;
VII. Program Contacts
Tom Armitage Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-5388
64
-------
INTEGRATED ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION NETWORK ,
L Tool Description
The Integrated Atmospheric Deposition Network is designed to assess the status and trends of
atmospheric deposition on the Great Lakes. To" collect this data, the project establishes a series of
atmospheric deposition monitoring stations in the Great Lakes, with one master station assigned to each lake.
The United States is responsible for operating three master monitoring stations and Canada operates two
stations iri the remaining lakes. Data from all five stations will then be combined for an overview of the
entire Great Lakes area.
. - - - - , " ' - --. ':. ' ' . '-! ' ;-. ' ' '" , --
IL Tool Users
Users of this'information include EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) and State
officials. , i;'... /'...':'.,.
III. Tool Development
This network was mandated by the US - Canada Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (Annex 15)
and a deadline was set for the first site on each lake in the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA). i
In fiscal year 1993, the Office of Air Quality Planning Standards (OAQPS) devoted $900,000 to this
project (this project was a specific budget item for OAR and,GLNPO in 1993). In fiscal year 1994, OAQPS
devoted $300,000 in CAA Section 105 funds and $265,000,,in AC&C funds on this project OAQPS
estimates that it will spend approximately $600,000 in CAA Section 105 funds in fiscal year 1995.
IV. Special Requirements for Use T
No special requirements for use. .
. ' ' ' v " -[-.'..- ^ ,' ^'.-...
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv l
Transferability unknown.
VI. Program Contacts . .
Jackie Bode Great Lakes National Program Office (312) 886-4064. ,
65
-------
METHOD TO DERIVE WILDLIFE CRITERIA
I, Tool Description
Wildlife criteria are an essential tool for determining impacts of chemical stressors in ecological risk
assessments, including impacts on endangered species. The purpose of the methodology is to provide
guidance for deriving acceptable water or tissue concentrations of bioaccumulative chemicals to protect
higher-trophic levels of aquatic and terrestrial food webs. . ,
A wildlife criteria method for deriving water concentrations of bioaccumulative pollutants safe for
higher-trophic level consumers which feed out of the aquatic food web will be applied to derive wildlife
criteria in the Great Lakes Water Quality initiative (GLWQI). The GLWQI will be promulgated in March s.
1995.' ' ' '...'-.'".-''.".''' .'' : '"
1L Tool Users
Program offices, states, other Federal agencies and tribal governments, can apply method to
determine potential for impacts of bioaccumulative chemicals on higher trophic levels in a food. web.
III. Tool Development
Approximately $500,000 in contractor resources and a minimum of 1 FTE at the Headquarters level,
as well as fractions of FTE in the Office of Research and Development are needed to continue development
of national guidance for derivation of chemical-specific criteria for protection of higher-trophic level
consumers from bioaccumulative chemicals.
IV, Special Requirements for Use :,--'
V. Program/Media/Geographic TransferabiMty
This tool can be used by other program offices to derive .water concentrations and with slight
modifications applied to other media such as tissue concentrations or soil concentrations to protect
ecosystems. Application to other geographic areas can also be easily incorporated into the proposed method
by modifying the specific species whose exposures are considered in applying the method.
VI. Other Information , ;
The Office of Water has a small effort to provide national guidance for the derivation of wildlife
criteria at the Federal level. , " .
yil. Program Contacts
Cynthia L. Molt Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, (202) 260-1940
Steve Bradbury Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth,
(218)720-5527
66
-------
METHODS FOR EVALUATING THE ATTAINMENT OF CLEANUP STANDARDS
I. Tool Description
The tool is a'three-volume set of documents describing Statistical Methods for Evaluating the
Attainment of Cleanup Standards. These methods are intended to assist address the question of whether a
Superfund site has been cleaned to the required level. Volume I gives procedures for soil samples compared
to a fixed standard, volume II does the same for ground water samples, and volume HI returns to soil
samples compared to a reference-based standard.
II. Tool Development .
The three documents were developed over a period of about three years by several different
contractors. The series originated from queries that would be received by phone from regional offices
inquiring how sampling could be employed to determine if cleanup had been attained. Currently an effort
is underway by Battelle Northwest Labs to develop an executive summary with case studies. This executive
summary will be ready in early 1995, and will be issued;in both paper and CD-ROM format.
in. Tool Use
The tool was, intended for use by regional Superfund' officials^ enforcement officials, and the
regulated industry. Based on user feedback, it appears that the tool is indeed being used in the Regions as
the standard to measure the sufficiency of the cleanup. The tools are also used by regulated industry and
by their attorneys. ! - ^
ESID has developed the three volumes such that they are useable without, specific special training.
While not absolutely necessary, a workshop describing how to apply the methods would be helpful and is
currently being developed. In the mean time, office personnel can provide guidance to users if statistical
questions arise. , , " ; ,
. "" , ..,»,. '--.. "' . " '- ' '-".- . : .. , , , /
TV. Special Requirements for Use
None. .. ;' ' : '/. ".;.- ' : ;''.... .'. ,-,'' '
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The methodology in this tool is fully transferable to any geographic Superfund site in any region.
The statistics involved are not esoteric, however this tool is an effort to tailor them exactly to Superfund
applications. Because of this fine tailoring, this tool is npt directly usable by other media or programs.
VI. Other Information .,'.-.> ' i
VII. Contact Person
Barry Nussbaum Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Strategic Planning and
Environmental Data, Environmental Statistics and Information Division, (202) 260-
- -' / v V . : ,' 1493 ..;.'. .' ; - v -.' -..':. ' .';.: ,' .! ' . ':-.. *
67
-------
MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF ESTUARINE MICROORGANISMS
L Tool Description -
Molecular characterization of estuarine microorganisms:
Microbial communities are largely responsible for degradation of pollutants in the aquatic environment.
Different molecular tools are being used to identify the types arid'functions (activities) of different
microorganisms in this dynamic process. Isotopic ratios of different chemicals can identify the origin and
fate of nutrients and pollutants and their interaction with specific microorganisms. Ribosomal RNA probes
for specific microorganisms are used to provide precise phylogenetic .determinations, to detect changes in
microbiota and to characterize effects of environmental stress on microbial communities. '
H. Tool Users . .
Intended and actual users are government, academia and
industry. Probes may also be used in phylogenetic/taxonomic studies and the development of reagents for
rapid and sensitive detection of target microorganisms.
Isotopic ratio studies are still,developing with great
promise. RNA probes are increasingly widespread throughout microbial ecology. ,
Developing models for microbial community dynamics; optimize , ,
sensitivity of probes would enhance this tool..
III. Tool Development
Recently-developed tools were originated as part of program
(Pesticides and Toxics) needs to identify "ecological" level, microbial community impacts of toxics,and
biotechnology products.
Developed in part by EPA and in part by cooperative agreements. ,
JV. Special Requirements for Use ;'*'" »
Dependent on intended application; isotopic ratio studies -
require specialized mass spectrometer, RNA probes require nucleic acid sequence databases.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability , '
Transferability unknown. ' - ,
VI, Other Information -
This laboratory studies ecosystem processes in order to understand and solve near-coastal
environmental problems resulting from toxic chemicals, pesticides ."pathogens and introduced organisms.
VII. Program Contact , ,
Dr. Rick Coffin ORD, Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research; ERL- Gulf Breeze,
FL, (904)934-9255
68
-------
NUTRIENT THRESHOLD ASSESSMENTS TECHNIQUES AND THEIR USE IN DEVELOPING
SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA IN FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS
L Tool Description
This document summarizes the rationale used by EPA in the development of the criteria' for
ammonia, nitrates/nitrites, and phosphorus. Also provided is a detailed matrix and a summary of the nature
of the criteria used by the-states. Examples have been included that demonstrate the procedures used by the
State of Colorado for developing waste load allocations and loading limitations; for three reservoirs. This
tool will be completed in FY 1996. ' ,
H. Tool Users
Manageriaf and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases
assisted in their testing. , t " ;
III. Tool Development : . . .
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based
controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish priorities for these waters based on the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for
the particular waterbbdy or segment'thereof. The documents listed support the managerial and technical
components of the TMDL process. Since 1983, the primary impetus for developing the guidance is the need
to provide the technical and management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements and
Agency programmatic priorities. Thus the guidance focused first on conventional pollutants, then toxics and
now nonpoint sources and other wet weather discharges. ,. "
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. Readability depends on the topics covered.
V. Program/Media/GeographicTransferabilitv ,
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information
The TMDL process is the back bone of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocates,pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint
sources and background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and sediment).
The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to
examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed-and to evaluate the effect of different
strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc;.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals water quality standards. The TMDLs
maximize real environmental gains and minimize the need for unnecessary regulation..
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost. ; . : .'
VII. Program Contacts
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology., Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330 i ,
69
-------
PATHOLOGY OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE ORGANISMS TOOL
.,.'''-
L Tool Description
Histopathology is a well-recognized and well-documented tool for evaluation of effects of
environmental toxicants and carcinogens. Occurrence of infectious diseases in natural populations is usually
coincident with a deteriorating environment. Pathological studies include gross, histologic and electron
microscopical examinations at the organismal through subcellular levels of organization. Pathology includes
disciplines of histology, immunology, physiology and biochemistry.
Histology and immunological markers in fish populations have been very effective at identifying toxic
EMAP areas. Related tools are in various stages of development and some are currently being field-tested.
Immunological measures of fish and invertebrates are particularly promising. .
IL Tool Users
Intended and actual users are government, academia and ._ ,
industry. The tools are used to determine where toxicants and carcinogens pose a risk to aquatic organisms
and the severity of effects. Some tools are being applied in EMAP and related studies over the last 3 years.
HI, Tool Development
Histopathological tools developed over many years by hundreds of researchers in government and
academia. Development was prompted by a need to determine effects of toxicants in the environment. New
histological tools and related tools in immunology and physiology are being developed in house and through
cooperative agreements.
iy. Special Requirements for Use ,
Histological processing and expertise in histopathology or
related disciplines.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Transferability unknown. , "
VJ. Other Information ,
Gulf Breeze laboratory studies ecosystem processes in order to understand and solve near-coastal
environmental problems resulting from toxic chemicals, pesticides, pathogens and introduced organisms.
VII. Program Contact . , .
Dr. William S. Fisher ORD; Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research; ERL - Gulf
Breeze, PL; (904) 934-9394
70
-------
REMOTE SENSING-AND IMAGE PROCESSING
L Tool Description ' ,
Remote Sensing and Image Processing consists of airborne and spaceboirne instruments designed to
detect electromagnetic radiation which is emitted or reflected from the earths surface. When collected in
a geometrically coordinated fashion (sensor array or scan) the data can be assembled into a visual
representation of the portion of the earth's surface observed by the sensor system. These visual
representations, or remotely sensed images, can be-digitally processed to enhance the separability of the
features observed through use of specialized image processing computer hardware and software. These
same computer systems can then be used to assemble, store, manipulate, analyze, and display this imagery
with other spatial data. , , !
,"'..-' . I. '-' !': ' ' - - ' ,':;'-.' ' '
Current civilian satellite systems are capable of resolving areas as small as 2 m square, or can cover
100*0 km in a single scene (with 1 km resolution). Airborne systems are capable of resolving minute and
subtle features on the earths surface, and serve as test platforms for future space sensors. The Environmental
Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL)^LV Remote Sensing Program currently operates an. experimental
airborne system capable of acquiring very high spatial and spectral resolution imagery. We are also actively
involved in the use of spaceborne imagery for ecological Hand cover characterization and trend analysis.
IL Tool Users L
'. Remote Sensing and Digital Image Processing technology is being used by EPA to manage, visualize,
and assess environmental data observable on the earth's surface. The intended and actual users, of this tool
and products/services derived from the use of this tool are EPA regional and program offices, particularly
the policy, water, and EMAP program offices.
, * . . ' )
. Regular feedback has been received from our customers at meetings and conferences, on conference
calls, and through customer critiques that are included as part of final product reviews.
" ' -':''' ^' .' "'''..'
III. Tool Development .
Digital remote sensing and image processing has evolved within .
EPA from the air photography program of the early 1970's, when EMSL-LV operated a fleet of
environmental surveillance aircraft, through a period of airborne electronic sensor development, including
laser fluororsensors, designed for water quality assessment, and the Ultraviolet Differential Absorption Lidar
(UV-DIAL). , ; ..: :
The UV-DIAL was developed by a combination of in-house personnel and cooperative researchers
from the University of Nevada to support important ozone non-attainment issues under the Clean Air Act
such as the development of regional and State Implementation Plans (SIP) and the development and definition
of ozone transport regions. A significant portion of this activity is to provide data for the development and
application of air quality models for devising appropriate attainment strategies. :
The system is currently under the control of NOAA's_Environmental Technology Laboratory (ETL)
in Boulder, CO, but can be accessed through a Memorandum of Understanding between ETL and the ORD
laboratories at EMSL-LV and AREAL. EMSL-LV currently contracts for the operation of an airborne
MultiSpectral Scanner (MSS) forN research applications, acid is sponsoring research for the development of
high resolution airborne digital video and soft-copy photogrammetry direct from video.
71
-------
Current Digital Image Processing activities are oriented toward the development of methodologies
for characterizing land cover and deriving land cover change and trend information from satellite imagery
over large geographic areas. In concert with these activities is the development of statistical methods for
the assessment of categorical accuracy of derived land cover and change information.. ,
IV. Special Requirement for Use
The Image Processing software currently used at EMSL-LV
represents a combination of public domain and commercially developed systems. Using this software, EPA's
multi-disciplined natural resource scientists and contractor support staff develop image analysis methods and
techniques to support a variety of ecosystem management activities.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv , :
Transferability unknown. . . ,
Other Information
Remote Sensing and Digital Image Processing software and hardware is continually being improved
by the commercial developers. Upgrades hi functionality occur frequently. EPA needs to keep abreast of
newer versions of software and hardware, in order to keep abreast of increases in processing speed,
processing power, memory and other functionality.
VJI. Program Contact ' ' '
Dr. L. Dorsey Worthy ORD; Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory - Las Vegas, NV;
(702)798-2200
72
-------
RIPARIAN CHARACTERIZATION TOOL
L Tool Description
OPPE has been playing a major role in interagency efforts for developing new techniques for
applying satellite and aerial-based remote sensing data to a variety of ecological studies.
The Riparian Characterization project grew but of collaborative work between the EPA Office of
Water and the Office of Research and Development's efforts in characterizing riparian corridors in, the
Pacific Northwest. OPPE crafted a remote sensing study to support this research, particularly to apply
remote sensing techniques to study the temperature warming phenomenon in cold water habitats used for
salmonid spawning. In the study current military, civil and commercial aircraft zmd satellite sensors are used
to determine optimal techniques for direct sensing of, as well as indirect GIS modeling of riparian
parameters. The work supports activities under the CWA, NEPA and in particular, the Pacific Northwest
Forest Plan. , . ;. , . .',
IL Tool Users
The actual techniques identified or developed under this effort are intended for use by ecosystem or
resource managers who need to map or monitor watersheds. The results of the: investigations are intended
for use by policy analysts, ecosystem project managers and decision makers of making water quality aiid
watershed assessments in the Pacific Northwest. The results are also useful for any ecosystem manager
contemplating the use of wide-area assessment tools such as satellite imagery or aerial photography.
EPA OW and Region 10 have adopted this tool. They have assumed the operational implementation
for the riparian characterization project. They have initiated an implementation plan and have enhanced the
original research goals. ' - - !
III. Tool Development . ! .
The riparian project is 4-$lM; EPA has invested 0.2 OPPE FTE and no funding. Participants in
the Riparian Characterization Study include: EPA OPPE, EPA OW, US Forest Service PNW, US Army
Corps of Engineers, Environmental Reaseach linstitute of Michigan and EPA Region 10. r
IV. Special Requirements for Use
The most difficult requirement for the use of remote sensing data is the need for skilled personnel
to process and interpret the data. While the cost of image processing software now is very reasonable (under
$10K for "turn key" systems) and the cost of obtaining data is getting more affordable with increased
competition and miniaturization of sensor systems. However, the technical skills required in this area
typically take years to acquire. Ecosystem managers should learn the basics so that they can be an informed
buyer of contracted support. Also, it is useful to .work with other agencies to share the critical personnel
resources and defray the costs of the study. ' ;
i ' . .-->, ' . '''' " i "
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability ;
The remote sensing techniques identified or developed in these projects can be used for making
terrestrial and aquatic earth observations anywhere. Specific observables .include vegetation and surface
geomorphological, (including hydrological) characterization, soil moisture and microtopography (very high
precision terrain relief mapping). Atmospheric and oceanographic sensing techniques are NOT within the
scope of these investigations.
VI. Other Information ;
; . ' ' .. i ' '.- :- ' '''." 73
-------
VII. Program Contacts
Elizabeth D. Porter
Doug Norton
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Strategic Planning and
Environmental Data, Environmental Results Branch, (202) 260-6129
Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division, (202) 260-7017
74
-------
SEDIMENT CLASSIFICATION METHODS COMPENDIUM
L. Tool Description .'',"-
This document provides an overview of recommended methods for evaluating the effects of sediment
contaminants on aquatic ecosystems. It covers sediment toxicity evaluations, benthic community evaluations,
and other methods used to classify sediment with respect to the presence of contaminants.
IL Tool Users ' "'";.- -'*- : -''. ; " -'.' ; -^// ' : ' ' '- ' .;.. '
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel. ' v
HI. Tool Development :
More than ten Federal statutes provide authority to many EPA program offices to address the
problem of contaminated sediment. This resulted in fragmented, and hi some cases contradictory or
duplicative efforts to evaluate and manage contaminated sediments. EPA developed the Contaminated
Sediment Management Strategy to streamline decision-making within and among EPA's program offices by
promoting and ensuring the use of consistent sediment assessment practice, consistent consideration of risks
posed by contaminated sediment, the use of consistent approaches to management of contaminated sediment
risks, and the wise use of scarce resources for research arid technology development -
i' ' ''''' ' - - ' ' ;' -'-, ' , - ,
IV. Special Requirements for Use i '
None.' ' ; - '" . . ,-,'- ' -. - ".!';' ''''.
.V. Prograni/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Applicable to other media and a,wide range of ecosystems. Contaminated sediment poses ecological
and human health risks in many watersheds throughout the United States. Surveys conducted in 1985 and
1987 began to document the extent and severity of sediment contamination, finding that heavy metals and
metalloids (e.g., arsenic), polychlormated biphenyls, pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are
the most frequently reported contaminants hi sediments. Sediments serve as a contaminant reservoir from
which fish and bottom dwelling organisms can accumulated toxic compounds and pass them up the food
chain until.they accumulate to levels that may be toxic to humans. Significant ecological impacts are also
reported at contaminated sediment sites, including impairment of reproductive capacity/ and impacts to the
structure and health of benthic and other aquatic communities.,
' - ' ' '"".' ''- :, '-..'' 'i '- ''. -..-.; '.'" .,-"'
VI. . Other Information ->'.-..... . . , :
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, ET.C. , i: j , , , ', .
VII. Program Contacts . " -
TomArmitage Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-5388, '
75
-------
SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTING METHODOLOGY GUIDANCE
L Tool Description
These standard methods manuals contain guidance on testing the toxicity of freshwater, estuarine,
and marine sediments to determine ecological effects of sediment contaminants, and include guidance on
laboratory methods, interfering effects' statistical analysis, quality assurance and quality control, species
selection and handling, and sediment manipulation and handling:
o Methods for measuring the toxicity and bioaccumulation of sediment-associated contaminants
with freshwater invertebrates;
o Methods for measuring the toxicity of sediment-associated contaminants with estuarine and
marine amphipods. , .
IL Tool Users . " :' -
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local arid Tribal personnel.
III. Too! Development
More than ten Federal statutes provide authority to many EPA program offices to address the
problem of contaminated sediment. This resulted in fragmented, and in some cases contradictory or
duplicative efforts to evaluate and manage contaminated sediments. EPA developed the Contaminated
Sediment Management Strategy to streamline decision-making within and among EPA's program offices by
promoting and ensuring the use of consistent sediment assessment.practice, consistent consideration of risks
posed by contaminated sediment, the use of consistent approaches to management of contaminated sediment
risks, and the wise use of scarce resources for research and technology development.
TV, Special Requirements for Use
None.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Applicable to other media and a wide range of ecosystems. Sediments serve as a contaminant
reservoir from which fish and bottom dwelling organisms can accumulated toxic compounds and pass them
up the food chain until they accumulate to levels that may be toxic to humans. Significant ecological impacts
are also reported at contaminated sediment sites, including impairment of reproductive capacity, and impacts
to the structure and health of benthic and other aquatic communities'.
VL Other Information
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U'S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington,. D. C.
VII. Program Contacts
Tom Armitage Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-5388
76
-------
SELECTING REMEDIATION TECHNIQUES FOR CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT
! - ' ' .' i' ' . ' ..
L Tool Description ! ,
This document provides guidance on available technologies for remediating contaminated sediment.
The document describes how to select an appropriate technology for remediating specific types of
contaminants. Site specific environmental conditions are addressed as well as the cost of remedial options.
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel.
III. Tool Development ,
More than ten Federal statutes provide authority to many EPA program offices to address the
problem of contaminated sediment. This resulted in fragmented, and in some cases contradictory or
duplicative efforts to evaluate and manage contaminated sediments. EPA developed -the Contaminated
Sediment Management Strategy to streamline decision-making within and among EPA's program offices by
promoting and ensuring the use of consistent sediment assessment practice, consistent consideration of risks
posed by contaminated sediment, the use of consistent approaches to management of contaminated sediment
risks, and the wise use of scarce resources for research and technology development.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
: . 'None. ' . ..'"' : -..' - .. . .' ",., . . \ - ; .--' : .; ;'
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv :' , /-.'.:
; Applicable to other media and a wide range of.ecosystems. .
Contaminated sediment poses ecological and human health risks in many watersheds throughout the
United States. Sediments serve as a contaminant reservoir from which fish-and bottom dwelling organisms
can accumulated toxic compounds and pass them up the food chain until they accumulate to levels that .may
be toxic to humans. Significant ecological impacts are also reported at contaminated sediment sites,
, including impairment of reproductive capacity, and impacts to the structure and health of benthic and other
aquatic communities. - . ;', ;
VI. Other Information ... :
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center
Street SW, Washington? D. C. at no cost. .
(4104), U.S.. EPA, 401 ,M
VII. Program Contacts
Tom Armitage Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
. Division, (202) 260-5388 ;
77
-------
TEST SYSTEMS FOR BIOTECHNOLOGY PRODUCTS
L Tool Description
Test systems for biotechnology products: Test systems, to '
determine the assimilation capacity of aquatic microbial environments to degrade toxic organics. These are
used for both efficacy evaluations and piotechnology risk assessment. Tools include simple tests (shaker
flask), microorganisms and field applications.
Containment of microorganisms is an integral part of this
system that is essentially for examining genetically-engineered microorganisms. The system can be used for
studies of microbe survival, colonization, gene exchange, microbial community structure and function arid
some aspects of microbial transport. /
f '
IL Tool Users
Intended and actual users are government and industry. The tools are used to determine efficacy of
biotechnology agents and associated risks of their application.:. Efficacy tests currently undergoing
verification trials.
III. Tool Development .
Developed in response to a need by program offices (Toxics and Pesticides) to evaluate permit
requests for genetically-engineered biotechnology and bioremediation agents. Developed in part by EPA and
in part by cooperative
agreements.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Dependent on intended application. ' -
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Transferabiliry unknown.
VI. Other Information
This laboratory studies ecosystem processes in order to understand and solve near-coastal
environmental problems resulting from toxic chemicals, pesticides, pathogens and introduced organisms.
VII, Program Contact
Rick Cripe ORD, Office of Environmental Processes and Effects Research; ERL - Gulf Breeze, Fl,
(904)934-9340
78
-------
WATERSHED SCREENING AND TARGETING TOOL (WSTT)
L Tool Description : ,. ,
The Watershed Screening and Targeting Tool (WSTT) is a PC-based screening tool intended to, help
watershed managers at the local, state or regional level evaluate and target watersheds based on indicators
from water quality data. - '.,
This user-friendly interactive screening tool involves a two step process. The first step allows for
preliminary screening of point and nonpoint pollution problems based on multiple criteria and data from the
EPA mainframe. The user can compare reference values with land use and water quality observations from
different watersheds. The second step involves comparative analysis and more detailed examination of the
watershed. Here, the user can include criteria weighing and additional data as warranted. Additionally there
is a link to WSM, the Watershed Screening Model, which allows for estimation of total loads of specific
pollutants from the watershed when enough data are present. !-'.'/-
IL
III.
Tool Users ;'
State and Federal water programs, modelers, consultants.
Tool Development
A beta-test version was issued in June 1994. Compilation of WSTT data for the lower 48 states is
in progress. Several state WSTT databases are complete. Funding was provided by the Office of
Watersheds, Oceans, and Wetlands (OWOW), Assessment and Watershed Protection Division (AWPD),
Watershed Branch. WSTT is also being incorporated into an ARCVIEW-based geographic analysis tool via
cooperation between the Office of Science and Technology (OST)and OWOW.
IV.
V.
Special Requirements for Use . . . -
The WSTT operates on a 286 or better personal computer and is distributed as a 3.5" floppy.
Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ;
Opportunity to apply screening techniques and water quality data to any activity involving evaluating
or priority setting of aquatic ecosystems or watersheds, : .
VI. Program Contacts . "-1 , ,
Mimi Dannel Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed
- Protection Division, 202-260-7017 j
79
-------
VOLUNTEER MONITORING
L Description of Tool
Volunteer monitoring is one component of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds' water
monitoring program. OWOW encourages citizen volunteers to become active monitors of stream, lake,
estuarine, and wetland water quality. The benefits of this program is that volunteers become educated about
water quality issues, become active stewards of their environment, and often generate credible data of value
to State and local decision makers. .Increasingly, volunteers are moving toward monitoring watersheds rather
than individual waters, and are also assessing land conditions, biological communities, acid rain and other
ecosystem components. . , . 'J' "'"'
Major volunteer tools are: .' <:
Volunteer Lake Monitoring: A Methods Manual was designed to provide volunteers with acceptable
protocols for monitoring lakes. It includes sections on producing quality data, presenting data, and
implementing a program. It has been in use since 1991, and was developed by AWPD/OWOW through a
grant. ,
Volunteer Estuary Monitoring: A Methods Manual was designed to provide volunteers with
acceptable protocols for monitoring estuarine waters. It includes sections on producing quality data,
presenting data, and implementing a program, and has been in use 1994. The tool was developed by
OCPD/OWOW through grant with Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay.
Volunteer Water Monitoring: A Guide for State Managers was developed by AWPD/OWOW
through a grant and is designed to provide guidelines on how to effectively plan and implement a volunteer
monitoring program. It has been in use since 1990. _ . . , :
National Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs provides information on 519
volunteer monitoring programs nationwide, with contact names and descriptions. It was. developed by
AWPD/OWOW through grant with University of Rhode Island, and has been in use since 1994.
Volunteer Monitoring on the Nonpoint Source Bulletin Board System: A special interest group
forum is available on this electronic bulletin board to allow volunteers and coordinators to exchange
information, download files; etc. Developed 1993-94 by a contract. However, this tool is not reaching a
wide audience of volunteers, perhaps because of the cost of the phone connection and of initial difficulties
in using the system. We are addressing this by simplifying user screens on the BBS and generating a fat
sheet on how to lower your costs on the BBS.
IL Tool Users ,
All tools were developed primarily for volunteer program coordinators ttrbe used in developing and
planning their programs. These coordinators may be State water quality staff, environmental organization
staff, academics, or nonprofit organization staff. Actual volunteers may also use these documents. They
have been used since their publication dates. -.-
UL Tool Development
None of these fools were developed in response to statutory mandates. All tools were developed
primarily for volunteer program coordinators to be used in developing and planning their programs. They
have been used since their publication dates. Monitoring equipment is generally inexpensive, but can be a
significant cost for a shoe-string nonprofit organization. ', :
:'.. ,80 ' ": .-.':,.. '' .' , ' " .
-------
IV. Special Requirements for Use "'','
Volunteers must be trained in the protocols and quality assurance procedures outlined in ihe methods
manuals, listed above if they are to generate credible data. The monitoring programs themselves are
responsible for this training.
V., Program/Media/Geographic'transferabilitv . - ~
These tools are general enough to be used in a variety ,of geographic areas. The Guide for State
Managers and the BBS forum could also be generally applicable to other media (e.g., air). Applicability
to other EPA programs would have to be determined on a case-by-case basis. I
VI. . Other Information - .i-
Volunteer monitors should be brought into the ecosystem management process whenever possible.
These individuals are educated and concerned about-the protection of their natural resources, and can provide
significant contributions in terms of labor and insight into local,conditions. -
EPA should become more involved in developing additional tools for volunteers such as wetlands
monitoring techniques and volunteer training methods. ', ..--.-'' j
VII. Program Contacts ' ;
Alice Mayio Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, (202)
260-7018
81
-------
WETLANDS MAPPING TOOL
J. Tool Description
OPPE has been playing a major role in interagency efforts for developing new techniques for
applying satellite and aerial-based remote sensing data to a variety of ecological'studies.
The wetlands mapping work was initiated in 1993 as a result of a Federal Geographic Data
Committee study in which all federal agencies with wetlands mapping mandates conducted a GIS-based study
to analyze the level of agreement/disagreement between each program's wetland data.
The first study site of.ten planned was Wicomico County, MD on the eastern shore of the
Chesapeake Bay. The area is mostly a forested and farmed region. The highest levels of disagreement
between the federal agencies were in identifying boundaries and extent of palustrine evergreen and mixed
evergreen-deciduous forested wetlands areas and disagreed significantly (90%) in area and boundary location.
This result has significant policy implications as forested wetland is the cover type which has experienced
the highest rates of wetland loss in recent years. It is critical that these cover types can be accurately
mapped so that these resources can be effectively protected under the current statutory mandates
(EPA-relevant legislation: Clean Water Act, Sect 404; and NEPA.)
fl. Tool Users
The primary client for this project is the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory. The NWI project
leader is also an active participant in the study. Secretary of Interior Bruce Babbitt, after being briefed on
the project, signed an endorsement letter giving it high level DOI support. Many of the Nation's leading
wetlands experts are actively involved in this project. The initial results of the FGDC Wicomico study
verified that NWI-is underestimating the acreage of forested wetlands. They have already modified their
photointerpretation techniques to improve their mapping accuracies based on the study.
The actual techniques identified or developed under this effort are intended for use by ecosystem or
resource managers who need to map or monitor wetlands. The results of the investigations are intended fot
use by policy analysts, ecosystem project managers and decision makers regarding the difficulty (and options
for dealing with these) of making wetland assessments under forest canopy. The results are also useful for
any ecosystem manager contemplating the use of wide-area assessment tools such as satellite imagery or
aerial photography.
III. Tool Development .
The wetlands project is a +$2M effort; EPA has invested 0.5 OPPE ETE and no funding. Various
public and private actors participated hi the projects in FY94-5. The Wetlands Study involved EPA OPPE,
EPA OW, USGS National Mapping Division, US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI), Maryland Department of Natural Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Research
Institute of Michigan, and Earth Satellite Corporation. Experts hi wetlands sciences and remote sensing
constitue a Science Advisory Team which provides high level peer review for this experiment. The panel
has membership from the USGS, EPA, NBS, SCS, with representatives from the private sector and
academia.
IV. Special Requirements for Use .
The most difficult requirement for the use of remote sensing data is the need for skilled personnel
to process and interpret the data. While the cost of image processing software now is very reasonable (under
$10K for "turn key" systems) and the cost of obtaining data is getting more affordable with increased
82 ' , ' '.-.; "... .-';. ' ''.' '
-------
competition and miniaturization of sensor systems. However, the technical skills required in this area
typically take years to acquire. Ecosystem managers should learn the basics so that they can be an informed
buyer of contracted support. Also, it is useful to work with other agencies to share the critical personnel
resources and defray the costs of the study. , ..
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ;'",
The remote sensing techniques identified'or developed in these projects can be used for making
terrestrial and aquatic earth observations anywhere. Specific observables include vegetation and surface
geomorphological (including hydrological) characterization, soil moisture and micrdtopography (very high
precision terrain relief mapping). Atmospheric and oceaaographic sensing teclmiques are NOT within the
scope of these investigations.
[ . - '"'"-''. . 1' --".
1 , . . j ''",'"-.' ''_
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Elizabeth D. Porter
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Strategic Planning and
Environmental Data, Environmental Results Branch, (202) 260-6129
83
-------
WETLANDS RESEARCH PROGRAM
L Tool Description . - '
The Wetlands Research Program at ERL-Corvallis has developed an approach to improving decision-
making in wetlands restoration and creation projects. The Approach uses data from a monitoring program,
including both naturally occurring wetlands and those restored and created, to develop performance criteria,
track the development of projects, and suggest improvements in the design of future projects.
IL Tool Users
A number of state agencies are considering using .the tool (e.g., California and New York).
IP. Tool Development
The Approach and the research that supports it have been widely reviewed and accepted. The EPA
Science Advisory Board reviewed and endorsed the research plan that produced the Approach.
The Approach was developed based upon pilot studies in Connecticut, Florida, and Oregon. A full
scale trial was conducted hi Oregon. This tool was released two years ago.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
A team of scientists that includes a wetland ecologist and statistician are needed to define the wetland
population to be sampled, identify the variables to be sampled, design a data management' protocol, train
field crews, and analyze and report findings. Field crews can be composed of people of varying skill levels, ,
depending on the variables to be samples. , . .
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
**** ' - '.''''. .-,.'.-.:
VI. Other Information x , '
Cost of using this tool will vary according to the number of sites and the kinds of variables sampled.
Pilot projects conducted by Corvallis staff have averaged $10K per site sampled with a field protocol that
took a day to sample. .
VII. Program Contacts .
Mary E. Kentula ORD, Environmental Research Laboratory - Corvallis, 503-754-4478
84
-------
HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TOOLS
85
-------
-------
CWA SECTION 104(B)(3) GRANT FUNDING GUIDANCE
L Tool Description ; ,
The FY95 104(b)(3) Grant Funding Guidance to the Regions emphasizes that grant funds .should be
awarded for innovative demonstration projects that promote the development or implementation of State-wide
watershed protection approach in the NPDES program. Projects appropriate for FY95 watershed funding
should involve any of the six components, of the NPDES Watershed Strategy: 1) State-wide Coordination;
2) NPDES Permits; 3) Monitoring and Assessment; 4) Program Measures and Environmental indicators; 5)
Public Participation; and 6) Enforcement. , . ,
n.
m.
Tool Users
States that apply for 104(b)(3) grants and the Regions that approve~104(b)(3) projects.
Tool Development ; i
104(b)(3) grant funding guidance is provided to the Regions annually eyery'September. All funds
are reprogrammed to the Regional offices and must be committed by July 1, 1995. Since Headquarters
review prior to processing grant applications is not required, the Regions are responsible for ensuring that
all projects are consistent with the National program-Guidance.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
104(b)(3) grants are limited to research, investigations, experiments, training, demonstrations,
surveys, and studies that benefit the State (not the Federsd program).
V. Program/Media/Geogfaphic Transferabilitv
104(b)(3) funding guidance demonstrates how funding criteria may be used effectively to encourage
States to implement a desired non-manditory program.
VI. Other Information :
, In FY94, the Watershed Task Force approved $100,000 in section 104(b)(3) grant funds for each
Region to be used for training, demonstration, or experimental projects that lead to the development or
implementation of State-wide Watershed Protection Approaches. . \.
VII. Program Contacts
Nancy Cunningham
Office of Water; Office of Wastewater Management, Permits Division, (202)
260-9535
87
-------
CLEAN WATER ACT TMDL MINI-GRANTS
I, Tool Description .
Total Maximum Daily Loads, or TMDLs, are a Clean Water Act tool for estimating the loading
reductions necessary to meet water quality standards on an impaired waterbody and identifying the control
measures that will bring about this improvement. A whole-watershed approach, in which all loading sources
are considered in the model and the recommended controls, is recommended.
The mini-grants are very specifically targeted funds intended to increase the number of TMDLs
developed and implemented; they may or may not be the only funding source,in a TMDL development
project. The mini-grants provide,narrowly-defined grants of $5,000 to $15,000 to regions/states/tribes for
undertaking TMDL development on high priority watersheds using a holistic watershed approach. Mini-
grants also are often oriented toward innovative or progressive uses of the TMDL concept that may become
routine in future TMDLs.
II. Tool Users
State, Regional and Tribal water programs. ,
ICL Tool Development
The grants have been awarded annually for three years now, using funding from the Office -of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and the Office of Science and Technology.
IV, Special Requirements for Use ' ,
None. . v
V. Program/Medla/GeoHraphic Transferability
'The grants may eventually go beyond the current clientele to involve interagency cooperation. In
principle, several grant programs could prescribe ecosystem management-related practices with only minor
changes in the way they operate.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Mimi Dannel Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, 202-260-7017 ,
88
-------
GRANTS FOR WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECTS
' . ' - - -,',- ,"_ ! _ - .,
L Tool Description . , ',"-
To give greater emphasis to funding specific watershed resource restoration activities at the local
level, the Office of Water (OW) developed the Watershed Resource Restoration Grant Program. For the
FY1994 grant cycle, OW developed me guidance document entitled, Final Guidance on the Award of
Nonpoint Source Grants Under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act of FY 1994 and Future Years. The
OW created ten percent watershed resource restoration element within each State's planning target to
encourage watershed restoration activities such as the restoration of wetlands, shorelines, lakes, rivers,
streams, coastal zones and estuaries, riparian areas, seagrass beds, coral reefs, and other aquatic habitats.
IL Tool Users
Tool users are the State programs. : !'
HI. Tool Development ; ~ ' j
The Guidance was distributed in June 1993 to the State programs, and the first round of grants were
awarded in FY 1994. The OW created this set-aside to encourage watershed restoration activities at the local
level. The Guidance was developed.in-house, m FY1995,. 10% of the $100 million section 319
appropriation, $10 million was allocated by OW to State watershed restoration projects.
TV. Special Requirements for Use ..-;.
A State must have an aumorized program and there is a match requirement.
₯-1 ' Program/Media/Geographic Transferability ' ' "' ;- .."..."' .. '
Tool is not transferable. -
VI. Program Contacts . - ,-.',, , . ' . ; .':.'..'.'''.'' _:
Dov Weitman Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, (202) 260-7100 s
-------
REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INITIATIVES PROGRAM (OROSLR)
la Tool Description
The Regional Geographic Initiatives Program was established to provide multi-media funds for the
Regions. These funds support high priority activities which meet specific criteria. Regions use these funds
to address environmental problems that' are placed-based or are unique to the states in their Regions. The
Program provides funding for projects that are identified as high priority by a Region, state, or locality, pose
a human health, or ecosystem risk, and have significant potential for risk reduction. .
IL Tool Users ,
The Regional Geographic Initiatives funds come from the Regional Multi-media P.E. The P.E. was
established in FY 1994, and also contains the Regional Administrator's Discretionary Funds. The two types .
of funds are completely distinct, and are monitored separately. .
HI. Tool Development .
The Regional Geographic Initiative Program began in FY 1994. The Program has been developed
by the Regional Geographic Initiatives Work Group, a National work group with both Regional and HQ
participants. The Mission statement and Program Outline were developed, and contain a statement of
purpose for the program, selection criteria for projects, and the reporting requirements (see attached).
TV, Special Requirements for Use ,
Regions send in proposals at the beginning of the Fiscal Year, which must meet the criteria in the
Program outline. Some criteria include: . ,
o The initiative should address places, hi contrast to pollutants, sectors or programs. Places can be
, urban or rural, watersheds or airsheds, coasts or highlands, river corridors or transportation
corridors. Scale can be local (from neighborhoods to watersheds), cover an ecosystem or even be
an entire EPA Region or sets of Regions. They must, however, be less than national in scope.
Places should be tied together socially, environmentally or politically.
o Initiatives should be based on a Regional, state or other strategic plan, preferably risk-based (e.g.,
a comparative risk analysis). Problems addressed can be health or ecosystem, preferably both as,in
the long term they are inseparable, and should reflect the local condition (e.g., economic and social
sustainability).1 . .
0 Problems addressed and solutions showcased by the initiative should be primarily multi-media in
nature. Air, water, or waste problems of significance may anchor the effort, however.' Multi-media
is defined as a combination of medias coordinated under one project or set of projects.
targeting by the Agency, generally, is a major weakness. In
the near term, we need targeting models generally 'based, on
potential health and ecological risks, i.e.,'applying comparative
risk methodologies to places. Using geo'graphic analyses outlined
in the models, we can develop baseline estimates of potential risk
from which to compare places. These analyses also provide
information on problems and stressors and establish the foundation
for setting goals and measuring progress.
90 » '.'..
-------
o Initiatives should highlight Agency-priorities and strategies. For 1994 through 1996 these are:
eeosys'tem management, environmental justice, partnerships, sound science, pollution prevention,
reinventing EPA management, and environmental accountability"
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv \ ' ,
This is a Regional Program which has been coordinated through ORQSLR. The Regions have
responsibility and leadership for'proposals, actions, and changes to the program.
VI. Program Contacts
Christine Gonzalez Office of the Administrator, Associate Administrator's Office for Regional
Operations arid State/Local Relations, Regional Operations Division, (202) 260-
. 4719 x . ' . :'-..;- -.'::'. ' . -
91
-------
STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM
(Financing for Water Pollution Abatement) . ;
L, Tool Description and Development
The State Revolving Fund (SRF) is a financing program that assist States in constructing wastewater
treatment facilities and managing water quality programs. The SRF program was authorized by the U.S.
Congress through Title VI of the Clean Water Act (CWA) as amended in 1987. The Act authorized Federal
funds to capitalize SRFs through FY 1994. The following type of projects are eligible under the SRF
program: (1) The construction of section 212 wastewater treatment works; (2) The implementation of
nonpoint source (NFS) activities included in approved State NFS management programs pursuant to section'
319 of the CWA; and (3) Development and implementation of estuary management plans pursuant to section
320 of the CWA.
States must provide a 20% match for the Federal capitalization grants. Approximately $15 billion is .
available in the SRFs through a combination of Federal capitalization grants ($10 billion), States matching
funds ($2 billion), and other sources ($3 billion).
Resources for States management of the SRF is estimated at 500-1,000 FTE. States may use up to
4% of their capitalization grant awards for management of their programs.
IL Tool Users
SRFs are established and managed by the States. Under Title VI, States may provide loans, loan
guarantees and other credit enhancements, leverage the fund, or refinance debt previously issued by
municipalities. Most of the activity to date has been the issuance of loans. ,
To date, approximately 90 % of SRF assistance has been provided to section 212 activities, and about
10% has gone to section 319 and 320 activities. Over the past year, EPA has been pushing States to use
SRF funds for watershed planning and management. There are, however, a number of barriers at the State
level for using SRF money for non-point source and estuary protection programs. EPA plans a series of
workshops with States to identify and resolve these barriers.
EPA managers maintain that more resources are needed at the national and regional level to
implement the SRF program. The program is applying for additional funding through the 104(b) grants
program to further encourage integration of the SRF and watershed programs. - "
IV, Special Requirements for Use
No special requirements required for use.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The transferability of the SRF program to other program or media is unknown. The SRF can be
used for public health, water quality, and natural resource reasons. EPA policymakers are concerned,
however, that the program could be misused (e.g., building landfills or cleaning up underground storage
tanks). EPA is currently in the process of writing policy that would limit the SRF program to funding
projects that correct existing water quality problems.
VI. Program Contacts ,
Richard Kuhlman Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Municipal Support Division,
State Revolving Fund Branch (202) 260-7366
92
-------
WATERSHED INTEGRATION GRANTS TEAM (WIG)
L Tool Description :..'..'
The purpose Watershed Integration Grants Team (WIG) is to determine if current Agency grant
management practices hamper State adoption of Watershed Protection Approach (WPA). Additionally, the
team will identify grant management practices which are barriers to implementing WPA, recommend and
'implement solutions. . , '.', ,-
The WIG'is composed of EPA Headquarters representatives from Grants Administration, General
Counsel, Inspector General and the Offices' of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds (OWOW) and Wastewatef
Management (OWM). Regional representatives from Regions I, IV, V, and VI participate as do State
members from Texas , New York, Maryland and Delaware. The WIG us co-chaired by OWOW and OWM
and is one of a number of activities in OW designed to encourage adoption of the WPA at the State and
Federal levels ' . - .
IL Tool Users ;
The users are States that apply for and implement grants.
III. Tool Development
Building upon earlier quality assurance efforts for sections 106 and 319 grants and adding 604(b),
grants the WIG is examining ways to make grants management increasingly compatible with watershed based
management. States and Regions are adopting WPA, however financial and reporting requirements have
not been revised to reflect changes in Regional and State operation. J
The WIG's accomplishments as of December IS, 1994 are as follows:
'/ Recommending early issuance of funding targets for sections 106, 319 and 604(b). .
Consolidating multi-year funding guidance for sections 1096 and 604(b.) with previously issued 319
guidance. , . ' .
Streamlining grants certification process so that States provide single certification for. anti-lobby ing
activities, suspension and debarment, procurement certification (superrund only) and SF 424
assurances. ' ' ... ' . '
Reviewing and analyzing current grant and administrative requirements to determine burdens on
States and recommend improvements. .
Piloting multi-year cooperative agreement with two States to determine if administrative savings
result. ' ''.': '..- , .
Initiating a work program integration and resource tracking demonstration between Region VI and
Texas. This project analyzes all CWA grant resources in relation to geographic location, sources
of funds, amounts and characterization of water quality activities within each basin. ,
IV. Special Requirements for Use
There are no special requirements. . i ;
, , ' ) , ! .'.'.'
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
This project serves as a model for other media grant operations, and is transferable in geographic
areas. ' -' ' . ''."-''. ''''.. ' ' " :
VI. Other Information
On going activities include: i
' . ' ' '.'. ' 93 '" . '. ;
-------
Investigation of electronic transfer of all grant application, review and approval procedures with the
intent of making the whole process "paperless."
Report on reaction on grant program reporting proposal, including grant reporting requirements and
analysis of ways to streamline reporting, emphasize environmental results, reflect diversity of State
programs and maintain Federal requirements. , ,
* continue review of funding options, most notably the feasibility of greater use of State Revolving
Fund (SRF) funds to support and reflect WPA.
* _ '
VII. Program Contacts ' .
Jane Ephremides Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Resources Management and
Evaluation Staff, (202) 260-3897
Don Brady
Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, (202) 260-7074
94
-------
HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
ENVIRONMENTAL GOAL SETTING TOOLS
95
-------
-------
AQUATIC LIFE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
L Description of Tool
This methodology is intended to provide an overall measure of the integrity of an aquatic assemblage"
exposed to varying toxicant concentrations, without focusing solely on worst case scenarios.An approach is
under development for assessing the impact that time varying toxicant concentrations would have on an
assemblage of species having (a) differing sensitivities to the toxicant, and (b) differing life strategies,
yielding different rates of recovery.
This approach is part of the revisions to the methodology for deriving water quality criteria fpr
protection of aquatic life. It consists of general guidance on collection and evaluation of appropriate toxicity
data for a range of taxa (similar to the program's previous guidance for deriving criteria), coupled with a
computer model for assessing the effects of time variable concentrations.
' ' ; , ' '.'(',.- ' ' ' ' ! . - '
III. TooIUsers
The predecessor guidance has a number of users in EPA and State water programs. The new
materials under development, including the computer model, are intended for such general use, but are
currently used only by the developers.: I '
IV. Tool Development
The tool is still under development. Procedures will be refined by applying them to an assessment
of a particular toxicant, by .end of summer 1995. The computer model is operational and largely complete,
and a first rough draft of the documentation is expected by end of January 1995, at which time the model
will be ready for beta testing. Resources have been provided by OW, and ORD Duluth and Nafragansett
labs. . ' ' : ' . v / ' .' ,: '' '''-,''''.
V. Programmatic/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
There is nothing that restricts programmatic or geographic transferability. The predecessor guidance
could be adapted to other media. The newly developed modeling approaches designed to surmount
difficulties associated with a medium with rapidly varying concentrations; its features would not be needed
for evaluating more stable media (such as soil or sediment).
: '"'-. i- .
VI. Other Information i
VIL Program Contact ,
Charles Delos Office of Water, Office ,of Standards and Technology, Health and Ecological
Crtieria, (202) 260-7039 ^
97
-------
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA: NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE
FOR SURFACE WATERS
L Tool Description ,
This guidance was issued by EPA in 1990 to provide information on the need for and methods for
establishing narrative biological criteria in State/Tribal water quality standards.
IL Tool Users
Federal, State, municipal industrial, environmental and Tribal entities. ,
III. Tool Development
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act require States and Tribes to adopt water quality standards to
protect public health and welfare, to enhance water quality, and to serve the purposes of the Act by
providing for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife arid recreation in and on the
water, whenever these goals are attainable. The Act requires States to establish standards taking into
consideration the use and value of the water for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife,
recreation, agricultural and industrial water supply, navigation and other purposes. As a State/Tribe rule
or law, water quality standards provide the basis for treatment controls beyond the technology-based
requirements of the Act for both point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
Finally, water quality standards provide the bench mark against which to measure the effectiveness
of regulatory and non-regulatory programs and in controlling water borne risks.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None ,
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The standards are designed for the water media, but are applicable to a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information
Water quality standards are the foundation central core of the ecosystem/watershed approach as they
define the human health and ecological goals for the aquatic ecosystem and provide the mechanism for
meeting the objective of the Clean Water Act to restore the chemical physical and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters.
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M ,
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
VII. Program Contacts ;
David K. Sabock Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260 1318
98
-------
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR APPLICATION OF
SEWAGE SLUDGE TO FORESTS AND RANGE LAND
L Tool Description ,
The purpose of this tool is to develop an ecological risk assessment methodology for application of
sewage sludge of forests and range land and1 to use that methodology to develop limits for pollutants in
sewage sludge applied to those types of land. ,
II. -Tool Users
The Health and Ecological Criteria Division in the Office of Science and Technology will be the
primary user. Results of the assessment will be used to assess the protectiveness of the current Standards
for the Use of Disposal of Sewage Sludge (58 FR 9248', February 19, 1993),' which were based on the
information available at the time the standards were developed. .
III. Tool Development
A detailed work plan is now being developed for this project. The work plan is expected to be
completed and approved in .the third quarter of FY 95. : ,
Work will be done through an ihteragency agreement with the Department of Energy in Oak Ridge,
T.N. Contract funds ($500K) are being managed by ORD, Cincinnati, using 0 5 FTEs. Additional funding
and FTEs will be needed in FY 96 and FY 97 to complete project.
IV. Special Requirements for Use :
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
EPA program offices and other who conduct ecological risk assessments. Methodology may be used
for ecological risk assessments for other media.
, . i
VI. Other Information , ,
VII. Program Contacts
Robert M. Southworth Office of Water, Office of Standards and Technology, Health and Ecological
and Criteria Division, 202-260-7157
99
-------
ECOTOX THRESHOLDS
I. Tool Description
One of the initial decisions in the Superfund site assessment process is to determine which chemicals
reported on site are present at concentrations that could cause a significant adverse ecological effect, This
chemical screening step is typically accomplished by comparing the reported concentrations from the site to
a previously established ecotoxicological benchmark. If the concentration exceeds the benchmark in a
particular media, further analysis is required to determine the risk posed by the chemical. To the extent
possible, existing EPA protocols will be used for setting acceptable concentrations (e.g., Ambient Water
Quality Criteria). When formal criteria have not been developed for a particular chemical, other established
and scientifically credible methods will be used to determine appropriate threshold concentrations. The
methods will rely on the evaluation and interpretation of existing ecotoxicological data, and will not require
additional research. '
IL Tool Users -
EPA Regional offices. ' "-.'
III. Tool Development
ETs are currently under development. This project was initiated in response to Regional requests
for assistance and with their cooperation. ETs are being developed in-house with contractor support. These
screening values will accomplish two objectives: o Provide Remedial Project Managers with a quick and
efficient tool for deciding which contaminants are potential chemicals of concern; o Improve programmatic
consistency in the way decisions are made regarding risks to ecological receptors at Superfund sites.
The methods to generate the values are currently being reviewed by a workgroup,of interested parties;
IV. Special Requirements for Use
The list of ETs will be distributed as a self-extracting software application that will operate with
minimal hardware requirements. . '''.''
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The values should be applicable (for screening purposes) to ,
any program focusing on a relatively small scale sites.
VI. Other Information . "
The National Contingency Plan (NCP), describing how CERCLA is implemented, requires the
Agency to conduct a baseline risk assessment to "characterize the current and potential threats to human
health and the environment" (§300.430). As part of this baseline assessment every Superfund site is required
to include an ecological risk assessment to "1) identify and characterize the current or potential threats to
the environment from a hazardous substance release, 2) evaluate the ecological impacts of alternative
remediation strategies, and 3) establish clean-up levels in the selected remedy that will protect those natural
resources at risk" (OSWER Directive No. .9285.7-17):
VII. Program Contacts
John Miller Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency Response and
Remediation, (703) 603-8845
100
-------
EMAP'S ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
L Tool Description
Because the EMAP can not-measure every possible environmental parameter in a cost effective or
timely manner, it utilizes certain measurements, or indicators, of ecological condition. From its' inception,
the foundation of EMAP was the selection, evaluation, and implementation for ecplogical indicators. EMAP
conducts indicator activities in seven ecological resource groups including; forests, surface waters,
agricultural lands, rangelands, estuaries, Great Lakes, and landscapes using a wide variety of "tools". These
tools include conceptual and process models, indexes such as Karr's Index of Biological Integrity which
encompass a number of biological indicator measurements, satellite imagery and remote sensing techniques,
design and sampling protocols, or physical and chemical measurements as indicators of habitat condition.
IL Tool Users
EMAP indicators have been designed for use by scientists, environmental policy and management
staff, other Federal, state, and regional partners including state water monitoring personnel and other Federal
agencies such as National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and the Soil Conservation Survey.
These indicator tools provide, in a timely and cost effective manner, scientific information and data with a
known confidence to science and policy decision makers for use in comparative ecological risk assessments,
environmental management, .and resource conservation and protection activities. -'.'
III. Tool Development ; .
The EMAP was developed in response to recommendations by EPA's Science Advisory Board (1988
and 1990) to initiate a program to monitor and assess the status and trends of the nation's ecological
resources, to develop ecological indicators of the condition of the nation's resources, and to provide data and
analytical methods in support of comparative .ecological risk assessments. The wide variety of indicators as
tools for ecological management were developed by many different participants (e.g., contractors, other
Federal agencies, and regional partners). EMAP's 1994 budget approximated $39 million dollars, and a
significant portion of these funds was used to select, evaluate, and implement indicators of ecological
condition across the resource groups. ,
'" . . " '
IV. Special Requirements for Use
No special requirements required for use.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
EMAP Indicators receives numerous requests from Agency, Federal, state, and regional science and
policy staff for assistance in identifying research efforts and information contacts on EMAP's various
ecological indicator efforts. For example, EMAP indicator activities provide useful information to the Office
of Water on contaminated sediments, toxicity to aquatic organisms in surface waters and estuarine resources.
State monitoring programs (Delaware, Florida, and New Jersey) have .adopted the EMAP approach for
assessing status and trends in environmental resources.'.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
H. Kay Austin, Ph.D. . Office of Research arid Development, Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program, (202) 260-5789
101
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
J. Tool Description
As part of OW and OPPE's efforts to establish agency-wide goals, environmental indicators are being
defined and developed for achieving the goal to "conserve and enhance ecosystems." Indicators are being
defined and developed for attaining biologically healthy water resources include: water meeting aquatic life
designated use; species at risk; biological integrity of the water and, on a longer time frame for development,
habitat quality. "
IL. Tool Users
Indicators are used by Local, State, Regional and Federal Monitoring agencies.
III. Tool Development
In progress. .
IV, Special Requirements for Use
Details for the indicators need to be defined; training and/or guidance will probably be developed
in time.
V, Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Yes, indicators will be developed, and their transferability will be evaluated. Indicators will
probably be "General" with specific guidance for their application to specific ecoregion-type areas.
VI. Other Information
Background information on the development of environmental indicators is available.
Program Contacts .
Mary Belefski Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, (202) 260-7061
102
-------
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON SUPPLEMENTARY STREAM DESIGN
CONDITIONS FOR STEADY STATE MODELING, December 1988.
L' Tool Description ' ' i. .. .
Water quality standards for many pollutants are Written as a function of ambient environmental
conditions, such as temperature, pH or hardness. This document provides guidance on selecting values for
these parameters when performing steady-state WLAs. ,
IL Tool Users
, Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases
assisted in their testing. - J
III. Tool Development ' ;
The Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied'Science Division publishes guidance
manuals and case studies to support the development and use of total maximum daily loads (TMDL).
Section 303(d) of the Glean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based controls
are insufficient to meet Water quality standards, to establish priorities for these waters based on the severity
of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, .and to develop the total maximum daily load of
pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for the
particular waterbody or segment thereof. The documents listed support the managerial and technical
components of the TMDL process. , -
Since 1983, the primary impetus for developing the guidance is the need to provide the .technical and
management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements and Agency programmatic priorities.
Thus the guidance focused first on conventional pollutants, then toxics and now nonpoint sources and other
wet weather discharges.
-,-'' .''""' ' ^-
The guidance documents provide the transport and fate models needed to develop and apply TMDLs when
excessive biochemical oxygen demand, low dissolved oxygen, excessive nutrient, eutrophication, toxic
pollutant concentrations preclude attainment of water quality standards in rivers, streams, lakes and estuaries,
under both wet weather and steady state conditions. Also included in the guidance documents are decision
matrices that assist in problem formulation, model development, implementation and assessment, as well as
approaches for allocating loads among point and npripoint sources, including atmospheric deposition.
Techniques and case examples are provided whether using "desktop" calculations, steady state or dynamic
models. New fools are examined, such as rapid bioassessments, and new informatipn provided to up-date
existing tools such as water quality reaction rate coefficients for QUAL2E and WASP.
IV.
V.
Special Requirements for Use
None. Readability depends on the topics covered.
Program/Media/Geographic Transferability r
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information ; . , .
The TMDL process ; is the back bone of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint
sources and background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and sediment).
The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to
examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect of different
" .103''. '-. " i'.'.'- '
-------
strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals water quality standards. The TMDLs
maximize real environmental gains and minimize the need for unnecessary regulation..
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
VII. Program Contacts
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330 ,
104
-------
GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING SITE SPECIFIC SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
L Tool Description ,
. , This tool was designed to provide a consistent means for modifying a national criteria to meet the
needs or goals of a specific site when a criteria is adopted into a State standard.
i / ' ' . '' - ' ''.'-
The method is applicable to the modification of national sediment quality criteria to meet site specific
needs when those criteria are adopted into State Water Quality standards. Reasons for applying the method
range from needing to protect an Endangered Species or an economically important species to unique site
sediment characteristics. . . , , .
IL Tool Users
.Designed for use by Region and State surface water regulators in the NPDES program.
III. Tool Development .'.., ;
Status: The method was made available for public, comment in January of 1994, public comment
ended in June 1994, comments have been compiled and responses are being prepared. Anticipate final
document in approximately 1 year. ;
Resources: Development of the method required the involvement of-two EPA environmental
Research laboratories and is adapted from the method for deriving site specific criteria for .the protection of
aquatic life. , . ,.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The method is applicable to any geographic or programmatic need for sediment quality criteria site
specificity. ; , '
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts , '
Mary C. Reiley Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, (202) 260-9456
105
-------
OVERENRICHMENT GUIDANCE
L Tool Description
This document provides guidance on appropriate levels of nutrients and related parameters, such as
chlorophyll A, to assist assessment and goal setting for watersheds stressed due to overenrichrnent. This
guidance will be used by State or Tribal agencies, or others concerned with watershed management who
suspect that overenrichment may be a major problem. The guidance will assist in confirming or denying
this assumption, and in setting appropriate targets for the water, which can then be achieved by implementing
source controls. At present, detailed guidance for this implementation step is a future project. The guidance
may provide a matrix of acceptable parameter levels for different settings, or may simply provide a
methodology for determining such levels on a site-specific basis.
IJ. Tool Users ,
Widespread use is anticipated for this-important guidance by State or Tribal agencies, or others
concerned with watershed management who suspect that overenrichment may be a major problem.
III. Tool Development
The project has been approved and incorporated in FY95 budgets for Office of Standards and
Technology and the Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds in the Office of Water. A memo has been
sent out to solicit Agency participation on a workgroup. A national meeting of outside experts is planned
forFY95.
Present resources consist mainly of staff from OST and OWOW; additional resources are anticipated
from ORD and others. FY95 contract funds are budgeted in the low six figures.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The guidance will be specific to water, but will relate to air deposition, and will be useful to a
variety of programs in a variety of settings.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Bob April Office of Water, Office of Standards and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, (202) 260-0658 .
TimKasten Office of Water, Office of Standards and Technology, (202) 260-5994
106
-------
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF BENTfflC
ORGANISMS: ACENAPHTHENE, FLURANTHENE, PHENANTORENE, DEILDRIN,
ENDRIN (five documents, one for each chemical!)
* ' , . * ''-',.- ' i , . . >
- L ' .. Tool Description ' ;
; This tool consists of five documents, one for each chemical (acenaphthene, fluranthene,
phenanthrene, deildrin, endrin). These documents are designed to establish the levels below which EPA
expects no toxicity to benthic organisms will be demonstrated. The criteria values are expected to be
; adopted by States into State Water Quality Standards and eventually become part of the NPDES permitting
program. ' ."
IL Tool Users
This tool is designed for use by Region and State surface water regulators in the NPDES program.
Is also being used by industry, public, and environmental groups to evaluate sites.
III. Tool Development ?
The criteria was made available for public comment in January of 1994, public comment ended in
June 1994, comments have been compiled and responses are being prepared. Anticipate final documents
in approximately 1 year. .
Development of the criteria required the involvement of five EPA .Environmental Research
Laboratories, two contractors and several subs, and four universities over ajpproximately 7'years. EPA
(Headquarters and Labs) FTE's 2'year Extramural: $300,000/year.
IV. Special Requirements for t'se . .
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The criteria have been picked up by Superrund and RCRA to assist with site evaluation and
determination of remediation alternatives. Intended to be used in the dredging program as well.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts >
Mary C. Reiley Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, (202) 260-9456 ,
107;
-------
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DOCUMENT TO DELINEATE AREAS OF
GROUND WATER/SURFACE WATER INTERACTION . .
L, Tool Description ,
A first draft of the Technical Assistance Document (TAD) to delineate areas of ground water/surface
water interaction will be completed by the OW's Ground Water Protection Division (GWPD) by December
1994.
1L. Tool Users .
The TAD is primarily meant to be used by State, Tribes, and local water managers.
III. Tool Development
The development of Technical Assistance Document resulted from the June 1994, Ground Water
Ecology Strategic Plan's first key objective to provide technical assistance to water resource managers,
especially at the State and local level. The GWPRD entered into an Interagency Agreement with the
National Park Service (NPS) to develop the TAD. They hired scientists to draft the TAD.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
No special requirements for use.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv , .
The TAD will be of interest to State, Tribe, and local water managers, especially in the Western
United States, interested in delineating and setting priorities in areas of ground water/surface water
interaction that need protection.
VI. Other Information ''..'.
VII. Program Contacts
John Simons Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Ground Water Protection
Division, (202) 260-7091 -
108
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT: HOW TO DEVELOP AND USE METAL
TRANSLATORS
L Tool Description
This document investigates the use of total suspended solids (TSS) to characterize metal sorption
sites, and gives guidance on field study'techniques to gather data necessary to develop the translators. The
document illustrates the steps involved in translating from dissolved metals concentrations in the receiving
water to total recoverable metals in the effluent stream. This tool will be completed in FY 1996.
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local arid Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases
assisted in their testing. : '
III. Tool Development
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based"
controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards > to establish priorities for these waters based on the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for
the particular waterbody or segment thereof,
Since 1983, the primary impetus for developing the guidance is the need to provide the technical and
management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements and Agency programmatic priorities.
Thus the guidance focused first on conventional pollutants, then toxics and now nonpoint sources and other
wet weather discharges. ' . ; . ,
IV. Special Requirements for Use ,
None. Readability depends on the topics covered.
Vi Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv I '
'Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information ; 1
The TMDL process is the back bone of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint
sources and background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and sediment).
The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to
examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a. watershed and to evaluate the effect of different
strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals water quality standards. The TMDLs
maximize real environmental gains and minimize the need for unnecessary regulation..
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
VII. Program Contacts ( ;
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330
109
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS
(TMDLS): INTEGRATING STEADY-STATE AND EPISODIC POINT AND
NONPOINT SOURCES
L Tool Description
This guidance provides technical detail on modeling approaches for TMDL estimation, with
emphasis on situations that involve wet-weather point and nonpoint source loading in combination with steady
point sources. The user is led step-by-step through technical aspects of TMDL estimation, from initial
problem scoping through model development and on to TMDL development, implementation, and follow-up
assessment. This tool will be completed in FY 1996.
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases
assisted in their testing. ,
III. Tool Development ,
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based
controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish priorities for these waters based on the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for
the particular waterbody or segment thereof. Since 1983, the primary,impetus for developing the guidance
is the need to provide the technical and management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements
and Agency programmatic priorities. Thus the guidance focused first on conventional pollutants, then toxics
and now nonpoint sources and other wet weather discharges, i v - ,
..-._ i
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. Readability depends on the topics covered. .
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems. .
VI. Other Information
The TMDL process is the back bone of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint
sources and background loadings (from lion-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and sediment).
The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to
examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect of different
strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals water quality standards. The TMDLs
maximize real environmental gains and minimize the need for unnecessary regulation..
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
VII. Program Contacts
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330
110
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUALS FOR PERFORMING WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS
L Tool Description . ,
This tool consist of a series of guidance manuals on performing waste load allocations for streams
and rivers, lakes, reservoirs and impoundments, and estuaries. Also included are methods for analyzing
biochemical oxygen demand, low dissolved oxygen, nutrient, and-eutrpphication.
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases
assisted in their testing. : -
III. Tool Development , v .
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based
controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish-priorities for these waters based on the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for
the particular waterbody or segment thereof. Since 1983, the primary impetus for developing the guidance
is the need to provide the technical and management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements
and Agency programmatic priorities. Thus the guidance focused first on conventional pollutants, then toxics
and now nonpoint sources and other wet weather discharges. -''"'
IV.' Special Requirements for Use
None. Readability depends on the topics covered. '.',.'
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability :
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information
The TMDL process is the back bone of the; watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint
sources and background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and sediment).
The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to ,
examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect of different
strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals water quality standards. The TMDLs
maximize real environmental gains and minimize the need for unnecessary regulation..
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D.C. at no cost. . i .
VII. Program Contacts ' ;
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science arid Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330
111
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR DEVELOPING TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY
LOADS, BOOK II: STREAMS AND RIVERS, PART I: BIOCHEMICAL
OXYGEN DEMAND/DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND NUTRIENTS/EUTROPfflCATION
J. Tool Description
This manual presents the most recent information and techniques for use in preparing total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) when excessive biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), low dissolved oxygen
(DO), and excessive nutrients and eutrophication impair the water quality of streams and rivers. This
version includes: an update of water quality reaction rate coefficients, an update of model identification and
selection, and an inclusion of a TMDL example using QUAL2E and WASP. This manual will be completed
by the end of FY 1995.
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases
assisted in their testing.
III. Tool Development
Section 303 (d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based
controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish priorities for these waters based on the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for
the particular waterbody or segment thereof. Since 1983, the primary impetus for developing the guidance
is the need to provide the technical and management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements
and Agency programmatic priorities. Thus the guidance focused first on conventional pollutants, then toxics
and now nonpoint sources and other wet weather discharges.
IV. Special Requirements for Use ~ -
None. Readability depends on the topics covered. ' -
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information
The TMDL process is the back bone of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint
sources and background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and sediment).
The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to
examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect of different
strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals water quality standards. The TMDLs
maximize real environmental gains and minimize the need for unnecessary regulation..
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
VII. Program Contacts
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330
112
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR PERFORMING WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS -
SIMPLIFIED ANALYTICAL METHOD FOB'. DETERMINING NPDES EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS FOR POTWS DISCHARGING INTO LOW-FLOW STREAMS.
L Tool Description :
This document is primarily intended for "desk top" WLA investigations or screening studies that use
available data for stream flow, effluent flow, and water quality. It is^ intended for circumstances where
resources for analysis and data acquisition are relatively limited.
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases
assisted in their testing: . i . , .' :. .. :
III. Tool Development , i
Section 303(d) of the Clean-Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based
controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish priorities for these waters based on the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for
the particular waterbody or segment thereof. Since 1983, the primary impetus for developing the guidance
is the need to provide the technical and management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements
and Agency programmatic priorities. Thus the guidance focused first oh conventional pollutants, then toxics
and now nonpoint sources and other wet weather discharges. " , , .
IV. Special Requirements for Use ' '' i.
None. Readability depends on the topics covered.
. / . ' -' , - '. ' t ' ' .-
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ''.'-'
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. ,Other Information ,
The TMDL process is the back bone of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint
sources and background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and sediment)..
The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to
examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect of different
strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals water quality standards. The TMDLs
maximize real environmental gains and minimize the need for'unnecessary regulation..
.' . : ''-.' 'f , ' ' ''
, All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C, at no cost. ; " ,. , ' ,
VII. Program Contacts
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330
113
-------
USER'S GUIDE TO THE SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA
L, Tool Description ''''-,'-'.
This tool provides users of the sediment quality .criteria information on how the criteria should be
applied across the Agency in a variety of programs. Specifically, this guide provides users an insight into ,
how EPA program offices (water, Superfund, RCRA, Pesticides, Toxic Substances, etc.) intend on the
criteria to be used in their program as well as the policy and risk management implications.
IL Tool Users
The document is designed for States, Regions, Superfund site managers, industry, environmental
groups, others that will be applying sediment quality criteria to site evaluations.
III. Tool Development .
Status: A cross-Agency work group has been formed that includes Regions. The work group is
drafting program specific outlines of what topics and issues will be discussed in each chapter. Draft
document available no earlier than .Fall 1995.
Resources: It is expected that the effort will require the participation of representatives from six or
seven program offices, all ten Regions, and eventually States and other user groups. The document should
take approximately two years to develop.
IV. Special Requirements for I'se
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The document will contain the intended application of sediment quality criteria and risk management ,
options for all affected Agency programs.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Mary C. Reiley Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria" i
Division, (202) 260-9456
114
-------
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND STANDARDS PROGRAMS VIDEOTAPES
L Tool Description ",.'..
Nine videos describe various aspects of the water quality standards and criteria programs, including:
Introduction to Water Quality Standards, Antidegradation Policy: A Means to Maintain and Protect Existing
Uses and Water Quality, Development of Water Quality Criteria and Its, Relationship to Water Quality
Standards, Enumeration Methods for E. Coli and Enterococci, Water Quality-Based Approach to Pollution
Control, Water Quality Standards and 401 Certification, Economic Considerations in Water Quality
Standards, Water Quality Standards on Indian Lands, and Development of Biological Criteria for Use in
Water Quality Standards.
II.
III.
Tool Users
Federal, State, municipal industrial, environmental and tribal entities.
Tool Development .
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act require States and Tribes to adopt water quality standards to
protect public health and welfare, to enhance water quality, and to serve the purposes of the Act by
providing for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife'and recreation in and on the
water, whenever these goals are attainable. ,
Finally, water quality standards provide the bench mark against which to measure the effectiveness
of regulatory and non-regulatory programs and in controlling water borne risks,, < ;
IV.
V.
VI.
Special Requirements for Use
None . - . ' ;'-' ...';'-.- .'.. ' "
Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The standards are designed for the watet media, but are applicable to a wide range of ecosystems.
Other Information :
Water quality standards are the foundation central core of the ecosystem/watershed approach as they
define the human health and ecological goals for the aquatic ecosystem and provide the mechanism for
meeting the objective of the Clean Water Act to restore the chemical physical and biological integrity of
the Nation's waters. ' ' \ . ; ..',..
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M
Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost. , ' ,
VII. Program Contacts , (
David K. Sabock Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260 1318 .
115
-------
WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES SYSTEM
I- Tool Description
The Water Quality Guidance for the Great Lakes System (40 CFR Part 1.32) will be used by States
and Tribes to establish consistent water quality standards and implementation procedures that control
discharges from industries and municipalities into the Great Lakes Basin. The Guidance, developed as a
rule, places special emphases on persistent, bioaccumulative toxic pollutants, since these are of major
concern in the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Using an ecosystem approach, establish minimum water quality criteria (including for the first time,
criteria to specifically protect wildlife), anti-degradation'policies, and implementation procedures applicable
to point source discharges for waters of the Great Lakes Basin within the States of Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisconsin and for waters within the jurisdiction
of Indian tribes.
II. Tool Users
Regions II, III and IV; the Great Lakes States and Tribes. ' .
v
III. Tool Development
Status: EPA is under a court order to sign the final Part 132 rule by March 13, 1995 (National
Wildlife Federation v. Browner, Civil No. 92-2338-CRR).
Resources:
Development: ,
o FY 1989 - FY 1991: 5 FYE/yr (Headquarters and Regions)
o FY 1992 - FY 1995: 10 FTE/yr and $150,000/yr Contract Funds (Headquarters/ Regions)
Application
o Headquarters/Regions - 12 FTEs/$10M Contract Funds
o Eight Great Lakes States and Tribes - 16 FTEs/$40M Contract Funds
IV. Special Requirements for Use
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
With modifications, the Great Lakes Initiative (i.e., public participation aspects) and the final Part
132 rule could be used as a model by other EPA programs and for other media/geographic areas.
VII. Program Contacts
Mark Morris Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, (202)-260-0312
116
-------
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR WETLANDS
L Tool Description
The Clean Water Act requires' states to establish water quality standards, which have three
components: designated uses; criteria to protect those uses; and an antidegradation policy. The statute
requires state standards to meet or exceed EPA minimum standards; EPA Regional Offices review the
standards promulgated by states to ensure that they do so.
In general, water quality criteria can be narrative statements or numeric values. To date, States have
focused on developing narrative criteria to protect the unique physical and biological characteristics of
wetlands. An example of a narrative hydrologic criterion for wetlands would be: "maintain natural
hydrologic conditions, including hydroperiod, hydrodynamics, and natural water temperature variations
necessary to support vegetation which would be present naturally";
Narrative criteria in conjunction with antidegradation policies can provide the basis for addressing
hydrologic and physical impacts to wetlands (not easily discerned through numeric criteria) caused by
nonpoint source pollution, storm water discharges, groundwater pumping, filling and other sources of
wetlands degradation. When combined with a strong implementation policy, wetlands water quality
standards can work in tandem with other wetland protection tools, such as best management practices,
monitoring programs, and mitigation plans, as'well as serve as the primary basis for Section 40L certification
decisions. , s, < ' ,
IL Tool Users .". ' " ' ,.'.''....'" ' ' ; ' ' ' . -.
Standards are used by state water quality protection programs.
III. Tool Development. - ; : ,
The development of water quality standards is mandated by section 303 of the Clean Water Act.
IV. Special Requirements for Use , :
Standards are intended for use in conjunction with an implementation vehicle... For example, an
NPDES permitting program may look at the standards to determine whether the permit conditions would lead
to a violation of standards. ,
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ,
Good standards with appropriate criteria can provide, a good indication of ecological goals when
assessing the health of a wetland. Such information could be useful to ecosystem efforts which include
wetlands. ' ' ; " - ,
VI. Other Information " -
States take varying approaches to the promulgation of standards for wetlands. Some do not
differentiate between wetlands and other surface water's in the promulgation of standards; some develop
standards generic wetlands standards; others develop specific standards for different types of wetlands (eg:
bogs, coastal wetlands).
VII. Program Contacts
Doreen Robb Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Wetlands Division, (202) 260-
1906
117
-------
WATERSHED ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE
I. Tool Description
This tool is to provide guidance for using ecological risk assessment methodology for watershed
ecosystem management, helping watershed partners identify, evaluate and prioritize complex problems using
the scientific method.
The guidance will provide users with a detailed process for defining management goals and selecting
ecological values to assess goal achievement. User's will learn how to . . . .
generate conceptual models, hypotheses and analysis plans for evaluating available data and generating new
data to answer key questions. Follow-on sections on data analysis and interpretation will be included. To
supplement the guidance, full case study examples of watershed level ecological risk assessments will be
included.
IL Tool Users ,
Guidance will be designed for local, state and federal resource managers,, regulators and risk
assessors. Industry, public organizations,interested groups and also be able to use the guidance.
III. Tool Development
Five case studies of watershed ecological risk assessments are currently under development, jointly
sponsored by the Office of Water and ORD's Risk Assessment,Forum. The case studies are scheduled for
draft completion in December 1995. The guidance is being written concurrently and a draft will begin the
review process also in December 1995.
Participants on case study work groups include EPA Regional .Offices, ORD Laboratories, all EPA
program offices, state resource managers and regulators, local resource managers, private organizations and
academics. Participation is voluntary. EPA.(Headquarters) FTE: 1/yr; Extramural HQ funding: $150 K/yr.,
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transfer-ability '
The guidance is designed to be broad based and applicable to any geographic area and ecosystem,
large or small and can be used to evaluate the effects of chemical, physical and biological
stressors or ecological resources. - - .
VI, Other Information .
VII. Program Contacts .
Suzanne Marcy Office of Water, Office of Standards and Technology, Health and Ecological Criteria
Division, (202)260-0689
118
-------
WETLANDS BIOCRITERIA DEVELOPMENT
L Tool Description ' ,
Biocriteria are essential components -in the development of water quality standards which protect the
biological health of the nations waters. '
' ' * " : ' ' -' '-,.'
Biocriteria are primarily narrative statements; about the health of aquatic communities and
populations; work on developing numeric criteria is being conducted in some States. Together with the
Office of Science and Technology and the Office of Research and Development (ORD), the Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds is beginning to develop wetlands biocriteria guidance. In fiscal year 1994,
workshops sponsored by ORD were held in Minnesota and Massachusetts to discuss advances in wetland
assessment and monitoring protocols. Related research continues in the Prairie Pothole region in North
Dakota and is beginning in the Southeast in bottomland hardwoods. States were surveyed to determine the
status of wetlands monitoring and biocriteria development efforts. In. addition, a contract was initiated to
scope out technical issues related to wetlands biocriteria development as well as plan for a technical
workshop in the Spring of 1995 bringing together States, Regions, scientists and academia.
II.
III.
Tool Users
State water quality-protection programs.
Tool Development
Section 301 of the Clean Water Act calls for the development of criteria to protect the health
(chemical, physical and biological) of the nations waters. ' . ,
IV. Special Requirements for Use ,
Standards are intended for use in conjunction with an implementation vehicle. For example, an
NPDES permitting program may look at the standards to determine whether the permit conditions would lead
to a violation of standards. .; . '
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability ;
Good biocriteria can provide an indication of the parameters necessary for assessing the biological
health of a wetland. Such information could be useful to ecosystem efforts which include wetlands.
VI. Other Information
Wetlands biocriteria will be an important tool to assess progress towards the goal of no net loss of
the quality of our Nation's wetlands, to assess impacts to wetlands and to set restoration goals.
VII. Program Contacts ' .
Doreen Robb Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Wetlands Division, (202) 260-
1906
119
-------
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TESTS:
METHODS TO MEASURE THE TOXICITY OF EFFLUENT AND
RECEIVING WATERS TO FRESHWATER AND MARINE ORGANISMS
1 '"* " '
L. Tool Description
WET tests can be used as a screening device to identify toxicity in effluent or receiving waters.
They can also be used to set a permit condition for the allowable toxicity in a discharge. This tool provides
EPA-approved methods that enable effluent from dischargers and receiving waters to be analyzed for,toxicity
(both acute and chronic) in both freshwater and marine environments.
H. Tool Users
EPA Regional Offices, State and Tribal Governments.
III. Tool Development
Final methods for all of the available WET tests are expected to be published in the Federal Register
in February, 1995. Test costs range from several hundred dollars for acute tests to several thousand dollars
for chronic tests.
t . ' *-
rV, Special Requirements for Use
None.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
These tests to assess toxicity can be used by other EPA programs that are concerned with aquatic
toxicity on a site-specific basis (e.g., Superfund). -
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts =
Frank GostomsW Office of Water, Office of Standards and Technology, Health and Criteria Division,
(202) 260-1321
120
-------
WATER EFFECT RATIO (BIOAVAILABILITY) GUIDANCE
L Description of Tool
The purpose of the tool is to assess the. effect that local water quality would have on the aquatic
toxicity of each unit of a particular toxicant. The toxicity of materials (such,as metal salts) that form many
chemical species in water, all in equilibrium with each other, depends on the particular characteristics of the
water used in the toxicity test. Standard aquatic toxieity testing, upon which, the national aquatic life criteria
are based, usually try to maximize unit toxicity, by minimizing the presence of sorbing or binding materials.
Local waters to which the criteria are applied may have chemical characteristics substantially different than
the waters used for the toxicity tests underlying the national criteria. The purpose of the water-effect is to
account for this difference. _ ' ,
The approach consists of side-by-side toxicity tests with an indicator species in sample of site, water
and in typical laboratory water. The water-effect ratio is the ratio of LC50s in site water and in lab water.
This ratio is used to adjust'the national criterion to fit the site. The guidance recommends appropriate ways
to carry out such a study. .. ' .. ';' ;
IL Tool Users
EPA HQ and Regional Offices. States, dischargers, consultants. OW/OST/HECD and ORD offer
technical assistance in the form of consultation on and review of site-specific studies.
III. Tool Development
The tool has been completed and is in use. ;
IV. Special Requirements for t'se ,'.
None. .''-.;.. ' L '-.'
V. . Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Minimal media transferahility. Geographic transfefability is the essence and purpose of the
approach! ' , -
VI. Other Information -
VI. Program Contact
Charles Deles ,.. Office of Water, Office of Standards and Technology, Health and Ecological
Crtieria, (202) 260-7039 ;
121
-------
122
-------
HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
MODELING TOOLS
123
-------
-------
ACUTE AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL
L Tool Description .
, The purpose of the acute avian risk assessment model is to ;
evaluate the comparative risk of acute lethal exposure from pesticides used on corn. The model is currently
in external agency peer review. It is expected to be available in early 1995. -
IL " Tool Users - _ -'." ' '' .-. . ." : .'.,-/ " '/;'.' . '.;'-/,-
The intended users of this tool are regulatory agencies (including Office of Pesticide Programs at
EPA HQ), pesticide registrants and non-government agencies. I
1 , ' '' ' , - Vx-\ . " f
Initial peer reviews of the model have been positive. Remaining peer reviews of the model are
pending but are believed to be supportive of the overall direction and intent of effort. Better data on specific
parameters, however, would improve the accuracy of the model's assessment capabilities.
i -, i ' - ' ",..,,-'"
III. Tool Development
The acute avian risk assessment model was developed in FY 1993-94 by Abt Associates under
contract to the Pesticide Policy Branch, Waste and Chemical Policy Division, Office of Policy Analysis,
Office of Policy, Planning arid Evaluation. Since development of the model was past of a larger effort,
specific cost information is not immediately available. . '
IV. Special Requirement for Use ;
. None ' , . .- ' : '.'.. ; '; '.'"..-.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
This tool is designed specifically to evaluate pesticides used in the production of corn but the model
can be used to evaluate other pesticides on other crops and other toxic substances as well.
f" ' '.'',
VI. . Other Information ':'
VII. Program Contact . , .
Ronn Dexter Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy Analysis, Waste and Chemical
Policy Division, Pesticide Policy Branch, (202) 260-7562 ,
125
-------
AQUATIC RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL
L Tool Description
The purpose of the aquatic risk assessment model is to evaluate the comparative risk to aquatic
ecosystems from the exposure of pesticides used on corn. This tool is currently in the process, of being
reviewed by an external agency peer group. It is expected to be available in early 1995."
IL Tool Use
The intended users for this model are regulatory agencies (including the Office of Pesticide Policy),
registrants and non-government agencies.
Feedback from initial peer reviews have been positive. Remaining peer reviews are pending but are
believed to be supportive of the overall direction and intent of the effort.
Some reviewers have commented that better data on specific parameters would improve the accuracy of the
model. .-,..."
Ill, Tool Development
The model was developed in FY 1993-94 by Abt Associates under contract to the Pesticide Policy
Branch in the Office of Policy Analysis, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation. Since development of
the model was part of a larger effort, specific cost are not immediately available.
' '
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None ,
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Tool is designed specifically to evaluate pesticides used in the production of corn but the model can
be used to evaluate other pesticides on other crops and other toxic substances as well.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contact ,
Ronn Dexter Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy Analysis, Waste and Chemical
Policy Division, Pesticide Policy Branch (202) 260-7562
126
-------
AQUATOX
L ' Tool Description ,
AQUATOX is a computerized model designed to predict the fate and effects of spilled; surface water-borne
toxic substances. The system can presently model streams, ponds and reservoirs. The Office of Standards
and Technology in the Office of Water is developing additional modules for large estuarine/river systems.
The model is designed to be very user-friendly. It also has a lot of flexibility regarding the presentation
of results; information can easily be graphed. This is often a useful feature In preparing information for
policy/decision-makers as a way of helping them to understand the significance of the information. -
IL Tool Users
The tool can be used by any risk assessor; it is very flexible and designed to be user-friendly. The model
was developed in 1993, and is currently being used by Environmental Effects Branch (EEB) in the Health
and Environmental Review Division, OPPTS, to evaluate persistent bio-accumulators, and by the Office of
Water in its TMDL program. Feedback from the Office of Water has been good.
There aren't too many other users at present, although the model is available to anyone who is interested.
There is interest in increasing the number of users, especially since most ecological analysis occurs at the
regions, but there has not yet been a lot of advertising.
The model could also be a helpful Pre-manufacture Notice (PMN) Review tool, as PMN turn-around must
occur within 90 days.
III. Tool Development -
The model was the outgrowth of a 1987 workshop as a result of recognition that the worst toxic releases
are water-borne. There was a recommendation to develop a model to provide 1) specifications for how
toxics transport/fate (move through the ecosystem), 2) potential toxic ecological effects. The model had to
be able to do this with the very little bit of data that comes in on the Pre-Manufacturihg Notice (PMNs) that
manufacturers are required to submit to the Agency. The AQUATOX model was finished in 1993. ABT,
a contractor, developed the model, although the Environmental Effects Branch (EEB) worked closely with
the contracto'r throughout development. .-'" '
Funding has been a stumbling block; a prototype was completed in 1990, but a final version wasn't
completed until 1993 due to funding issues. Altogether, HERD spent about $125,000-$150,000 on
development; OW is putting in several hundred thousand more for their,modules and training.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
, The model is designed as a tool for risk assessors, so some knowledge of ecology/toxicology is necessary.
The .model is PC-based, and designed to be very user-friendly. The present user-interface is a bit
awkward, but a Windows interface is being developed through the Office of Water. OW is also developing
some additional "guidance" (user-support/technical documentation).
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The model cannot handle groundwater (there are other models which do), but can be used by any program
for which surface water transport is of interest (eg: Superfund, etc.). The model can be used in combination
with other models, such as groundwater.
'.'.''-.. " 'IT? '' - " .' .'..''
-------
VI... Other Information ,
The model would benefit from a probabilistic approach to risk, enabling it to better deal with uncertainty.
There is an interest in moving away from analyses concerned with "1 death per 100,000"'to ones which try
to predict the chances of some particular negative impact. Monte Carlo methods have been developed to
address this issue, but these have not been incorporated in to the model. It is hoped that the funding to do
this additional development will become available. .
VII. Program Contacts .
Dave Maureillo OPTS, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Health and Environmental
Review Division, (202) 260-2260
128
-------
ASSESSMENTS OF IRRIGATION DRAINWATER CONTAMINANT RISKS
TO ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES (USFWS/NBS risk-based GIS model)
L Tool Description
This GIS/hydrological/toxicological model utilizes existing data on environmental concentrations, modeled
concentrations based on flows and hydrology as well as chemical behavior, and combines this infonnation
with toxicological info, and locations of important/vulnerable ecological resources to generate maps and
tabular data to be used in targeting risks from these waters; uncertainty components extremely useful to risk
management decision-maker. Potential use in regulatory/non-regulatory actions to reduce risks from these
waters. .' ' ' " . ',:., .-;_- ;'''- '.; --.-. ;.
IL Tool Users
This tool was developed for EPA Water Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-, Bureau of Reclamation,
states, etc. and other users dealing with impacts from,irrigation waters. It has potential use in non-regulatory
schemes associated with water districts. :
This tool has not been used yet; validation is not complete.
III. Tool Development
Irrigation drainwaters, particularly those in the,western.U.Si, contain elemental and pesticide/fertilizer
compounds which have significant ecological impacts; these waters are not regulated under the Clean Water
Act. This model development is designed to assist in targeting those areas of highest risk in the 7 western
states. Model and model validation essentially complete; expected delivery in January 1995.
Model developed through Interagency Agreement with USFWS, beginning in 1993; follows ecological risk
assessment by USFWS on irrigation return flows; part of the CWA reauthorization debate.
IV. Special Requirements for Use j
Users must be knowledgeable and experienced in risk assessment, risk management, ecological toxicology,
western water practices, land and water management. ,
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
This'tool has potential utility to ecological risk assessments-in general, with certain adaptations where
appropriate. , ; '. , :
' ' ' . I' - . . -
VI. Contact Person , . . . . .
Molly Whitworth Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy Analysis, Water and
Agricultural Policy Division, Water Policy Branch, 202-260^7561 ; ,
Don Hunter .National Biological Survey, Fit. Collins, Co, ' "'
129
-------
COMPARATIVE TOXICOLOGY MODELS
I. Tool Description .
Comparative Toxicology Models: Two models are available which allow: 1) predicting chronic toxicity
from acute lethality data (ACE), and 2) inter-taxa correlations for toxicity to aquatic organisms. The ACE
model allows one to predict chronic toxicity from any specified time to infinity using only acute toxicity data
or extending brief chronic test results (e.g., 7-day fathead minnow effluent tests, 28-day embryo/larval tests)
to longer term exposures. The model has just undergone completion and validation, but is in use. Inter-taxa
correlations for toxicity to aquatic organisms .
allows one to predict acute toxicity for an untested species from acute toxicity data for a surrogate species.
This tool is presently being expanded to include several endangered fish species, so is still developmental.
IL Tool Users ,
Intended and actual users are government, academia, and industry. The tools are user-friendly computer
programs and used when certain types of toxicity data are unavailable or cannot be obtained. The ACE
program has been in experimental use for 3 years and inter-taxa correlations for 6 years.
Feedback for the ACE program has been very good and proven to be highly accurate and precise. Little
feedback has been received on inter-taxa correlations other than people are using it. The ACE program
could be enhanced by modifying the models to accommodate endpoints other than lethality. The inter-taxa
correlations are being improved by adding endangered fishes., '
III. Tool Development
The final aspects of ACE were completed in 1994, and the basic portion of inter-taxa correlations was
completed in 1987. Development was prompted by the ecological risk assessment needs and the absence of
data for endangered species. , -' . .
Both tools were developed mainly in-house with assistance from the University of Missouri (ACE) and
contractor (inter-taxa correlations). The freshwater endangered fishes data for inter-taxa correlations are
being developed in cooperation with the National Biological Survey.
IV. Special Requirements for Use '
The only requirement is the ability to operate a computer.
V.. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Both programs can be used when predictions for aquatic toxicity data are required. In addition, the ACE
program can be used for terrestrial organisms as well as aquatic. ,
VI. Other Information , , .
This laboratory studies ecosystem processes in order to understand and solve near-coastal environmental
problems resulting from toxic chemicals, pesticides, pathogens, and introduced organisms.
VII. Program Contact
Dr. Foster Mayer Office of Research and Development, Office of Environmental Processes and
Effects Research, ERL - Gulf Breeze, PL, (904) 934-9380
130
-------
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC POLICY
EVALUATION SYSTEM (CEEPES)
L. Tool Description ;-....'.
CEEPES is an integrated modeling system developed to estimate the economic and environmental
consequences of alternative policies affecting the use of pesticides and nutrients. It integrates diverse
simulation models comprising four major components: policy, agricultural and economic decisions, fate and
transport, and health and ecological risk. It simulates the risk-benefit trade-offs associated with nonpoint
source pollution from agricultural productions. It links biophysical with economic modelling systems that
have been integrated over the dimensions of time and space. The CEEPES study region includes the
Midwestern Corn Belt, the Great Plains, and the Southeastern Corn Belt. The modelling system was used
to compare the risks and benefits of alternative policies, including national bans on the use of the corn and
sorghum herbicide atrazine, as well as the entire group of triazine herbicides, . '
i ' ' . ' , . - "'
II. Tool Use
The system is currently in use for analyses.Intended users of the outcomes of model simulations are policy
analysts and policy makers involved with issues associated with pesticide and nutrient use. Peer reviewers
Of the model have stated that the utility is good to excellent. ;
Unmet needs of CEEPES include expanding to more crops beyond corn, sorghum,- and soybeans, and the
crops involved in their rotations; expand the level of detail; and improve the environmental models used.
Also, the model needs to be developed for use by an individual, currently it can only be used by a team.
This aspect should be completed in early 1995. ;
III. Tool jPevelopment ,
CEEPES was developed by Iowa State's Center for Agriculture and Rural Development (CARD) over the
period of 1989 to 1993. Its development was prompted by the lack of tools available to assess the economic
and ecological impact.of alternative policies and practices on pesticide use. .
The approximate cost of developing the tool was 1 FTE and $1 million in grant money.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
A team of people is needed for! the running of this model due to its complex components. Also, individuals
using the model need to know how to ask the right policy questions. In addition, there are special computer
requirements.
. . ... ' . ! .' '' ''."' :
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Other offices that are interested in place based decision making and linking water quality with agricultural
activities such as OW, PPD, and OPP can use this tool. At this time, however, only corn, sorghum, and
soybean crop pesticide and nutrient policies can be evaluated with the full model. Partial analyses, not
including modelling of ecological and aquatic impacts can be conducted on wheat and cotton. Full use of
the model is geographically restricted to the Midwestern Cornbelt and the Southeast.
'..' '' " ." '
VI. Contact Person
Andy Manale Office of Policy Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy-Analysis, Water and,
Agricultural Protection Division (202) 260-6365 '
131
-------
CORNELL MIXING ZONE EXPERT SYSTEM (CORMIX)
L Tool Description , ,
The Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX) may be used for the analysis, prediction, and design
of aqueous toxic or conventional pollutant discharges into diverse waterbodies. Its major emphasis is on the
prediction of plume geometry and dilution characteristics within a receiving water's initial mixing zone so
that compliance with regulatory constraints may be judged. The system also predicts discharge plume
behavior at larger distances. Because of CORMIX's public domain status, extensive feedback has been
received from users on needed corrections and enhancements, and the model is continuously updated through
interaction with Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM).
IL Too! Users , .*''.
CORMIX is used by engineers and water quality modelers for modeling the mixing zone resulting from
diverse types of aquatic pollutant discharge (single point, multiple point, etc.) to receiving water bodies such
as streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, estuaries, and coastal waters. CORMIX has been in wide use for 5
years. Because of CORMIX's public domain status, extensive feedback has been received from users on
needed corrections and enhancements, and the model is continuously updated through interaction with
CEAM. This tool could be enhanced by developing a graphics post-processor and a tidal reversing flow
component. ,
III. Tool Development
CORMIX was developed in the late 1980's to provide a tool for analyzing surface water mixing zones.
CORMIX was originally developed through a cooperative agreement with Cornell University. Later releases
have been funded by the Office of Water.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
With its expert system design, CORMIX is easier to use than many water quality models: all data are
entered interactively in response to CORMIX prompts, the user is prompted for complete specification of
site/case descriptions, ambient conditions, discharge characteristics, level of output detail, and regulatory
definitions, and advice menu options are available to help prepare and enter data values. CORMIX is
microcomputer based (DOS-compatible), although the Fortran code may be compiled on any machine. The
user is well advised to use the most powerful microcomputer available.
Y_. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
CORMIX has general applicability for surface water mixing zone analysis.
Other Information
CEAM was established in 1987 to meet the scientific and technical exposure assessment needs of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as state environmental and resource management
agencies. To support environmental risk-based decisions, CEAM distributes environmental simulation
models and databases for urban and rural non-point sources, conventional and toxic pollution of streams,
lakes and estuaries, tidal hydrodynamics, geochemical equilibrium, and. aquatic food chain bioaccumulation.
A wide range of analysis techniques is provided, ranging from simple desk-top techniques suitable for
screening analysis, to sophisticated, state-of-the-art continuous simulation models. ,
VII. Program Contacts ,
Dermont .Bouchard Office of Research and Development/OEPER/Athens-ERL, Manager - Center for
Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM), (706) 546-3130 1
132
-------
DYNAMIC TOXICS WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION MODEL (DYNTOX), USER'S
MANUAL, September 13, 1985
L Tool Description .
This tool assesses the impact of toxic discharges on. receiving water quality over the entire range of
historical and future conditions. DYNTOX is both a steady state and dynamic wasteload allocation ,(WLA)
model. Historical and future conditions are analyzed to define the frequency arid duration of exposure above
specified limits. Simplified pre- and post-processing capabilities are being developed for DYNTOX.
Additional new features of the model include partial mix factors and variable water quality criteria for metals
and ammonia. '.' . . . '
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases assisted
in their testing. . ' ' .
III. Tool Development .'.',,
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based
controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish priorities for these waters based on the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for
the particular waterbody or segment thereof. 'Since 1983, the primary impetus for developing the guidance
is the need to provide the technical and management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements
and Agency programmatic priorities. Thus the guidance focused first on conventional pollutants, then toxics
and now noripoint sources and other wet weather discharges.
' " ' " -! >
IV. Special Requirements for Use ; ^ .
None. Readability depends on the topics covered.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability ,
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems. .
VI. Other Information , .. ,
The TMDL process is the back bone of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental management
, by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint sources and
background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and sediment). The
TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to
examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect of different
strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions,'etc.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals water quality standards. The TMDLs
maximize real environmental gains and minimize1 the need for unnecessary regulation..
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost. V . '
VII. Program Contacts
Russell Kinerson Office of Water,. Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330
133'
-------
ECONOMIC VALUATION MODEL
L Tool Description
This PC-mounted, spreadsheet-based model will be used by the Office of Toxic Substances to help assess
the costs and benefits associated with the ecological impacts anticipated with proposed regulatory and non-
regulatory proposed actions. The model is similar in concept to Department of the Interior models which
combine physical impacts and cost/benefit analysis for natural resource damage assessment.
The model will offer two site modules for different types of aquatic environments (eg: river systems). This
data about the physical environment can be combined with socioeconomic data (eg: is there commercial/sport
fishing; size of activity) to model socioeconomic activity's interrelationships with the physical .environment.
The model accounts for biological and valuation variability, and uses Monte Carlo (probabilistic) techniques
to help incorporate and address uncertainty.
As more information is developed on the physical impacts for terrestrial ecosystems, additional modules
can be developed to help calculate the costs and benefits relevant to terrestrial systems. The model will also
lend itself well to environmental justice purposes, since it easily accepts and addresses socio-demographic
data.
IL Tool Users
The intent is for the model to be used internally for chemical evaluations and decision-making to help the
agency choose between options based on risk. It could be used in the regulatory environment, although this
can be problematic since the model is generic and therefore open to criticism that its results don't match
reality. This is a general problem inherent in modeling, however; while the model will be peer-reviewed,
one can never get 100% accuracy. ,
III. Tool Development
Interest in this model was prompted by the risk assessment conducted for the eco-toxin, chloroparafin.'
Some physical impact modeling was done and information was provided about population impacts for Various
species of aquatic exposure to chloroparafin. However, the modeling was not able to address the costs and
benefits associated with clean up.
Work is being done both in-house and by a contractor. A working prototype will be ready in January,
1995. There is interest in developing additional site modules; another system which looks at reservoirs and
ponds could easily be added. Wetlands could also be incorporated if one had a measure of impacts. The
developer also envisions putting triggers like endangered species into the model, as there are other databases
that can link this up with endangered species data. It would take a huge data effort to incorporate terrestrial
systems; one would need either to find a huge source of biological data or an existing model, or pay
handsomely to have someone develop this information.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Users must have a PC with Lotus and At-Risk, a Lotus add-on. The model was not designed for external
users; if outside interest develops, user documentation will have to be prepared. -"'.
/ . , '
V. Program/MedJa/Geographic Transferabilitv
The model lends itself to many geographic (aquatic) applications as it is river-based. The model offers
great applicability to anyone trying to assess ecological insults; however, .data must be available on the
connection between the insult and the species. A decrease in population or biomass is presently used.
134 . " ,
-------
Another factor, such as the impact of a change in water quality on the livability of fish, could still be used
based on plausible values for population change. ; '<;
VI. Other Information ,
OPPTS is cognizant of the fact that TOSCA defines exposure in a multi-media fashion, but data is not,
equally available for all three media. Information has focused more on water systems; terrestrial information
is tougher to come by. There are roadblocks at all levels regarding the incorporation of economic
information into physical impact models. . 1
VII. Program Contacts
Bob Lee x ' Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Economics, Exposure and Technology Division; (202) 260-
' ''. ". 1670 ' ., '.'-,'.",-. .' , ' .
Lynn Blake-Hedges
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, Economics, Exposure and Technology Division, (202) 260-
7241 . . . : . ..'-.
135
-------
ECOSYSTEM/ECONOMIC MODELING PROJECT (OPPE)
I. Tool Description . . ..' '. . '
The OPPE Ecosystem/Economic modelling project consist of several component models. The ecosystem
model is a dynamic process-based simulation model that can .cover either an entire watershed or a sub-
watershed. The model makes predictions about the future condition of the ecosystems of the watershed.
These predictions include the type of ecosystem or habitat that will occur in actual geographic locations
within the watershed, as well as ecosystem process type information such as productivity. The model is
based on a spatial grid cell format and also uses geographic information systems (GIS). Validation studies
on the ecosystem model have been carried out. The ecosystem model is in the process of being coupled to
economic models in one of the watershed applications. The economic models have hot quite been completed.
These will include a model of human land use change (eg. agricultural to residential, low density to high
density residential, etc) and models of agricultural management practices. Feedback loops between the
ecosystem and economic models are being developed. A general description of this effort is described in
Bockstael et al. (in press, 1995)
II. Tool development
The initial version of the model was developed in the 1980's at the Louisiana State University for the US
Fish & Wildlife Service and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Costanza et al. 1990). The model was used
to project the effects of large scale flood control projects in coastal Louisiana wetlands. The model has since
been significantly modified and is known as the General Ecosystem Model (GEM) (Fitz et al. 1995)..
III. Tool Users r
The Louisiana version of the model has been expanded to help management in the new Terrebone-Barataria
National Estuary Program. The GEM is being applied to the Florida Everglades for the South Florida Water
Management District. It is also being applied to the Patuxent River watershed of the Chesapeake Bay.
OPPE will be using the Patuxent version of the model to look at policy scenarios for nutrient management
that are being proposed as part of the Farm Bill reauthorization. Other, uses will include wetlands
management issues and county zoning plans. '
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Although the model is transferable across geographic regions, it has significant data requirements.
Implementation is a several year project and currently needs the involvement of Robert Costanza's modeling
group at the University of Maryland. '
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability .,'.-
The ecosystem model has already been transferred from Louisiana to coastal regions of Maryland and
Florida. OPPE is in the planning stages with Region 10 to implement the model in the Pacific Northwest.
VI. Other Information -
VII. Program Contacts
Michael Brody Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Regulatory Management and
Evaluation, Science Policy Staff, (202) 260-2783 > ,. ' '
Mary Jo Kealy Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy Analysis, Economic
Analysis and Innovations Division, (202) 260-5728
.136 .' . '
-------
", ..'.'.- ', EXAMS v. 2.95 ' " ','...
L - Tool Description -;'''"
EXAMS v. 2.95 combines properties of synthetic organic chemicals and aquatic ecosystems to characterize
the ecotoxieology, persistence, and,mobility of pesticides and industrial materials in surface water.
*. , - -
IL Tool Users
Intended for regulatory scientists, used by industrial firms, consultants, and educational institutions as well.
Used for chemical safety evaluations for the past 12 years. Feedback received is positive, generally asking
for expanded capabilities. Unmet needs are in the realm of extensive databases for site-specific applications
and tools for analysis of lengthy output time series. . ! ,
III. Tool Development
Initial development 1978-1980, prompted by regulatory needs under TSCA & FIFRA. EXAMS 2.95 was
developed in-house and is completed and in use. . " " . , . :
IV. Special Requirements for Use ~
Requires 80386 or better pc for use; some knowledge of environmental chemistry and biology.
V- - Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Program is written in system-independent process-based form that makes it applicable to any geographic,
area. Requires terrestrial and atmospheric interactions be described rather than directly simulated.
VI. Other Information
The Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS) is an interactive modeling system that allows a user
to specify and store the properties of chemicals and aquatic ecosystems, modify either through simple
commands, and conduct rapid evaluations and sensitivity analyses of the probable aquatic fate of synthetic'
organic chemicals. It include file-transfer interfaces to the PRZM terrestrial .model and the FGETS
bioaccumulation model. ' | .
VII. Contact Person
Lawrence A. Burns , Office of Research,and Development, Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling,
Athens, Ga. (705) 546-3511 j , . r . /
137
-------
FEMWATER/LEWASTE
L Tool Description
The FEMWATER model is designed to provide a numerical procedure for establishing wellhead protection
zones (in agricultural areas) using the assimilative capacity criterion. FEMWWATER is a three-dimensional
variably saturated zone model that models contaminant movement in heterogeneous and anisotropic media
consisting of many geologic formations as desired, considers both distributed and point sources/sinks that
are spatially and temporally dependent, and accept four types of boundary conditions. The model is intended
to be used to delineate wellhead protection zones based on concentrations at various wellhead points. The
first release of the code is available from the Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling, Athens Ecosystem
Research Division. "
H. Tool Users
The users of this tool are consultants, hydrogeologists, and engineers. The tool has been in use for two
years and has been applied in the EPA MASTER program for the Walnut Creek watershed in Iowa, the
EPA Eco-Risk program for the DOE facility in Aiken, SC and will be applied in Durango, CO for wellhead
protection delineation in housing development.
The model has been modified and a graphical user interface has been developed for its application and use.
The interface is now in a beta test stage. . .
III. Tool Development
The tool was developed under the Safe Drinking Water Act and its mandate for Sates to produce and
submit to EPA, a wellhead protection program. The tool was developed under a joint effort by Federal,
university and contract support. A total of 5.0 FTE's were used in the development activities, two
universities, and $500,000 extramural contract support. The initial code was developed during fiscal yean
1992 and fiscal year 1993 it is still being modified and expanded.
IV. Special Requirements for Use , ,
A workstation or 486/Pentium-based personal computer is required. Effective use of the tool requires
significant training, however; since Athens' regulatory and program support was cancelled no training
programs have been conducted.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The tool could be used by other programs where either organic and/or radionuclides are of concern.
VI. Other Information ,
VII.. Program Contacts
Robert F.'Carsel Office of Research and Development, Athens Ecosystem Research Division,
Athens, GA., (706) 546-3210
138
-------
FOOD AND GILL EXCHANGE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES (FGETS)
L Tool Description .
FGETS is a FORTRAN simulation program that predicts temporal dynamics of a fish's whole body
concentration (/tg chemical / (grams live weight fish)) of noh-idnic, non-metabolized, organic chemicals that
are bioaccumulated from water and food. The model is based on a set of diffusion and forced cpnvection
partial differential equations, coupled to a process-based fish growth formulation. Chemical exchange rates
are estimated using fundamental principles of passive diffusion and .thermodynamics rather than
phenomenological toxicbkinetic data. , .
FGETS can be used to analyze the bioaccumulation of organic chemicals under laboratory or field
conditions, and its predictions have been shown to agree well with both types of data. For laboratory
applications, FGETS can be used to model either constant flow or static exposures. For field assessments,
FGETS can be used to simulate the chemical bioaccumulation in multiple fish species that are exposed to
either constant or time-varying water concentrations and that feed on either single or multiple food resources.
For such assessments, FGETS can be configured to predict the dietary accumulation of chemicals in fish that
feed on 1) multiple fish species 2) plankton/drift organisms and 3) benthos. The relative contribution of these
food items can be specified as a function of either the fish's age or size (i.e., body weight or length).
/The model considers both biological attributes of the fish and physico-chemical properties of the chemical
that determine diffusive exchange across gill membranes and intestinal mucosa. Important biological
characteristics used by the model include the fish's gill morphometry, body weight, and fractional aqueous,
lipid, and structural organic composition. Relevant physico-chemical properties are the chemical's aqueous
diffusivity, molar Volume, and n-octariol/water partition coefficient (Kow)). The model is parameterized for
a particular fish species by means of a morphological, physiological, and trophic database that delineates the
fish's gill morphometry, feeding and metabolic demands., and body composition. FGETS also calculates the
time to reach a lethal activity in the fish assuming that the chemical has a narcotic mode of action.
IL Tool Users ' ....."' ' - V. '-. '-' '-'--. :..''' . * : _ .
FGETS provides Nregulators and practitioners with an objective, process-based means to assess not only
residue-based, lexicological responses of natural or managed fish assemblages but also dietary exposures to
man and piscivorous wildlife. . '
III. Tool Development ,
FGETS has been revised and updated annually.. Its most recent update was completed in September 1994
(FGETS version 3.0.18). Preliminary algorithms for describing the bioaecumulation of ipnizable organics
have been developed but have not been incorporated into the existing model. Although FGETS is distributed
with a limited database of physiological and morphological parameters, this database has not been updated
for over two years. During FY95 and FY96 an updated FGETS database will be compiled as part of an
expanded aquatic/riparian, community modeling project that is being undertaken for the South Florida
Restoration Project. In addition to providing an updated FGETS database, this project will also develop
algorithms to describe the bioaccumulation of mercury in fish that will be incorporated into a future version
of FGETS. , : /, " : ;' '. -,, ' '
IV. Special Requirements for Use
FGETS is available for either PC or mainframe applications and is distributed with well documented source
code. Users having familiarity with basic ecotoxicological principles and conventional bioenergetic modeling
should have little or no difficulty using FGETS.
> . ,i ",
' ' . ' ' ' ' 139; ' ,. .. ''I'"'' "; ' .
-------
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
FGETS can be used to analyze bioaccumulation of organic chemical in both freshwater (lake, river, or
stream) and marine/ estuarine fish and can be applied to any geographic region of the country.
VI. Other Information
A full description of the theoretical bases and development of FGETS is presented in: Barber, M.C., L.A.
Sucirez, and R.R. Lassiter. 1991. Modeling Bioaccumulation Organic Pollutants in Fish with an application
to PCBs in the Great Lakes salmonids. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. ScL, 48: 318-337.
VII. Contact Persons
M. Craig Barber, Ph.D. Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research
Laboratory-Athens, Ga., (706)546-3147
Luis A. Suarez, Ph.D. Office of Research and Development, National Exposure Research
Laboratory - Athens, Ga., (706) 546-3245
140
-------
GRAPHICAL EXPOSURE MODELING SYSTEM (GEMS)/PCGEMS
L Tool Description
GEMS supports exposure and risk assessments by providing access to single media and multimedia fate
and exposure models, physical/chemical property estimation techniques, statistical analysis, graphics and'
mapping programs with related data on environments, sources, receptors, and populations.
This tool is also available as PCGEMS, a stand-alone version of GEMS. PCGEMS is modular in design,
allowing the user to use me various PCGEMS programs and datasets without storing the, entire program in
one subdirectory on a computer's hard drive. The modules and datasets may be stored and accessed from
floppy disks. , i \
PCGEMS is availabe in a variety of different media, which have been broken down into various modules
which can be ordered separately. The, core system must be ordered before any of the other modules are
ordered. The core system module includes the user's guide, postage and handling. Some of the modules
are property estimation, air models, surface water models, multimedia models, or graphics.
IL Tool Users
Anyone can obtain a GEMS account from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Used by
analysts with an interactive, easily learned interface to various models, programs, and data needed for
exposure and risk assessments on the EPA, VAX cluster of computers., Users apply GEMS to their specific
use. It uses methods for estimating Water solubility, lake/stream volatilization rate, or vapor pressure.
PCGEMS can be useful to many users; just about anyone can use this system, ie., OPPTS, EPA program
offices, States, environmental groups, and industries.. ! . - .
III. Tool Development
GEMS was first developed in 1981 by the General Sciences Corporation. The tool is still in development.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
GEMS requires the use of a computer terminal or PC and a modem. To operate the PCGEMS, one needs
an IBM AT or compatible, Math Co-processor and Disk space or cartridge. '
V. : Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Models used by GEMS are atmospheric, surface water, and multimedia models.
VI. Program Contacts .
Lynn Delpire Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Economic, Exposure and Technology Division, Exposure Assessment Branch,
(202)260-0981
141
-------
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR SITING RCRA FACILITIES (OSW)
L_ Tool Description
GIS is an advanced computer technology that combines map, model, and monitoring data into a single
analytic framework. A GIS is composed of tools that create data bases, manage data bases, manipulate and
display graphic representations of data,'and produce maps.
A statutorily mandated new rulemaking (the draft rule is due out the end of 1995) will develop technical ,
standards for permitting sites in sensitive environments (e.g., wetlands, complex hydrogeology, endangered
species and plants, etc.). This GIS framework will enable a RCRA permit writer to import and export
databases and focus on a single site location to evaluate its appropriateness for siting. OSW originally
developed this GIS to perform locational analyses in support of RCRA location standards for hazardous waste
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. It has been expanded to include other siting concerns such as
population analysis.
H. Tool Users
This GIS was developed for permit writers, however, anyone can import data into this framework.
III. Tool Development
OSW's GIS has been finished sirice May 1994. OSW consulted with Region V during the initial system
development to determine the best approach for use in RCRA permit decisions. OSW also worked with
Mark Olsen at EPA's Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory (EMSL) in Las Vegas. Based on these
and other discussions, the system was designed to analyze specified locations.
iy. Special Requirements for Use
This system can be used by novice users, has point and click options, can answer a wide variety of
questions, and has a wide arra\ of potential applications. The system runs on an UNIX workstation and
requires ARC/INFO software. Purchasing costs for ARC/INFO software are approximately $10,000 -
512,000. ;-.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Unknown
VI. Other Information , . v
This framework does not include environmental data, but it can import any dataset.
yil. Program Contact
Felicia Wright Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Solid Waste, Permits and State
Programs Division, (703) 308-8634
142
-------
HIGH PERFORMANCE GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY MODELING
L Tool Description >
A unified .ground water modeling technology is being developed to represent: the subsurface hydrological
system at all relevant scales; from the capture zones pumping wells, to the shallow ground-watershed, to the
full regional aquifer. The purpose of the tool is the represent the ground water potential field controlling
flow rates and directions everywhere in the modeled aquifer, and to account for the fluxes at the ground-
water/surface water interfaces. , - .
The modeling system is not a full GIS, but it does provide a computer-aided-design environment for
extracting geographical information from paper or electronic maps and databases, and supports interactive
on-screen construction of ground-water simulation models. The modeling system is not an expert system,
but in the hands of the geohydrologist, it eliminates many of the technical barriers for productive scientific
modeling and'visualization. The system runs on Personal Computers and Unix Workstations, and is being
developed for Supercomputers. The current high performance ground water modeling system consists of:
GAEP (Geographical Analytic Element Preprocessor), USEPA public domain; CZAEM (Capture Zone
Analytic Element Model), USEPA public domain ; WhAEM (Wellhead Analytic Element
Model=GAEP+CZAEM), USEPA public domain; GFLOW1 (Ground Water/Surface Water Model),
USEPA/RSKERL site license; SLAEM "(Single Layer Analytic Element Model), Strack Consulting,
USEPA/RSKERL site license; MVAEM (Multi-Layer Variable Density Analytic Element .Model), Strack
Consulting, USEPA/RSKERL site license. '-.,."'
IL ToolUse
The USEPA has in-house expertise in the development and application .of the high performance
groundwater modeling system. .
The Wellhead Analytic Element Model (WhAEM), including, GAEP and CZAEM, is the first planned
release of the high performance system to the public. The User's Guide is expected to be published in early
1995. The preliminary feedback we are getting from participants in the; RSKERL Ground Water Modeling
Workshops has been very positive. While RSKERL is not in the business of producing commercial software,
we hope to be involved in significant technology transfer to the private'sector.
III. Tool Development -,,''
The analytic element method was invented by Professor Otto Strack of the University of Minnesota, and
is documented in the reference book Groundwater Mechanics. Prentice Hall, 1989. In 1991, RSKERL
entered into a two-year cooperative agreement with Indiana University, and the University of Minnesota, to
,create the public domain WhAEM package in support of wellhead protection research authorized by the
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1986. RSKERL has been exploring the application of the
technology to a variety of problems described in Section IV. The USEPA Midwest Subsurface/Surface
Transport and Effects Research (MASTER) program has supported exploration of ground water residence
times in the agricultural watersheds. Research continues in 1994 through new two-year cooperative
agreements with support from the High Performance Computing Initiative (HPC) managed by
USEPA/AREAL-RTP. . ,' ' '".- ,
IV. Special Requirements for Use ...:- ,-'.-.'''
The high performance modeling system requires knowledge of the application of the analytic element
method to geohydrologic problems. The release of the WhAEM into the .public domain makes the
technology accessible for the first time to the wellhead protection community. WhAEM requires a 386/486
' " . .' '..''"" 143 . " - '''" ' . ' :
-------
PC, DOS 3.0+, 2 MB RAM, 5MB hard disk storage,, a mouse, and VGA graphics. Data entry into the
pre-processor is greatly eased through use of a digitizing tablet. The rest of the high performance ground
water modeling system is rather specialized, requiring expert use. ,
V. Program/Media/Geographic TransferabHity
The high performance ground'water modeling system is particularly applicable to regional scale assessment
of steady ground water flow. The ground water component is just one aspect of the hydrologic cycle, and
the connection with surface water systems occurs at rivers, wetlands, lakes, estuaries, and oceans. Potential
EPA programs with needs may include ORD, OSWER (Superfund, Office of Solid Waste, Office of'
Underground Storage Tanks), OW (Ground Water and Drinking Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and
Watersheds), OPPTS, and the Regions. \
VI. Other Information
Ground water systems are important sustainers of ecosystem integrity and function, whether for the
individual farmer relying on the well for drinking water, or for the wetland complex providing sanctuary
for migratory birds. The subsurface environment is often the hidden and slow moving pathway for
contaminants leaching from landfills, or the long term supply of nonpoint source nutrients from agricultural
lands causing eutrophication in rivers, lakes, and coastal estuaries.
VII. Program Contact
Stephen Kramer, Ph.D. Office of Research, and Development, Robert S. Kerr Environmental -
Research Laboratory-Ada, Oklahoma, (405) 436-8549
144
-------
HYDROLOGICAL SIMULATION PROGRAM - FORTRAN (HSPF)
L Tool Description
HSPF is a comprehensive package for simulation of watershed hydrology and water quality for both
conventional and toxic organic pollutants. HSPF incorporates the watershed-scale ARM and NPS models
into a basin-scale analysis framework tfiat includes fate and transport in one-dimensional stream channels.
It is the only comprehensive model of watershed hydrology and water quality that allows the integrated
simulation of land and soil contaminant runoff processes with in-stream hydraulic and sediment-chemical
interactions. . \, ...-.
The result of this simulation is a time history of the ranoff flow rate, sediment load, and nutrient and
organic chemical concentrations, along with a time history of water quantity and quality at any point in a
watershed. HSPF simulates three sediment types (sand, silt, and clay) in addition to three organic chemicals.
(or one chemical and 2 transformation products of, that chemical). The transport and reaction processes
included are hydrolysis, oxidation, photolysis, biodegradation, volatilization, and sorption. Sorption is
modeled as a first-order kinetic process in which the user must specify a desorption rate(and an equilibrium
partition coefficient for each of the three solids types.
Resuspension and settling of silts and clays (cohesive solids) are defined in terms of shear .stress at the
sediment-water interface. The capacity of the system to transport sand at a particular flow is calculated and
net resuspension or settling is defined by. the difference between the sand in suspension and the transport
capacity. Calibration of the model requires data for each of the three solids types. Benthic exchange is
modeled as sorption to, desorption from, and deposition/scour of surficial berithic sediments. Underlying'
sediment and pore water are not modeled. ! ; . ,
IL Tool Users
HSPF, and earlier models from which it was developed, have been extensively applied in a wide variety
of hydrologic and water quality studies, including pesticide runoff model testing, aquatic fate and transport
model testing, and analyses of agricultural best management practices. HSPF application in a pesticide
review screening methodology is described by Donigian et al.. In addition, HSPF has been validated with
both field data and model experiments, and has been reviewed by independent experts.
The EPA Chesapeake Bay Program has been using the HSPF model since the late 1970's as the framework
for modeling total watershed contributions of flow, sediment, and nutrients (and associated constituents such
as water temperature, DO, BOD, etc.) to the tidal region of the Chesapeake Bay.
III. Tool Development
The original version of this report was completed as of January 16, 1980. Extensive, revisions,
modifications, and corrections to the original report and the HSPF code were performed under contract, as
were Releases 7.0 and 8.0 of HSPF and the corresponding documents. The HSPF maintenance and user
support activities directed by the U.S. EPA laboratory in Athens, GA. The HSPF User Manual for Release
10.0 was prepared under contract, incorporating code modifications, corrections, and documentation of
selected algorithm enhancements sponsored by the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay
Program, and the U.S. EPA Athens ERL. Except for additions and revisions! of the manual reflecting the
recent changes and deletion of outdated introductory material in Part C and Part D, much of the document
is identical to the earlier Release 9.0 version. The Release 10.0 manual is available'on diskette in
WordPerfect format. ; > ...,:'/
145
-------
IV. Special Requirements for Use . ,
Familiarity with hydrology, agricultural runoff, environmental chemistry, water quality modeling concepts,
and an IBM-compatible personal computer
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
HSPF is a general tool for simulation of watershed and rivers . It has been aplied extensively in the United
States and to a limited extent worldwide. It is primarily intended for analysis of conventional pollutant,
nutrient and pesticide pollution in surface waters.
VI, Other Information
The Stream Transport and Agricultural Runoff for Exposure Assessment Methodology (STREAM) applies
the HSPF program to several well characterized test watersheds representing the five major crops and four
agricultural regions of the United States, defines a "representative" watershed based on regional conditions
and an extrapolation of the calibration for the test watershed, and. performs a sensitivity analysis on key
pesticide parameters to generate cumulative frequency distributions of pesticide loads and concentrations in
each region. The resulting methodology requires the user to specify only the crops and regions of interest,
the pesticide application rate, and three pesticide parameters the partition coefficient, the soil/sediment
decay rate, and the solution decay rate.
VII. Contact Person
Catherine Green Contractor Office of Research and Development, Center for Exposure
Assessment Modeling, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Ga.
(706)546-3549
146
-------
LAKE MICHIGAN MASS-BAIANCE PILOT PROJECT
L Tool Description '-..
The Lake Michigan Mass Balance Pilot Project is designed to calculate the movement of contaminants from
various media into and on Lake Michigan, as well as develop a prototypical mass-balance model using one
geographic area. The goal of this project is to extrapolate data and monitoring methodology from the Great
Lakes to other Great Waters programs. . ' ,
Researchers are collecting information on ambient air quality, and water column, tributary, sediments, biota
(micro-layer) quality. Monitoring is still underway and will continue through the fall of 1995. Researchers
are developing the mass-balance model concurrently with data monitoring. ,
IL Tool Users
Because this project is not yet complete, there have been no users of this tool. , .
. III. Tool Development , -
, Mass balance was chosen as the most appropriate' method to answer the question, of atmospheric
contribution to total contaminant loadings, as mandated by Section 112 of the Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1990, which recognizes that much of the basic science of the transmission of contaminants needs .further
study. , i ' .. . ' '.'.'.:
. j
Approximately $800,000 per year is devoted to the air monitoring component of this project. It is unclear
how much money is being spent on model development. In fiscal year 1993, OAQPS spent $600,000 on
this project. OAQPS estimates that it will devote $200,000 in AC&C funds and $400,000 in CAA Section
105 funds for monitoring and another $185,000 on other project needs in fiscal year 1995.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
It is not yet apparent whether any special requirements (hardware, software, or training) may be needed
to use this tool.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Transferability unknown. , ,
i . ' , '. '. . " ' -
VI. Other Information
None. . '.. - ' '!' ' ', " -r
';-.''' '''-..'" ' - -'/..
VII. Program Contacts ! ,
Jackie Bode Great Lakes National Program Office, (312) 886-4064 .
Bill Richardson Office of Research and Development, Great Lakes Lab; Region V/Eastern Response Unit
(Grosse Isle, MI), (313) 692-7611 ' ,
147:
-------
MINTEQA2
L, Tool Description
MINTEQA2 is a geochemical equilibrium speciation model for dilute aqueous systems. The model is an
update of MINTEQ, which was developed by combining the fundamental mathematical structure of MINEQL
with the well-developed thermodynamic database of WATEQ3. Because of MINTEQA2's public domain
status, extensive feedback has been received,from users on needed corrections and enhancements. This
model was last updated and released by EPA's Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM) in 1991,
and is in need of updating.
* ' -.,'"" '
IL. Tool Users
MINTEQA2 is used by soil scientists and geocheniists to calculate the equilibrium composition of dilute
solutions in the laboratory or in natural aquatic systems. It can be used to calculate the mass distribution,
between dissolved, adsorbed, and multiple solid phases under a variety of conditions. Various versions of
MINTEQA2 has been in use for 20 years. Because of MINTEQA2's public domain status, extensive
feedback has been received from users on needed corrections and enhancements. This model is currently
in need of updating. This tool could be enhanced through a review of the thermodynamics database and
through linkage to a'solute transport code.
III. Tool Development ,
Initial development of MINTEQ took place in the mid 1970's. It was developed to provide a better tool
for estimating metal's mobility from contaminated areas. MINTEQA2 has been^ developed through
associations with universities and contractors and through an EPA Interagency Agreement with DOE.
IV. Special Requirements for Use ,
The MINTEQA2 user should have a scientific or engineering background with one year of introductory
chemistry. Additional experience with thermodynamics is helpful.
MINTEQA2 is microcomputer based (DOS-compatible), although the Fortran code may be compiled on any
machine. ,
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability .
MINTEQA2 has general applicability for geochemical speciation problems.
VI. Other Information , .,-',
CEAM was established in 1987 to meet the scientific and technical exposure assessment needs of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well as state environmental and resource management
agencies. To support environmental risk-based decisions, CEAM distributes environmental simulation
models and databases for urban and rural nonpoint sources, conventional and toxic pollution of streams, lakes
and estuaries, tidal hydrodynamics, geochemical equilibrium, and aquatic food chain bioaccumulation. A
wide range of analysis techniques is provided, ranging from simple desk-top techniques suitable for screening
analysis, to sophisticated, state-of-the-art continuous simulation models.
VII. Contact Person
Dennont Bouchard Office of Research and Development, OEPER/Athens-ERL, Center for Exposure
Assessment Modeling (CEAM), (706) 546-3138 - ' . ., -
148
-------
MODEL OF ACIDIFICATION OF GROUNDWATER (MAGIC)
I. Tool Description
The Model of Acidification of Groundwater In Catchments (MAGIC) is a computerized watershed
simulation model designed to project the chemical effects of atmospheric sulfur deposition (acid rain) on the
chemistry of lakes and streams. The initial intended use of the model was both to examine influences of
sulfur deposition .on watershed and stream chemistry and to serve as a tool for projecting potential future
effects of sulfur deposition. To date it has been used extensively in the U.S., Great Britain and Europe to
project potential consequences of various scenarios of atmospheric sulfur deposition. EPA used it in a large
project, the Direct/Delayed Response Project (DDRP) to assess the implications of various sulfur deposition
scenarios for the chemistry of approximately 200 watersheds arid their associated lakes and streams in the
eastern United States. The model has been tested .against laboratpry-scale soil chemistry experiments,
historical record of acidic deposition effects, and. watersheds manipulated by the addition'of acidifying
compounds. The model has proven to be reasonably reliable in these tests. Testing and refinement
continues, especially in the area of soil and solution chemistry of aluminum compounds.
II. Tool Users : '
Intended and actual users of the model have been research watershed scientists as well as those concerned
with possible future effects of sulfur deposition on surface water chemistry. The model has been used ever
since its development in the mid-1980's.
III. Tool Development ,
Drs. Jack Cosby and George Hornberger of the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University
of Virginia developed the model in the mid-1980's for the purpose of determining the, effects of atmospheric
deposition of sulfur on chemistry of streams and lakes. EPA's, Office of Research and Development
provided substantial financial assistance for its original development.
IV. Special Requirements for I'se
The model user should have knowledge of geochemical effects of acidic deposition on soils, watersheds
and lakes and streams. Use of the model requires expertise in computer simulation modeling. The model
requires appropriate datasets on wet and dry atmospheric deposition, precipitation, runoff, soils and
watersheds geologic and geocHemical characteristics, and surface water chemical characteristics of the
watershed or watersheds to be simulated. Model use also requires reasonable knowledge of historical
scenarios of atmospheric deposition for the sites to be modeled. The model is available on floppy diskettes,
and can be run on standard DOS desktop or laptop computers; no Macintosh version of the model is yet
available. FORTRAN programming is used; ; ,
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Appropriate for use simulating forested watersheds, - , , ,
VI. Other Information
The model continues to undergo testing and improvement. Pending extensions include the addition of the,
capability to model nitrogen cycling and transformations within watersheds as well as the ability to simulate
the effects of transienracidification events associated with snowmelts or heavy rainstorms.
VII. Program Contacts , '
M. Robbins Church, Ph.D. Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory-
Corvallis, Corvallis, OR, (503)754-4424
-------
MULTIMEDIA EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT MODEL (MULTIMED)
L Tool Description .
The Multimedia Exposure Assessment Model (MULTIMED) for exposure assessment simulates the
movement of contaminants leaching from a waste disposal facility. The model consists of a number of
modules which predict concentrations at a receptor due to transport in the subsurface, surface water, or air.
The model includes options for directly specifying infiltration rates to the unsaturated and saturated zones,
or a MULTIMED module can be used to estimate infiltration rates. ,
When applying MULTIMED to Subtitle D (hazardous waste) facilities, the landfill, surface water, and air
modules in the model are not accessible by the user; only flow and transport through the unsaturated zone
and transport in saturated zone can be considered. MULTIMED uses a steady-state, one-dimensional,
semi-analytical module to simulate flow in the unsaturated zone. The output from this module, water
saturation as a function of depth, is used as input to the unsaturated zone transport module. The latter
simulates transient, one-dimensional (vertical) transport in the unsaturated zone and includes the effects of
longitudinal dispersion, linear adsorption, and first-order decay. The unsaturated zone transport module
calculates steady-state or transient contaminant concentrations. Output from both unsaturated zone modules
is used to couple the unsaturated zone transport module with the steady-state or transient, semi-analytical
saturated zone transport module. The latter includes one-dimensional uniform flow, three-dimensional
dispersion, linear adsorption, first-order decay, and dilution due to direct infiltration into the groundwater
plume (67,68).
i
The fate of contaminants in the various media depends on the chemical properties of the contaminants as
well as a number of media- and environment-specific parameters. The uncertainty in these parameters can
be quantified in MULTIMED using the Monte Carlo simulation technique. To enhance the user-friendly
nature of MULTIMED, a preprocessor, PREMED, and a post-processor, POSTMED, have been developed.
The preprocessor guides the user in the creation of a correct Subtitle D input file by restricting certain
options and parameters and by setting appropriate defaults.
IL. Tool Users
The operation of each module requires specific input, which is organized into data groups. The General
Data Group, which is required for all simulations, contains flags and data which describe the scenario being
modelled. The input parameters needed for the Saturated Zone Transport Model are arranged in three
additional data groups: the Chemical Data Group, the Source Data Group, and the Aquifer Data Group. Use
of the Unsaturated Zone Modules requires input found in the above data groups, as well as data from the
Unsaturated Zone Flow Data Group and the Unsaturated Zone Transport Data Group, The MULTIMED
manual provides help in estimating the model input parameters.
MULTIMED has been in use since the late 1980's. Because of MULTIMED's public domain status,
extensive feedback has been received from users on needed corrections and enhancements, and the model
is continuously updated through interaction with CEAM.
MULTIMED, while it is characterized as a multimedia tool has actually only seen use as a screening-level
groundwater model. The additional modules simulating landfill water balance, atmospheric emissions and
transport, and surface water transport have never been completed and made available to users. The model.
could be enhanced if these capabilities were to be tested and cleared for use. , .
150
-------
III. Too! Development /
MULTIMED was developed primarily for, and has seen extensive application in, predicting leachate
movement from a Subtitle D (hazardous waste) landfill. This type of application, however, only utilizes a
subset of MULTIMED's full capabilities. When MULTIMED has been used in conjunction with a separate
source model, such as HELP (69), it has been applied to a much larger range of scenarios. Such scenarios
may include development and comparison of the effects of different facility designs on ground water quality,
prediction of the results of different types of "failure" of a landfill, and to address questions related to
appropriate clean-up levels for contaminated soils. MULTIMED was sponsored by ORD/OEPER/Athens
and was developed via an extramural contract. '
IV. Special Requirements for Use .
Although the user's manual explains most computational algorithms, an engineering background is
necessary to appreciate most methods being used and to verify that the model results are reasonable.
MULTIMED is microcomputer based (DOS-compatible), although the Fortran code may be compiled on any
machine. Execution times are on the order of a few seconds to several minutes for most jobs on a 386/486
machine. However, simulation of large areas with many time steps can require several hours on a
microcomputer. The user is well advised to use the most powerful microcomputer available.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
MULTIMED, as stated was developed to aid in decisions related to landfill design and location. In recent
years MULTIMED has been applied, ;by other program offices, in the context of soil clean-up levels.
MULTIMED has been applied to estimate groundwater impacts from contaminated soils.
VI.
Other Information
VII. Contact Person . . ...'''..
Gerard F. Laniak Office of Research and Development, ERL-Athens, Ga., (706) 546-3310
151 ;
-------
PATRIOT
L. Tool Description ' '
PATRIOT is a software package that integrates, in a personal computer environment, is a tool that enables
scientifically sound analysis of pesticide leaching anywhere in the conterminous United Sates. PATRIOT
is comprised of a chemical fate and transport model (PRAM-2), a comprehensive database, an interface that
allows the use to explore the database and select the data appropriate for assessments, interaction that guides
the user in performing model analyses, and selected methods for summarizing and visualizing model results.
IL Tool Users
PATRIOT is designed to be used by state and local agencies, consultants, private industry and EPA
personnel. PATRIOT is specifically designed to support the development of local pesticide management
plans. PATRIOT has been distributed from the Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling located at the
Athens Ecosystem Research Division for two years.
Since the activities of regulatory support were eliminated at Athens, virtually no feedback has occurred
Since PATRIOT'S release. However, a request to add concentration migration at the water was incorporated
as a feature to the tool. PATRIOT was to have site specific component (evaluation of pesticide movement
at the mapping unit level)and a nitrogen assessment capability, however; funding was cut for this component
and never was completed.
I||. Tool Development
PATRIOT was developed during the fiscal year 1992 and fiscal year 1993 budget periods, under the FIFRA
statutory mandate for the development of State pesticide management plans. PATRIOT was a combined
Federal and contractor research effort. The Federal component consisted of organizing the databases and
outlining the system capabilities. The contractor component consisted of building the FORTRAN code
structure and logic for the decision support system.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
No specific training requirements, however; a short course for its use would help. .
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
PATRIOT can be used by other programs for assessing organic chemical migration.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contact
Robert F. Carsel Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory -
Athens, Athens Ecosystem Research Division, (706) 546-3210
152
-------
POLLUTANT ROUTING (P-ROUTE)
L Tool Description
P-Route is a modeling system that can survey a watershed area and list all the reaches and all the NPDES
dischargers on those reaches. Daily loadings can be attached to any of the dischargers on the list. In
addition, nonpoint source loading from monitoring data or from appropriate runoff models can be included.
The model routes the pollutants as they go through the reach system and presents a final, reach-by-reach
pollutant concentration, based on mean-or 7Q10 flow. ,
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases assisted
in their testing. .'.; ''..''..
III. Tool Development
Modeling is a key component in the TMDL process. As new models come on-line, the applicability of
the models is evaluated for use.in the TMDL program. In addition, wherever possible, the models are
simplified so that a broader spectrum of users can benefit.
IV. Special Requirements for Use '
Personnel computer.
'V. ' Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Designed for the water media. Applicable to a wide range of ecosystems. '
VI. Other Information
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
VII. Program Contact i
Russell .Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330
153 ,
-------
PESTICIDE ROOT ZONE MODEL (PRZM-2)
I. Tool Description
The Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM-2) is a one-dimensional, dynamic, compartmental model that can
be used to simulate chemical movement in unsaturated soil systems within and immediately below the plant
root zone. It has two major components hydrology (and hydraulics) and chemical transport. The model
was specifically designed to provide loadings to selected media, including air, water, groundwater and plants.
PRZM 2 is an daily-time-step agricultural field simulation model. Outputs include pesticide leaching depth,
runoff volume, eroded sediment mass, pesticide movement with eroded sediment and runoff,-and pesticide
volatilization. Processes modeled include, water movement through the soil profile, crop uptake, vapor
phase transport, and irrigation. Two pesticide degradates can be modeled along with the parent. PRZM 2
has incorporated the VADOFT program which estimates chemical movement through the vadose zone below
the surface soil. A Monte Carlo shell is also included. '
IL Tool Users
The tool can be used by persons familiar with fate and transport of xeno-organic chemicals to estimate off-
site movement of these chemicals from agricultural fields. PRZM 2 is currently being used by the EPA
Office of Pesticide Programs to estimate the transport of pesticides to surface water.
As of FY95 there are a total of 3,000 users, including an international community, state and local users,
academicians, regulatory programs, pesticide firms, and other federal agencies. . >
III. Tool Development " .
PRZM 2 was developed and is maintained by EPA's Athens Environmental Research Laboratory in Athens,
GA. A total of 4.0 FTEs have been applied to model Development. The subsequent model has been
developed totally by contractor support. A total of $500,000 has been spent on the model from extramural
R&D dollars.
PRZM 2 is an upgrade from PRZM. It is a component of the PATRIOT shell for estimating the potential
for a pesticide to leach to ground water. The major changes from PRZM to PRZM 2 are the addition of
volatilization routines, the ability to handle degradates, the addition of a biodegradation module, the
incorporation the VADOFT model for estimating chemical movement through the vadose zone, and the.
addition of a Monte Carlo shell for stochastic simulations.
IV. Special Requirements For Use
A minimum of 486-based computer architecture is optimum for operation. A large .hard disk, 100 MB
or greater is very helpful if the program is used routinely as the output can be voluminous greater 1 MB per
run. The model is a batch model and does require substantial input. PRZM 2 has extensive data
requirements, with data on soil, weather, crops, management,and the chemical required for a particular
simulation. Training is recommended; however, regulatory and program support'has'been taken away from
Athens. Since then, no training courses have been provided.
V. Prograni/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ,
The model can be used by other programs where organic chemicals are of concern. The model is currently
being modified to accommodate nitrogen. The model can simulate daughter product formation and could
be used for radionuclide assessments. PRZM 2 has links for data transfer to EXAMS, HSPF, and WASP
154
-------
water quality models. PRZM is appropriate for.use for modeling most agricultural-field crops on mineral
soils in the United States. ." .. ' _ ;
VI. Other Information
PRZM-2 was developed to simulate-the transport and transformation of field-applied pesticides in the crop
root zone and the vadose zone taking in to account the effects of agricultural management practices. Because
there are variabilities associated with system processes and model input parameters, PRZM-2 has the
capability of evaluating uncertainty. , ;
VII. Program Contacts
Robert F.Carsel Office of Research and Development, ERL -
;" Division, Athens, GA, (706) 546-3210
Athens Ecosystem Research
155
-------
QUAL2E
L Tool Description
The computer program QUAL2E (Brown and Barnwell, 1987) permits simulation of several water quality
constituents in a branching stream system using a finite difference solution to the one-dimensional advective-
dispersive mass transport and reaction'equation. The conceptual representation of a stream used in the
QUAL2E formulation is a stream reach that has been divided into a number of subreaches or computational
elements equivalent to finite differences. .For each computational element, a hydrologic balance in terms of
flow (Q), & heat balance in terms of temperature (T), and a materials balance in terms of concentration (C)
is written. Both advective and dispersive transport are considered in the materials balance. Mass can be
gained or lost from the element by transport processes, external sources and sinks (e.g., waste discharges
or withdrawals) or by internal sources and sinks (e.g., benthic sources or biological transformations). The
equation is solved for the steady-flow, steady state condition in a classical implicit backward difference
method. The specific equations and solution technique are described in detail in the QUAL2E computer
program documentation (Brown and Barnwell, 1985).
IL Tool Users
Recently, the model has been again applied to the Willamette River in Oregon (Tetra Tech, 1993), the
Chicago Ship Canal in Illinois (Mercer, personal communication), the Whippany River in New Jersey (van
Orden and Urchin, 1993), and the Pigeon River in North Carolina (Summers et al., 1991). The model has
seen several European applications in addition to Poland (Gromiec et al, 1994), including the River
Blackwater in England (Crabtree et al.. 1986), the Pinious River Basin in Greece (Bonazountas et al., 1986),
the rivers of Communidad de Madrid in Spain (Cubillo, 1986; Cubillo et al., 1992), the Nitra River in
Slovakia (Somly<5dy et al., 1994) and the Karasu River in Turkey (Uluatam, 1993). Other applications of
QUAL-II range from South America (Knepp and Wood, 1983) to South Korea (Tischler et al., 1984) and
India (Ghosh, personal communication).
III. Tool Development
The QUAL series of computer programs have a long history in systems analysis in water quality
management. The foundation upon which the series is built was laid by the Texas Water Development Board
(TWDB) in the late 1960s. In the early 1970s, EPA began a program to provide water quality models for
major river basins and specified that QUAL-I be used as the basis for developing new, more advanced,
basin-specific models. The original model, QUAL-I, (TWDB, 1970) was used as a tool to evaluate flow
augmentation for temperature and dissolved oxygen control. Many versions of the QUAL-II model emerged
from this effort.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Familiarity with water quality modeling concepts, and an IBM-compatible personal computer. In its
present state, QUAL2E requires some degree of modeling sophistication and expertise on the part of a user.
The user must supply more than 100 individual inputs, some of which require considerable judgment to
estimate.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The QUAL2E model is primarily intended for use by modelers of conventional pollutants in streams and
rivers,. It has be proven applicable worldwide.
156
-------
VI. Other Information ,
A major problem faced by the user when working with a complex model such as QUAL2E is model
calibration and, determination of the most efficient plan fpr collection of calibration data. This problem can
be addressed by application of principles of uncertainty analysis. These strategies have been applied to
QUAL2E and the resulting computer program is called QUAL2E-UNCAS (Brown, 1987). ^
VII. Program Contact
Thomas O. Barnwell, Jr.
Catherine Green
Office of Research and Development, Center for Exposure Assessment
Modeling, ERL -Athens, Ga., (706) 546-3180
157
-------
REGIONAL ACID DEPOSITION MODEL (RADM)
I. Tool Description
The Regional Acid Deposition Model (RADM) is a regional Eulerian dispersion and transport model that
was developed in the 1980's. This model determines the extent of acid deposition, sulfate-associated
visibility, oxidants, and the long-range'transport of such pollutants. Specifically, this model simulates the
relationship between acidic compounds emission sources and source receptors, and models the transport,
transformation, fate and deposition of acidic and oxidized compounds (e.g., sulfur dioxide) in source receptor
areas.
IL Tool Users ;
The model is used in 1990 by the NAPAP for the integrated assessment, and since then by a number of
program offices in the Office of Air and Radiation (generally scientists and statisticians), the Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation, and in regional offices that are interested in obtaining information on sulfur
or nitrogen deposition, visibility degradation, or ozone pollutants.
III. Tool Development
This model was developed during the 1980s through the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program
(NAPAP) and the EPA's ORD Lab continues to operate, develop, improve and manage this model.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
To use this model, interested parties should contact the Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Lab at Research Triangle Park, describing their specific needs. Interested parties should contact the lab,
which then operates the model on a supercomputer and returns the output to the user. Users should have
expertise in analyzing atmospheric compounds.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv -
Unknown; interested parties should contact the lab to discuss possible cross-cutting applications.
VI, Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Robbin Dennis Office of Research and Development, Atmospheric Research and Exposure Assessment
Lab, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, (919) 541-2870
158
-------
'.-.'. 'RAMAS .-.'.. '.'
L Tool Description
,RAMAS is a matrix population model for aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal populations. It enables
prediction of population size effects when demographic parameter data is entered (birth rates, death rates,
etc.). For ecological assessment, it is valuable.in predicting the impact on populations once the effect of a
particular stressor has been translated into the demographic parameters. For example, if you figure out how
dioxiri in pulp sludge impacts the mortality rate of a species then the model allows you to play out the effects
over generations. ; , - ,
-.,-". " , " ' I
IL Tool Users
Risk assessors are the audience, although the tool is easy enough for anyone to use it. Clearly, those with
some background in population biology will get more out of it. OPPTS is able to distribute copies of the
software free through an arrangement with Applied Mathematics.
RAMAS has been used by OPPTS, Health and Environmental Review Division for some time; it is
considered to be a "tried and true"/tool. . , ; ,
III. Tool Development
RAMAS is a customized version of a commercial product from Applied Biomathematics, which can easily
make modifications or enhancements to suit the user. '"'....,
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None, other than a good PC.
' ' ' '.'.'' ^ i - ' ' '
Vi , Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ;
The model is extremely flexible; it would be relevant to any effort interested in studying population
dynamics. ,. < -'.;'. . :'-
1'
VI*' Other Information
Scale of the system being studied can be an issue, however, this can be addressed by linking RAMAS with
GIS. There are also some other factors, such as size/fragmentation of the population, which may need
special attention (eg. a large, intact bird population will not have the,same dynamics as fragmented
populations). . i -
VII. Program Contacts ^ : , ;
Dave Mauriello Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Tcixic Substances, Office of Pollution Prevention and
Toxics, Health and Environmental Review Division, (202) 260-2260
159 ;
-------
REGIONAL ECONOMIC ACCOUNTS: ESTIMATION OF SECTOR
CONTRIBUTIONS TO CURRENT ECONOMIC INCOME
I. Tool Description
The project models economic and natural resource accounts for the Upper Mississippi River Basin (UMRB)
to help facilitate sustainable watershed management. The goal is to show how changes in natural resource
accounts are likely to affect overall economic wealth in addition to the prospects for sustainable watershed
management. The approach uses available data to establish how specific agricultural activities contribute to
the economic welfare of the current generation and how they are linked with changes in natural resource
accounts and bio-physical flow accounts (flows of sediments, nutrients and contaminants). The analyses are
being conducted for the base year 1991.
II. Tool Use
Intended users of the tool are individuals that are interested in modeling/estimating the ability of
agricultural production to sustain itself over the long term.
Although the tool is still in development, feedback from the developer indicates that the tool needs further
refinement and disaggregation of regional economic accounts. Sensitivity tests need to determine which
assumptions and variables have the most influence on empirical results. Regional natural resource accounts
need to be further specified. Factors that affect the feasibility of tracing bio-physical flow accounts need to
be determined. And, still need to determine how regional data can be used to monitor and evaluate changes
in natural resource accounts. - ' . "
III. Tool Development '
This tool is still in development, and was prompted" by a need to assess potential methods for measuring
sustainable agriculture. The tool was developed by the Center for Environmental and Estuarine Studies,
University of Maryland.
IV, Special Requirements For Use .
No special requirements are necessary.1
i
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ,
The tool could be used by other EPA programs and geographic areas. Since the tool was developed for
a particular area of the country, the user must collect site specific data for other geographic areas.
VI. Other Information ,
1 . /'.''.
VII. Contact Person
Peter Kuch Office of' Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy Analysis, Water and
Agricultural Policy Division, Agricultural Policy Branch,-260-6198
160
-------
SIMULATOR FOR WATER RESOURCES IN RURAL BASINS-WATER QUALITY
(Windows front-end version) EPA 823-C-94-002, February 1994
L Tool Description ,
This modeling system predicts the effect of management decisions on the quantity and quality of water and
sediment yields with reasonable accuracy. A Microsoft Windows based interface was developed to simplify
model setup. "','." ' ,
IL Tool Users '.''"
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases assisted
in their testing: . -.'- , '!' ' .' . ; ,
III. Tool Development , ; .
Modeling is a key component in the TMDL process. As new models come on-line, the applicability of
the models is evaluated for use in the TMDL program^ In addition, wherever possible, the models are
simplified so that a broader spectrum of users can benefit.
IV. Special Requirements for Use ' ;
Personnel computer. .
V. Program/Media/Geographic TransferaMIity i
Designed for the water media. Applicable to a wide .range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S.,EPA, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, D. .C. at no cost.
VII. Program Contact
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
.Division, (202) 260-1330
161
-------
SMPTOX3E
L. Tool Description . ;
SMPTOX3E is a one dimensional, steady-state mass balance model that predicts particulate and dissolved-
phase non-ionic organic concentrations in the water column and bedded sediment. The current version is
being documented. Future plans include implementing equations in SMPTOX to allow for the estimation
of metals partitioning to sediments. Anticipated completion for metals FY 1998,
IL Tool Users ,
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases assisted
in their testing. ,
III. Tool Development
Modeling is a key component in the TMDL process. As new models come on-line, the applicability of
the models is evaluated for use in the TMDL program. In addition, wherever possible, the models are
simplified so that a broader spectrum of users can benefit. ,
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Personnel computer.
V_. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Designed for the water media. Applicable to a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information "
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street,
SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost. , '
VII. Program Contact ,
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330
162
-------
SURVEY DESIGNS FOR AQUATIC SYSTEMS
L Tool Description
The use of probability survey designs are increasingly critical for effective monitoring programs.
Probability survey designs allow inference from the sample locations to all resources in the region if done
correctly. Thus the are a cost effective approach for monitoring local, watershed, Regional and, national
. issues. . . . '. .'..'/'".'.'.
IL Tool Users ''..:.
The design for lakes has been tested in Region I & II and a national sample selected. Stream design have
been applied in Regions III, IV, VII, VIII, IX, and X for streams and are being developed for the Prairie
Pothole area in the upper midwest.
III. Tool Development
Total cost to develop the designs to date has been approximately 2 million dollars.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Minimal training is required to implement the design and assistance is available in data analysis procedures.
V.. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Intentions are to refine survey designs for each EPA region but make them available for the entire United
States. The designs are available for regional scale of resolution. Subregional designs can be developed as.
requested. , , ' i! . ' '- . , , '
VI.
Other Information
VII. Program Contacts - ; ,
,§teve Paulsen, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory -
Corvallis, OR (503) 754-4428 {, ,
163
-------
STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM)
J. Tool Description
The Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) is a comprehensive model for the analysis of the quantity
and quality problems associated with urban runoff. Using SWMM, the modeler can simulate all aspects of
the urban hydrologic and quality cycles', including rainfall, snowmelt, surface and subsurface runoff, flow
routing through the drainage network, storage and treatment. Statistical analyses may be performed on
long-term precipitation data and on output from continuous simulation. Because of .SWMM's public domain
status, extensive feedback has been received from users on needed corrections and enhancements, and the
model is continuously updated through interaction with CEAM.
IT. Tool Users
SWMM has been used in scores of U.S. cities as well as extensively in Canada, Europe, Australia and
elsewhere. A large body of literature on theory and case studies is available. The model has been used for
very complex hydraulic analysis for combined sewer overflow mitigation as well as for many storniwater
management planning studies and pollution abatement projects, and there are many instances of successful
calibration and verification. SWMM has been extensively used for 25 years. Because of SWMM's public
domain status, extensive feedback has been received from users on needed corrections and enhancements,
and the model is continuously updated through interaction with CEAM. This tool could be enhanced by
developing an improved user interface, and a routine for simulating subsurface water, quality (a constant
concentration is now assumed).
III. Tool Development :
SWMM was originally developed for the EPA between 1969 and 1971 to support urban run-off analyses.
EPA Nationwide Urban Runoff Program data are often used as starting values for SWMM water quality
computations. SWMM was developed by the'EPA Office of Water via contract. /
IV. Special Requirements for Use ,
The model is designed for use by engineers and scientists experienced in urban hydrological and water
quality processes. Although the two user's manuals explain most computational algorithms, an engineering
background is necessary to appreciate most methods being used and to verify that the model results are
reasonable. SWMM Version 4 is microcomputer based (DOS-compatible), although the Fortran code may
be compiled on any machine. Execution tunes are on the order of a few seconds to several minutes for most
jobs on a 386/486 machine. However, simulation of large areas with many subcatchments and/or channels
for many time steps can require several hours on a microcomputer. The user is well advised to use the most
powerful microcomputer available.
V^ Program/Media/Geographic Transfer-ability
SWMM has general applicability for the analysis of run-off and flow routing from impermeable areas.
VI. Other Information
yil. Program Contact
Dermont Bouchard Office of Research and Development/OEPER/ Athens-ERL, Manager - Center for
Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM), (706) 546-3130
164
-------
SYNOPTIC APPROACH FOR RANKING LANDSCAPE SUBUNITS
1 . ' - I '.
L Tool Description
The synoptic approach is a risk-based framework for comparing and ranking landscape subunits, such as
watersheds; ecoregions, or counties. The approach provides a framework based on ecological principles that
can be used to^define indices of function and value; these indices are then mapped using synoptic indicators.
The approach was originally designed by the Wetlands Research Program for use in assessing cumulative
impacts to wetlands, but can also be .applied to regional risk assessments and development of watershed
management plans. ,
IL Tool Users
The approach has been used by Region 7 in Nebraska, and is being applied by Region 4 in Kentucky, by
the Soil Conservation Service in Louisiana, and by the State of Oregon. Puerto Rico's Department of
Natural Resources recently expressed interest in the approach.
III. Tool Development 1
In developing the approach, the Wetlands Research Program (WRP) conducted preliminary synoptic
assessments for the Pearl River Basin (Louisiana and Mississippi) and for the states of Washington, Illinois,
and Louisiana. WRP is currently conducting as assessment of the prairie pothole region, and will soon begin
an assessment of the Willamette Valley in Oregon.
IV. Special Requirements for Use '
Defining the indices for a particular'assessment requires development of a conceptual model of the
environmental processes and resources within the specific area. This requires the involvement of a person
having a broad .ecological background, with familiarity of community, ecosystem, or landscape ecology.
Availability of a GIS is not necessary but aids in measurement and production of map products.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The approach can be used to compare and rank landscape units from the national scale to state and regional
scales. Maps resulting from a synoptic assessment: can be used in planning process to prioritize
environmental protection restoration, and enforcement efforts. The approach can also be used to screen
regions for areas requiring more intensive study. - .
VI. . Other Information
Because there is a lack of tools that can be used within regulatory constraints for regional assessments, the
synoptic approach was designed as a method that could make .use of available information and best
professional judgement. Thus the approach is a compromise between the need for rigorous results and the
need for timely information. The overall quality of a synoptic assessment depends oh how well knowledge
of the environment is incorporated into the assessment ;and the availability of environmental data that can
be used to represent and map these processes. ' ,
VII. Program Contacts
Scott G. Leibowitz, Office of Research and Development, Environmental Research Laboratory -
Corvallis, (503) 754-4508
165
-------
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS SIMULATION PROGRAM (WASPS)
L Tool Description
Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program, WASPS is a generalized framework for modeling contaminant
fate and transport in surface waters. Based on the flexible compartment modeling approach, WASP can be
applied in one, two, or three dimensions. WASP is designed to permit easy substitution of user-written
routines into the program structure. Problems that have been studied using the WASP framework include ,
biochemical oxygen demand and dissolved oxygen dynamics, nutrients and eutrbphication, bacterial
contamination, and organic chemical and heavy metal contamination. . - ,
Two WASP models are provided with WASPS: The toxics WASP model, TOXI5, combines a kinetic
structure adapted from EXAMS2 with the WASP5 transport structure and simple sediment balance
algorithms to predict dissolved and sorbed chemical concentrations in the bed and overlying waters. The
dissolved oxygen/eutrophication WASP model EUTRO5 combines a kinetic structure adapted from the
Potomac Eutrophication Model with the WASP5 transport structure to predict DO and phytoplankton
dynamics affected by nutrients and organic material.
WASP has been used to simulate the water quality and pollutant fate for a variety of aquatic systems. It
is used primarily to investigate the water quality response to management actions, primarily point and
nonpoint source load reduction. It is presently being distributed by CEAM and its status is "in-use." The
technical contact is Robert Ambrose. v
IL. Tool Users
WASPS is targeted for knowledgable environmental scientists and engineers. It is used by professionals
in a variety of positions, from state and local governments to Federal agencies, universities, foreign
governments, industry, and consultants. Because of its public domain status, extensive feedback has been
received from users on needed corrections and enhancements, and the model is continuously updated through
interaction with CEAM. Technical support has been offered over phone and internet.
III. Tool Development
WASP was originally developed in the 1970s to simulate water quality response to proposed changes in
waste loads mandated by the Clean Water Act. WASP was originally developed by a contractor. It has been
refined and extended overmany years through both contract and in-house projects.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Although the user's manuals explain the theory and implementation of the computational algorithms, an
environmental science or engineering background is necessary to appreciate most methods being used and
to verify that the model results are reasonable. WASPS is microcomputer based (DOS-compatible), although
the Fortran code may be compiled on any machine. Execution times for small to moderate problems may
vary from a few minutes to an hour or two on a 386/486 machine. However, simulation of large networks
over long periods can require several hours on a microcomputer. The user is well advised to use the most
powerful microcomputer available. . t
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
WASPS is quite general software for the simulation of a range of problems in surface water systems. It
has been used for a variety of EPA programs, including water, pesticides, and Superfund. It has been used
to simulate water bodies worldwide.
166
-------
VI. Other Information .
The Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM). was established in 1987 to meet the scientific and
technical exposure assessment needs of the .United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as well
as state environmental and resource management agencies. To support environmental risk-based decisions,
CEAM distributes environmental simulation models and databases for urban and rural nonppint sources,
conventional and toxic pollution of streams, lakes «ind estuaries, tidal hydrodynamics, geochemical
equilibrium, and aquatic food chain bioaccumulation. A wide range of analysis techniques is provided,
ranging from simple desk-top techniques suitable for screening analysis, to sophisticated, state-of-the-cirt
continuous simulation models.
VII. Program Contact
Robert B. Ambrose, Jr.
Office of Research and Development; Center for Exposure Assessment
Modeling; Athens, GA, (706) 546-3549 "\ ;..-._'.
167
-------
168
-------
HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
OUTREACH TOOLS
169
-------
-------
COMPARATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRA) & CONSENSUS BUILDING
L Tool Description
The purpose of Comparative Risk Analysis is to bring diverse special interests together and reach consensus
on which problems pose the most risk to Human Health, Ecosystem Health and Quality of Life (welfare),
and to develop consensus on an action plan to .reduce those risks in those three categories. These projects
take a comprehensive approach to analyzing environmental problems in a particular geographic area (region,
state,.locality, watershed).
Comparative Risk Analysis has been supported by EPA since 1987; the State Program since 1990. The
Regional and State Planning Branch (RSPB) provides technical assistance to place-based comparative risk
projects. These projects consist of primarily State projects, some local & tribal projects and one watershed
based project. Training on comparative risk analysis and techniques is tailored to the clients' needs. RSPB
provides fiscal assistance for State, ecosystem and local projects. Technical assistance is also provided to
projects through two technical assistance centers. / ,,
IL Tool Users
Current users include States, locals, tribes and other organizations (eg: universities - Case Western
'Reserve, Jackson State; non-profit organizations - The Elizabeth River Project).
III. Tool Development ',
The CRA methodology was initially developed in partnership with the EPA Science Advisory Board and
EPA Regional offices. Currently methodology has been developed in partnership with various states, locals,
and tribes and continues to be improved upon and tailored to meet individual project needs. The
methodology requires significant public involvement and the analysis of problem areas in the three categories
of risk (human health, ecosystem and quality of life) to qualify for funding. Currently > the methodology
is not statutorily mandated. , , . ,
Funding of $100,000 is provided per State/Tribal project, with pilot projects receiving over $100,000;
.$50,000 is provided per locality/watershed: $200,000 is dedicated to training through a cooperative
agreement with the two Technical Assistance Centers. \ Roughly a quarter of each FTE on the RSPB staff
is dedicated to training and methodology development. Feedback on the methodology includes extensive
assessments of completed projects and continued interest by various parties in conducting comparative risk
projects. . --'
IV. Special Requirements
Projects must meet certain criteria to be eligible for funding, including public involvement, analysis in the
three risk categories, political buy-in, a plan to address environmental justice issues, and the separation of
risk assessment from risk management.
Yi Program/Media/Geographic TransferaMIity
This tool can and has been used to examine watershed risks, media specific risks, and can be applied to
ecosystem projects. However, RSPB may not fund all projects. v
VI.
Other Information
The methodology could be enhanced through: : ! , , / : '
improved ability to incorporate principles of sustainability into a projects ecological risk rankings;
improved user access to understandable and usable ecological data on various scales;,
: :.- ,171 ' . ", : ' .. '
-------
, improved ability to better quantify the stressors to ecosystem health to facilitate the selection and
implementation of the appropriate risk reduction strategies;
consolidation of successful risk reduction strategies for ecosystem protection from various levels
of governments. :
VII. Program Contacts ' .
Debora Martin Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Strategic Planning and Environmental
Data, Regional and State Planning Branch (Branch Chief), (202) 260-2699
172
-------
ENDANGERED SPECIES PESTICIDE USAGE BULLETINS
L Tool Description , < . .
The endangered species bulletins are designed to promote the protection of endangered species from risk
due to pesticides. County-specific bulletins (presently voluntary) will require measures for limiting the
application of various pesticides in order to prevent harm to listed species.
The bulletins are developed on a county-by-county basis and show areas within a given county where
pesticide use must be limited in order to protect listed species. Of the 3,300 counties nationwide, roughly
half have some endangered species issues. Bulletins have been prepared and distributed for approximately
230 to 300 counties.. It has been estimated .that there are another 600 to 900 counties for which bulletins
which should be issued. It is not expected that bulletins will be prepared for all counties with endangered
species protection issues; in many counties, the protection of endangered species from pesticides is being
addressed through other means than the preparation and issuance of bulletins.
n. Tool Users .
The tool is intended for pesticide users; bulletins are distributed to pesticide users (primarily agricultural
interests) through a variety of entities such as state soil conservation agencies, extension services, national
agri-chemical retailers association members, etc. '> ' ,
III. Too! Development : -
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) mandates the protection of listed species from Federal pesticide actions,
including pesticide registration. Provisions in the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) mandate that each pesticide label contain instructions regarding its use1 and application which must
be adhered to at penalty of enforcement action. The pesticides program began working on endangered
species requirements in 1977, providing species-specific use prohibitions .on the pesticide labels (e.g., "do
not use this pesticide for prairie dog control in areas inhabited by the black-footed ferret"...).
This labelling approach was modified in 1985 or 1986, modifying label language to inform users that "this
pesticide may harm endangered species - use only in accordance with label instructions and the applicable
EPA bulletin". ". ' ! - ... ' '; ..-,
The program was first proposed in 1987, but hit political controversy, was deferred, and was restructured;
At present, suggested pesticide use restrictions presented as voluntary, "interim measures". When the
program becomes final, it will be enforceable. OPP expects that Federal Register notices will go out this
Spring, and that a call for label changes will go out .to pesticide registrants later that year, and that the
mandatory labelling program will go into effect over 1996-97. , .. ! . * .
The bulletins were'once prepared by a contractor, based on endangered species maps provided by the Fish
and Wildlife Service. However, the program is phasing out the use of the contractor, and is moving towards
in-house development of the maps and bulletins using a Pentium-powered PC and GIS software.
Although resource expenditures are, difficult to assess accurately and have been highly variable, roughly
$250,000 to $300,000 and a couple of FTE per year have been devoted to development of the program over
the. years since 1988. , . ' -'..".
The program needs better information about the actual location of endangered species, and the location of
pesticide use. In, response to data requests made of several pesticide registrants, the American Crop
173
-------
Protection Association (formerly the National Agricultural Chemicals Association) is developing a task force
to provide information on the location of species relative-to pesticide use sites.
The program could also benefit from conceptual models which can model the various ecological interactions
in an ecosystem in a more comprehensive, integrated and fulsome manner.
IV. Special Requirements for Use ,
None. In multi-lingual areas, multi-lingual versions of the Bulletins are prepared .and distributed.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability .
The bulletins contain maps showing the location of endangered species within a given county, and these
may have relevance to other programs.
VI. Other Information
A) It is important that people remember that the agency is required to protect areas which may impact
upon endangered species irrespective of whether or not these areas are the species actual habitats (e.g., must
protect upstream water reaches which flow into habitat of endangered fish...). . >
B) There is a "sub-tool" known as "Landowner Agreements" associated with the pesticide control
program. This is a mechanism whereby the need for the preparation and issuance of bulletins in a particular
county can be eliminated by having the State obtain voluntary agreements from all relevant agricultural users
that they will voluntarily comply with the recommended pesticide uses. Wisconsin and Minnesota currently
have very strong landowner agreement efforts, and other States are coining 6n-board.
VII. Program Contacts
Larry Turner Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Fate and Effects Division, (703) 305-5007 ,
174
-------
INTRODUCTION TO WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
L Tool Description .
This basic public information pamphlet was developed by EPA most recently in 1988 to provide general
information on the water quality criteria and standards program. '
IL Tool Users
federal, State, municipal industrial, environmental and Tribal entities. ' . ,
- - , - ' ''* ' , - .. ,
III. Tool Development ' ,
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act require States and Tribes to adopt water quality standards to protect
public health and welfare, to enhance water quality, and to serve the purposes of the Act by providing for
the protection and propagation of fis,h, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, whenever
these goals are attainable. The Act requires States to establish standards taking into consideration the use
and value of the water for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural
and industrial water supply, navigation and other purposes. As a State/Tribe rule or law, water quality
standards provide the basis for treatment controls beyond the technology-based requirements of the Act
for both point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
Finally, water quality standards provide the bench mark against which to measure the effectiveness of
regulatory and non-regulatory programs and in controlling water borne risks.
x ! '''""",
IV. Special Requirements for Use r .
None . . .'.'."'.'. - .-.'':.' . , ''
V_i Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The standards are designed for the water media, but are applicable to a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information ! . .
Water quality standards are the foundation central core of the ecosystem/watershed approach as they define
the human health and ecological goals for the aquatic ecosystem and provide the mechanism for meeting the
objective of the Clean Water Act to restore the chemical physical and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters., : ' - , '''.
' ' f ; . ; ' '
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost. '"'. ''
VII. Program Contacts . -
David K. Sabock Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260" 1318 ;
175
-------
THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS FOR
BUILDING ECOSYSTEM ACTION PLANS
I. Tool Description
This tool is located in the Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds, which manages the National Estuary Program.
The Clean Water Act, as amended by the Water Quality Act of 1987, establishes the National Estuary
Program (NEP) to promote long-term planning and management in nationally significant estuaries threatened
by pollution, development, or overuse. Section 320 of the Clean Water Act describes the establishment of
a management conference for each estuary to develop a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP). Section 320 also identifies the seven purposes of the management conference; the management
conference has the responsibility of implementing a four-phase program to fulfill these seven purposes:
. Phase I - The Planning Initiative
. Phase II - Characterization and Problem Definition .
. Phase III - Development of a CCMP
. Phase IV - CCMP Implementation
II. Tool Development
There are three mam groups of participants in the characterization process: committees that make up the
management conference, program coordinators and scientific staff of the estuary program, and local technical
experts and contractors. The roles of these groups are described below.
Generally, the management conference structure consists of a policy-making committee or management
committee (MC), work groups or subcommittees, and other standing committees, such as a scientific and
technical advisory committee (STAC or TAG) and public advisory committee (PAC). Other committees that
may be included are a local government committee (LGC), and a financial planning committee (fPC). The
general makeup, roles, and organizational structure of these different committees are presented in Saving
Bays and Estuaries: A Primer for establishing and Managing Estuary Projects (U.S. EPA, 1989). The
management committee consists of representatives from the federal, state, regional and local government
agencies and other user groups. The scientific and technical advisory committee is composed of technical
staff from the above groups as well as regional scientists. The public advisory committee is composed of
members from environmental and citizen's groups and other users with interests in the estuary.
III. Tool Use
The management committee of the conference is typically made up of professional environmental managers
from participating federal, state, and local agencies, local advocacy groups, and the chairpersons of the
Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). With
the assistance of estuary program staff, work groups, and other committees, the management committee
defines and ranks the problems of the estuary, produces status and trends reports and the characterization
report, develops management strategies, and designs the CCMP.
The STAC furnishes the scientific guidance to the estuary program in identifying, defining, and quantifying
the environmental problems of the estuary. The Citizens Advisory Committee provides opportunity for a
greater cross section of the community to take up specific issues and concerns of the public. The CAC is
fully involved in the development of all action plans.
176
-------
. The first six of the 21 NEPs have all completed their fcCMPs and have begun implementation at various
stages. The lesson we learned from these fore-rrunners .are reflected in the way the latest four NEPs were
set up in 1992. Primarily, we now believe that in most cases, a CCMP can be furnished sooner than within
the five year time frame we first established. However, the key determinants are twofold: How much
characterization has there been and how polarized are the stakeholder in the watershed.
IV. Special Requirements
Management Conferences must be convened by the Administrator of EPA.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The NEPs are already being use to enhance Coastal Nonpoint Source Programs (Section 319) in several
states.; Because the process engages a complete spectrum>of stakeholder and because the NEP uses a
watershed approach in most cases, many of EPA's water programs benefit. Point Source issues, wetlands
protection, pollution prevention, and many other programs, all benefit from the development of a CCMP
which sets a precise agenda and commitment for achieving protection goals. NEPs also take extra steps to
share information and techniques with other coastal areas. For example, the NEP will hold a national coastal-
tech transfer conference in New Orleans in February. All 21 of the NEPs and many of their partners such
as the Gulf of Mexico will participate.
The Division is responsible for the development of guidance, policy, and regulations and implementation
strategies for programs to protect marine and estuarine waters.
VI.
Other information
VII. Program Contacts
Darrell Brown Office of Water. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Oceans and Coastal
Protection Division. Coastal Management Branch, 202/26(M>426
17,7
-------
OFFICE OF ENVTRONMETSTTAL JUSTICE OUTREAtlH TRAINING
L Tool Description
EPA's Office of Environmental Justice provides many outreach programs to educate low income minorities
on their rights and responsibilities under environmental laws. OEJ has educated minorities in this area to
protect the Anacostia River (e.g., cease'dumping refuse into the river and its tributaries). In addition, OEJ
trains EPA staff on environmental justice issues issues ^
IL Tool Users
Agency-wide program offices, public, and low-income miniority communities.
III. Tool Development
Established on inception of program. Training is on-going.
' ,/
IV, Special Requirements for Use
Ability to listen and the willingness to be educated on environmental justice community issues.
V, Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ' ,
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts ,
Clarice Gaylord Office of Administration and Resource Management, Office of Environmental
Justice, (202) 260-0852 '
178
-------
WETLANDS INFORMATION HOTLINE ,
L Tool Description ''..':
The Wetlands Information Hotline was created more than 4 years ago to provide accurate,- general
information to the public and other interested parties and organizations about wetlands in general, wetlands
science, recent issues critical to wetlands' habitats, and EPA regulatory and non-regulatory programs designed
to/preserve, protect, and restore wetlands. I
- ' - , , , . j'
The Hotline provides callers with easy access (through a nationwide toll-free number) to technical
information, reports, documents, brochures, timely information about changes in regulations and legislation,
educational materials, and referrals to appropriate sources for help. Information specialists answer questions
directly, provide literature and documentation, and refer callers to local individuals/organizations who can
assist or provide further information., ; ; '",'.- ':
IL Tool Users
This service benefits the general public as well as particular groups such as private land owners, teachers
and students, environmental groups, lawyers, consultants, farmers and agricultural workers, land developers,
trade associations, and the media. .
During FY 94 the Hotline received 8,665 calls. More than 42,500 documents were distributed in response
to over 5,700 document requests (either written or called in). During the one year period which began April
1, 1993, the Hotline distributed 47,585 documents, an increase in volume of 250% over the previous year.
Approximately, 23% of the^ calls received .originated from States in EPA's Region 3. The Hotline answered
questions about-a variety of topics including enforcement (1.9%), science (1.9%), permits (3.1%),
agriculture (4.r%),: delineation (6.4%), and legislation (8.6%). The Hotline also provided over 2,300
referrals to other sources such as Corps of Engineers Districts (23 %X EPA. Regional Offices (13%), and
State resource agencies (10%). ,
, ' -' . ; j ,
'}', -,'<' - ' - '
III. Tool Development '
.The Hotline was established approximately 4 years ago, prompted by the need to get quick, accurate
information and documents out to the,public and key groups (land owners, farmers, etc.) who would be
affected by changes in regulations and programs. ,
- -,'*'' '
The concept of the Hotline was originated in the Wetlands program; the hotline itself is operated by
contractors. The majority of the information/documents distributed are created by the Wetlands program
or similar programs in other cooperating Federal Agencies. The resource rioteb'ook.from which information
specialists learn and provide answers to caller's questions was prepared under a grant with Environmental
Law Institute in cooperation with EPA Wetlands staff'.
Except for the resource book, all of the start-up/development costs come from the contract budget. The.
contractor uses less than 4 FTEs and has an annual budget of approximately $250,000. Full funding is
anticipated throughout FY 1995. ' ' , ^ .
IV.
None.
Special Requirements for Use
179
-------
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability , j.
The Hotline is limited to the air, earth, and water that surround or are connected to wetlands. The Hotline
does answer questions and provide extensive documentation to other EPA programs and pffices. Because
of the toll free call, the hotline receives calls from, all geographic areas. ,
VI. Other Information
The hotline could truly benefit the public (and cut costs to EPA) by providing access to answers and
documents electronically over internet accessible e-mail system. Discussions have been held with OIRM
about becoming the first hotline in EPA to pilot this idea.
VII. Program Contacts
Kevin Perry Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Wetlands Division, (202)
260-6833
180.
-------
HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
POLICY AND 'PLANNING TOOLS
181
-------
-------
SECTION 404 PERMIT REVIEW/ SECTION 404(B)(1) GUIDELINES
. ' V . . , ', ' - - , ' " r*
,' . f ' ' ' - ... -
L Tool Description
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. Activities in waters that are typically regulated
under Section 404 include fills for development, water resource projects (e.g. dams and levees),
infrastructure development (e.g.", highways and airports),, and conversion of wetlands to uplands for farming
and forestry. ' . . .
EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jointly administer the Section 404 program. In addition,
the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and State resource agencies have
important advisory roles. The Corps of Engineers evaluates proposed discharges of dredged or fill material
using .the Section 404(b)(l) guidelines developed by EPA. The guidelines contain substantive environmental
criteria that reflect the biological, physical and chemical health of aquatic ecosystems. The basic premise
of the Guidelines is that no discharge of dredged or fill material can be permitted if there is a practicable
alternative that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the discharge would result in significant
degradation of our Nation's waters. As such, the Guidelines establish a sequence for mitigating impacts
associated with proposed discharges: applicants must first avoid wetland impacts by utilizing the least
damaging practicable project alternative; unavoidable impacts must then be minimized to the extent
appropriate and practicable, for example, through downsizing or project reconfiguration; finally, remaining
unavoidable impacts must be compensated to the extent appropriate and practicable through the restoration
or creation of similar wetland habitats to replace the important flood control, water quality and habitat
functions of the affected wetlands. ,.
IL Tool Users
Federal and state resource and regulatory agencies. The general public has the opportunity to provide input
as part of the public notice and public hearing process.
III. Tool 'Development :
The Section 404 (b) (1) Guidelines were published by the EPA irTpecember, 1980.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
The Section 404 permit review process is triggered when an activity is proposed which involves a discharge
of dredged or fill material into a wetland or other aquatic resource. If the discharge is not exempt under
Section 404 or otherwise authorized under a nationwide or regional general permit, the prospective
discharger must apply for an individual permit. :
V.. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The Section 404 (b)(l) Guidelines contain a requirement that no activity can be permitted if it would violate
other applicable laws (eg: state water quality standards,'.the Endangered Species Act).
VI. Other Information ,
Section 404 provides a general deterrent to wetlands impacts, and as such, offers an important tool for the
management and protection of wetland ecosystems. I
VII. Program Contacts ,
Tom Kelsch Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Wetlands Division,
(202)260-8795 . ,
"'"' . 183 .". ''!.' . ' '. ';
-------
ECONOMIC GUIDANCE FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS: WORKBOOK
L. Tool Description '
This technical guidance was developed by EPA in 1994 to assist States/Tribes identify the data and analyses
necessary to support revisions to water quality standards based on economic considerations.
II. Tool Users . ,
Federal, State, municipal industrial, environmental and Tribal entities.
III. Tool Development '
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act require States and Tribes to adopt water quality standards to protect
public health and welfare, to enhance water quality, and to serve the purposes of the Act by providing for
the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, whenever
these goals are attainable. The Act requires States to establish standards taking into consideration the use
and value of the water for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreation, agricultural
and industrial water supply, navigation and other purposes. As a State/Tribe rule or law, water quality
standards provide the basis for treatment controls beyond the technology-based requirements of the Act
for both point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
Finally, water quality standards provide the bench mark against which to measure the effectiveness of
regulatory and non-regulatory programs and in controlling water borne risks.
Special Requirements for Use
None
V, Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The standards are designed for the water media, but are applicable to a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information
Water quality standards are the foundation central core of the ecosystem/watershed approach as they define
the human health and ecological goals for the aquatic ecosystem and provide the mechanism for meeting the
objective of the Clean Water Act to restore the chemical physical and biological integrity of the Nation's
waters. , . '>
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
VII. Program Contacts
David K. Sabock Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1318 ,
184
-------
EPA'S CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - DRAFT
L Tool Description
The Strategy describes the cross-program policy framework in'which EPA intends to promote consideration
and reduction of ecological and human health risks posed by sediment contamination. The goals of the
Strategy are: (1) to develop, consistent methodologies for assessing contaminated sediments; (2) to prevent
ecological or human health risks; (3) to clean-up existing sediment contamination that causes significant
effects on human health ore the environment; and (4) to ensure that sediment dredging and the disposal of
dredged material continue to be managed in an environmentally sound manner.
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel.
III. Tool Development
More than ten Federal statutes provide authority to many EPA program offices to address the-problem of
contaminated sediment. This resulted in fragmented, and in some cases contradictory or duplicative efforts
to evaluate and manage contaminated sediments. EPA developed, the Contaminated Sediment Management
Strategy to streamline decision-making within and among EPA's program offices by promoting and ensuring
the use of consistent sediment assessment practice, consistent consideration of risks posed by contaminated
sediment, the use of consistent approaches to management of contaminated sediment risks, and the wise use
of scarce resources for research and technology development.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. . ' . -,..'. ' _ ' .'''.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability '
Applicable to other media and a wide range of ecosystems. Contaminated sediment poses ecological and
human health risks in many watersheds throughout the United States; sediments serve as a contaminant
reservoir from which fish and bottom dwelling organisms can accumulated toxic compounds and pass them
up the food chain until they accumulate to levels that may be toxic to humans.
VI. Other Information
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street
SW,"Washington, D. C. at no cost. '
VII. Program Contacts
Tom Armitage Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-5388
185
-------
EPA POLICY ON THE USE OF
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS IN ENFORCEMENT SETTLEMENTS
L_ Too! Description
In the settlement of environmental enforcement cases, EPA will insist upon terms which require defendants
to achieve and maintain compliance with Federal environmental laws and regulations. In certain instances,
additional relief in the form of projects remediating the adverse public health or environmental consequences
of the violations at issue may be included in the settlement to offset the effects of the particular violation
which prompted the suit. These projects are called Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) and may
be applied in both administrative and judicial settlements, .
The SEP policy includes five specific categories of projects which the Agency will consider in a settlement:
pollution prevention; pollution reduction; environmental restoration; environmental auditing; and public
awareness. Environmental restoration is the category most relevant to ecosystem protection. An
environmental restoration project is defined as a project that not only repairs the damage done to the
environment because of the violation, but which goes beyond repair to enhance the environment in the
vicinity of the violating facility.
IL Tool Users .
SEPs are used by EPA Headquarters and Regional Enforcement staff.
III. Tool Development \ ,,
The current SEP policy was established in a February 12, 1991 memorandum from James M. Strock,
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement. This policy memo amended an existing EPA policy
on civil penalties that was established in 1984 (GM-22).
The current SEP policy is in the process of being revised by the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance in order to, among other things, broaden the environmental restoration category to include more
opportunities for ecosystem protection.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
The only requirements for use of this tool is a general knowledge of the enforcement process and the SEP
policy. OECA will be conducting training in Spring/Summer 1995 on how to more effectively Use SEPs.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv »
This tool can be applied to any program, media, or geographic area.
VI. Other Information
The Agency's past experience with SEPs, or "mitigation projects," has sometimes been problematic, in part
because policy statements did not fully describe the kinds of projects that are,appropriate for penalty
reduction, the situations under which they should be considered, and the amount by which the penalty
demand can be reduced. Further, the U.S. General Accounting Office has questioned EPA's authority to
use SEPs. EPA is revising the policy to respond to these concerns. . .
VJII, Program Contacts
David Hindin Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, (202) 260-564-9001
186
-------
EPA'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR STAIfE SUBMITTED
TMDLS/WLAS, March 1986
L. Tool Description : \ ' ->.-
Step-by-step procedures are outlined on the administrative (i.e.,, non-technical) aspects of developing
TMDLs/WLAs and submitting them to EPA for review and approval. It includes questions and answers to
focus on key issues, pertinent sections of WQM regulations andtheCWA, and examples of correspondence.
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some cases assisted
in their testing. _ :'. '.... '
. ' - '' ' . '.:'' ' ' i ' " i ' . ' .
III. Tool Development
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-based
controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish priorities for these Waters based on the
severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total maximum daily load
of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard adopted by the State for
the particular waterbody or segment thereof. Since 1983, the primary impetus for developing the guidance
is the need to provide the technical and management tools for States to use in meeting statutory requirements
and Agency programmatic priorities. -. .
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. Readability depends on the topics covered. '
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information
TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource managers to
examine' the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect of different
strategies (e.g:, pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the functioning of the
aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals - water quality standards. All guidance
documents are available from the Water Resource Center (41Q4),U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington,
D. C. at no cost, f ;
VII. Program Contacts .
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-1330
187
-------
EPA STRATEGIC PLAN FOR GROUND WATER ECOLOGY
L Tool Description
The guidance document entitled, EPA Strategic Plan for Ground Water Ecology. June, 1994, was
developed by the Ground Water Protection Division within the Office of Water, to meet the environmental
component of the principle of the Ground Water Protection Strategy that calls for the protection of ground
water that is closely connected hydrologically to surface water in order to attain surface water quality
standards and protect the integrity of associated ecosystems.
The Plan identifies four key objectives for achieving the goals of the strategy: provide technical assistance
to water resource managers, especially at the State and local level, to delineate and set priorities for areas
of ground water/surface water interaction that need protection; continue to work to incorporate or amend
the use of existing statutory/regulatory authorities, policies and guidance to better protect ground water and
related ecosystems; cooperate and coordinate with other public, private, and international organizations
involved in ground water ecology; and, increase understanding of ground water ecology.
I3L Tool Users
This Guidance can provide information to States and EPA Programs, such as the watershed and nonpoint
source programs. '
III. Tool Development
In response to the Science Advisory Board's Reducing Risk report, in 1990, the EPA developed the Ground
Water Protection Strategy, to protect the environmental integrity of the nation's ground water resources.
In June 1994, the Ground Water Ecology Strategic Plan was developed by the Office of Water to build upon
the Ground Water Protection Strategy and to provide guidance on how to accomplish these efforts.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
No special requirements required for use.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Transferability unknown.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
John Simons, Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,;Ground Water Protection
Division, (202) 260-7091 ,
188
-------
FRAMEWORK FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ISSUE PAPERS
L Too! Description
This tool includes nine Forum-sponsored reports on topics related to the ecological risk assessment process
as described in the EPA report Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (Framework Report:EPA 630/R-
, 92/001). The, report topics are: conceptual model development, characterizations, risk integration methods,
uncertainty in' ecological risk assessment, ecological significance, ecological recovery, and biological
stressors, and ascertaining public values in ecological risk assessment. ,
IL Tool Users
The primary intended use of the issue papers will be as source materials for development of Agency-wide
"ecological risk assessment guidelines by the Risk Assessment Forum.
III. Tool Development , . "
The issue papers were developed by expert consultants, between 1992 and 1994 and were peer-reviewed in
August 1994. The issue papers are not yet available. The estimated publication date is early, in 1995.
IV. Special Requirements for Use j . , -
. These .reports are intended for ihose who have some training and familiarity with ecological risk
assessment. . . . ' ; ' ...
V. Program/Media/Gfographic Transferabilitv
The reports contain information that is generally applicable to a wide range of EPA programs, media, and
geographic areas. ' I ; , - '
VI. Other Information
The Risk Assessment Forum (Forum) is composed of senior scientists from around the Agency and, was
established to promote Agency-wide consensus on scientific issue related to risk assessment both ecological
and human health risk issues are considered by Forum technical panels.
VII. Program Contacts I
Bill van der Schalie ORD. Risk Assessment Forum, (202) 260-4191
189
-------
FRAMEWORK FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT
I. Tool Description
This tool is a Forum-developed report entitled Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment (Framework
Report; EPA/630/R-92/001) that describes basic elements, or a framework, for ecological risk assessment
and offers a flexible structure for conducting and evaluating EPA ecological risk assessments. The report
is being used by many assessors both within and outside of the Agency.
t ' - ' i ,, '
IL. Tool Users ,
The Framework Report is primarily intended for EPA risk assessors,, EPA risk managers, and other
persons who either perform work under EPA contract or sponsorship or are subject to EPA regulations. The
terminology and concepts described may be of assistance to other Federal, State, and local agencies as well
as to members of the general public who are interested in ecological issues. Several program offices are
using the Framework Report to help structure program-specific guidance, and it is being widely used outside
of EPA as well.
, /
III. Tool Development ,
The framework Report was developed by a panel of Agency scientists, peer-reviewed, and published in
May, 1992. The need for the Framework Report was based on discussions with the EiDA Risk Assessment
Council and Science Advisory Board.
IV, Special Requirements for Use
The report is more useful for those who have some training and familiarity with ecological risk assessment.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The Framework Report was intended to provide generic not program-specific guidance. As such, the
principles in the report may be applicable to a wide range of stressors, ecological systems, and biological,
special, and temporal scales. ' ,
VI. Other Information '
The Risk Assessment Forum (Forum) is composed of senior scientists from around the Agency and was
established to promote Agency-wide consensus on scientific issues related to risk assessment. Both
ecological and human health risk issues are considered by Forum technical panels.
VII. Program Contacts
Bill Van Der Schalie ORD, Risk Assessment Forum, (202) 260-4191
190
-------
GUIDANCE SPECIFYING MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR SOURCES OF
NONPOINT POLLUTION IN COASTAL WATERS
L Tool Description
This document contains guidance specifying management measures for sources of npnpoint pollution in
coastal waters. This "management measures" guidance address five source categories of nonpoint pollution;
agriculture, silviculture, urban, marinas, and hydroinodification. A suite of management measures is
provided for each source category. In addition, there are chapters that provide management measures that
list other tools available to address many source categories of nonpoint pollution; these tools include the
protection, restoration, and construction of wetlands, riparian areas, and vegetated treatment systems.
IL Tool Users
This Guidance was written to help States to develop and implement State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution
Control Programs. ! '
III. Tool Development ; ,,'''
In the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorizatipn Amendments of 1990 (CZARA), Congress recognized that
nonpoint pollution was a key factor in the continuing degradation of many coastal waters and thus called
upon States to develop and implement State Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs: Congress
assigned to EPA the responsibility to develop this technical guidance to guide the States' development of
Coastal Nonpoint Control Programs, .which must be in conformity with the technical guidance.
This Guidance (#840-B-92-002) was published in January 1993 after two years of work. This Guidance was
developed by EPA personnel within the Office of Water's Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
and outside contractor support. ,Th6 total approximate cost of this effort was $1.5 million.
IV. Special Requirements for Use ! ,
This Guidance is too diverse to make a generalization.
f" ' ' ' ' I :..','
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Portions of this Guidance are applicable to Programs dealing with coastal waters, stormwater permits,
wetlands, ground water, pesticides and other Federal and state agencies.
VL
Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
DOT Weitman Office of Water, Office of .Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, (202) 260-7100 ; ,
191
-------
INTERGOVERNMENTAL TASK FORCE ON MONITORING WATER QUALITY (ITFM)
L_ Tool Description
The tool is the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM), soon to become a
permanent National Water Quality Monitoring Council. The ITFM's purpose is to recommend and oversee
implementation of a nationwide water monitoring strategy that would:
I. Provide a structure for public and private monitoring partners to collaborate to share information
on water resource quality
2. Provide data to measure progress toward environmental goals through use of agreed-upon
indicators. ,
3. Use performance-based methods to collect water data so it can be shared with others
4. Store data in automated systems with agreed upon data descriptors so a secondary data user will
know if he can use the data for his own purposes. Link the systems so data can'be shared easily.
Jointly maintain where necessary common data bases several agencies need, such as a taxonomic
system.
5. Provide analysis tools, including joint purchase of data layers (such as remote sensing) and
increased joint use of GIS.
The ITFM has 20 members; 10 Federal agencies, 8 States, one Indian Tribe, and one Interstate Basin
Commission, plus over 150 Federal and State staff participating in 8 work groups on specific issues. EPA
chairs the ITFM (Elizabeth Fellows), with USGS as Vice .Chair and Executive Secretariat.
ITFM final recommendations are out in draft form for public review; the final report is due in January,
1995.
IL Tool Users
The intended users of these tools are water quality monitoring/data management experts at all geographic
scales. Feedback on the ITFM recommendations and on specific tools has been very positive to date.
HI. Tool Development ~ .
The ITFM held its first meeting in January, 1992. The ITFM was prompted by EPA and USGS concern
to improve water quality monitoring nationwide. The ITFM received further boost by OMB memorandum
92-01 that gave USGS the lead in coordinating water data in the federal government. The ITFM became
a key tool in doing so. .
The ITFM members, in some cases using contractor help, developed a number of specific tools to use.
These include:
o Framework for recommended water quality monitoring program
o Selection criteria for indicators
o Summary matrix of recommended indicators to measure State designated uses '
o Specific recommendations for indicators for State designated uses . .
o Policy paper on ecoregions, reference conditions, and index calibration
o Policy paper on multimetric approach for describing ecological conditions
o Policy paper on performance-based methods
o Paper on target audiences, monitoring objectives and format characteristics for reporting water
quality information , ,
192 ;
-------
o Annotated bibliography of selected outstanding water quality reports
o - Groundwater quality monitoring framework '
o Groundwater quality indicators " .''''
Specific dollars per report not available at this time, j
IV.
None.
Special Requirements for Use
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
A nationwide water monitoring strategy is important: in attempts to assess ecosystem health; the tools
developed by the ITFM could be used by other EPA programs and media offices in efforts ecosystem
management efforts which require water monitoring. Adoption of the ITFM recommendations and tools by
all agencies would facilitate data sharing arid aquatic ecosystem analysis at all levels.
VI.
Other Information
VII. Program Contacts , ,
Elizabeth Fellows Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Assessment and
. Watershed Protection Division, (202) 260-7062 .
193
-------
MANAGING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS
Ii Tool Description
Two documents describe the available regulatory authority and the regulatory processes used by EPA
programs to manage contaminated sediment:
o EPA DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES. Includes flow charts, text and citations describing
EPA's regulatory authority and decision making processes used to manage contaminated sediment.
All applicable EPA regulatory programs are covered. ,
o CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS: RELEVANT STATUTES AND EPA PROGRAM
ACTIVITIES. Contains EPA's regulatory authority available for use in managing contaminated
sediment. All applicable EPA regulatory programs are covered.
IL Tool Users .
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel. ,
III. Tool Development
More than ten Federal statutes provide authority to many EPA program offices to address the problem of
contaminated sediment. This resulted in fragmented, and in some cases contradictory or duplicative efforts
to evaluate and manage contaminated sediments. EPA developed the Contaminated Sediment Management
Strategy to streamline decision-making within and among EPA's program offices by promoting and ensuring
the use of consistent sediment assessment practice, consistent consideration of risks posed by contaminated
sediment, the use of consistent approaches to management of contaminated sediment risks, and the wise use
of scarce resources for research and technology development.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None.
V, Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Applicable to other media and a wide range of ecosystems. .
Contaminated sediment poses ecological and human health risks in many watersheds throughout the United
States. Sediments serve as a contaminant reservoir from which fish and bottom dwelling organisms can
accumulated toxic compounds and pass them up the food chain until they accumulate to levels that may be
toxic to humans. .
VI, Other Information
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street
SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
1 VJI. Program Contacts .
Tom Armitage Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science
Division, (202) 260-5388
194
-------
THE 'NACEPT COMMITTEES ON ECOSYSTEMS
." > - ' -
L Tool Description i ' .
The National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy and Technology (NACEPT) is a FACA-chartered
committee managed by the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, which is located in the
Administrator's Office. NACEPT committees advise the Administrator and EPA's senior managers on major
environmental policy issues and is chartered for two years. Membership on NACEPT is fairly balanced with
representatives of State agencies, tribal governments, local governments, academia, non-governmental
organizations, and industry, : .
Three NACEPT committees were established in June 1994 to deliberate and build consensus on ecosystems
issues, including: the Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee; the Ecosystems Sustainable Economies
Committee; and the Ecosystems Information & Assessments Committee.
The Ecosystems Information and Assessment Committee, chaired by Tom Davis and Mike Hale, will
address the key information and assessment needs of an ecosystems approach. This committee will devise
policy recommendations on how the Agency should shift its funds and redirect its staff to improve its
collection, use, and dissemination of ecosystem information. Joseph Sierra (260-6839) serves as designated
federal official (DFO) to this group. . ' ,
The Ecosystems Implementation Tools Committee, chaired by Edwin (Toby) Clark and Gerry Digerness,
will examine the key tools and authorities that can be major impediments or opportunities to implement an
ecosystems approach at EPA. Gwen Whitt (260-9484) and Debbie Miller (260-9937) serve as DFOs to this
committee. .".. '
The Ecosystems Sustainable Economies Committee, chaired by Joan Bavaria and Diane Ridgely, has
identified three general ecosystem topic areas to address during its deliberations, including consensus
building, measurement, and incentive structure. First, EPA must build consensus with other federal agencies
on ecosystem valuation, private property rights, the integration of regional planning, and education and
outreach of an ecosystem approach. Second, the Agency must develop tools to measure an ecosystems
approach, such as an integrated ecological/economic model and full^cost accounting of ecosystem protection.
Third, EPA must work towards improving and developing new compliance incentives to change behavior
to better protect and preserve ecosystems, such as voluntary initiatives, taxes, and subsidies. Mark Joyce
(260-6889) serves as EPA's DpO to this committee. Y ..', ;
IL . Tool Users /' ;\ ,' - _-'" '.'. .' . - '.. ..'.. ' ..''.'' '..
NACEPT committees historically have presented ;their reports and recommendations to'EPA's
Administrator and other senior Agency officials'. |
IIL Tool Development ....'.'.,.;
The ecosystems committees were established in June 1994 and will continue their work through 1995. The
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management, which administers all of EPA's NACEPT committees,
,is comprised'of thirteen employees. ' , .. :
IV. Special Requirements for Use - ;
No special requirements required for use! ; , .
195
-------
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
In the past, NACEPT committee reports were not written to directly address an ecosystems approach.
However, it is expected that the reports and recommendations from the three recently-established ecosystems
committees will be transferable across programs, media, and geographic areas.
VI. Other Information
'.,
VII. Program Contacts
Abbie Pirney, Director Office of the Administrator, Office of Cooperative Environmental
Management, (202) 260-8079
i
Gordon Schisler, Deputy Director ,
Office of the Administrator, Office of Cooperative Environmental ;
Management, (202) 260-8922
196
-------
NPDES MID-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS
L Tool Description
In fiscal year 1994, the mid-year process placed more emphasis on program planning and development than
the review of past performance. In light of the significant program implementation direction reflected in the
NPDES Watershed Strategy, a major goal of the discussions was to gain an understanding each Region's
plans for implementing the NPDES Watershed Strategy. In particular > the review focused on Regional State-
by State Assessments and Action Plans, State/EPA Work Plan Agreements, and Internal Coordination
Strategy. - , -:'' .
The mid-year team usually consisted of a Permits Division Branch Chief as the team leader plus a member
of the former watershed task force.
IL Tool Users '''' ' ; .- ' ' ' ''';>-'"/. "-.' . -' , ." . "-' '" . ," ' '
EPA Headquarters.
III. Tool Development , . / .
To help both the Regions and OWM prepare for the discussions, a brief questionnaire was sent to each
Region to complete and return prior to the scheduled mid-year. During June and July 1994;, a Permits
Division review team visited each EPA Region to discuss1 Regional needs and efforts to implement the
NPDES Watershed Strategy. A final report documenting, the findings of each visit was provided to the
respective Region. A national report representing a jsynthesis, of the individual Regipnal reports was
completed in September 1994. , ,, v /
/ ! - " ' ''',,"'
The purpose the national report was to give the Regions useful information on the status, approaches, and
experiences of the various Regions' efforts to implement the NPDES Watershed Strategy and help move the
NPDES Program to a watershed based approach. The feedback from the national report and individual
Region discussions also helped Headquarters to better understand issues arid impediments and to sharpen our
focus on the important activities to support the efforts of Regions and States.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. , '. / | ' - -' ';.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The mid-year review process is applicable to any program.
VI. Other Information
The mid-year review provided a forum,to send a clear message that the NPDES Strategy is just one
components of an overall comprehensive approach to water resources management, not one of many
independent activities. j . .
VII. Program Contacts
Deborah G. Nagle Office of Water, Office of"Wastewater Management, Permits Division, (202) 260-
2656
.197
-------
NPDES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE
L Tool Description
Permits Division established a Watershed Task Force on October 14, 1993 to develop a national approach,
targeting NPDES permitting experience and resources to support the Agency's watershed protection
initiative. The Task Force consisted of six members who worked as a team for seven months to develop
the NPDES Watershed Strategy.
Once the Strategy was complete, watershed implementation was integrated back into the Permits Division's
with the establishment of a watershed matrix manager. The Permits Division's Watershed Matrix Manager
has primary responsibility for coordinating implementation of the NPDES Watershed Strategy within the,
Permits Division, the Office of Water, and the Regional Water Management Divisions.
IL Tool Users
Permits Division, Office of Wastewater Management.
III. Tool Development
Responsibilities of the matrix manager:
Works full-time on matrix management responsibilities.
Develops agreement among the Permits Division Director, Permits 'Branch Chiefs, and the matrix
staff on goals, individual tasks, and a time frame for NPDES Watershed Strategy implementation
through a written implementation plan. . "
Coordinates existing Permits Division Branch activities that contribute to watershed protection
implementation and tracks them as part of the Permits Division Watershed matrix.
Works closely with Regions to support and encourage implementation of the NPDES Watershed
Strategy. ,
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None.
V, Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
VI. Other Information ,
None. ( ..,''.- ^ '
VII. Program Contacts
Deborah G. Nagle Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Permits Division, (202) 260-
2656 .
198
-------
NPDES WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH
I. Tool Description . ' .
In fiscal year 1994, the Office of Wastewater Management developed a strategy to fully integrate the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits program into the national Watershed
Protection Approach. The Strategy was signed by Bob Perciasepe on March 21, 1994. The NPDES
Watershed Strategy consists of four parts: 1) an introduction, 2) a set of guiding principles for the Watershed
Protection Approach, 3) the purpose and objectives of the NPDES Watershed Strategy, and 4) detailed
strategy components. The Strategy components address State-wide coordination, NPDES permits,
monitoring and assessment" programmatic measures and environmental indicators, public participation, and
enforcement. Attached to the strategy is a list of suggested Regional action items for fiscal year 1995 and
beyond to support the Watershed Approach. ' f
IL Tool Users ;
EPA Regions, especially the NPDES program Branches. ,
III. Tool Development
The NPDES Watershed Strategy was developed over a six month period with detailed input from States
and EPA Regions, and reflects the consensus and support of OW's program offices. In developing the
Strategy, OWEC staff visited seven States and eight Regions. Drafts of the Strategy were provided to
ASIWPCA, DE, NC, OW program offices, to EPA Regional Permits and Water Quality Branch Chiefs, and
Environmental Support Divisions. Comments were received from DE, NG, all OW program offices, and
all Regions.
The NPDES Watershed Strategy is a critical component of the Watershed Protection Approach. It reflects
the Administrator's Agency-wide emphasis on ecosystem protection. It also reflects EPA's fiscal year 1995
budget submission, which specifies that beginning in October 1994, 50% of NPDES resources will be
targeted to support and facilitate the Watershed Protection Approach.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. '-''. ' . . ; -.';' . ' ' - .; . : ' '
V_. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The NPDES Watershed Strategy serves as an example for how to integrate "a program into the national
Watershed Protection Approach. The Strategy is flexible enough to apply to all geographical areas.
VI. Other Information ; ;
- None. '- . ' . -',.!.' .'.'.. ;
' , i ' j . . . "
VII. Program Contacts .
Deborah G. Nagle Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Permits Division,
(202)260-2656
199
-------
NPDES WATERSHED REGIONAL FISCAL YEAR 1994 PRODUCTS
L Tool Description , *
There were three key Regional actions which OWM focused attention during fiscal year 1994 to facilitate
implementation of the NPDES Watershed Strategy in fiscal year 1995. These actions are:
Regional State-by-State Assessments and Action Plans - Completing assessments of Watershed
Protection activities and needs in each State and, in the context of that assessment, developing
Regional action plans for fiscal year 1995 that identify how the Region will support and facilitate
each State's movement toward the Watershed Protection Approach;
State/EPA Workplan Agreements - Including specific activities within State/EPA workplans for,
fiscal year 1995 which will promote the central components of Watershed Protection;
Internal Coordination - Developing integrated Regional strategies which will describe the
Regional decision-making processes, oversight role, and internal coordination efforts necessary
to ensure support for the Approach.
IL
Tool Users
EPA Regions.
III. Tool Development .''...
OWM developed a guidance document to assist Regions in developing, their State-by-state
Assessments and Action Plans. The Regions were requested to provide a copy of their internal strategy,
State-by-state assessments, and fiscal year 1995 NPDES Regional action plans for supporting States to
OWM by September 1,1994.
|V. Special Requirements for Use .
None. . . -
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability , >
Although the guidance issued by EPA Headquarters focus on permit-related activities, many
Regions expanded their information gathering to include inquiries about other water programs.
VT. Other Information
OWM has prepared preliminary Regional Factsheets evaluating the completeness of the State
Assessments, Regional Action Plans, and Internal Strategies. Draft State factsheets have been completed,
giving a snap shot picture of each State's watershed protection approach status. This information will
be used to assist Regions and States move toward a watershed protection approach.
VII. Program Contacts
Deborah G. Nagle
Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Permits Division,
(202) 260-2656
200
-------
PESTICIDE MITIGATION PLANS
L Tool Description
For each pesticide that is registered or re-registered, a mitigation plan is developed in negotiation
with the registrant. Mitigation plans describe measures which will be taken to reduce the undesirable
environmental consequences and impacts of pesticide application. Plans may be narrowly "place-based",
eg: focusing on particular fields in which pesticides are being applied.
IL Tool Users
Mitigation plans have been used in-house within the Pesticide-Program, although there has also
been some use by programs in the Office of Water. There has not been a lot of feedback from users,
as the plans are relatively new; plan development has been fully implemented only in the past year. The
impact of developing mitigation plans has riot yet been felt in the re-registration process, as only 30-40
chemicals have been re-registered in the past year. ;.
III. Tool Development / ,
Development of the mitigation plans began in the early 90's, based on the recommendation jOn
an OPP Taskfprce. Previously, such plans were not pursued because of the extensive field testing and
data required for their preparation. .
The Office of Pesticide Programs is now working to have registrants investigate generic mitigation
measures for various classes of chemicals, such as those developed through the Spray Drift Task Force's
efforts convening registrants for the development of .generic measures for the mitigation of aerially
applied pesticides. Generic measure can be extremely useful when integrated with other measures and
best management practices for integrated agricultural management.
The preparation of plans can be quite resource and data intensive. Due to resource constraints,
it has not been possible to conduct on-going monitoring to assess what impact the mitigation measure are
actually having. The program has been trying to develop monitoring protocols for the states, as well as
other tools and technical guidance. , - ' ',
IV. Special Requirements for Use .
None. ,. '"'"' , ' ' . ''
V. , Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
There is some similarity between agricultural measures being developed by the Coastal Water
Management Program in the Office of Water, and those being developed for pesticide mitigation plans.
The Office of Pesticides has prepared several pages on pesticide mitigation for a Coastal Water
Management document. Better integration between media programs could increase effectiveness,
VL Other Information ,
The Mitigation Plan information is not available in electronic form, although computer equipment
has been purchased. There is an interest in developing a GIS link, as preparation of the plans would
benefit from access to GIS tools which help identify the resources at potential risk in the areas under.
consideration. , ! ,
VII. Program Contacts . / ,
Kathy Monk OPPTS, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division,
(703)305-6120 > ;
. 201 ''.".'.'-
-------
PRIVATE LANDS INITIATIVE
|i Tool Description '..'"'
The goal of the Private Land Initiative is to develop a national strategy and implementation plan
for voluntary wetlands protection and restoration. Through partnerships at the Federal, state and local
level as and with private organizations, the program can help slow the loss and in the long term achieve
a net gain, of wetland acres on privately held lands. The program has thus far established an initial pilot
project in Maryland, and has expanded and cooperatively marketed private lands programs to additional
states and regions with the end goal of developing and implementing National private lands programs
across the country. "
Since the Maryland pilot project, the Soil Conservation Service, with the National Association
of Conservation Districts (NACD), the US EPA, and the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other non-
governmental organizations, formed the National Wetlands Conservation Alliance (Alliance). The goal
of the Alliance is to encourage private lands alliances on.a regional, state and local basis. These non-
national alliances are often composed of conservation districts, state foresters, and other agencies and
private groups. '
IL Tool Users
Federal, state and local partners in wetland conservation.
III. Tool Development .'.'.. .
The program started in 1993, with the initiation of two private lands workshops held in Maryland
and hosted by the EPA. Over a dozen co-sponsors and in-kind contributions ensured a low overall cost
for the workshop. This sponsorship supported the development of a reference guide which has been
distributed at each workshop, as well as a slide program created after the workshops.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The experience obtained by working with the various stakeholders involved in the private lands
initiatives can advance the ecosystem protection approach; undoubtedly, almost any ecosystem protection
initiative will impact private landowner interests. . , ,
VI. Other Information
As part of a cooperative agreement established by the wetlands division through the Alliance,
draft wetland assistance guides and diskettes based on the earlier Maryland pilot were completed for
Oregon, Tennessee and Arkansas. The state alliances, which consist of partnerships among agencies and
private groups, are completing the guides for use at training workshops this fall and next year. Under
a different cooperative agreement, the Environmental Law Institute produced a report that profiles case
studies of two states (North Carolina and Arizona) and two regions (the lower Mississippi Delta and the
Northwest). The report identifies wetlands stewardship opportunities on private lands, and gaps in
existing resources and programs.
VII. Program Contacts -
Stan Austin Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Wetlands Division, (202)
260-0989
202
-------
RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND, VOLUME II:
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MANUAL
L .< Tool Description
This document (EPA/540/-1/89/001) is part of a two-manual set entitled Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund, which addresses both the human health assessment and the ecological risk
assessment. The guidance was developed to be applied during the Removal and Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study processes. , : ;.'-.-
IL Tool Users
The primary audience for the Environmental Evaluation Manual
are Remedial Project Managers and On-Scene Coordinators. The document is not a detailed "how to"
type guidance, but identifies the kinds of help site managers are likely to need, and where to find that
help. It also describes an overall framework for considering environmental effects.
III. Tool Development
The risk assessment manual was developed with extensive input from EPA workgroups composed -.
of both Regional and Headquarters staff. The document was released in .-March 1989 as interim final
guidance, with the expectation final guidance would be issued following the 1988 revision of the NCP.
There are no immediate plans to move forward with this issue.
Guidance for both human health and environmental assessments is needed so that EPA can meet
the requirements of §121(b>< 1) and
-------
STATE WETLANDS CONSERVATION PLANS (SWCP)
L5 Tool Description
As part of the state wetlands grant program, the EPA makes funds available for the development
of state Wetlands Conservation Plans. A voluntary program, State Wetlands Conservation Plans (SWCP)
are strategies for states to achieve no-net-loss and other wetland management goals by integrating both
regulatory and cooperative approaches to protecting wetlands.
Typically, many land and water-based activities go unaddressed by public and private wetland
programs and activities which are often limited in scope, not well coordinated, or do not address all of
the problems affecting wetland ecosystems. A State Wetlands Conservation Plan improves government
and private sector effectiveness and efficiency by identifying gaps in wetland protection programs and
finding opportunities to make wetlands programs work even better.
Nineteen States are at various stages of developing an SWCP and have received financial
assistance from EPA; implementation of plan recommendations is underway'California and Ohio. Steps
are underway to encourage the development of SWCPs in the remaining 31 states.
IL Tool Users
State environmental protection or natural resource agencies. ,
III. Tool Development
The emphasis on SWCPs arose from language in the Clean Water Act. Guidance for th&planning
process is being developed, based on the experience of the" nineteen states in which SWCPs are currently
being pursued.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Interested state entities submit applications for wetland grants to the EPA regional offices, which
make the final funding determinations. Applications should describe the uses of the funds (eg: SWCP
planning process), and the overall goals to be achieved.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv , ,
The planning process has proven to be quite successful in some areas (eg: South Florida), and
can offer examples and lessons on how to undertake an ecosystem-oriented planning process.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Reggie Parrish Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Wetlands Division,
(202)260-6095
204
-------
TRIBAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE
L Tool Description
These documents provide guidance directed towards the establishment of water quality programs
by tribal authorities: ; , ' :
o REFERENCE GUIDE FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR NINDIAN TRIBES.
Guidance issued by EPA in 1990 on the requirements for adopting water quality standards, Also
describes the materials available to assist Tribes in adopting water quality standards.
o GUIDANCE ON WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND 401 CERTIFICATION PROGRAMS
ADMINISTERED BY INDIAN TRIBES.
Guidance issued by EPA in 1991 to inform Tribal governments about the authorities available to
, them in setting and enforcing water quality standards.
IL Tool Users
Federal, State, municipal industrial, environmental and Tribal entities.
' : ' ' - ' " t - ' ' ' , I '
ill. Tool Development |
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act require States and Tribes to adopt water quality standards
to protect public health and welfare, to enhance water quality, and to serve the purposes of the Act by
providing for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the
water, whenever these goals are attainable. . -.'..'
IV. Special Requirements for Use
-, " , S -- * - - - * ""- '" """ ~-~- - "" - ' "
None . ' . ' . ..; ' : ' ;. .. .'-'.'
'/". * '
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The standards are designed for the water media, but are applicable to a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other information
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401
M Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost, i ' ,
VII, Program Contacts <
David K. Sabock Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied
Science Division, (202) 260-1318
205
-------
WETLANDS MITIGATION BANKING
I. Tool Description ,
Wetlands mitigation banking is the restoration, creation, enhancement, or in certain
circumstances, preservation of wetlands expressly for the purpose of providing compensation in advance
of proposed or future wetlands impacts. A wetlands mitigation bank is created when a government
agency, corporation or non-profit organization, under a formal agreement, acquires .a long-term interest
in a degraded wetlands or an appropriate upland area and restores or creates the site into a functional
wetland ecosystem.
The value of a bank is determined by quantifying the wetland values restored or created in terms
of "credits", which may later be used to compensate for wetland losses, or "debits", associated with a
permitted discharge. Consolidation of mitigation into a single large parcel is often more ecologically
advantageous for maintaining the integrity of the aquatic ecosystem. Development of a mitigation bank
can also bring together financial resources, as well as planning and scientific expertise not generally
practical for individual mitigation proposals, thereby increasing the likelihood of success.
Approximately 100 mitigation banks are in operation or are proposed for construction in 34 States
across the country.
IL Tool Users .
Mitigation banking is used by federal agencies (EPA, Army Corps of Engineers, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Marine Fisheries Service) as pert of
the permit review process. State users include the resource and regulatory agencies, and departments of
transportation.
Mitigation banking may be used by local communities as means of enhancing environmeptal
objectives within their boundaries. The regulated community may utilize banks to provide mitigation.
Private mitigation banks are being developed by entrepreneurs who can sell mitigation credits to
developers.
III. Tool Development
The need to provide 'compensatory mitigation for wetlands impacts in a requirement of the Clean
Water Act, Section 404 program. The 1990 EPA/Army Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) on
Mitigation identifies mitigation banking as "an acceptable form of compensatory mitigation under specific
criteria designed to ensure an environmentally successful bank." Interim guidance was developed by the
EPA and Army Corps of Engineers in August of 1993; final detailed guidance is expected by the summer
of 1995.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Mitigation banking is only one form of compensatory mitigation; certain requirements must be
met before applicants can be eligible to use credits from an approved bank to offset proposed wetland
losses.
./ .
V,. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
While mitigation banks are used primarily within the context of federal and state 'wetland
regulatory programs, banks may also address a number of broader concerns such as non-point source
206
-------
pollution control, storm water management, habitat destruction, and flood control. Ideally, mitigation ,
banks serve multiple environmental objectives. ; '],....
''.,'' ' '
Mitigation banking can also be used as a component of comprehensive wetland conservation,
planning; eg: banking can be used to restore wetlands identified for protection/restoration in such plans.:
VL Other Information V '
Mitigation banking provides an opportunity to both improve the success and effectiveness of
compensatory mitigation and to streamline the permit review process. .
' i" -''- ' ."'".-
VII. Program Contacts
Tom Kelsch Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans arid Watersheds, Wetlands Division, (202)
260-8795
207
-------
208
-------
HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
r
REFERENCE REPORTS AND STUDIES
209
-------
-------
BTAG FORUM
L Tool Description
All EPA Regions have established grpups of scientists to advise and assist site managers with
ecological studies produced in conjunction with Remedial Investigations and Removal Actions at
Superfund sites. To foster communication between these Regional groups an intermittent bulletin is
produced, the BTAG Forum, highlighting site-specific developments as well as promoting Regional and
national topics. The bulletins-provide a mechanism for Regional personnel to keep abreast of activities
and developments throughout the country. ,
IL Tool Users
Anyone concerned with ecological risk assessments at Supeffund sites would be among the
intended audience. This may include Remedial Project Managers, Biological Technical Assistance
Groups, natural resource trustee agencies and risk assessment contractors. These documents are widely
accepted throughout the Regions as 'a useful mechanism for keeping abreast of developments pertinent
to Superfund ecological risk assessments. , .
III. Tool Development _
The BTAG Forum has been produced intermittently since May, 1991, This project was initiated
in response to Regional requests for assistance and with their cooperation. These bulletins are produced
by the Toxics Integration Branch in OERR's Hazardous Site Evaluation Division (with contractor
support.) . - . v , : ; ' ,' .; '
IV. Special Requirements for Use
No special requirements required for use. ' , V
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The material presented in the bulletins .would be useful for anyone interested in ecological risk
assessment, ' ; ; , . r '
VL Other Information
The National Contingency Plan (NCP), describing how CERCLA is implemented, requires the
Agency to conduct a baseline risk assessment to "characterize the current and potential threats to human
health and the environment" (§300.430). As part of this baseline assessment every Superfund site is
required to include an ecological risk assessment to " 1) identify and characterize the current or potential
threats to the environment from a hazardous substance release, 2) evaluate the ecological impacts of
' alternative remediation strategies, and 3) establish clean-up levels in the selected remedy that will protect
those natural resources at risk" (OSWER'Directive No. 9285:7-17).
' , - -, . -1. .'..'.'. .
VIII. Program Contact ,
Ron Preston BTAG Forum Editor, (303)233-2315
213
-------
ORD'S BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (BBS)
L Tool Description
ORD's Bulletin Board System (BBS) offers an online bibliographic database for searching and
identifying ORD's publications including all of ORD's ecological reports since 1977. The BBS also
includes an electronic messaging system and conferences on expert systems, biotechnology, regional
operations, water regulations and methods standards. ,
' ' ' ' , . - \ '*',.
IL, Tool Users
The BBS can be used by EPA Headquarters, laboratories, Regions, contractors, States, other
Federal agencies, universities, industry, and the public. .
III. Tool Development
The ORD BBS, which currently has over 7,000 registered users, started operation in Cincinnati
in August 1990. It was set up to improve communication and technology transfer among EPA staff, state
and local officials and staff, researchers and the private sector. The ORD BBS is open to all and operates
24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There is no subscription charge.
IV, Special Requirements for Use
Modem: (513) 569-7610 or 7700; Speed: 1200, 2400, or 9600; Mode: full duplex; Data: 8;
Parity: none; Stop: 1; Emulation: VT100 (optional); Infilter off (optional).
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv ^
Tool is highly transferable. ,
VL Other Information
To order a copy of the user's manual (EPA/600/M-91/050) call (513) 569,7562. To access the
ORD Bibliographic Database, type Open 1 from the "mainboard command".
Program Contacts
Chuck Guion Office of Research and Development, Center for Environmental Research Information,
(513) 569-7644
214
-------
CASE STUDIES IN THE USE OF RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS.
L Tool Description
Assesses the applicability of rapid bioassessments (RBAs) in determining the biological condition
of a waterbody impacted by CSOs. RBAs use a series of biological "metrics", or statistics which provide
information about the biological community; the combination of all the metrics give an overall "score"
of the biological condition of the waterbody. The case studies on streams in Ohio and New York indicate
that RBAs are well-suited to evaluate their effects of the biota of receiving streams. This tool will be
completed in ,FY 1995. , -
H. Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some '
cases assisted in their testing. ' . ,
III. Tool Development
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-
based controls are insufficient to meet water quality: standards, to establish priorities for these waters
based on the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total
maximum daily load of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard
adopted by the State for the particular waterbody or segment thereof. Since 1983, the primary impetus
for developing the guidance is the need to provide the technical and management tools for States to use
in meeting statutory requirements and Agency programmatic priorities. Thus the guidance focused first
on conventional pollutants, then toxics and now nonpoiht sources and other wet weather discharges.
I .- ' '; - ' ' '
IV. Special Requirements for Use .
None. Readability depends on the topics covered.
V. Prograni/Media/GeographicTransferabiiity
Designed for the water media. Applicable for a wide range of ecosystems. .
if- . ..--,. , f. . .
VI. Other Information ,
The TMDL process is the back bone of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing ithe basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonppint
sources and background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and
sediment). The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems,, enable resource
managers to examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect
of different strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the
functioning of the aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of .aquatic ecosystem goals - water quality
standards. The TMDLs maximize real environmental gains and minimize the need for unnecessary
regulation.. . . : , " s
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401
M Street SW, Washington,.D. C. at no cost. .
VII. Program Contacts ,
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of .'Science and Technology, Standards and Applied
Science Division, (202) 2604330
' ' -.-.. 215 ' . , .';:''-
-------
COMPENDIUM OF ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS
L Tool Description
The Compendium of Ecological fRisk Assessment Tools is a collection of laboratory bioassay
techniques, field assessment methods, and models developed by EPA laboratories and program offices
to address regulatory and policy needs associated with ecological effects. The Compendium was
designed to provide rapid access to ecological risk assessments tools used throughout the EPA, and it
contains descriptions of more than 140 tools available for carrying out assessments.
The Compenduium contains one-to three-page data sheets with a short description of each method
or tool; information regarding its intended and actual uses; information concerning data analysis and
validation; a contact person; and references for more information. ;
IL Tool Users
The Compendium is a resource for regional staff who are responsible for designing ecological
assessments to meet regional and program needs. .
Ill, Tool Development
Work on the Compendium started in 1992, because the. Environmental Monitoring Methods
Committee and its Subcommittee, the Biological Advisory Committee, was concerned that the Agency
did not have a central repository for biological methods.
The Compendium originally was developed as a pilot to exist in hardcopy. By FY1996, this
Compendium will be incorporated (and available on CD-ROM) into the Environmental Monitoring
Methods Index (EMMI), a cross-Agency database of nlethods that presently contains only chemical
methods. .
IV. Special Requirements for Use
There are no special requirements for use of the Compendium.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
This Compendium is applicable across media, program and geographic areas, offering a .useful
resource for anyone interested in conducting ecological risk assessments.
VI. Other Information .
The Compendium includes: a listing of the laboratory bioassays, micro/mesocosms, in-field
studies, field assessments, statistical procedures, regional approaches, and support procedures; an example
of an ecological risk assessment data sheet; and a primer on how to use the Compendium.
VII. Program Contacts
Ron Landy Office of Research and Development, Office of Science, Planning and Regulatory
Evaluation, Regional Operations Staff, (202) 260-7667
216
-------
CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 403
JL Tool Description
Section 403 of the Clean Water Act provides that point source discharges to the territorial seas,
contiguous zone and oceans are subject to regulatory requirements in addition to the NPDES program's
technology- or water quality-based requirements applicable to typical dischargers. The 403 requirements
are' intended to ensure that no unreasonable degradation of the marine environment will occur as a result
of the discharge and to ensure the protection of sensitive marine populations.. ' '
Biological and ecological assessments must be conducted to assess the likely impact of the
discharge. Requirements may also include ambient monitoring programs, alternative assessments, and
pollution prevention techniques. A variety of guidance and protocol documents have been developed for
monitoring and conducting ecological assessments, and are available from the program office.
... . '. , i , '
In those cases where there is insufficient information to support a finding of "no unreasonable
degradation" , applicants must demonstrate that the discharge will not cause "irreparable harm" . A permit
will then be issued with monitoring and data requirements for the 5 year life of the permit. Data gathered
through this monitoring will be used is considering permit reissuance.
More than 300 facilities are subject to section 403 requirements under individual permits; roughly
another 3000 facilities ranging from gas and oil wells to seafood processing plants are covered under
general .permits. ' . " ;
The program has had the impact of introducing ecological concerns in the placement of discharge
outfalls, and of increasing the amount of monitoring that is conducted. ; ; ' ..
the "Clean Water Act Compendium", dated May 1994, lists and briefly describes the various
documents that are available from the program office including: guidance; statute, regulations and policy
memos; reports to Congress; region-specific guidance and documents; permit-related information; and
scientific products and models. Appendices provide additional information about: legal cases; bulletins
and fact sheets; and courses, conferences and workshops.
IL TooIUsers
Program guidance and support documents are intended for use primarily by those regional offices
and delegated state programs which are responsible for operating the NPDES program and applying the
403 section requirements. Guidance and protocols ,are also useful in aiding permit applicants conduct
ecological assessments and implement monitoring programs. ' ,
III. Tool Development
Section 403 was part of the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the
Clean Water Act. The Section 403 Program was one of the first of EPA 's programs to incorporate
ecological risk assessment as part of the evaluation of the impacts of point source dischargers on the
marine environment. Numerous guidance documents were prepared in the early 1980's, and are available
through the program office in the Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Office of Wetlands, Oceans
Watershed, Office of Water. ' .
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. .
217."
-------
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Anyone interested in marine ecosystems may find benefit in the ecological risk assessment and
monitoring guidance documents, and in the data that is collected about marine ecosystems through the
program (permit data is made available through agency databases).
VI. Other Information
The program would be greatly strengthened by the development of marine bio-criteria, which are
essential to setting program "targets", for defining concepts such as "unreasonable degradation" (eg: how
much of a population must die off before the threshold has been surpassed).
VII. Program Contacts
Deborah Lebow Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Oceans and
Coastal Protection Division, (202) 260-8448 /
218
-------
ECO UPDATES
L Tool Description
This bulletin series on ecological assessment of Superfund .".'.'
sites. supplements. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume II: Environmental Evaluation
Manual (EPA/540/-1/89/001) addresses technical issues pertinent to Superfund ecological risk
assessments. The bulletins discuss approaches, tests, methods and references that would be appropriate
and generally accepted for use at,Superfund sites.
: s*
IL Tool Users
These documents are widely accepted throughout the Regions as appropriate guidance for
Superfund risk assessments; anyone concerned with ecological risk assessments at Superfund sites would
be among the intended audience. This may include Remedial Project Managers, Biological Technical
Assistance Groups, natural resource trustee agencies and risk assessment contractors.
j . ' ' !
III. Tool Development
Eco Updates have been produced by OERR's Hazardous Site
Evaluation Division with contractor support intermittently since '
September, 1991. This project was initiated in response to Regional requests for assistance and with their
cooperation.,
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. -"'.-',; . ..-'','-,''"'' ' .'''
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The material presented in the bulletins is consistent with
Agency policy and guidance for conducting ecological risk assessments and would be useful for any
number of purposes. , , ' . ' ,
VI. Other Information
The National Contingency Plan (NCP), describing how CERCLA is implemented, requires the
Agency to conduct a baseline risk assessment to "characterize the current and potential threats to human
health and the environment", (§300.430). As part of this baseline assessment every Superfund site is
required to include an ecological risk assessment to "1) identify and characterize the current or potential
threats to the environment from a hazardous substance release, 2) evaluate the ecological impacts of
alternative remediation strategies, and 3) establish clean-up levels in the selected remedy that will protect
those natural resources at risk" (OSWER Directive No. 9285.7-17). ,
VII. Program Contact
John Miller Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division, (703) 603^8845
219
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS BULLETIN BOARD/INFORMATION SOURCE
I. Tool Description
This project intends to electronically disseminate information prepared for EPA relating to
environmental economic issues (e.g., copies of EPA documents used in environmental economic analyses
or policy statements) on the Internet system. Both text and data files are to be made available on the
system. The logistics of putting this information together and placing it on the Internet is still in the
planning stages. We have held preliminary discussions with the LAN and ESID staff for OPPE.
II. Tool Development
This effort currently is in-development and is expected to cost less than $10,000 and require 0.1
FTE or less. - .
This project is not mandated hi any specific legislation and was conceived of by staff in OPPE's
Economic, Analysis, and Research Branch to provide information in a more efficient manner than we can
at this point in time.
III. Tool Use
The intended users will be: OPPE staff, other EPA staff, Federal agency personnel, Congressional
staff, State and local agency staff, academic researchers, International environmental management staff,
and other interested members of the public.
IV, Special Requirements for Use
Users will need to be able to gain access to the Internet system (I think). There may be additional
options or requirements. We may make the information more directly available to EPA personnel
through the LAN system on a public access drive. We are still thinking about these options.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The database and information in the system should be accessible by any user, within the confines
of the media.
VI... Other Information
VII. Contact Persons
Brett Snyder Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy Analysis, Economic; Analysis
and Research Branch, (202) 260-5610 '
220
-------
1993 EXPOSURE MODELS LIBRARY/IMES CD-ROM
L Tool Description »
The Exposure Models Library/IMES is an easy-to-use, menu-driven CD-ROM storage system
containing more than 90, fate and transport computer models which can be used for exposure assessments
, in various media (air, groundwater, surface water, soil). The CD-ROM also contains the Integrated
Model Evaluation System (IMES) .which is an MS-DOS application designed to assist users in the
selection and evaluation of exposure models and to provide model, validation and model uncertainty
information. IMES provides access to the exposure model directories and can be operated on a network
or directly on the CD-ROM diskette. ,
IMES is comprised of three elements: 1) Selection - a query system for selecting exposure
models in various environmental media; 2) Validation -: a database containing validation literature citations
from actual applications and exposure models; 3) Uncertainty - a database demonstrating application of
a model uncertainty protocol for simulations involving 6 surface water models. The model files contain
source code, sample input files and other data files, sample output files r and in some cases, model
documentation in ..WordPerfect or ASCII format are contained within subdirectories for each
environmental medium. The models were developed primarily by various EPA offices and other federal
agencies and are in the public domain. With a few exceptions, the models contained on this disk are not
designed to run on the CD-ROM. _ -. .
IL Tool Users
Intended users of the EML/IMES CD-ROM include all EPA staff (headquarters and regional
offices), State and local government officials, academic researchers, non-governmental organizations and
foreign governments. Typical users might include toxicologists, on-site-coo:rdinators, and risk assessors.
III. Tool Development r i
ORD's Office of Health and Environmental Assessment developed the EML/IMES CD-ROM to
more effectively distribute exposure models, documentation, and a database (IMES) containing
information about many computer models used for exposure assessments,than was possible in the past.
Previously, EPA's Office of Research and Development produced a microfiche containing a more limited
set of the type of information available in the EML/IMES CD-ROM. There is no statutory requirement
to develop this system or to distribute exposure modeling information. ORD spends approximately
$80,000 to $100,000 per year, including the costs of producing'the CD-RON! diskette, to develop and
revise EML/IMES.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Hardware requirements: IBM/AT or compatible desktop computer with 10. MB available on
harddrive, 540K of free RAM, EGA or better monitor, and a CD-ROM drive. Software requirements:
MS-DOS 3,1 or higher, Microsoft CD-ROM extensions 2.0 or higher.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability '''-
The-EML/IMES CD-ROM diskette is highly transferable to other EPA programs, media, and
geographic areas because it contains a variety of single and multi-media computer models as well as a
variety ,of single and multi-program models.
221
-------
VI. Other Information
The EML/IMES CD-ROM is available free to all EPA staff and to State and local government
officials. This system also is available for use by academic researchers and non-profit organizations for
S5.00. ORD plans to issue a new EML/IMES CD-ROM at least once a year. A new version, containing
some ecosystem exposure models, is due in late fall 1994. An ecosystem module will be available in
IMES in the 1995 version.
VII. Program Contact
Richard Walentowicz Office of research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, Exposure Assessment Group, (202) 260-8922.
222
-------
GREAT WATERS STUDY
I | . . \ ! ..,,' ' ,
L Tool Description
The Great Waters Study is an analysis of the contribution of air emissions to total contaminant
loadings in the following waterways; the Great Lakes, Lake Champlain, EPA's National Estuaries, and
certain priority waters identified by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
As part of the Great Waters analysis, the.EPA, was directed by Congress to determine if other
tools under CAA Section 112 provide sufficient measures to ameliorate the contribution of air deposited
contaminants to America's Great Waters. In addition, the Agency was directed to develop environmental
policy recommendations under any applicable statutory or regulatory provisions. The study was
completed in 1994 and presented as a Report to Congress.
IL Tool Users . - "" ; - , , V/ ;; .'-' '' '
Primary users of information of the Great Waters Report include staff from the Agency's
geographic program offices, national estuary program offices, Regional offices, State officials, and
officials from NOAA. '..'!'.. ; -
' ' ', ' ' : ' - ' -
III. Tool Development
The Great Waters Study was mandated by the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Section
112(m)(5).and(6). ' . ' ;''.'"
IV. Special Requirements for Use '
; No special requirements for use. , . , . , ! '...
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Transferability unknown. . -i . '''.'.''
VI. Other Information ;
None. ''..".' .''-.:- . :. , ' ' ; ,
VII. Program Contacts x
Melissa McCullough Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning Standards (Research
, ._ . Triangle Park), (919) 541-5646
225
-------
GUIDE TO SELECTED NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS
IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
L, Tool Description
The Guide to Selected National Environmental Statistics in the U.S. Government is a reference
directory of sources of national level, time-series environmental or environmentally-related statistics. It
covers data related to the state of the environment (e.g. air and water quality, status of natural resources),
pressures on the environment (e.g. energy use, mining, transport), and on societal responses to
environmental problems (e.g. pollution abatement expenditures, cle'anup of toxic wastes), containing a
brief description of the statistical program, data coverage, collection methods and frequency, major
publications, and telephone 'contacts. Its purpose is to provide analysts, researchers, policy makers,
students and the public with sources of statistics on the environment.
IL Tool Development
This tool is complete and in use, and has been updated as of first quarter, 1994. The Guide was
developed as a prototype in collaboration with the .World Resources Institute in early, 1990. OPPE
enhanced the document and assumed development in 1991, with an OPPB-issued Guide in 1992 (including
an electronic version), one in 1993, and a 1994 update. The development effort stemmed from a need
expressed by data users and producers, by an EPA Senior-level Task Force on the establishment of a
Center for Environmental Statistics, in its February, 1990 report to the Administrator, and from
recommendations of the National Advisory Council on Environmental Policy and Technology
Subcommittee on Environmental Statistics in its 1992 report to the Administrator.
Tool Use
The Guide can be used by analysts, jesearchers, policy makers, students and the public with
sources of statistics on the environment. Many comments on the usefulness of this tool hav ebeen
submitted. It has been described in government wide, newsletters and publications, in the Commerce
Department's Products Listing; and in EPA publications. Copies (both hardcopy and electronic) have
been made available to the EPA Public Information Center (PIC), the Organization for Economic -
Cooperation and Development member countries, and all EPA program offices. Major news
organizations (e.g. Newsweek. USA Today) have commented on its utility as a pathfinder to EPA
statistics and those of other Federal agencies as well. Some commenters would like to see more regional
sources. Others have noted a need for special focus statistical guides (e.g. water, air, resource accounting
information)
IV. Special Requirements for Use
There is a special instruction sheet for use of the electronic version. There are computer
equipment specifications as well (e.g. IBM-compatibilty, 640K of memory, etc)
i. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Since the Guide represents information from many EPA programs, and other Federal agencies,
as well, its use is very broad.
VI. Other Information
224
-------
VI, Contact Person
James C. Morant Office of Policy, Planning and" Evaluation, Qffice of Strategic Planning and
Environmental Data, Environmental Statistics and Information Division, (202)
260-2680 , ,,
Eleanor Leonard Office of Policy; Planning and Evaluation, Office of Strategic Planning and
Environmental Data, Environmental Statistics and Information Division, (202)
260-9753
225
-------
LAKE MICHIGAN OZONE STUDY (LMOS)
L, Tool Description
This study is designed to analyze the effects of urban area-generated ozone and ozone-precursors
on Lake Michigan and surrounding waterways. Data was collected via monitoring stations throughout
the Chicago area. A report was issued in the summer of 1994. .
IL Tool Users
Tool users include ??(EPA's Region 5 Office, ??the Great Lakes National Program Office, and
States)??
III. Tool Development
This was a cooperative effort of Air's Office of Air Quality Planning Standards, which
contributed $50,000, and the Office of Research and Development, which contributed $200,000 to the
University of Michigan's Jerry Keeler to oversee this project.
IV, Special Requirements for Use
No special requirements for use.
Ys. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Transferability unknown.
VI, Other Information
The Office of Research and Development also issued a cooperative agreement with Jill Baker at
the University of Maryland to conduct a similar, although limited, analysis of ozone urban area effects
in Chesapeake Bay. Three sampling sites, located in rural areas away from major urban centers, were
used to collect data which was combined with emissions data from Baltimore. The report for the,
Chesapeake Bay analysis was issued in the summer of 1994.
VII. Program Contacts
John Ackerman Office of Air and Radiation, Office of Air Quality Planning Standards (Research
Triangle Park), (919) 541-5687 >
226
-------
METHODS FOR ASSESSING NONPOINT SOURCE CONTAMINATED
GROUND WATER DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATERS
L Tool Description
This report (EPA, 570-0-91-010, April 1991) presents a summary of methods that have been
applied to measure or estimate nonpoint source contaminated ground water discharge to surface water.
This report is intended to broaden understanding of how contaminated ground water discharge can be a
significant source of nonpoint source loading to surface water ecosystems. It provides an overview of
these methods, rather than a "how to" manual. : ; ..;
II.
III.
Tool Users ;
This report is meant to be used primarily by States, Tribes and local water managers.
Tool Development
This report was developed to increase awareness of the importance of ground water discharging
to surface water and if this discharge is contaminated, how it can impact on surface water quality. It is
important in any efforts to protect surface water ecosystems, such as rivers and wetlands, as well as
account for the ground water component.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Some technical background in science is necessary,to be.able to understand the report. A training
manual that was developed in conjunction with the report also requires a person to have some technical
background in order to follow the instructions. .';.. . :
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
This report should be of wide interest to; water resource managers in understanding and
protecting surface water ecosystems. : is
VI. Program Contacts
Chuck Job & John Simons
Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and 'Drinking Water, Ground
Water Protection Division, (202) 260-7077
227!
-------
NATIONAL STUDY OF CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FISH. Volume I and II
U.S. EPA 823-R-92-008 a and b, September 1992. ,
L Tool Description
The purpose of this study was to determine the prevalence of selected bioaccumulative pollutants in fish
and to identify correlations with sources of these pollutants. Volume I includes the results of a screening
study of chemical residues in fish taken from polluted waters. Volume II contains results of a screening
study of chemical residues in fish taken from polluted waters. ;
IL Tool Users
A broad spectrum of individuals that are involved with developing, issuing, communicating and
evaluating information on fish tissue contamination. .
III. Tool Development
In 1989, the American Fisheries Society at the request of EPA conducted a. survey of State fish
and shellfish consumption advisory practices. The ,survey documented that monitoring and risk
assessment procedure used by States in their fish and shellfish advisory programs varied widely. The
survey also report on State requested Federal assistance including providing consistent approaches for
State agencies to use in assessing health risks from consumption of chemically contaminated fish and
shellfish, guidance on sample collection procedure'and uniform, cost-effective analytical methods for
quantification of contaminants.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None.
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability .
Applicable to other media and a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information .
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401
M Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost. . -
VII. Program Contacts
Tom Armitage Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, .Standards and Applied
Science Division, (202) 260-5388
228
-------
PESTICIDE USAGE DATA
f ' - ' - - , ' ,' i
L Tool Description - r '_ .
The Economic Analysis Branch, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs, is responsible for serving as the focal point within EPA for collection and access to
quantitative data on actual usage of pesticides. A'number of information tools are available through the
branch. , - / '.'; \
1, Published reports/data on pesticide usage and suggestions on possible sources to meet
particular needs.
(contact Al Aspelin (703) 308-8136 or Rob Esworthy (703) 308--8111).
2. Proprietary reports on pesticide usage reports/data which are not in public domain, but can
be used to determine pesticide usage or policy and other purposes within the Agency or without
cite or quotation. . . . .
(Contact Al Aspelin or Al Goozner, (703),308-8147) - '
' . '"-,: ' - - * "
\ ' " - i ' ."'''',' '
. 3- Section 7 CBI data submitted to registrants to EPA on'
production/distribution of particular pesticides (Contact « '
Edward Brandt, (703) 308-8150)
- . :' f -'I.'-'
4. Automated data bases on agricultural pesticide usage for ;
, recent years (proprietary). ".'.. :
(Contact Art Grube, (703) 308-8095) ;
1 " , ' ' '"' ' ' .' -,',.'
5. EPA surveys of non-agricultural applications of
pesticides, including restricted use pesticides as
required by 1990 Farm Bill (Contact Al Goozner or '
Ed Brandt) . , ? \ . ' .
IL Tool Users
Economists.in BEAD use data on the actual usage of pesticides by chemical, site, method of
application, geographic, etc., in conducting analyses of benefits and costs of pesticides as they relate to
individual, decision and generic rules/policies/ legislation that involves ecosystem impacts.
All of the tools have the same .general use, which is to quantify p*ast, current and future usage
and trends for purposes of exposure, risk and benefit analyses. , . .
III. Tool Development ,
BEAD/OPP has a budget of about $200k per year for proprietary data sources and bases. The
Branch work with an number of cooperators and other agencies, especially USDA. In particular, Section
7 data was developed primarily for enforcement purposes and is managed by Enforcement in cooperation
with the Regions. - '' ; l- :_:,/; - ,:
IV. Special Requirements for Use \ -..''-,
Most of the data require specialized knowledge of the data and its limitations to insure proper use
of it.-BEAD assists as resources are available. -
229!
-------
There has been a lot of feedback on limitations on usage data bases, and need for improvement,
especially small acreage crops and non-agricultural use sites. These limitations are of increasing
importance as more sophisticated analyses are being conducted of pesticide issues and programs are being
developed to reduce use/risk. There have been legislative proposals in this area by EPA, outside parties
and on the Hill. ; ,
Better, more comprehensive data are needed which have better statistical validity for various
purposes. More data need to be assembled for release in the public domain, collected by efficient modern
market research techniques rather than traditional one-shot surveys. <
1 r
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Usage data are adaptable to other media/programs, given the limitations of the sources.
VI. Qther Information
Other programs should help support usage data development if they are expected to be regular
users, depending on such information for program purposes. ,
VII. Program Contacts
Arnold L. Aspelin, Economist
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide
Programs, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, (703) 308-8136
Rob Esworthy, Branch Chief
Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances,Office of Pesticide
Programs, Biological and'Economic Analysis Division, (703)308-8111
230
-------
A PHASE I INVENTORY OF CURRENT EPA EFFORTS TO PROTECT ECOSYSTEMS
'* i"" " , ' i
. ' - ^ , ' .''.'' ' ''"-..
I. Tool Description ,
This Inventory is a 357-page project reference-directory. It includes summaries of projects that
involve EPA and its partners in the beginnings of place-based management and ecosystem protection ~
an approach intended to integrate environmental management with human needs, consider long-term
ecosystem health, and highlight the positive correlations between economic prosperity and environmental
well-being. The purpose ofthis document is to let readers throughout EPA and outside the Agency know:
of the increasing amount and variety of ecologically oriented activities in which EPA is participating and
the many places at which these activities are occurring. ,
"'.'/','
The Inventory was prepared under the direction of EPA's Ecosystem Protection Task Force. Part
One summarizes EPA's largest ecologically oriented projects; these are large-scale initiatives that cover
areas of at least 100,000 square kilometers. Part Two, which constitutes most of the reports is organized
by, EPA Region and includes summaries of ongoing, place-based projects at the local scale (less than
100,000 square kilometers). Part Three describes multi-site projects and programs, in which generally
the same ecosystem-oriented activity is carried out at, a number of places distributed throughout the
Region or nation. A color national map of all the ecosystem projects has been developed in GIS; a
simplified black-and-white version of this map appears jn the report.
II. Tool Users . . ' ' ' , ;. < ' . "'" - ' .-...'.. ;
Virtually all EPA staff, other state and federal environmental agency employees, the scientific
community, and interested citizens may have different uses for this reference. ,
III. Tool Development ,
The Inventory covers ongoing projects and was compiled from submittals by Regions,
Headquarters Program Offices, and EPA Laboratories. Except for minor editorial changes, the
summaries appear exactly as submitted. About half of these project summaries were submitted originally
to the Watershed Protection Approach 1993/94 Activity Report, and the others were submitted in response
to Task Force requests issued Agency-wide. The submittal process was voluntary and as a result the
Inventory is not comprehensive.
> ' i . .
Focusing on ecosystems and place-based management is new to EPA. Although many projects
with an ecosystem component have been initiated, few of them involve comprehensive ecosystem
assessment or management at this early stage. Thus, in developing this Inventory, the Agency's
Ecosystem Protection Task Force decided to be more .inclusive than exclusive of projects that are just
beginning to apply the principles of a place-based, ecosystem protection approach. Their guidelines for
project suitability included current place-based activity, some form of ecosystem protection, some EPA
role, ecological goals or assessments, and stakeholder involvement. Although meeting or planning to
meet the listing guidelines was important, it was considered equally important to encourage and involve
parties throughout the Agency who have nominated sites and have shown an interest in supporting the
ecosystem approach. . . , -
- *' ' ' ' ' ' ' - ' I "... i
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. The report uses common language to describe projects in brief summaries. An electronic
version can be accessed through EPA's All-in-One. Email system, in the Videotex (VTX) utility.
To obtain printed repqrt copies, contact: National Center for Environmental Publications and Information
(NCEPI) .. . -. " ' ' :'' ; '.-, '''''-'.
'' ' ' " ' ' 231 '. ;,'". ''
-------
Phone: (513) 489-8190; Fax: (513)891-6685
This report should be cited as:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1995. A Phase I Inventory of Current EPA Efforts to
Protect Ecosystems. EPA841-S-95-001. Office of Water (4503F), United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
₯, Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
The projects covered are Agency-wide and include examples of all regions, offices and media.
/ -
VI, Other Information
An interactive, electronic format for the Inventory may be developed as EPA moves toward
widespread, regular use of its information systems. ,
Vlf. Program Contact
Doug Norton Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division, (202) 260-7017
232
-------
RATES, CONSTANTS, AND KINETICS FORMULATIONS IN SURFACE WATER
QUALITY MODELING (Second Edition), U.S. EPA 600/3-85/040,
June 1985.
L Tool Description
.This manual serves as a reference on modeling formulations, constants and rates commonly used
in surface water quality simulations. This manual also ^provides a range of coefficient values that can be
used to perform sensitivity analyses.
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some
cases assisted in their testing. , ,
III. Tool Development
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-
based controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish priorities for these waters
based oh the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total
maximum daily load of pollutants which, if not exceeded, woulcl allow the water to attain the standard
adopted by the State for the particular waterbody or segment thereof. The documents listed support the
managerial and technical components of the TMDL process. The guidance focused first on conventional
pollutants, then toxics and now nonpoint sources and other wet weather discharges.
' ' ' ' !'.' ' '--,.'
The guidance documents provide, the transport and fate models needed to develop and apply TMDLs
when excessive biochemical oxygen demand, low dissolved oxygen, excessive nutrient, eutrophication,
toxic pollutant concentrations preclude attainment of water quality standards in rivers, streams,, lakes and
estuaries, under both wet weather and steady state conditions. The guidancealso includes documents are
decision matrices that assist in problem formulation, model development, implementation arid assessment,
as well as approaches for allocating loads among point and nonpoint sources, including atmospheric
deposition. Techniques and case examples are provided whether using "desk top" calculations, steady
state or dynamic models. New tools are examined, such as rapid bioassessments, and new information
provided to up-date existing tools such as water quality reaction rate coefficients for QUAL2E and
WASP, , "-.:.''' '. i ,.-' .. '. -' ' ' ':
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. Readability depends on the topics covered. , :
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
Designed for the water media. Applicable fora wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information
The TMDL process is the back bone of, the jwatershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, nonpoint
sources and background loadings (from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition and
sediment). The TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems, enable resource
managers to examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect
of different strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management or restoration actions, etc.) on the
functioning of the aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals --water quality
233
-------
standards. The TMDLs maximize real environmental gains and minimize the need for unnecessary
regulation..
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401
M Street SW, Washington, D. C. at no cost.
VII. Program Contacts ;
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied
Science Division, (202) 260-1330
234
-------
SEVENTEEN PEERiREVIEWED ECOLOGICAL RISK CASE STUDIES
L Tool Description
This tool includes two Forum-developed reports: Review of Ecological Assessment Case Studies
from a Risk Assessment Perspective (EPA/630/R-92/Ob5) and Review of Ecological Assessment Case
Studies from a Risk Assessment Perspective Volume II (EPA/630/R-94/003). These reports includes
a total of 17 peer-reviewed case studies that explore the relationship between the ecological risk
assessment processs as described in the EPA report Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
(Framework Report; EPA 630/R-92/001) and several types of ecological assessments done by EPA and
others. . , . .- : .'..'. i
IL Tool Users
The case studies are intended for use by EPA risk assessors. While these cases are-representative
of the state of the practice in ecological assessments,: they should not be regarded as models to be
followed. Rather they should be used to attain a better understanding of ecological risk assessments
practices and principles. These case studies will be used as source materials for future Agency-wide
guidelines for ecological risk assessment. i
III. Tool Development
The case study reports were fdeveloped and peer-reviewed between 1991 and 1993 to provide
illustrations of state-of-the-ractice ecological assessments and evaluate their relationship to' the process of
ecological risk assessment.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
These reports are intended for those who have some training and familiarity with ecological risk
assessment. ,
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The reports addrress a wide range of EPA programs, media, and geographic areas.
VL Other Information
The Risk Assessmentt Forum (Forum) is composed of senior scientists from around the Agency
and was established to prorate Agency-wide consensus on scientific issues related to risk assessment,
Both ecological and human health risk issues are considered by Forum technical panels.
VII. Program Contacts ,." !"''
Bill Van Der Schalie Office of Reserach and Development, Risk Assessment Forum, (202) 260-4191
235:
-------
REVIEW OF NATIONAL LISTS OF PRIORITY NATURAL RESOURCES
L Tool Description ,
The Review of National Lists of Priority Natural Resources is a compendium of 25 lists of
existing priority ecological resources, presented in a tabular form. This reference can assist .readers in
identifying important ecological sites for targeting special protection. A suggested subset of sites for EPA
use in targeting protection is also included. In addition to identifying existing priority ecological
resources, this document briefly describes the reasons for listing each resource and identifies the "list"
(database) contact managers. ' ',
IL Tool Development
The project was completed in 1991 through 1992 by a contractor. The project's EPA manager
developed this reference to prevent EPA HQ and Regions from "re-inventing" lists of priority resources
which were already available and agreed upon by ecological experts nationwide. This reference also was
developed to meet an agency need to comply with the ESA and to support ecological objectives within
OPPE and EPA (e.g., Habitat Cluster).
III. Tool Use
This document is complete and has received much positive feedback from its readers. It was
"sold-out" soon after its completion and is still being requested. The project manager has distributed 50
completed copies and 150 summaries to a variety of readers including; EPA HQ and Regional Offices;
State officials; and private users. This is a ready reference which has seen successful use in many
applications both within EPA and at State and private levels. ,
IV. Special Requirements for Use ' ' ,
None
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferabilitv
This document identifies nationally significant ecological sites and is transferable to any
geographic area in the United States. To be more useful to Regional Offices and State and local
governments, a step-down version of the reference is proposed to identify more locally-significant sites,
in addition to national ones.
VI. Other Information
VII. Contact Person ,
Molly Whitworth Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy Analysis, Water
Policy Branch, (202) 260-7561
236
-------
STORET/BIOS/ODES/WQAS! TOOLS INVENTORY
1 ' ' . v *' - 'i ' .
L Tool Description -^
This document presents an inventory of tools with which the STORET/BIOS/ODES/WQAS user
communities manipulate data. All the systems, databases and tools discussed in the report reside on an
IBM ES 9000 mainframe computer at EPA's National Computing Center in North Carolina. The scope
. of the report includes the systems, databases and tools that can be accessed through the EPA mainframe.
Input for the report was obtained from two sources: 1) institutional knowledge of the original user
assistance team; 2) limited surveying and interviews with key users and managers! For each tool in the
survey, the following characteristics were determined: tool capabilities; tool uses; tool use activity and
user types; and tool links to other-systems and databases. - ; ',,..
The report contains five chapters: 1) Introduction; 2) STOrage and RETrieval (STORET)
System; 3) Biological System (BIOS);X 4) Ocean Data Evaluation System (ODES); 5) Water Quality
Analysis System (WQAS). Three appendices present comprehensive use information for the STORET,
BIOS, and WQAS systems.
IL Tool Users ' : ,- , ." / ' '; : .;':., ', : ; - : ;.'."-,
Any user of the systems described. . '",'. >
III. Tool Development
The inventory, was developed to support a seven-year effort begun in 1990 by the Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division; of the EPA to update and modernize critical computer systems which
support programs of the Office of Water. The inventory was developed by a contractor and submitted
to.AWPD. '.' ' : ;
IV.
.V.
Special Requirements for Use
The inventory is available in hardcopy form.
Program/Media/Geographic Transferabllity ,
The systems, ^databases and tools described in the inventory can be of use to any ecosystem
manager who is looking to obtain water quality information. , , '
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts } '..'""' ,
Louis Hoelman Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and V^atersheds, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division, (202) 260-7050 :
237
-------
WILDLIFE EXPOSURES FACTORS HANDBOOK
L Tool Description
The Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook is a compendium of data and references for conducting
exposure and risk assessments for wildlife species (e.g., selected groups of mammals, birds, amphibians,
and reptiles) exposed to toxic chemicals in their environment. The purpose of the Handbook is to provide
a convenient source of information and an analytic framework to facilitate screening-level risk assessments
for common wildlife species.
IL
J!L
Tool Users
This handbook can be used by any" risk assessor in the preparation of risk assessments.
Tool Development
The Handbook was under development for 5 years at a cost of $250,000 in contractor, funds and
.33 FTE per year. The Handbook was published in December 1993 and made available for distribution
on March 1994 (EPA/600/SR-93-187).
IV. Special Requirements for Use
Knowledge of ecological risk assessment. ' '
y_, Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
These screening-level risk assessments may be used to support site-specific decisions (e.g., for
hazardous waste sites), to support the development of water quality or other media-specific criteria for
limiting environmental levels of toxic substances to protect wildlife species, or to focus research and
monitoring efforts.
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Sue Norton Office of Research and Development, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Exposure Assessment Group, (202) 260-6955
238
-------
1
HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVEOTORY
TRAINING TOOLS
239, ::
-------
-------
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GROUND WATER ECOLOGY
. " '.-'. . ' . " - '/'-
L Tool Description
The Office of Water's Ground Water Protection Division co-sponsored the First International
Conference on Ground Water Ecology in Tampa, Florida on April 26-29, 1992. A Second International
Conference, sponsored by EPA and the American Water Resources Association, was convened from-
March 27-30, 1994, in Atlanta. Georgia.
The primary purpose of the conferences was to have ground water ecplogists from around the
world provide insight into the current state of knowledge of ground water ecology and how this
knowledge can be used to form the scientific basis of our policies to protect ground water ecosystems.
II.
III.
Tool Users
Anyone interested in ground water ecology.
Tool Development ;
To begin building a framework to respond to the mandate of the Ground Water Strategy, EPA's
Ground Water Protection Division co-sponsored these two conferences. The cost of the each conference
was approximately $50,000, and the cost of publishing the proceedings from the 1992 conference was
$20,000. The cost of attending the conferences was* around $200. The 1994 conference in Atlanta was
attended by approximately 200 people. -'.. -;' , '
1 '-'' ' % ; -' , ' "'
IV. Special Requirements for Use
No special requirements required for use. r '
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability ,
Conferences should be attended by anyone interested in ground water ecology.
VI. Other Information j
Proceedings from the 1992 Conference (containing 38 papers in the .following groups: i) synthesis
of ground water ecology; ii) plenary papers; iii) microbial ecology in ground waters; iv) ground water
food webs; v) organisms and processes; vi) ground and surface water interactions; vii) pollution effects,
biomonitoring, and toxicity.studies; viii) case studies; ix) unique ground water ecosystems; and, x)
conference conclusions and recommendations for research,and management) are available from the
American Water Resources Association. : ,
VII. Program Contacts
John Simons Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Ground Water Protection
Division, (202) 260-7091
243
-------
OPS
?94. Themext workshop' will
)w to restore a stream; ,
'he Office of Water funds the
by the nationally recognized
s, Assessment and Watershed
-------
TRAINING COURSE ON THE STATEWIDE BASIN MANAGEMENT APPROACH
!'-.', ' -
L Tool Description .
the Training course on the Statewide Basin Management Approach is intended for staff and
management who are interested in evaluating application of a BMA in their State or Region. The training
emphasizes key elements of a framework for integrating a broad range of water resource protection
programs into a comprehensive, Statewide, geographically-based approach. Also, participants in the
course review typical impacts of a BMA on program functions and staff operations and are asked to
identify and explore potential impacts on their programs and responsibilities,
The course format will consist of a combination of presentations, interaction among participants,
role playing, and extrapolation of concepts to the participants'home State or Region.
IL Tool Users
EPA Regions arid States. > ,|
III. Tool Development
The Permits Division of OWM and the Assessment and Watershed Protection Division of OWOW
are jointly developing the two day training course on the Statewide Basin Management Approach (BMA).
The BMA is a leading form of the Watershed Protection Approach that has emerged among the States.
' The training course supports the objective of comprehensive water resources planning and management
as stated in the Assistant Administrator for Water's October 7, 1994 memorandum on the watershed
approach, the course will te offered to EPA Regionsi and their States in early 1995.
1 " ' (' V '.''''''
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None. - . . ' .
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
The course is designed to apply to all geographic areas. '
VI. Other Information
VII. Program Contacts
Greg Currey Office of Water, Office of Wastewater Management, Permits Division, (202) 260-1718
Don Brady Office of Water, Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Assessment and
.Watershed Protection Division, (202) 260-7074
245
-------
TRAINING FOR PERFORMING REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES
I. Tool Description
This course will be designed so that EPA program office staff can be trained to prepare
environmental regulatory impact analyses (RIAs). It probably will be comprised of a one or two day
workshop, with invited speakers making presentations on the various subject matter included in an RIA.
There will be a strong effort to ensure that the focus of the course is practical-minded and directly-
applicable to producing an RIA. An RIA primarily consists of benefit-cost information, but it can also
include impact analyses, flexibility analyses (e.g. , small business and government impacts), environmental
justice, and other distributional concerns.
IL Tool Development
There is no training module available, although some materials do exist from some similar,
previous efforts conducted on behalf of OSWER and OW. Existing RIA training material was developed
by in-house staff and contractors as part of an experimental pilot project. EPA may elect to partner this
course with other federal agencies having similar needs and their own courses (e.g., U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and NOAA). Also, Region X has conducted workshops on economic analysis and may
collaborate with OPPE to develop this course. .
Although this course is not mandated by any specific legislation or executive order, Executive
Order 12866 requires major regulatory actions to undergo a cost-benefit analysis, including consideration
of distributional and other concerns. Also, some federal environmental statutes call for cost-benefit
information to be included in the decision-making process.
in. Tool Use '*
The intended users will be: EPA staff, other Federal agency personnel, and Congressional staff.
Personnel in OPPE's Economic, Analysis and Research Branch have been contacted by State
environmental management officials having a similar interest in producing RIAs for their own regulatory
actions, so the course also will be given to State and local agency staff.
IV, Special Requirements for Use , ,
No special equipment is envisioned. It would be better if the persons being trained had some
knowledge of economic theory and environmental economic background. Absent that, there may need
to be a preparatory course offered prior to getting into more details on the RIA process.
V. Program/Medi a/Geographic Transferability -,'
The materials should be relevant to all areas of the country and useful to many different persons
and organizations. Geography and local conditions may make some problems of more immediate interest
of applicability. The course could be designed to account for those particular interests. . There will be
a stand-alone guidance document on the RIA process. It won't substitute for the course, but may provide
some insight into the methods and issues that arise in benefit-cost analysis and the other analytical issues
raised in the RIA guidelines.
VI, Other Information
. Contact Person
Brett Snyder Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Office of Policy Analysis, Economic, Analysis
and Research Branch, (202) 260-5610 '
246
-------
TRAINING IN TMDL DEVELOPMENT ANDAPPLICABLE MODELS
L Tool Description
The TMDL process is the back bone,of the watershed/ecosystem approach to environmental
management by providing the basis on which to allocate pollutant loads among point sources, non-point
sources and background loadings from non-controlled sources such as atmospheric deposition'and
sediment TMDLs, particularly when linked with geographic information systems,.enable resource
managers to examine the cumulative effects of pollutant loadings in a watershed and to evaluate the effect
of different strategies (e.g., pollutant reductions, land management, or restoration actions, etc.) on the
> functioning of the aquatic ecosystem and the attainment of aquatic ecosystem goals - water quality
standards., This, in turn, maximizes real environmental gains and minimizes the need for unnecessary
regulation. Workshops provide program support and technical guidance for States and EPA, Regions to ,
use in the development of TMDLs. Formal training courses are also provided in the use of SWMM,
QUAL2E, CORMIX, AND PLUMES. ; ;
IL Tool Users
Managerial and technical Federal, State, local and Tribal personnel use the tools and in some ,
cases, assisted in their testing. ;
.''/-I."
III. Tool Development
Modeling is a key component in the TMDL process. As new models come on-line, training in '
the use of the models is a critical component in enhancing their applicability to the TMDL process.
Specialized training costs approximately $1,000 per student.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires States to identify waters where the technology-
based controls are insufficient to meet water quality standards, to establish priorities for these waters
based on the severity of the pollution and the uses to be made of the water, and to develop the total
maximum daily load of pollutants which, if not exceeded, would allow the water to attain the standard
adopted by the State for the particular waterbody or segment thereof. -. ;,
IV. Special Requirements for Use i
None ' , 'I*.' . '
i . ' i ' ^ ' , ' ,
V. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability
Not applicable. ; ' ; : ' ' '
, ' '.!. ' ,
' ' ''". '.'...
VI. Other Information j
Training is free. . ,.'' '.'' " ' ' . "
VII. Program Contact
Russell Kinerson Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied
Science Division, (202) 260-1330 ,
247
-------
IL
IIL
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ACADEMY/
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WORKSHOPS
Tool Description
These training offerings include:
a formal, 5-day training course developed by EPA in 1992 describing the fundamental regulatory
requirements, policies, and interpretative guidance supporting the national water quality criteria
and standards program. It is designed to provide information on the fundamentals of the program
to anyone with 6 months program experience or less;
a series of multi-regional/State workshops establisheDd by EPA in 1985 to provide a forum for
discussion of current operational issues in implementing various aspects of the water quality
criteria and standards program. ,
Tool Users .-'-*.
Federal, State, municipal industrial, environmental and Tribal entities.
Tool Development
Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act require States and Tribes to adopt water quality standards
to protect public health and welfare, to enhance water quality, and to serve the purposes of the Act by
providing for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the
water, whenever these goals are attainable.
IV. Special Requirements for Use
None
V. Prograni/Media/GeographicTransferability v
The standards are designed for the water media, but are applicable to a wide range of ecosystems.
VI. Other Information
Water quality standards are the foundation central core of the ecosystem/watershed approach as
they define the human health and ecological goals for the aquatic ecosystem and provide the mechanism
for meeting the objective of the Clean Water Act - to restore the chemical physical and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters. '
All guidance documents are available from the Water Resource Center (4104), U.S. EPA, 401
M Street SW, Washington, D. C.
VII. Program Contacts
David K. Sabock Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied
Science Division, (202) 260 1318
248
-------
APPENDIX A:
' /..,".' ,-' , v.-- ''.' '"'
EPA HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
SURVEY FORMMTERVBEW GUIDE
-------
-------
APPENDIX A:
I'.-'- ' , ' . " ' ' \ ' "
EPA HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
SURVEY FORM/INTERVIEW GUIDE
' ' t ' \ - , . ' '.:''
For the purposes of this survey/intervaew, an ecosystem management "tool/activity" can be defined'as
a solitary or linked action, mechanism, or capability that directly supports/facilitates the protection of
living and non-living resources, integrating air, water, land protection. Each "tool" may be expressly
designed for use in ecosystem management or having been designed,for single-media or program use -
- is being applied towards ecosystem management.
L Background
1. Please provide your name, office, position, phone number and a brief description of the work
conducted by your office & the manner in which is involved in ecosystem management.
IL Tool Description
2. ' Please provide the tool name, a brief description, and the name of a contact person.
What (is each tool's intended ,& actual purpose? :.-.'-'...
What is each tool's status (e.g., complete arid in-use; in-development; no longer in-use)?
s ' '
IIL Tool Development. ,,
3. When was each tool developed & what prompted its development (e.g., statutory mandate)?
4. Who developed each tool (e.g., developed in-house, by a contractor, by an outside party, in
partnership with Federal, state, local entities...)?
5. If available or applicable, how many FTE/doIlars were used to develop and use each tool?
IV^ Tool Use , ' , ' v
6. Who; are the intended and actual users of each tool? .. .
- How is each tool used? '
How long has it been used? ;
7. , Have you received any feedback (formal or otherwise) from users regarding the utility of each
tool? .Please describe.
8. Are there any unmet needs which would enhance/improve this tool? Please describe.
Vj! Special Requirements for Use ' *.'.'.' '
9. Are there any special requirements (e.g., training, equipment, costs) for using each tool?
) ..,.'. " ' ''!.- : " ' ' '.'..''
VI. Program/Media/Geographic Transferability . " . ;
10. Can each tool be used by other EPA programs, media, or geographic areas in addition to the
program, media, or area for which it was developed? Please describe.
VII. Other Information ,
II.1 Is there any other information about each ecosystem tool you would like to mention?
** - ' i ,
12. , Do you have any suggestions regarding what EPA or OPPE should do to facilitate ecosystem
management in your program? overall? ' - ;
'..-'" . Al1' .- ' .,--
-------
-------
APPENDIX B:
EPA HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
. . ' INDEX .-- ' ' ', .
-------
-------
APPENDIX B:
EPA HEADQUARTERS ECOSYSTEM TOOL INVENTORY
INDEX
. - ' " .. * ,' ' ' " '' ., ''."'
Tool Name Page Number
1993 EXPOSURE MODELS LffiRARY/IMES CD-ROM ....... . . ......... . . !. . . '. . '. ...... . 221
1995 ECOLOGICAL RESTORATION CONFERENCE . . . .... . .... . .-. . . 241
, A PHASE I INVENTORY OF CURRENT EPA EFFORTS/TO PROTECT ECOSYSTEMS 231
ACID DEPOSITION STANDARDS STUDY . '... . . . . . . . . . . . "<. /..'. . . . 211
ACUTE AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL ....... 125
ADVANCE IDENTIFICATION OF DISPOSAL AREAS (ADID) , 43
ADVANCED TECHNIQUES SUPPORT FOR USING SATELLITE AND AERIAL EARTH OBSERVATION. DATA 44
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY ,..:.."....'.'..; /. 46
AN ANALYSIS OF EPA'S AUTHORITIES TO FURTHER THE PRINCIPLES AND '
PROCESSES OF ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT . . ".. . 212
AQUATIC LIFE RISK ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY '. . .......:..., 97
.AQUATIC RISK ASSESSMENT MODEL ... .. . . . ',-.'.- 126
AQUATOX ..,...,.,.:.... ...:..,. .'. .... .................. I. 127
AQUIRE (AQUatic toxicity Information REtrieyal) Database ..... .... .-. . . .... . ... ...... .............. 3
ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTIES AND VARIABILITY IN WILDLIFE TOXICITY DATA .............. 48
ASSESSMENTS OF IRRIGATION DRAINWATER CONTAMINANT RISKS TO ECOLOGICAL RESOURCES . . 129
ASTER (Assessment Tools for the Evaluation of Risk)QUatic, ........'.... 5
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA: NATIONAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE FOR SURFACE WATERS .". . 98
BTAG FORUM . . . . : ....... .... 213
CASE STUDIES IN THE USE OF RAPID BIOASSESSMENT PROTOCOLS FOR THE
ASSESSMENT OF THE BIOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS 215
CLEAN WATER ACT 305(B) NATIONAL WATER QUALITY INVENTORY ... . . ... . . . ., . . 7
CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 403 '. .... . .".,: '. 217
CLEAN WATER ACT TMDL MINI-GRANTS . ..;... ... .88
COMPARATIVE RISK ANALYSIS (CRA) & CONSENSUS BUILDING .,,.:. 171
COMPARATIVE TOXICOLOGY MODELS ; .:....:. 130
COMPENDIUM OF ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT TOOLS , 216
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC POLICY EVALUATION SYSTEM . . 13l'
COMPUTER APPLICATIONS FOR ENFORCEMENT TARGETING .'...'.'. .........' 49
CONSTRUCTION OF AQUATIC-BASED FOOD WEBS . . .1. . . . . V:..:... 50
CORNELL MIXING ZONE EXPERT SYSTEM (CORMK) . ,'.. '....... 132
^CULTURE AND TESTMETHODS . . . : . 51
CWA SECTION 104(B)(3) GRANT FUNDING GUIDANCE . . . . .:..... ...... -. . . 87
CWA SECTION 106 GUIDANCE FOR WATER QUALITY MONITORING , . . . , 52
DYNAMIC TOXICS WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION MODEL (DYNTOX) , . . . .',. . . 133
ECO UPDATES ; i... '. . . . . '.! ;.y. ..... ;". . . 219
ECOLOGICAL RISK AND DECISION MAKING WORKSHOP" ......; . ; ..:.......... ^242
ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR APPLICATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGE TO FOREST AND
RANGE LAND ...'.'. !....... ........,.:.....,..... 99
ECONOMIC GUIDANCE FOR WATER QUALITY STANDARDS: WORKBOOK ...!............... ..-. 184
ECONOMIC VALUATION MODEL .......... ..... . .; . . ,. . . . ; .\ ., . . . . . '...-. 134
ECOREGIONS . , . . . . . ,,'.! ^ ....:'. ....:; ....,'..'. .... . . : . '. . 54
ECOSAR DATABASE . . '...[:.. .... . . . . . : . .'. .,;>... . , v! ... r ... 8
ECOSYSTEM/ECONOMIC MODELING PROJECT (OPPE) .:. ,.'. . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
ECOTOX (ECOlogical TOXicity) DATA BASE ....... .... . .... .V ....'..-..,......'...' ..9
ECOTOX THRESHOLDS ...... ; . . ........... . , .:,,. ... ... 100
ECOVIEW . , '.-.: ;. . .'. .-- 'i - ...'. H
EMAP INFORMATION MANAGEMENT (IM) SYSTEM . . ..j ,-. ... 13
EMAP MULTI-RESOLUTION LANDSCAPE CHARACTERIZATION , ............... 14
EMAP'S ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS . I ........ 101
-------
ENDANGERED SPECIES PESTICIDE USAGE BULLETINS 173
ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS BULLETIN BOARD/INFORMATION SOURCE '. '..... 220
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS ' 102
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (OVERALL PROGRAM) 56
EPA'S CONTAMINATED SEDIMENT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY - DRAFT . 185
EPA POLICY ON THE USE OF SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS.IN
ENFORCEMENT SETTLEMENTS* . 186
EPA STRATEGIC PLAN FOR GROUND WATER ECOLOGY '. 188
THE EPA REACH FILE (VERSION 3.0) , 22
EPA'S REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCEDURE FOR STATE SUBMITTED TMDLS/WLAS '...': 187
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING APPROACH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEDIMENT QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR METALS 58
EQUILIBRIUM PARTITIONING APPROACH FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF SEDIMENT QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR NON-IONIC ORGANIC CONTAMINANTS FOR THE PROTECTION OF
BENTHIC ORGANIZMS '. 59
ESDB LINK with REACHSCAN . . . .. . 27
EXAMS v.2.95 '... . .. 137
FEMWATER/LEWASTE . 138
FINAL TECHNICAL GUIDANCE ON SUPPLEMENTARY STREAM DESIGN CONDITIONS FOR
STEADY STATE MODELING 103
HSH TISSUE DATA BASE 15
FOOD AND GILL EXCHANGE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES (FGETS) . T'. 139
FRAMEWORK FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ISSUE PAPERS 189
FRAMEWORK FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT REPORT 190
GATEWAY/ENVIROFACTS' . . . .... . . 16
GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR SITING RCRA FACILITIES (OSW) . 142
GRANTS FOR WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECTS . . ; 89
GRAPHICAL EXPOSURE MODELING SYSTEM (GEMS)TPCGEMS . , . 141
GREAT WATERS STUDY , . " . . 223
GUIDANCE FOR STATE WATER MONITORING AND WASTELOAD ALLOCATION PROGRAMS 60
GUIDANCE SPECIFYING MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR SOURCES OF NONPOINT POLLUTION
IN COASTAL WATERS , . .:. 191
GUIDE TO SELECTED NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATISTICS IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT . . . 224
GUIDELINES FOR DERIVING SITE SPECIFIC SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA 105
GULF OF MEXICO ESTUARINE ASSESSMENT TOOLS . > 61
HANDBOOK - STREAM SAMPLING FOR WASTE LOAD ALLOCATION APPLICATIONS 62
THE HAZARD RANKING SYSTEM (HRS) AND SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTS . . . « ......;. 63.
HIGH PERFORMANCE GROUND WATER HYDROLOGY MODELING . .'. . 143
HYDROLOGICAL SIMULATION PROGRAM - FORTRAN (HSPF) . ,' ... 145
INLAND TESTING MANUAL FOR EVALUATION OF DREDGED MATERIAL . . 64
INTEGRATED ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION NETWORK 65
INTERAGENCY TAXONOMY INFORMATION SYSTEM (ITIS) 17
INTERGOVERNMENTAL TASK FORCE ON MONITORING.WATER QUALITY ..:... 192
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON GROUND WATER ECOLOGY . . . , '243
INTRODUCTION TO WATER QUALITY STANDARDS . .....'.. 175
LAKE MICHIGAN MASS-BALANCE PILOT PROJECT . ... 147
LAKE MICHIGAN OZONE STUDY (LMOS) : . . 226
LANDSCAPE PATTERN TYPES (LPT) MAPPING ; '18
MANAGING CONTAMINATED SEDIMENTS . . : . . . . /. 194
METHOD TO DERIVE WILDLIFE CRITERIA . '. . . 66
METHODS FOR ASSESSING NONPOINT SOURCE CONTAMINATED GROUND WATER 227
METHODS FOR EVALUATING THE ATTAINMENT OF CLEANUP STANDARDS i 67
MINTEQA2 148
MODEL OF ACIDIFICATION OF GROUNDWATER (MAGIC) ; .149
MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION OF ESTUARINE MICROORGANISMS . . . . . 68
MOSAIC - GULF OF MEXICO DATAFILE 20
MULTIMEDIA EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT MODEL (MULTIMED) V 150
THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER CONSENSUS BUILDING PROCESS FOR BUILDING 176
THE NACEPT COMMITTEES ON ECOSYSTEMS ; ........ 195 '
-------
NATIONAL FISH TISSUE DATA REPOSITORY ...-.,; .....' 24
NATIONAL SEDIMENT INVENTORY '. ..,.,: .;,;., '.;..,'. ... . . . . . ... 25
NATIONAL STUDY OF CHEMICAL RESIDUES IN FISH. Volume I and H ,.......'.... . .228
3JONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM . . . . . :. .,:./. .:.'.' . . .'. . 28
NPDES MID-YEAR REVIEW PROCESS . . . . . . . . : : . 197
NPDES WATERSHED MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUE '.'. ..>.>,.............. . :; :. 198
NPDES WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH . . .:......-....,....;....: '. 1 . . . . . 199
NPDES WATERSHED REGIONAL FISCAL YEAR 1994 PRODUCTS .'.....;:. 200
NUTRIENT THRESHOLD ASSESSMENTS TECHNIQUES AND THEIR USE IN DEVELOPING ^
SITE SPECIFIC WATER QUALITY CRITERIA IN FRESH WATER ECOSYSTEMS . . . 69
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE OUTREACH TRAINING ...:... 178
ORD'S BULLETIN BOARD SYSTEM (BBS) ......... ... ./...... 214
OVERENRICHMENT GUIDANCE ........ .... .....! ,106
PATHOLOGY OF MARINE AND ESTUARINE ORGANISMS TOOL ,. J............"....,. 70
PATRIOT ..-..." ... . . . . . . . . . ., 152
PERMIT TRACKING SYSTEM,, . . . . . . ........ . . .-. . . . 30
PESTICIDE ECOTOXICITY DATABASE . . ... . , , . .'. ....... . . ... . 31
THE PESTICIDE INFORMATION NETWORK . ..... ; .... . , . .... ....'. ...'.-. .... . 33
PESTICIDE MITIGATION PLANS . . .; . '. . . . ............ 201
PESTICIDE ROOT ZONE MODEL (PRZM-2) ........ . . , ,...."..,:.... 154
PESTICIDE USAGE DATA .;. . . . . , .... ,.,:.. 229
PESTICIDES IN'GROUND WATER DATABASE ." . . . ... .-. 35
POLLUTANT ROUTING (P-RQUTE). .... '....: .;...'..... , ; .V..... 153
POPULATION ESTIMATE CHARACTERIZATION TOOL (PECT) ........;....,............. 29
PRIVATE LANDS INITIATIVE -.'...' ;.;..... ..:..'..' 202
QUAL2E ..,.....'.; .-.: ..'. .. :.-...........:..... ise
RAMAS ......:.. -..-..; . 159
RATES, CONSTANTS, AND KINETICS FORMULATIONS IN SURFACE WATER QUALITY ....'........ 233
REACHSCAN DATABASE ..... :! 38
REGIONAL ACID.DEPOSITION MODEL (RADM) . . ... . . ... . : . . . , . . . .'158
REGIONAL ECONOMIC. ACCOUNTS: ESTIMATION OF SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO
CURRENT ECONOMIC INCOME 160
REGIONAL GEOGRAPHIC INITIATIVES PROGRAM (OROSLR) .......... ........... : . ; 90
RELATIVE RISK INDEX . . . . ......; /. : . . . . . 37
REMOTE SENSING AND MAGE PROCESSING .......,!.... . . . . : . . ....A......... ...... 71
REVIEW OF NATIONAL LISTS OF PRIORITY NATURAL RESOURCES . . . '. . . \ .... . . . .:. . 236
RIPARIAN CHARACTERIZATION TOOL ........ !. :. 73.
RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND, VOLUME E: . . . . ... 203
SECTION 404 PERMIT REVIEW/ SECTION 404(B)(1) GUIDELINES ....'... . . .- 183
SEDIMENT CLASSIFICATION METHODS COMPENDIUM i . 75
SEDIMENT QUALITY CRITERIA FOR THE PROTECTION OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS .....: 107
SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTING METHODOLOGY GUIDANCE ..:. ........:'..... . . -, 76 '
SELECTING REMEDIATION TECHNIQUES FOR CONTAWIINATED SEDIMENT i ..... 77 .
SEVENTEEN PEER-REVIEWED ECOLOGICAL RISK CASE STUDIES ....... 235
SIMULATOR FOR WATER RESOURCES IN_RURAL BASINS-WATER QUALITY .'...... 161'
SMPTOX3E .... . . . ...:... i. . ... . ..... .'. /. ,....;. ..162
STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM ..,..; /........: 92
STATE WETLANDS CONSERVATION PLANS (SWCP) . . i . ';> /. 204
STORET/BIOS/ODES/WQAS TOOLS INVENTORY . . . ..L. : . . ..... . 237
.STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MODEL (SWMM) . .; . . . / 164
STREAMBANK RESTORATION WORKSHOPS . . . . ;. . . ..,.:.... ........ . . 244
SURVEY DESIGNS FOR AQUATIC SYSTEMS . . >. . . ; . .!... .... . ,. .............. \ 163
SYNOPTIC APPROACH FOR RANKING LANDSCAPE SUBUNITS . . . . 165
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE DOCUMENT TO DELINEATE AREAS OF GROUND WATER/SURFACE
WATER INTERACTION 108
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENT: HOW TO DEVELOP AND USE METAL TRANSLATORS ........ 109
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE FOR ESTIMATING TOTAL MAXIMUM. DAILY LOADS . . . . . A ......'.. 110
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR DEVELOPING TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS , . -112
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR PERFORMING WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS .,'... / . Ill
-------
TECHNICAL GUIDANCE MANUALS FOR PERFORMING WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS ' ,
SIMPLIFIED ANALYTICAL . , 113
THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES COUNTY LOCATION REFERENCE . . . 39
TRAINING COURSE ON THE STATEWIDE BASIN MANAGEMENT APPROACH , 245
TRAINING FOR PERFORMING REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSES 246
TRAINING IN TMDL DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICABLE MODELS .....' 247
TRIBAL PROGRAM GUIDANCE '. . . . ... 205
USER'S GUIDE TO THE SEDiMENT QUALITY CRITERIA ........! . '. 114
VOLUNTEER MONITORING . 80
WATER EFFECT RATIO (BIOAVAILABILITY) GUIDANCE ; . . . , 221
WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS SIMULATION PROGRAM (WASP5) :'.'... 166
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA AND STANDARDS PROGRAMS VIDEOTAPES 115
WATER QUALITY GUIDANCE FOR THE GREAT LAKES SYSTEM 116
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ACADEMY/ REGIONAL WATER QUALITY STANDARDS WORKSHOP ... 248
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS FOR WETLANDS . . ... 117
WATERSHED ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE . . . 118
WATERSHED INTEGRATION GRANTS TEAM (WIG) . . '. .93;
WATERSHED SCREENING AND TARGETING TOOL (WSTT) . 79
WETLANDS BIOCRITERIA DEVELOPMENT :...... 119
WETLANDS INFORMATION HOTLINE . 179
WETLANDS MAPPING TOOL . , . . , 82
WETLANDS MITIGATION BANKING , 206
WETLANDS RESEARCH PROGRAM . . .' . . . : . .84
WHOLE EFFLUENT TOXICITY (WET) TESTS: ; 120
WILDLIFE EXPOSURES FACTORS HANDBOOK, . ., 238,
\
------- |