United States
Environmentai Protection
Agency
Office of Water
{4503F)
EPA841-R-97-OG6
May 1997
Monitoring Consortiums:
A cost-effective means to enhancing
watershed data collection and analysis
600
tli
i-
= 400
o
at
200
o
H
Total
Value
* Estimated project cost/
value: $543,000
* Cost for local
participants: $231,733
local government
leveraging facton 2.34
Information Transfer Series
-------
EPA841-R-97-006
May 1997
THUS WATEKSBEn ACAJBEMfV
» Information Transfer Series, No. 3 •
Monitoring Consortiums
A cost-effective means to enhancing
watershed data collection and analysis
,,-.- Euvro-i^rrini FYo'^dion Agency
Ke?;-'!* 5, l-!V2ry(FL-l?J)
1, V;c-:3t J?.c!c:n Lv^i-.v/crd, 121h Floor
Chicago, !L 60604-3590
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Cover - The beneficial result of a monitoring consortium: more than double the
buying power of monitoring dollars for the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring
Project in the Triangle J region of North Carolina.
-------
FOREWORD
The watershed approach has changed the way
that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and other federal, tribal and state
agencies formerly managed water resources
programs. We now generally recognize that the
critical environmental issues facing society are
so intertwined that a comprehensive,
ecosystem-based and community-based
approach is needed. We also recognize that
solving environmental problems depends
increasingly on iocai governments and local
citizens. Thus, the need to integrate across
traditional water program areas (e.g., flood
control, wastewater treatment, nonpoint source
pollution control) and to cooperate across levels
of government (federal, state, tribal, local) and
across public and private sectors is leading
toward a watershed approach.
Public and private organizations, academic
institutions, and citizens and their governments
in thousands of communities across the nation
are forming partnerships and learning new ways
to manage their watersheds together. These
groups seek guidance and examples of
watershed approach success stories after
which to mode! their own activities. The EPA
Office of Water established the Watershed
Academy to help address these needs by
providing training for watershed managers based
on local, state, tribal, and federal experiences in
implementing watershed approaches throughout
the past decade.
The Watershed Academy provides technical
watershed information and outreach through live
training courses, the internet, and published
documents. The Academy offers live training
courses on the basics of watershed man-
agement and maintains a training catalogue
concerning where to obtain more advanced
training. An Internet distance learning program
called Academy 2000 is being developed to help
serve the training needs of those who cannot
attend the live courses. The Watershed
Academy also provides watershed approach
reference materials, such as this document,
through the Watershed Academy Information
Transfer Series.
This document, number 3 in the Series,
addresses coordination in watershed monitoring.
Monitoring is absolutely essential to track
overall watershed health and detect changes in
any valued features or functions, but monitoring
costs are often a limiting factor. As
demonstrated in the document's four case
studies, consortiums can stretch the monitoring
dollar, improve cooperation among partners, and
increase sharing of expertise as well as
expenses of data collection and management.
The Information Transfer Series titles include:
no. 1: Watershed protection: a project focus
(EPA841-R-95-003)
no. 2: Watershed protection: a statewide
approach (EPA841-R-95-004)
no. 3: Monitoring consortiums: A cost-effective
means to enhancing watershed data
collection and analysis
(EPA841~R-97~006)
no. 4: Land cover digital data directory for the
United States (EPA841-B-97-005)
no. 5: Designing an information management
system for watersheds IEPA841-R-97-
005)
no. 6: Information management and
communications support for the
watershed approach in the Pacific
Northwest (EPA841-R-97-O041
no. 7: Watershed Academy catalogue of
watershed training opportunities
(EPA841-D-97-001I
-------
This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of
Water under partial support from each of two EPA contracts: EPA Contract 68-C3-0303
with Tetra Tech, Inc. and EPA Contract 68-C4-0051 with The Cadmus Group, inc.
Kimberiy Brewer and Trevor Clements of Tetra Tech, Inc. and Audrey Beach of The
Cadmus Group, Inc. are the document's primary authors, and Douglas J. Norton of the
EPA Office of Water is the project manager.
Notice
This document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency review and
has been approved for publication. Publication does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or of
any other organization represented in this document. Mention of trade names does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
This report should be cited as:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Monitoring consortiums: A cost-effective
means to enhancing watershed data collection and analysis. EPA841-R-97-006. Office of
Water (4503F), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 37 pp.
To obtain a copy free of charge, contact:
National Center for Environmental Publications and Information {IMCEPI
Phone: {513} 489-8190
Fax: (513)489-8695
This EPA report may also be available on the Internet for browsing or download at:
http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/info/PubList/pubcon.html
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD lii
LIST OF FIGURES vii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , ix
INTRODUCTION 1
CASE STUDY 1: REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO
ESTUARY , 3
BACKGROUND 3
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING 3
CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION.,,. 3
BENEFITS , 6
DATA PROCEDURES 6
COST , , 8
CHALLENGES , , 10
PROGRAM EVALUATION 10
CASE STUDY 2: TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT.... 11
BACKGROUND 11
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING 11
CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION 11
BENEFITS 13
DATA PROCEDURES 16
COST , 17
CHALLENGES 77
PROGRAM EVALUATION. 78
CASE STUDY 3: THE LOWER NEUSE BASIN ASSOCIATION 19
BACKGROUND 7S
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING 19
CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION , , 19
BENEFITS , , 20
DATA PROCEDURES 27
COST 22
CHALLENGES , 23
PROGRAM EVALUATION...., , 23
CASE STUDY 4: MID-ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS ASSESSMENT 24
BACKGROUND , 24
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING 24
CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION ,24
BENEFITS ,,.. 26
DATA PROCEDURES 27
COSf 28
-------
CHALLENGES 28
PROGRAM EVALUATION 29
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUILDING AND MAINTAINING STRONG MONITORING
CONSORTIUMS 30
SUGGESTED MILESTONES AND GUID/NG PRINCIPLES 30
CONCLUSION , - 33
APPENDIX A. MAJOR ITFM RECOMMENDATIONS 35
VI
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. BMP Study Area Within The San Francisco Estuary 3
FIGURE 2, Organizational Structure Of The San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program 5
FIGURES, Annual Leveraging Factors For The San Francisco BMP 7
FIGURE 4. Annual Budget For The San Francisco RMP 9
FIGURE 5, Cost Allocation By Discharger Category 9
FIGURE 6. Monitoring Sites For Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project 12
FIGURE 7, Organizational Chart For The Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project 13
FIGURE 8. TAWSMP Annual Resource Leveraging , 15
FIGURE 9. OWASA Resource Leveraging In TAWSMP 15
FiGURE 10. Study Area For The Lower Neuse Basin Association 20
FIGURE 11. LNBA Annual Cost Savings 22
FIGURE 12, LNBA Annual Savings In Dollars By Permitted Flow 22
FIGURE 13. Study Area For The Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment 24
FIGURE 14. Extensive Cooperation And Data Sharing Are Critical To MAHA's Success 25
FIGURE 15. MAHA's Five-Step Approach 26
FIGURE 16, Steps To Building A Strong Monitoring Consortium 30
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recently, many watershed and ecosystem
management approaches have placed renewed
emphasis on strategic, coordinated monit-
oring, Coordinated monitoring is essential to
assessing the overall condition of our water
resources and evaluating how well we are
maintaining the quality needed for its intended
use; developing goals and priorities for
restoring and protecting environmental sys-
tems; and developing integrated management
strategies.
Numerous monitoring partnerships, or consor-
tiums, have been formed in the last decade to
meet the need for coordinated monitoring.
This document presents four different case
studies to demonstrate how consortiums can
be tailored to fit available resources,
geographic areas of concern, diverse par-
ticipants, and goals. Each case study details
where and how each partnership was formed;
organization structure and responsibilities;
monitoring goats and objectives; benefits to
consortium participants; data management
procedures; cost of the monitoring program;
obstacles overcome, with advice for avoiding
pitfalls; and methods of program evaluation.
Although the purposes and structures of the
monitoring consortiums varied, key to each
consortium was the pooling of funds, exp-
ertise, and capital to meet the needs of its
members. The success of this leveraging of
resources shows that monitoring consortiums
can be a cost-effective means to enhancing
watershed data collection and analysis.
IX
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
!NPORMAT;ON TRANSFER SERIES
INTRODUCTION
Many environmental resource managers are
turning to an ecosystem-based approach to
restore and protect our natural resources.
Integrating a wide range of technical expertise,
regulatory and nonregulatory authorities, and
strategic implementation is critical to the
success of an ecosystem approach to man-
agement, including statewide watershed
management frameworks and watershed
protection projects. Increasingly limited program
resources have intensified the need for co-
ordinated management and for decision-making
focused on priority environmental concerns.
Well defined priorities depend on solid
assessment of good information, which, in turn,
depends on well designed monitoring programs.
Therefore, many watershed management
approaches have placed renewed emphasis on
strategic, coordinated monitoring.
In recent years, numerous monitoring partner-
ships, or consortiums, have been formed. Their
purposes vary from water supply protection to
coordinated, whole-basin wastewater discharge
management to ecosystem assessment. Pooling
funds, expertise, and capital is essential for
each consortium to monitor a watershed or
ecosystem in a way that meets the needs of all
partners within the group.
Monitoring consortiums are flexible tools. We
present four case studies to demonstrate how
consortiums can be tailored to fit available re-
sources, geographic area of concern, diverse
participants, and goals. We document why each
consortium was formed and the "nuts and
bolts" of organizing and maintaining them.
» The San Francisco Estuary Project:
Regulatory incentive for coordinated
NPDES-permit compliance that monitors
and supports strategic basin planning
through comprehensive water-column and
sediment monitoring over a large
geographic area.
» The Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring
Project: Supplemental, voluntary monitoring
of water supply intake areas and their
tributaries over a small geographic area
with the overall goal of protecting public
health.
» The Lower Neuse Association: Regulatory
incentive for coordinated NPDES-permit
compliance that monitors and supports
strategic planning as a component of North
Carolina's basinwide management approach
over a mid-sized geographic area.
* The Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment:
Comprehensive, integrated monitoring to
support federal, state, and local strategic
planning for ecosystem management over a
very large geographic area.
The four case studies detail where and how
each partnership was formed; organizational
structure and responsibilities; monitoring goals
| WHAT DOES THE COORDINATION OF ~~"
STRATEGIC MONITORING ALLOW FOR?
» Identifying water quality/ecosystem stres-
sors
* Quantifying problems
* Identifying key resources in need of pro-
tection
* Estimating risk to waterbodies
» Evaluating attainment of designated uses
« Developing environmental goals and
objectives, including site-specific stan-
dards
* Assigning priorities
» Developing management strategies
* Evaluating the success of implementation
* Identifying trends toward improvement or
degradation
* Knowing the condition of the waterbody
or ecosystem
-------
Mo, 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
and objectives; benefits to consortium representatives from multiple state and federal
participants; data procedures; cost of the agencies, recognized the importance of
monitoring program; obstacles overcome, with effectively coordinating efforts and developed
advice for avoiding pitfalls; and method of ten recommendations for collaborative,
program evaluation. integrated monitoring. Using recommendations
from 1TFM and the monitoring consortiums, the
In the early 1990s, the Intergovernmental Task fmal section provides a step-by-steP list for
Force for Monitoring (ITFM), comprising formi"9 and ™ntainmg strong monitoring
partnerships.
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
CASE STUDY 1
REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAIVI FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY
BACKGROUND
Before a monitoring consortium was formed for
the San Francisco Estuary, users and
dischargers in the watershed did not coordinate
monitoring efforts. A vast amount of water
quality information ,was collected in the bay at
an estimated annual cost of $16 million, but
each party had its own focus and reporting
format, and data were of limited use to de-
cision-makers (Mumiey 1995). The Regional
Monitoring Program (RMP) was implemented in
1993 to coordinate NPDES-permit compliance
monitoring and comprehensive water-column,
sediment, and biota (tissue) monitoring in
support of strategic basinwide planning. The
state required that permittees participate in the
strategic regional monitoring program and
strongly encouraged the consortium approach.
Consortium participants, including permitted dis-
chargers and dredgers, have found that the
cooperative effort is more cost effective than
operating individually and has generated greater
quality and quantity of data.
multiple political
12 counties.
jurisdictions, including
CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION
How WAS THE CONSORTIUM FORMED?
The San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board initiated a regional monitoring
program in 1989 primarily to provide "cost
effective, coordinated regional monitoring and
surveillance to evaluate the effectiveness of its
water quality control program" {RMP 1993b).
The board began conducting pilot studies the
same year to develop a long-term multimedia
monitoring program for the Bay Protection and
Toxic Cleanup Program, EPA-funded Bay-Delta
Project and Basin Planning Program. A
conceptual monitoring plan was developed
based on input from numerous policy makers,
resource managers, scientists, and
representatives of public and private interest
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
The San Francisco Bay-Delta
on the Pacific Coast of central
California includes the South
Bay, Central Bay, San Pablo
Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun
Bay, and lower portions of the
Sacramento and San Joaquin
Rivers in the area known as
the Delta. Figure 1 shows
RMP sampling station
locations. The bays and delta
combine to form the West
Coast's largest estuary, con-
taining about 5 million acre-
feet of water at mean tide
and encompassing roughly
1600 mi2. The estuary drains
more than 40 percent of
California (60,000 mi2) and
contains 34 subwatersheds.
The drainage area crosses
San Francisco
Estuary
Sampling Locations
Water
Sediment
Bivalve Tissues
FIGURE 1. RMP STUDY AREA WITHIM THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY.
-------
NO. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
groups. When initiating the program, the Board
took advantage of existing studies and
organizations to demonstrate the need for and
benefits of a more coordinated, strategic
approach, including the San Francisco Estuary
Project (SFEP), Bay Area Dischargers' Authority,
and San Francisco Estuarine institute {SFEI}.
in October 1991, SFEi hosted a Regional
Monitoring Workshop where participants
reached consensus on the need for a
coordinated, regional monitoring program. The
board then obtained grants for pilot studies in
1991-1992 that demonstrated the ability to
generate high-quality, useful data for decision-
makers. Based on workshop consensus and pilot
studies, the board adopted a resolution in April
1992 that endorsed the Regional Monitoring
Program (BMP) in concept and instructed the
board's Executive Officer to begin
implementation.
The Executive Officer wrote letters to each
NPDES permittee and dredger requesting
technical reports and listing parameters that
would have to be monitored, Letters stated that
strategic monitoring and reporting could be
conducted either individually or collectively, but
encouraged the group to design a collective
approach. The Executive Officer discussed the
concept of a strategic, coordinated monitoring
program with key dischargers to obtain their
buy-in (Mumley 1995).
The Board offered monitoring easements on
current permits, where feasible, to minimize the
overall monitoring cost. At the end of
negotiations, some financial sponsors of the
project were allowed to use strategic monitoring
data in lieu of some conventional ambient
monitoring requirements. For instance,
reviewing historic pH, dissolved oxygen {DO},
and nutrient data indicated that these pa-
rameters were no longer a concern and could be
waived for certain permittees. (These
dischargers still collect some ambient monitoring
data as required by their permits.)
Permittees and dredgers also presented the
following additional concerns and program
design requirements during negotiations.
Facilities had been spending a lot of money on
monitoring, yet data were of limited value. They
wanted better data for decision-making. Publicly
owned treatment works {POTWs) believed that
better data would show that they were not the
big problem generally perceived by others.
Sufficient higher-quality data would allow more
timely decisions on the need for dredging.
Generally, private dischargers anticipated less
benefit from the program than did POTWs but
were cooperative. The Bay Area Dischargers'
Authority, however, did identify concrete
potential benefits for each permit group. In
summary, the board required strategic
monitoring/reporting, encouraged a cooperative
monitoring approach, provided flexibility in
permitting, and involved the whole group early
in the program design and decision-making
process (Mumiey 1995).
How is THE CONSORTIUM ORGANIZED?
After negotiations, the first formal step in the
formation of the consortium was the creation of
a strategic monitoring plan that specified
responsibilities of involved parties. The
organizational chart provides an overview of the
structure and mechanisms for accountability
(Figure 2). The board is ultimately responsible
for the regulatory structure, for selecting
permittees that must participate in the regional
monitoring program, notifying them of their
responsibilities, and organizing the financial
structure of the project. BMP is currently
managed and administered by SFEI through a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control
Board. The board's basin plan and NPDES
permits govern the water quality of and
dischargers to the estuary. RMP monitors
compliance with objectives set forth in the basin
plan. The institute is an objective party that
ensures fair treatment of participants by the
board and that the monitoring plan is
implemented in a technically sound manner
(Carlin 1994/1995).
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
REPRESENTATIVES OF
FINANCIAL SPONSORS
Participants include permitted
dischargers and dredgers
Regulatory
Authority
Funding
SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
Responsible for regulatory
structure, selecting and notifying
permittees that must participate in
the RMP, organizing the financial
structure, approving study plan,
and approving the final report in a
public meeting
SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARINE INSTITUTE'S
REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM
,MQU- * Responsible for study plan
implementation and
cost-effective expenditure
FIGURE 2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM,
The institute staffs two committees to oversee
implementation of the RMP: The Steering
Committee and the Technical Program Review
Committee. Both committees are composed of
representatives from sponsoring dischargers; the
board, and SFEI. In addition to these working
advisory committees, the institute consults with
its Board of Directors regarding monitoring goals
and objectives and program evaluation,
WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSORTIUM?
RMP was designed to help implement the
strategic monitoring objectives of the Board's
Basin Planning Program, the
Estuary Project, and the Bay
San Francisco
Protection and
Toxic Cleanup Program, including the following
{RMP 1993W:
1. Obtain high-quality, baseline data on
concentrations of toxic, and potentially
toxic trace elements and organic
contaminants in the water and
sediments of the estuary,
2. Determine seasonal and annual trends if)
water chemistry in the estuary.
3. Determine whether water-column chemi-
cal quality and sediment quality in the
estuary complies with objectives set
forth in the Board's basin plan.
4, Provide a data base on water-column
chemical quality and sediment quality in
the estuary that is compatible with data
collected in ongoing studies, including,
STEERING COMMITTEE
* Ensure communication among sponsors,
the board, and SFEI
» Plan and provide input into RMP
implementation
» Provide feedback on effective use of the
information that is gathered
TECHNICAL PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE
» Develop annual work plans and special
studies based on guidance from the
Steering Committee and Regional Board
* Review data and reports produced by
RMP
-------
No. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
but not limited to, the following areas:
wasteioad allocation studies and models,
sediment quality, in-bay dredged
material disposal, enhancement of the
Interagency Ecological Study Program's
{lESP's! water quality and species
productivity studies, local biomonitoring
programs, and state and federal mussel
watch programs,
How ts THE CONSORTIUM IMPLEMENTED?
Representatives from financial sponsors, along
with the board, formally oversee BMP
implementation. In 1993, the first year of
program implementation, RMP was financially
sponsored by 46 federal agencies, local special
districts, and private companies that held
permits for discharge to the estuary. The list
grew to 62 financial sponsors in 1994: 34
municipal dischargers, 11 industrial dischargers,
9 stormwater dischargers, 7 dredgers, and 1
cooling-water discharger.
Representatives coordinate with a larger group
of public resource agencies. A key monitoring
partner is !ESP, a consortium that conducts
research on fisheries, water quality, and fish
facilities as well as manages a special project
called the Delta Outflow/SF Bay Study, which
conducts compliance monitoring for their water
rights permit in the Central Valley, Their annual
project budget is approximately $10 million.
lESP's focus on issues pertaining to the Delta of
the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers
complements SFEl's efforts well.
BENEFITS
After two years of implementation, members
identified the following benefits of strategic, co-
ordinated monitoring:
* Better understanding of the areas and
pollutants of greatest concern
* Higher quality and consistency of data
* Consistent data format across the
estuary
* Greater cooperation among stakeholders
* Discovery of problems not previously
identified (such as PCBs)
RESOURCE AGENCIES INVOLVED IN
THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY PROJECT
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)
California State Water Resources Control
Board
San Francisco Regional Water Quality
Control Board
Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
{EPA5
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fCQE)
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
U.S. Bureau of Land Reclamation (BLR)
Parks and preserves (including East Bay
Regional Park District, San Francisco and
San Pablo Bay Wildlife Refuges, and the
Golden Gate National Recreation Area)
City and county governments
Resource conservation districts
Port authorities
Academic research facilities {including the
University of California at Berkeley, Santa
Cruz, and Davis)
Numerous interest groups (ranging from
industrial to conservationist)
* Cost savings for small operations
* Permittee leveraging^
DATA PROCEDURES
JNFOHMATIOM MANAGEMENT
RMP data are transferred electronically to the
SFEI data base in various spreadsheet forms. All
project participants, including laboratories, have
standard operating procedures fSQPs) and
maintain quality assurance/quality control
In NV>, ;V>r «wmpk, through COE annual tmt-sharing funds <>!'
S^WKX' .mei A I'SGS coapefvttjvc ^grecmccu of 3-iO,OUG per year,
permittees paid Si.^lO.OOiJ for ,i project valued it $2 rr.illiun This
t.,ikybuon exi-kids,'*. university research funds .ind rhc otimaic » conservative General!), she
icvcf^giru; tutor h;i.s dtxlmed a*, the anmja; prcujr-irn imdx^ h.ts
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
1,0
1993
1994
1995
1990
FIGURE 3. ANNUAL LEVERAGING FACTORS
FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO RlvlP.
[* = R!V1P ANNUAL BUDGET DIVIDED BY PERMITTEE COST]
{QA/QC} records. The QA Program Plan details
procedures for sampling and analysis. BMP
subcontractors who collect data generate • data
sets in a standardized format. Data sets are first
sent to Applied Marine Sciences JAMS), the
contractor in charge of coordinating the sam-
pling program and assuring data quality. After
QA/QC, AMS sends data sets to SFEI where
they will be uploaded to the Oracle Relational
Data Base Management System for the Sun
operating system. Oracle is the primary platform
for the project's data management system.
SFEI performs statistical analyses using the PC
version of SAS, a computerized statistical
analysis system. Spatial and geographic
analyses will be performed using GIS ARC/INFO
and Geographic Resources Analysis Support
System (GRASS) on the Sun workstation.
Toxicity data will be analyzed using the program
Toxics,
According to project staff, creating a user-
friendiy data management system was a high
priority. The data base wii! be.available to RMP
members, educators, researchers, policy
makers, and the general public. The vision for
the data management system is a menu-driven
interface that enables key word searches by
general topic, parameter measured or analyzed,
region, and time frame. The estuary data base
will be searchable by specific geographic ref-
erence (e.g., latitude-longitude) or genera!
location. Because different users will require
different levels of information, the system will
ultimately generate three levels of information:
{1} unprocessed data, {2} general program
summary, and (3) data summaries.
DATA COLLECTION
Monitoring activities are coordinated with other
monitoring programs on the bay, including
USGS's bay modeling and primary productivity
studies; mussel watch studies sponsored by
NOAA and the state; Bay Protection and Toxic
Cleanup Program; and many other private,
municipal, state, and federal programs. After
considering historical data and results of pilot
projects, the Board selected 16 stations to be
monitored, all of which will be analyzed for
chemical constituents and sediments. Fewer
stations will be targeted for biological and
toxicity data; to the greatest extent possible,
stations designated for biological and toxicity
evaluation will overlap with stations monitored
for chemicals and sediment.
Months for seasonal sampling were selected
based on an idealized hydrograph for the
estuary. The RMP has four general types of
monitoring programs: biological, chemical,
-------
NO. 3
MONSTORING CONSORTIUMS
physical/conventional, and sediment, all of
which are highlighted below.
* Biological: Bioaccumulation studies of
trace elements and organic
contaminants in bivalve tissues are
conducted at 11 predetermined stations.
» Chemical: Trace elements and organic
contaminants in the water column will
be monitored at 16 stations three times
a year. Organic contaminants will be
analyzed based on the particulate
fraction of the filtered sample of water.
Trace elements monitored include As,
Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, and Zn.
The program also measures five
petroleum compounds, fourteen
poiynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAHs), nine SOCs, PCBs, DDT, and
chlordane. Water-column toxicity will be
measured at 8 stations three times a
year, and in-depth chronic toxicity tests
are conducted on a fish, invertebrate,
and algal species.
» Physical and Conventional Parameters:
Whenever chemical and trace metal
samples are taken, physical and
conventional parameters are also
measured: salinity, temperature, conduc-
tivity, DO, chlorophyil-s, TSS, dissolved
organic carbon, pH, and nutrients.
* Sediment: Sediment is sampled at all 16
stations during the wet and dry periods.
Parameters tested include sediment
quality, trace elements, and organic
contaminants. To enhance interpretation
of metal concentrations in sediments,
the program will examine the
relationships of four trace elements fCu,
Hg, Ni, and Se}, three trace organics
{PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides), and
different contaminants. Frozen duplicate
samples will be kept for possible future
analysis.
DATA ANALYSES
Before establishing RMP procedures, the San
Francisco Estuary Project inventoried and
evaluated existing monitoring efforts and data
sets to identify and remedy data gaps,
redundancies, and incompatible procedures. The
QA Program Plan details procedures for RMP
sampling and analysis. The Regional Monitoring
Strategy recommends a performance-based
monitoring system, where different methods for
measuring the same constituents are allowed
provided that results are comparable. To resolve
questions about compatibility of methods, field
samples are collected, split, and then sent to
laboratories for analysis to determine whether
differences in data are due to sampling
procedures. Methods used to date yield
comparable data.
in 1993, SFEI contracted with AMS in
Livermore, CA, for field collection and data
analysis. Subcontractors include Marine
Research Specialists in Sequel, CA; University
of California-Santa Cruz's Institute of Marine
Sciences in Santa Cruz, CA; University of
California-Berkeley's Trace Organics Laboratory
in Richmond, CA; Brooks-Rand, Ltd., in Seattle,
WA; and S.R. Hansen and Associates in
Concord, CA.
USE OF DATA
Participants have identified numerous uses for
data gathered by the consortium, including:
* Determining use support status
* Offsetting ambient monitoring require-
ments
* Analyzing trends
* Calibrating models
» Establishing priorities
* Educating/conducting outreach2
COST
To pay for collective monitoring and analysis,
the state divided dischargers into five categories
and allocated costs to each category based on
" D.na art fidi*u>j3,
uemi1* sn w*uer quality, the status oi .iqu.tt!< populations, and
de,cript:or. of huoi^ct .tctfvjcrcs that ;i&ce£ the ecosystem Tbc report
w:ll dr.tv. .uteutton to resource* ,u n4.k ;mn;\c ^nt! !*cs.s%£r<,h needs In addition, the imtuutt
report?, to comsTm
.tad educators to
tc w;th a wtiic Aatlscticc, r.ir.^i«|
o-ro^ker'. >ind chc gcncr.il pub.ic
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
iNFORMATiON TRANSFER SERIES
the proportion of pollutants it dis-
charges into the bay {Figure 5), The
state allowed each category to
determine how to fund its share.
RMP's budget has steadily
increased since the first year of
implementation in 1993 (Figure 4).
{Note that dischargers are still
required to monitor some
parameters individually, so costs
shown in tables do not reflect total
costs of all monitoring activities
conducted in the estuary.)
O
B)
•o
c
as
m
O
2.5 ~
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
Board staff indicate that the budget
for baseline data collection {i.e.,
field work and laboratory analysis)
has remained stable, but costs
have increased for data
management, particularly QA, data
interpretation, pilot projects, and special studies
(Cariin 1994/1995). Budget allocations for 1995
are shown in the sidebar, initially, QA and data
interpretation were the most underestimated
costs ICarlin 1994/1995). Staff indicated that
increasing cost is a challenge to maintaining the
consortium.
1983
1994
199S
1996
FIGURE 4. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO RMP.
Program Area
Data collection
Data interpretation/data
management*
Pilot projects
Special studies
Total
1995 Budget
Allocation
1,100,000
400,000
200,000
300,000
2,000,000 .
Includes overall project management
Municipal
T
20 30 40 50
Percentage of Project Cost
60
70
FIGURE 5. COST ALLOCATION BY DISCHARGER CATEGORY.
-------
No. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
CHALLENGES
Staff identified key challenges to forming the
consortium. First, because monitoring data have
been of little use in the past for assessing
problems and making decisions, many potential
partners did not value monitoring. The Board
addressed this skepticism during negotiations by
working with key representatives from each
group to identify concrete potential benefits of a
strategic, coordinated monitoring program and
ways to offset program costs. The Board also
designed and conducted pilot studies to
demonstrate the ability to produce high-quality,
useful data for decision-makers. Through
meetings, workshops, and conferences, the
Board and Institute used this information to
achieve buy-in early in the process. Second, the
Board demonstrated that permittees could meet
many regulatory objectives within the RMP
{e.g., determining use support status). Finally,
equitable distribution of program cost across
different groups was (and continues to be) a
challenge to the board. For instance, POTW
permittees have a collective annual O&M budget
of $500 million, whereas stormwater permittees
have an annual O&M budget of $5 million, if
each group were to contribute $1 million,
budget impacts would be unequitable. The
Board assesses each group a percentage of
program cost, and the group itself (e.g., all
POTWs) determines a fair way to allocate cost
among individual permittees within the group.
Staff also identified four ways to address the
challenges to maintaining a strong consortium:
effectively communicate the value of the
project, be cost effective, ensure data collection
and interpretation are technically sound, and use
findings of the program in making decisions
{Mumfey 1995; Carlin 1994/1995).
PROGRAM EVALUATION
The RMP was designed as a long-term
monitoring program, and will be
comprehensively evaluated and updated after 5
years of monitoring. The RSV1P has short- and
iong-term evaluation processes: annual program
assessments and a five-year comprehensive
assessment. Monitoring goals and objectives are
evaluated annually by SFEI, based on decisions
from its seven-member Board of Directors and
input from its working advisory panels. The
Scientific Advisory Panel includes researchers
from universities, agencies, and other private or
public research organizations and is responsible
for reviewing the Institute's annual workpian
and assisting in the production of the Institute's
annual report. A Policy Panel was formed to
-advise the Scientific Advisory Panel and Board
of Directors on research and monitoring needs,
resource management questions, and policy
implications of scientific findings. This panel is
composed of representatives from iocai, state,
and federal governmental agencies that have
stake in regulating uses of the estuary.
SOURCES
Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). 1993b.
San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring
Program Plan. September.
Mumiey, Tom. 1995. Personal communication
with staff San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board.
Carlin, Michael 1994/1995. Personal communi-
cation with staff San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board.
RMP. 1993a. San Francisco Estuary Project Re-
gional Monitoring Strategy. March.
San Francisco Estuary Project Status and
Assessment of Selected Monitoring Programs in
the San Francisco Estuary. March 1992.
Aquatic Habitat Institute (AHi). 1988. Inventory
of Priority Datasets Relating to the San
Francisco Estuary. May.
10
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
CASE STUDY 2
TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT
BACKGROUND
The Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring
Project (TAWSMP) began in 1988 as a
supplemental, voluntary monitoring program for
drinking water source protection. The project
conducts chemical, physical, and sediment
sampling at 34 stations, both at water supply
intake areas and their tributaries throughout the
Triangie J Region. Primary objectives of the pro-
ject are to conduct spatial and temporal water
quality trend analyses and pollutant loading
studies, better understand the role of sediments
in trapping and transporting SOCs, and evaluate
the condition of the source water.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
The Triangle J Region encompasses 3320 mi2
and includes six counties of North Carolina
within the upper Neuse and Cape Fear Basins in
the Piedmont Province: ^Chatham, Durham,
Johnston, Lee, Orange, and Wake (Figure 6).
Nearly 80 percent of the households in this re-
gion depend on public drinking water supplies,
and most of the 13 supplies for the Triangle
Area are drawn from the region's streams and
reservoirs.
CONSORTIUM! DESCRIPTION
HOW WAS THE CONSORTIUM! FORMED?
Two major federal, multipurpose reservoirs were
built in the early 1980s, Jordan Lake and Falls
Lake, with a combined estimated drinking water
safe-yield of 160 million gallons per day (MGD).
Because these lakes were built in the midst of
an urbanized area, potential users raised
questions about the types and quantities of
SOCs discharged upstream and how potential
contaminants might impact the quality of these
drinking water supplies (Brewer and Childress
1994). At the same time, with rapid
urbanization across the region in the early and
mid-1980s and the ass.ociated increase in
nonpoint source runoff and point source
industrial and municipal wastewater discharges,
interest grew in protecting the region's surface
water supplies IBrewer and Childress 1994).
The Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG)
sponsored the 1987 World Class Region Confer-
ence, which was attended by approximately
500 local elected officials, business leaders,
environmentalists, and other citizens of the
region. Participants' request for a Triangle Area
Water Supply Monitoring Project added
legitimacy and impetus to a project idea that
had been discussed for several years. Potential
cost savings of such a project provided even
greater impetus. Heightened interest in the
quality of drinking water supply sources led
several local governments to begin their own
supplementary monitoring programs at a
combined annual cost of hundreds of thousands
of dollars.
TJCOG formed a task force comprised of key
city managers and public utility directors to
design the project. This group relies heavily on
advisors from universities. North Carolina's
Division of Environmental Management (DEM},
and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). During
project design, task force members focused on
seven questions (Brewer and Childress 1994):
1. Who is interested in designing and
participating in a monitoring program?
2. What are the objectives of the
monitoring program?
3. Which parameters should be monitored?
4, Where should the project monitor?
5. How often do we need to monitor to
detect trends?
6. Who will conduct field work, laboratory
analysis, and data interpretation?
7. What are the costs, and how will we fi-
nance the project?
11
-------
NO. 3
MONITORING CONSORTSUMS
Study Area
CD Urbanized Area
O Sampling Station
• • • County Boundary
— Waterbody
Research Triangle
Park Area, NC
FIGURE 6. MONITORING SITES FOR TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT.
How Is THE CONSORTIUM ORGANIZED?
Local governments in the region signed fetters
of interest in forming a monitoring project
through interiocal agreement. Then, a task force
designed the project, drafted by-laws for project
governance, and negotiated a draft interlocai
agreement. Local governments entered into a
Phase I monitoring project contract/agreement
for three years, with the understanding that
meeting project objectives would require many
additional years of monitoring, and 3- to 4-year
phases were appropriate for major data
interpretation studies and for monitoring pro-
gram evaluation (Brewer 1989-1995).
Participating local governments appointed staff
representatives to the project Steering
Committee, which makes technical, financial,
and administrative recommendations to
participating focal entities {Figure 7). Non-voting
resource advisors from DEM, USGS, and local
universities also participate on the Steering
Committee. Officially, committee chair persons
are elected annually; generally, every 2 years
the Steering Committee selects a new Chair and
Vice Chair and appoints a new Technical Sub-
committee Chair to expand and renew
opportunities for leadership among all
representatives (Brewer 1989-1995).
Through interiocal agreement, the project is co-
sponsored by 11 city and county governments.
The USGS and local governments share the cost
of the monitoring program through cooperative
agreement. USGS operates 18 sites in the water
quality monitoring network and all 13 stream
discharge gages, conducts laboratory analysis
and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC),
and interprets data from all water quality and
stream discharge sites. To complete the
network, DEM supplies data from 12 sites in its
ambient monitoring program and collects addi-
tional samples for USGS laboratory analysis.
Participating local governments contract with
TJCOG as the project manager to {1} coordinate
sample collection, analysts, and data-reporting
among technical contractors and DEM;
{2} provide day-to-day oversight of technical
contracts; {3) maintain financial records,
including collecting funds and paying
contractors; (4) maintain records to ensure
compliance with state statutes; (5) provide staff
support to the project Steering Committee; and
{6} conduct project outreach, including annual
12
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY
MONITORING PROJECT CONSORTIUM
11 city and county governments
plus OWASA
Appoint
STEERING
COMMfTTEE
Cooperative
Agreement
DATA COLLECTION
AND ANALYSIS
USGS (cost-share)
DEM (leveraged)
ADVISORS: USGS,
Universities, DEM
Contract
PROJECT
MANAGEMENT
TJCOG
FIGURE 7. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR THE TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT.
reports, press releases, and public presenta-
tions. Additionally and importantly, participants
view TJCOG as a neutra! manager providing a
neutral meeting pface {Brewer 1989-1995).
WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSORTIUM?
TAWSMP has two overall goals: (1) improve un-
derstanding and awareness about the quality of
the region's drinking water supplies (including
intake areas and tributaries) and (2) minimize
monitoring costs {TAWSMP 1989, 1991, and
19953. The primary and secondary objectives
developed in support of these goals are listed in
the side bar (TAWSMP 1989, 1991, and 1 995).
How !s THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTED?
Monitoring began in October 1988. initially, the
project focused on EPA's priority pollutant list
and conventional parameters {TAWSMP 1989,
1991, and 1995). Prior to the start of sampling,
a statistical review of existing data collected in
the study area indicated that many additional
years of monitoring may be required to be
confident of project conclusions concerning
changes in water quality (Reckhow et al. 1989).
Local participants view the project as long-term,
with monitoring frequency varying from 3-
12 times per year, depending on the sampling
location and parameters. The state's ambient
monitoring stations and parameters are incor-
porated into program design to avoid duplicating
efforts.
BENEFITS
The Steering Committee reports the following
benefits (Kalb 1995, Brewer 1989-1995):
• Pinpointing Problems More Quickly: The
project has not yet detected a major
problem, but problems can develop
quickly in rapidly developing urbanized
areas. The annual monitoring program
allows local governments to pinpoint
and address problems in the Triangle
more quickly. Also, one of the project's
primary objectives has been to de-
13
-------
NO. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
termme the concentration of contami-
nants in the region's water supplies.
Preventing Water Treatment Problems:
Federal regulations generally do not re-
quire monitoring untreated water.
Though a local utility may identify con-
taminants in treated water, it will not
detect contaminants until they have
already become a problem. 8y tracking
the quality of the water supply source,
the project helps prevent treatment
problems,
Establishing Long-Term Trends: Through
annual monitoring, the project has begun
to gather enough data to conduct trend
analyses. Building on this data base
through continued monitoring will allow
frequent assessment of trends.
Responding Flexibly to Emerging /ssues:
Annual monitoring has allowed the
project to deal with emerging concerns
in a flexible and timely manner. Monitor-
ing includes special pesticide studies and
Cryptosporidium and Giardia monitoring.
Sharing Costs, Expertise, and Anafysis
with USGS: Through the cooperative
agreement described above, USGS
equally matches the project's monitoring
costs and conducts field sampling,
laboratory analysis, and data
interpretation. The Steering Committee
believes USGS's QA/QC as well as its
independent, unbiased analysis is key to
the credibility of the project.
He/ping to Protect Major Resources at a
Low Cost: Although this supplementary
monitoring program has been operational
during a time of very limited program re-
sources, the Steering Committee
stresses, and most local governing
boards concur, that the project cost is
small relative to the value of the water
resources being monitored.
Leveraging Resources: Through USGS
cooperative agreement and DEM
ambient monitoring contributions, the
local governments pay $231,733 for a
project valued at $543,094™a local
government leveraging factor of 2.34
PRIMARY PROJECT OBJECTIVES
• Develop and maintain a data base for
SOCs to determine their concentration in
Triangle Area water supplies
« Supplement existing data on nutrients,
major ions, and trace elements as a basis
for measuring long-term water quality
trends
SECONDARY PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Phases E and II
• Provide a basis for measuring shorter-term,
but long-lasting, changes due to large-scale
management practices in the watershed,
such as the phosphate detergent ban and
treatment plant upgrades
» Document overall spatial differences
among water supplies within the region,
especially differences between smaller
upland sources, large multipurpose
reservoirs, and run-of-the-river supplies
* Provide additional tributary loading and in-
lake data that can be used for predictive
models
• Help determine the role of stream
sediments in transporting or removing
SOCs in the water column
Phase III
• Develop a coordinated data base for state,
local, and USGS data
• Report results of the monitoring program
to citizens
(Figure 8). Also, because multiple
governments share interest in individual
sites, the consortium cost to each local
government is lower than each would
pay to maintain its own monitoring
program. The resource leveraging factor
varies for each jurisdiction depending on
its size and the number of monitoring
stations associated with a jurisdiction's
intake and other in-lake and tributary
sites.
14
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
8
JS
"o
a
For instance, OWASA is a mid-sized
water supplier, with a direct interest in 9
of the 30 water quality monitoring sites
and 4 of the 13 stream gaging sites.
Most sites of direct interest to OWASA
are also of direct interest to other local
governments and USGS. The moni-
toring, analysis, and management costs
of these sites is about $164,000 per
year, and OWASA is only assessed
about $23,000—a leveraging factor of 7
(Figure 9). Another example is the
region's largest water supplier, the City
Agency
Local governments
City of Raleigh
j USGS
OWASA
Example Leveraging
Factors (1995) j
2.34
2.50
2.57
7.00
of Raleigh. There are 13 water quality
monitoring sites and 7 stream gaging
stations in Falls Lake and its tributaries,
with a total estimated value of
$247,639. The City of Raleigh pays
$96,394—a leveraging
I factor of 2.5.
600
400
» Eaimatod project cost*
value: $543.000
» Cost for local
participants $231,733
* Local government
leveraging factor. 2.34
T>
«
§ 200
O
H
FIGURE 8. TAWSMP ANNUAL RESOURCE LEVERAGING.
200
Leveraging with:
• USGS
* NCOEM
« Other local members
Total Value
to OWASA
Total Cost
to OWASA
The USGS benefits from
the program's joint water
resource investigation and
cost sharing; the compre-
hensive, Song-term nature
of the study that allows
for trend analysis and
interpretive work; and the
focus on emerging issues
such as Cryptosporidtum
and Giarctia. USGS's
cooperative cost share is
$211,361-a federal lever-
aging factor of 2.57.
These leveraging factors
include only the monitoring
cost associated with a
jurisdiction's intake and its
other in-lake and tributary
sites (I.e., related drainage
area). These factors could
be seen as conservative
estimates, because there
are indirect benefits from
monitoring in other basins,
such as being able to
compare data from similar
run-of-the-river intakes or
similar small lake intakes.
The structure of allocating
cost by percent of water
produced generally yields
larger leveraging factors
for smaller jurisdictions
than for larger jurisdic-
tions.
FIGURE 9. OWASA RESOURCE LEVERAGING IN TAWSMP.
15
-------
NO. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
DEM is also able to leverage resources
through the program. Before the
monitoring project began, the state
conducted intensive monitoring of Fails
and Jordan Lakes. The division is now
able to refocus its program resources
and mainly contributes tributary ambient
monitoring data to the project. DEM also
uses project data in its basinwide
management planning for the Neuse and
Cape Fear River basins.
DATA PROCEDURES
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
TJCOG, as project manager, coordinates and
helps design data base management, maintains
all project records, distributes information, and
is the central contact, USGS built and maintains
a project data base for its sites and retrieves
data from STOREY for OEM's 12 project sites.
USGS also has a combined data base for all
sites. In response to the Steering Committee
request for easy, user-friendly access to project
-data, USGS recently developed an Exce!
spreadsheet format for each site that holds all
observations for each site as well as generates
summary statistics of most interest to local
participants. Data will be loaded, then updated
annually. During Phase HI of the project, local
compliance monitoring data will be incorporated
into this spreadsheet format, USGS works with
the Project Steering Committee to develop
annual reports to local governments, data
reports, interpretive reports, and summary
updates of special studies.
DATA COLLECTION
The project monitors sites near water supply in-
takes, other port
ions of lakes, lake tributaries, and near river
intake areas. Several upland tributaries are
relatively unimpacted and serve as control sites.
There are about 30 water quality sites fthe
number of sites slightly varies from phase to
phase) and 13 stream gaging sites. The
project's regional, long-term design enables data
to be interpreted for detection of spatial trends
in water (e.g., how the water quality changes
as it moves downstream or down iakej. Areas
below wastewater treatment plants and urban
areas can be compared, water quality of the
intake areas in small reservoirs can be compared
to large reservoirs, and loading from different
tributaries can be measured. In addition to this
routine monitoring, the project also conducts
special studies, such as analysis of pesticides,
storm events, pollutant loading, and
Cryptosporidium and Giardia,
The monitoring program has been amended
based on findings to rotate monitoring
parameters Isuch as dropping VOCs in Phase II
and cycling them back in Phase 111), to drop sites
that are so close to each other that they yield
nearly identical data, and to reduce frequencies
of monitoring. These amendments allow the
project to add other constituents of concern,
conduct special studies, and minimize project
cost (Brewer 1989-1995).
Two agencies, USGS and DEM, collect samples
and conduct laboratory analysis. They conduct
tests, as needed, to determine whether different
sampling and analytical techniques caused
differences in data, and, if so, how to reconcile
protocols. For instance, USGS and DEM have
basic differences in field sampling methods:
DEM grabs samples from mid-stream, and USGS
does depth-integrated samples from multiple
points in the cross-section. DEM generally
samples during base flow, whereas USGS
samples during base-flow and high-flow events.
Both agencies collected samples at the same
sites (using their respective methods), spirt the
samples, and traded. Each sent its split sample
to its own laboratory. Analyses revealed no
significant differences in base-flow data. There
would likely be more variabiiity in the data using
the two methods during high-flow events;
because only USGS targets high-flow samples,
however, this difference in field sampling
methods has thus far not posed a problem
(Childress 1995).
Also, for some parameters, USGS and DEM
have different detection limits, USGS, which
maintains and interprets the project data base,
notes the different detection limits in its data
reports. Differences have not posed a problem
for the project to date since both agencies
generally measured no detects for these
parameters. While USGS, DEM, and the
Steering Committee informally agreed to
16
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
Agency and
Cost Category
USGS: Technical Services
Local Governments:
Technical Services
Project Management
DEM: Technical Services
TOTAL PROJECT COST
1995 Cost
$211, 361
$211,361
$20,372
$100,000
$543,094
performance-based protocols in 1988, only in
the second phase did USGS formally document
and report DEM's and USGS's respective
protocols for the project. This delay, along with
changes in key personnel, led to unnecessary
errors in sample collection and analysis {Brewer
1989-19955.
DATA ANALYSIS
Currently, water samples are quantitatively ana-
lyzed for 8 major ions, 11 nutrients, 10 physical
properties {including chlorophyll-a and b), 15
metals and trace elements, 133 volatile and
semi-volatile organic compounds, and 15
inorganic constituents. In addition, a qualitative
analysis of organic compounds is conducted at
about half of the sites by scanning with a gas
chrornatography/flame ionization detector. When
significant organic compounds are detected,
samples are re-analyzed by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry and a li-
brary search of more then 40,000 SOCs to
identify the compound. Qualitative analysis does
not measure the amount or concentration of the
compounds, but does provide a snapshot of
"molecular litter" present in the water column.
USE OF DATA
Data are used by the Steering Committee to
meet project objectives, particularly evaluating
the condition of drinking water supply source
waters and analyzing spatial and temporal
trends. The Steering Committee has focused
and reported on technical, factual issues to date
rather than on land-use management and policy
issues. Local governments, however, use project
data to evaluate wastewater and water
treatment plant operational policies and
procedures, identify nonpoint source problems,
and research the need for watershed protection
measures (Brewer 1989-1995).
COST
Through cooperative agreement with the Project
Steering Committee, USGS conducts field work,
laboratory analysis, and data interpretation.
Generally, USGS's technical cost are about
$422,722 per year; USGS pays one-half of the
technical service cost. Through interloca! agree-
ment, participating local governments pay the
remaining one-half of the technical service cost,
plus TJCOG's project management cost of
$20,372 per year. Overall project costs have
been held constant or reduced since 1988,
During Phases I and II, project costs were
allocated to local governments based on each
member's percentage of the total membership's
water production. In Phase Iff, costs will be held
constant for ail members, except for the largest
member whose cost and sites were reduced.
The project estimates that the value of the DEM
ambient monitoring data is about $100,000.
The total estimated cost of the monitoring
project is therefore $543,094 per year.
CHALLENGES
TAWSMP encountered the following obstacles
in implementing and maintaining the consortium:
1. Revised Safe Drinking Water Act
requirements increased monitoring
costs, thereby reducing funds available
for supplemental monitoring.
2. Raw water monitoring data could not be
used in iieu of additional requirements
for treated monitoring data.
3. Because no major drinking water
problems have yet been detected, some
ask, "Why continue monitoring?" Two
small local participants have withdrawn
from the project for this reason.
4. Individual costs not commensurate with
individual benefits or with one-member
one-vote governance structure.
-------
NO. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
Two smaller participants decided not to
participate in Phase III for reasons 1, 2, and 3,
The City of Raleigh, the largest participant,
decided not to participate in Phase ill for ali four
reasons. Nine participants have signed the
Phase III interiocal agreement for an additional 5
years of monitoring {Brewer 1989-1995).
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Since its inception in 1988, the monitoring
project has periodically evaluated alternative
sampling plans for achieving project objectives
while minimizing project cost. The monitoring
program is evaluated on annual and triennial
cycles. The interlocai agreement expires and is
renegotiated every 3 to 4 years. Each year the
project reports findings and, at the end of each
phase, produces a major data interpretive report.
Resource advisors review and comment on
these reports.
During the last year of each phase, the Project
Steering Committee comprehensively evaluates
the program in Sight of project findings,
comments from resource advisors regarding
program needs, and resources available.
Essentially, everything is put on the table for
evaluation, including the project's goals and
objectives, design of the routine monitoring
program, special studies needed, technical
contracts, and the local share formulae. The
Steering Committee then negotiates a 3- to 4-
year project proposal, outlines amendments to
the existing program, and forwards the
proposed interlocai agreements to local govern-
ing boards for their consideration.
Each year, the program also annually evaluates
emerging issues or concerns; new special
studies or constituents are added as funding
becomes available or as current monitoring can
be reconfigured to redirect resources. The
underlying goal of program evaluation is to
maintain a project design that allows the
Steering Committee to evaluate conditions and
detect long-term water quality trends,
SOURCES
Brewer, Kimberly. 1989-1995, Experience of
author and monitoring project manager.
Brewer, Kimberly, and Carolyn Chiidress, 1994.
Design and Preliminary Results of the Triangle
Area Water Supply Monitoring Project, North
Carolina. Journal N.C. Section AWWA &
WPCA, Volume LXIX.
Chiidress, Carolyn. 1995. Personal communica-
tion with C. Chiidress, Hydrologist, USGS
manager for Triangle Area Water Quality
Investigation.
Kalb, Kathryn. January-July 1995, Personal
communication with K. Kalb, Chair Triangle
Area Water Supply Monitoring Project Steering
Committee and Committee correspondence,
Reckhow, Kenneth, et al. 1989. Design of the
Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Program.
Duke University, Durham, NC. Page 90.
Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project
(TAWSMP) Interiocal Agreements. 1988, 1991,
and 1995.
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
CASE STUDY 3
THE LOWER NEUSE BASIN ASSOCIATION
BACKGROUND
In 1992, the state targeted the Neuse Basin as
its first basinwide water quality management
study area. During the basin planning and
assessment stages, DEM reviewed the NPDES
compliance monitoring data and the state's
ambient monitoring data, and concluded that the
state and permittees could generate more
useful, cost-effective, higher quality data. In
1994, major NPDES dischargers in the Basin
formed a monitoring corporation, the Lower
Neuse Basin Association. The association
signed a related Memorandum of Agreement
with the state's Division of Environmental
Management. Monitoring began in July 1994
with the primary objectives of determining the
effectiveness of state-established TMDLs and
better understanding the CBOD/DO relationship
in the river and the relative contributions and
impact of nutrient loading.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
The Lower Neuse Basin is the area draining into
the Neuse River beiow Falls Lake Dam in the
Piedmont Province to the tidal waters in the
Coastal Province of North Carolina (Figure 10).
Comprising 4807 mi^, the basin is
predominantly forested and agricultural along its
185-mi course. The Lower Neuse, which
includes 15 counties, is important for the
state's economy from its headwaters in the
commercial, industrial, institutional center in
Raleigh, through its ubiquitous farms, to its
recreational boating, fishing, commercial fishing,
and shellfish harvesting waters at the coast
(NCDEHNR 1992).
CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION
How WAS THE CONSORTIUM FORMED?
In 1992, the state targeted the Neuse Basin as
its first basin-wide water quality management
study area.3 During the basin planning and
concluded that
basin-oriented
could generate
higher-quality
assessment stages, North Carolina's Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) reviewed
NPDES-cornptiance monitoring data and state
ambient monitoring data and
through a more flexible,
monitoring design, all parties
more useful, cost-effective
information. Through two of its regional offices,
DEM staff initiated talks with some of the larger
wastewater dischargers about a coordinated,
strategic monitoring program that would replace
the routine NPDES compliance monitoring ICrtsp
1995).
How Is THE CONSORTIUM ORGANIZED?
The largest discharger, the City of Raleigh,
assumed the lead role in recruiting and
organizing others. In 1994, the largest
dischargers in the Lower Neuse River Basin
formed a monitoring corporation, the Lower
Neuse Basin Association, and opened
membership to local governments holding
NPDES wastewater discharge permits and public
and private entities holding NPDES wastewater
discharge permits for 1 MGD or greater.
Twenty-three dischargers joined. DEM designed
the association's monitoring program, then both
signed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
ILNBA 1995).
WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSORTIUM?
The governing mission of the Lower Neuse
Basin Association is to preserve the waters of
the Lower Neuse River through innovative and
cost-effective pollution reduction strategies by:
1. Forming a coalition of local
governments, public and private
agencies, and other interested and
dischargers *ts well as sharing the cost of implementing agricultural
BiviPs !i: regularly exceed;. DO
st*m permitted dhKh.ir£c Utilities m
the Lower Ne«°.c Basm, 2-1 m,t]or disUnrges u.c.( permmet! fioxv
£fe<5U"t th.u's i MGD> and 2i2 mim>r (permitted flow ;es*. truss 1
MGD). Major u^cb.if^ers constitute **b
-------
No. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
Municipality
Neuse River Basin
Study Area
FIGURE 10. STUDY AREA FOR THE LOWER NEUSE BASIN ASSOCIATION,
affected communities, organizations,
businesses, and individuals to secure
and pool financial resources and
expertise;
2. Collecting and analyzing information and
data; and developing, evaluating, and
implementing strategies to reduce,
control, and manage pollutant discharge;
3. Providing accurate technical,
management, regulatory, and legal
recommendations regarding the
implementation of strategies and
appropriate effluent limitations on
discharges into the lower portion of the
Neuse River.
How ts THE CONSORTIUM IMPLEMENTED?
DEM established the monitoring sites,
parameters, and sampling frequencies. The
Association implements the monitoring program
through its annual workplan and MOA with the
states. Monitoring began July 1994, The
program integrates in-stream monitoring
requirements in NPDES permits with the
basinwide water quality management strategy
that was being implemented in North Carolina
(LNBA 1995).
BENEFITS
The Lower Neuse Basin Association and DEM
have identified the following benefits of the
coordinated monitoring program:
» The state and Association can now
conduct special studies that otherwise
would not have been possible, including
evaluating TMDLs, the relative
contributions and impacts of nutrient
loading, the impacts of point versus
nonpoint sources, and model
verification.
• Establishing uniform standard operating
procedures and contracting with one
certified environmental firm yields
higher-quality, more reliable data.
• The state designed a monitoring
program that was flexible and basin-
oriented and that provides useful
information for evaluating point and
20
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
Seasonal sampling for the Lower Neuse Basin
Parameter
Field parameters
Nutrients
Chlorophyll-s
Turbidity
Metals
Fecal coiiform
Long-term BOD
Site
All sites
All sites
Selected sites
Selected sites
Selected sites
All sites
Selected sites
Summer (May-
September)
Bi-weekly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Winter
(October-April)
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly [ Monthly
June, July, and August
nonpoint source contributions, for
describing tributary and mainstem water
quality relationships, and for verifying
wasteioad allocation models.
The monitoring consortium yields
substantial annua! cost savings for its
members.
One of the greatest benefits is that
dischargers are building and maintaining
strong working relationships among
themselves and with DEM to better
understand and protect the water quality
of the Neuse River.
DATA PROCEDURES
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
All monitoring data are compiled and stored in a
consistent format in STORET. The MOA
stipulates that the Lower Neuse Basin
Association is responsible for coordinating the
collection of water quality data, entering data
into STORET within 3 months of its collection,
and archiving data sheets for 10 years.
DATA COLLECTION
Monitoring is conducted at 42 sites, generally
below the wastewater discharges of association
members. Water samples are analyzed for
• Field parameters: temperature, DO,
conductivity
• Nutrients: total phosphorus, total nitrogen,
ammonia, total Kjedahi nitrogen, and NOX
• Chlorophyif-a
• Turbidity and TSS
* pH
Metals: Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cn, Fe, Fb, Hg, Ni,
Zn
* Long-term BOD
• Fecal coiiform
Flow
DATA ANALYSIS
The Association contracts with a certified
laboratory to conduct field work and analysis.
The MOA requires the association to retain a
firm competent to perform the monitoring
activities and use a laboratory appropriately
certified for required analyses {i.e., certified by
the state using EPA-approved procedures).
Use OF DATA
The MOA reflects joint interests of dischargers
and the state in strategic monitoring data,
including the following uses:
• Evaluate the effectiveness of established
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
throughout the Neuse River Basin
Evaluate the impacts
nonpoint sources
of point and
• Quantify relative contributions and
impacts of nutrient loading to the Neuse
• Further describe the relationship
between carbonaceous biochemical
oxygen demand (CBOD) and dissolved
oxygen (DO) in the Neuse River and its
larger tributaries, including verification
of the QUAL2E model.
21
-------
No. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
COST
The annual Association budget is
$132,000: $82,000 for irvstream
monitoring, $6,000 for administration,
and $44,000 for consultation. Through
association by-laws, costs are allocated
to each member based on its percentage
of the association's total permitted flow.
A 1995 survey of association members
revealed that the strategic monitoring
program yields a substantial annual cost
savings. Based on information submitted
by 19 of the 23 members that responded
to the survey, annual net savings was
$130,319 (i.e., total annual monitoring
cost before strategic monitoring minus
total annual cost of the association's
monitoring program equals net annual
savings) 4.
The pattern of cost savings from survey
responses suggest a net savings for all
23 members of more than $165,000 and
an overall monitoring cost savings factor
greater than 2 (i.e., an estimated pre-
association annual monitoring cost of
$297,000 compared to annual
association cost of $132,000} (Figure
11).
Although ail participants save,
dischargers with a permitted flow of 10
to 30 MGD save the most {Figure 12).
Absolute savings for smaller discharger's
have very different budgetary impacts
than for the larger. For instance, the
smallest dischargers have a current
average annual monitoring budget of
$246 and an average annual savings of
$11,707 —a cost savings factor of
almost 50. While mid-sized dischargers
have a greater net annual savings than
smaller dischargers ($17,021 per -year
compared to $11,707), their current
average annual monitoring budget is
$51,064—a cost savings factor of 1.33.
momsofm^ pro^r^m in. I99*s from the total i ^.OS.E. fxtviugv were 1-4
>4~6
10-20
> 20-30
>60
Average Net
Annual Savings
$11,707
$4,600
$77
$17,021
$19,133
$5,000
Number of
Reporting
Members
3
8
2
2
1
'
o
Q
T3
C
• IS
»
3
O
•C
t-
300
200
100
LKBA
FSGURE 11. LNBA ANNUAL COST SAVINGS.
O
Q
10
Row (MGD)
FIGURE 12. LNBA ANNUAL SAVINGS
IN DOLLARS BY PERMITTED FLOW.
22
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
CHALLENGES
When state and local officials began discussing
the consortium, there were no neutral parties at
the table, and there were questions about the
advisability of the state or a single discharger
leading the effort INCDEHNR 1992). Although
Raleigh, the largest discharger in the basin,
began organizing the association, the city made
concerted efforts to have different members
assume future leadership positions. For
instance, as working committees were formed,
chair people were selected from representatives
of different dischargers to strengthen
commitment early in the process and ensure
that no single organization dominated the
process.
The second significant issue was determining
who should be responsible for designing the
association's monitoring program. The state
initially wanted the association to draft
monitoring goals and objectives and send them
to DEM for comment and approval. The
association wanted DEM to design the program.
After a prolonged impasse, the state did design
the program, which became part of the state-
association MOA (LNBA 1995; NCDEHNR
1992).
PROGRAM EVALUATION
The MOA is effective from 1994-1999, the
same period of the initial Neuse Basin Water
Quality Plan. The association must submit to the
state an annual notice of compliance or non-
compliance with MOA requirements.
Additionally, the association meets once
annually to review notices, reports, proposed
workplans, and budgets. When the state
completes its second basin management cycle,
monitoring design and requirements in the MOA
will be reassessed. The current agreement may
be modified to simply substitute parameters or
change sampling frequencies at any time by
consent of both parties.
SOURCES
Crisp, Dale. 1995. Personal communication with
the City of Raleigh Utilities Department and
Project Manager. June and August.
Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA). 1995.
Instream Monitoring Savings Survey.
Lower Neuse Basin Association Budget FY95-96
and Dues.
Lower Neuse Basin Association. By-Laws.
Memorandum of Agreement between North
Carolina's Division of Environmental
Management and the Lower Neuse Basin
Association.
North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
1992. Neuse Basin Water Quality Management
Plan.
23
-------
No. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
CASE STUDY 4
MID-ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS ASSESSMENT
BACKGROUND
EPA's Region HI led the design of the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands Assessment as part of the
agency's shift to geographic-based
environmental planning. Stakeholders
participating in the program include four
federal agencies, water resource agencies in
four states, and numerous local and regional
agencies. The assessment evaluates changes
in four diagnostic categories: chemistry,
hydrology, physical habitat, and biology.
Information will be for strategic planning and
also to assess ecological conditions, locate
sensitive areas, and prioritize needs for
additional research.
GEOGRAPHIC SETTING
The Mid-Atlantic Highlands are composed of
65,000 mi2 of oak-hickory forests and upland
areas and contain six major watersheds in
Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West
Virginia, The Highlands comprise 55 percent of
EPA Region III and include six ecoregsons: the
Western Allegheny Plateau, the Northern
Appalachian Plateau and Uplands, the Central
Appalachian Ridges and Valleys, and the Blue
Ridge Mountains (Figure 13), All these areas are
of rich environmental and aesthetic value and
are also stressed by internal and external forces
(EPA). For instance, the Highlands receive the
highest rates of acidic deposition in the United
States, with 8 percent of its streams becoming
chronically acidic. The Highlands are also
impacted by eros'ion, siitation, and acid mine
drainage attributable to coal mining.
Construction of new resort communities and
general population growth are also taxing these
natural systems (EPA ).
CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION
How WAS THE CONSORTIUM FORMED?
In the late 1970s and early 1980s, EPA began
developing geographic-based plans, such as the_
Chesapeake Bay's comprehensive monitoring
FIGURE 13. STUDY AREA FOR THE MID-
ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS ASSESSMENT.
projects, to address problems. The impetus for
the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment fMAHA)
project was EPA Region ill's belief that a shift
from technology- and media-based regulations
to strategic monitoring, planning, and
management of large ecosystems would make
environmental protection and restoration more
effective (EPA }. MAHA provides support to EPA
Region iil and states for strategic planning. The
monitoring program, which is based on EMAP's
probability-based sampling design, targets point
sources and both overland and atmospheric
nonpoint sources of pollution.
How Is THE CONSORTIUM ORGANIZED?
EPA led the design of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands
Assessment and, by 1993, was working with
state environmental protection and water quality
agencies in four states plus dozens of local and
regional agencies to implement the monitoring
program. The U.S. Geological Survey IUSGS)
and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)are
working with EPA to evaluate how their
monitoring activities could be integrated into the
assessment (EPA). Integral to the MAHA
approach is extensive internal and interagency
cooperation and data sharing (Figure 14). The
EPA Region III Environmental Services Division
administers the project, including coordinating
24
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
PROJECT TECHNICAL COORDINATOR
s EPA Office of Research and Development
' EMAP Program Staff
Provides budget for technical scientific, and information
management services
Coordinates cooperator field team activities and meetings
Manages contractural field work and lab analysts
Manages project data
Produces project reports
PROJECT ADMIIWSTRATQR
EPA Region IIS
Environments Services Dsviston
Coordinated project design and logistics
planning with cooperators
Provides in-kind administrative and technical
services
PROJECT COOPERATORS
State water pollution control staff from Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Assist EPA staff and contractors in protocol
development, fieldwork, and data analysis
Other agemces such as USGS and iocsi govern-
ments contributed to sampling protocol design
FIGURE 14, EXTENSIVE COOPERATION AND DATA SHARING ARE CRITICAL TO MAHA's SUCCESS,
with cooperators on the project design and
logistics planning. The Division provides in-kind
administrative and technical services. The EPA
Office of Research and Development's EMAP
staff fund, contract, and coordinate the
scientific, technical, and information services as
well as coordinate the activities/meetings of the
field teams. Project cooperation in field sampling
teams include state water poiiution control staff
from Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
Virginia, as well as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. These cooperators as well as other
local and federal government agencies, and
universities, assisted in protocol design and data
analysis.
WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSORTIUM?
MAHA's overall program goal is to provide
support for EPA Region HI and state strategic
planning. MAHA was not originally designed as
part of a state strategic monitoring program, but
EPA staff indicate that one long-term objective
of the program is to use assessment results in
the design of future state monitoring programs
{Preston 1995). Participants identified three
additional program objectives: (1) assess the
current ecological condition of the mid-Atlantic
Highlands and its component ecoregions and
states, (25 locate sensitive areas in need of
special protection or restoration, and (3)
prioritize needs for additional investigation into
causes and consequences of pollution fDeMoss),
How Is JV1AHA IMPLEMENTED?
MAHA participants developed five basic steps to
their approach (FigurelB) JMAHA 1994):
Step 1: Define major regional environ-
mental management questions.
Step 2: Establish biological criteria (i.e.,
indicators) for unpolluted reference {or
control) conditions within streams of
specific subecoregions to provide a
baseline of what expectations should be.
Carefully define ecoregions that share
biological criteria.
25
-------
No, 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
Step 1. Define major environmental issues/questions
Year 1
Step 2. Establish indicators from reference sites
J
Step 3. Monitor indicators at selected sampling sites
' Step 4. Produce integrated assessment of biological conditions/diversity
Step 5, Integrate waterbody assessment into a comprehensive assessment i,
year 4
FIGURE 15, IVIAHA'S FIVE-STEP APPROACH.
Step 3: Monitor indicators derived in
Step 2 at approximately 215 probability-
based sites across the Highlands. Sites
are selected using EMAP's fixed
sampling grid to provide unbiased results
with known confidence for given
geographic areas. Each year, over a
four-year period, IV1AHA randomly
selects new sites and a subset of
previously sampled monitoring sites to
increase the accuracy of temporal and
geographical statistical analysis
(DeMoss).
Step 4: Produce an integrated
assessment of biological conditions and
diversity for streams and rivers in the
mid-Atlantic Highlands.
Step 5: Combine the assessment of
streams and rivers with similar
assessments of major forest types and
agricultural systems and with analyses
of land-use patterns and other landscape
and human impact measures; develop a
comprehensive, integrated report on
environmental conditions for the large
ecosystem and maj'or subcategories
{such as specific states, forest types,
ecpregions, or other designations).
Region II! is working with EMAP™
Landscape Characterization to develop
data on regional land cover.
BENEFITS
MAHA participants have identified the following
benefits of coordinating and integrating
monitoring activities:
* Conducting special studies that
otherwise would not have been possible
if not for the probability based sampling
design,
* Leveraging resources for monitoring
sites that are important to multiple
agencies to allow broader and more
intensive monitoring, and
* Building and maintaining strong working
relationships.
26
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
DATA PROCEDURES
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
The field teams enter data into field computers
then ship data and samples to lab contractors.
Aii datasets are sent to the EMAP staff at EPA
for storage and analysis using a SAS database.
Data QA/QC is completed by the EMAP staff.
Datasets structures were designed by each
indicator team but the datasets had to be
compatible with the centralized SAS database.
DATA COLLECTION
In 1993, MAHA monitored a total of 246
wadable stream sites (EPA):
* 65 surface water demonstration sites
selected using EMAP's probability-based
sampling sites,
* 31 reference sites funimpacted areas),
* 46 regional sites, and
* 104 acidic deposition sites.
Monitoring parameters included benthic
organisms, macroinvertebrates, fish samples,
physical habitat condition, and physical and
chemical water quality components. The
monitoring period was from mid-April to late
June (EPA). MAHA also coordinated monitoring
at 45 sites for forest conditions, in 1994,
monitoring included 296 wadable stream sites,
forest health monitoring at 120 sites, and 1200
National Agricultural Statistical Survey sites
(EPA). The monitoring frequency and duration
was designed to support an assessment of
current conditions, rather than trend analysis
(Preston 1995}. The staff hopes that possible
future monitoring cycles will generate sufficient
data for trend analysis.
MAHA also includes landscape ecology—the
study of the influence of landscape patterns on
the flow of water, energy, nutrients, and biota
{EPA). To generate an accurate picture of land
use/land cover of the Highlands, EPA, FWS,
USGS, and the National Oceanic and
Atmosphersc Administration (NOAA) formed a
partnership with the National Data Center at
USGS to develop comprehensive land-
characteristic data from satellite imagery for the
entire United States. Land-cover mapping for
the MAHA region is estimated to be complete in
1996 (EPA). At that time, stream biological
conditions and landscape conditions can be
compared at different watershed scales and
overlaid with numerous coverages such as point
source discharges. Therefore EPA will have
georeferenced formats for both a representative
sample of stream segments and the watersheds
that influence them. This model can be used by
others as they move toward watershed-based
management.
The field crews include a team of four
investigators (including staff from EPA Region II!
state water pollution control agencies, FWS,
and contractors) which conducts 6- to 8-hour
site visits. Project investigators also attend an
annual training session on SOP documentation.
MAHA adopted EMAP's sampling protocols for
benthic surveys, chemical analysis, fish
community sampling, and physical habitat
assessment. An EMAP team of representatives
from EPA, USGS, state water pollution control
agencies, and FWS jointly reviewed each
agency's protocols and negotiated uniform
procedures for each of the above areas. The
review team selected EPA's procedures for
benthic macroinvertebrate surveys and chemical
analysis and USGS's NAQWA procedures for
fish community sampling. Because physical
habitat assessment was not standardized, the
team contracted with a consultant to develop
assessment procedures that were incorporated
into the sampling SOPs. The manual adopted by
MAHA also includes standardized procedures for
sample preservation.
DATA ANALYSIS
EMAP contracted with laboratories for the
MAHA project previously used by EMAP for
other projects, including a university contract for
chemical analysis, a private laboratory for
macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis, and
the Smithsonian for fish community. EMAP used
an interagency team, the same procedure used
to negotiate field sampling protocols, to
establish and document SOPs and QA/QC for
laboratory analysis.
Laboratories send MAHA data to EMAP staff for
second-level QA/QC. Data are currently being
27
-------
NO, 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
interpreted jointly by EMAP and EPA Region ill
staff. The strategy is to develop strawman
assessments to be sent out for interagency peer
review and comment, MAHA staff indicated
that additional time and planning are needed for
the data analysis/interpretation stage.
Establish instream goals for clean-up ac-
tivities and calculate appropriate permit
limits.
Evaluate the effectiveness of water
quality criteria or best management
practices.
USE OF DATA
MAHA uses data to develop stressor indicators.
Stressors are characteristics of the environment
that are suspected to worsen the condition of
the ecological resource; they can be natural or
human induced (EPA). MAHA uses reference
conditions to evaluate alterations in four
diagnostic categories that comprise the full
range of impacts to aquatic systems (EPA):
* Chemical alterations, including pollution
by nutrients, metals, and organic
compounds. They can be classified by
contaminant source categories: point
source, overland non-point source, and
atmospheric point and nonpoint sources.
* Hydrologic alterations, including the tim-
ing, amount, and path of flow.
* Physical habitat alterations, including
changes in habitat complexity, substrate
size, bank stability, and riparian vegeta-
tion,
4 Biological alterations, including the intro-
duction of exotic species (both plant and
animal), overstocking and overharvesting
of fish, and loss of plant and animal spe-
cies.
Assessments are intended to support strategic
planning efforts; also, some states have
committed to using assessments to (EPA):
t Rank problems according to severity and
focus future field assessment work on
areas with the worst problems to
measure the effectiveness of
remediation efforts.
* Identify problems with toxics for special
control programs,
f Select waters to be protected from any
further degradation.
COST
Scientific and information management services
are funded through EPA ORD's EMAP budget at
a cost of $1.4 million per year. EPA Region tit
provides in-kind administrative services at an
estimated cost of $300,000 per year, bringing
the total annua! project cost to $1.7 million
currently. This is an in-house EPA leverage
factor of 1.2 and does not include the in-kind
contributions from other agencies.
CHALLENGES
MAHA staff identified obstacles EPA faced in
forming the consortium. First, each state and
federal agency had its own procedures. To
obtain buy-in for adopting EMAP's uniform
procedures for field sampling and laboratory
analysis for the data collection period, EPA
Region HI demonstrated that:
* Existing monitoring objectives could be
met using the new, uniform protocols
4 New protocols would not automatically
be mandated in the future by EPA (Due
to the experimental nature of the project
in which EMAP protocols were
essentially being implemented for the
first time, protocols would be evaluated
and refined, as needed, after project
completion,}
f The monitoring design could save the
states money in the future
Second, an ongoing challenge to the MAHA
project is communicating the value of the
project to multiple agencies and how it might
help meet their diverse objectives. Staff sees
this as not only a challenge in effective
communication, but also to a sustained
leadership. From the earliest discussions, EPA
Region III assumed the leadership, or champion,
role. Staff indicated that other partners had
28
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
previously viewed EPA as a narrowly focused
regulator {Preston 1995}. MAHA partners
accepted and appreciated EPA's new role of
neutrai organizer of holistic resource
assessment, but some individuals and
landowners believed EPA would turn MAHA into
an enforcement action,
IVIAHA also identified major obstacles to imple-
menting or continuing the project. First, the
logistical challenge was significantly
underestimated, including obtaining landowner
permission for sampling, a narrow window for
sampling requiring 6 crews in the field at a time,
and all equipment and supplies assembled and
conveniently dropped for the teams. Running
the project smoothly required detailed advanced
planning. For highest efficiency, similar projects
should (Preston 1995):
* Identify all sampling sites 9 months in
advance
* Identify all landowners of sampling sites
and requested access permission 6
months in advance
* Have all logistical information in hand,
including equipment and supplies
needed, 3 months in advance
Getting landowner approval to enter property re-
quired a great deal of research, mailing, follow-
up, and local site visits. After increased media
attention about the Endangered Species Act, a
number of land owners refused site access.
Dropping these sites has the potential to bias
results, MAHA staff advised overcoming this
limitation by identifying a local, part-time
cooperator who can go to the courthouse to
identify the landowners and make initial contact
with landowners.
Thorough planning is needed for the data
interpretation and analysis phase {Preston
1995). In retrospect, the staff believes each
phase needs equal attention upfront. MAHA
staff believes that planning for the data
collection phase and, in retrospect, that MAHA
would have benefited from more upfront
planning for data interpretation. One way that
MAHA/ORD-EMAP staff are dealing with the
quandry of a tremendous amount of data and
limited assessment/evaluation resources is to
distribute strawman assessment documents for
wide peer review to state and regional experts.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
MAHA staff indicate the program will be
evaluated in 1996-1997 upon completion of
field sampling and an interpretation of the
1993-1994 data {Preston 1995),
SOURCES
EPA. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment—The
Application of Environmental Assessment to the
Management of Ecosystems.
MAHA. 1994. Mid-Atlantic Highlands As-
sessment—Monitoring and Assessment
Conference. February.
Jones, DeMoss, et al. Mid-Atlantic Highlands
Assessment: Comprehensive Environmental
Assessment -for Strategic Planning in the Mid-
Atlantic Highlands of the United States. A Paper
for the 25th International Symposium on
Remote Sensing and Environmental Change.
Preston, R, August 6, 1995. Personal com-
munication with EPA Region 111 Biological
Sciences Coordinator.
29
-------
No. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUILDING AND
MAINTAINING STRONG MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
In the early 1990s, the Intergovernmental Task
Force for Monitoring, comprising representatives
from multiple state and federal agencies, recog-
nized the importance of effectively coordinating
efforts and developed recommendations for col-
laborative, integrated monitoring {Appendix A).
Additionally, staff from the four consortium
case studies were asked, "What would you
advise other groups that would like to set up a
consortium, particularly insights on obstacles
they may face, how to overcome them, and
keys to success?" Several common themes on
pitfalls and successes emerged from our study.
Recommendations from ITFM and the
consortium suggest a ten-step process for
building a strong monitoring consortium
(Figure 16}. Below are suggested milestones and
guiding principles for each of the ten steps.
Generally, the list conveys a progression of
actions; many steps, however, will be con-
ducted concurrently, and all actions are interre-
lated.
STEP 1 EXPLORE NEED FOR AND BENEFITS OF
STRATEGIC. COORDINATED MONfTORiNG
/ "" " x
STEP 2 ESTABLISH LEADERSHIP (WHO WIU. ?
CHAMPION THE CAUSED !
STEP 3' ESTABLISH CONSENSUS ON NEED FOR CO-
ORDINATED MONITORING
_ „_ ...... _ ....... _ ___ ^ . _ _ _.. __ _ J
STEP 4: DESiGN THE MONITORING PROGRAM
STEP 5: PLAN HOW TO INTERPRET DATA AND REPORT
FINDINGS
STEP 6: DESIGN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
SUGGESTED MILESTONES AND GUIDING
PRINCIPLES
STEP 1: EXPLORE NEED FOR AND BENEFITS OF
STRATEGIC, COORDINATED MONITORING
• Identify key managers and permit holders in
the study area {e.g., estuary drainage area,
water supply watershed, and whole river
basin) and determine whether sense of need
is shared.
• Identify at least one expected benefit for
each partner (e.g., the state, iocal govern-
ments, and industrial dischargers).
• Host discussions in a neutral meeting place
using a neutrai facilitator {if possible).
STEP 7, ESTIMATE COST AND ACQUIRE FUNDING
STEP 8. DRAFT CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS
STEP 9 DEVELOP GOVERNANCE AGREEMENTS AND
STRUCTURES
STEP 10 DEVELOP A TIMELINE AND METHOD FOR
EVALUATING THE PROJECT
FIGURE 16. STEPS TO BUILD!NG A STRONG
MONITORING CONSORTIUM.
30
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
iNFORMATfON TRANSFER SERIES
STEP 2: ESTABLISH LEADERSHIP (WHO WILL
CHAMPION THE CAUSE?)
» If initial discussions with key players indicate
an interest in coordinated monitoring, identify
which agency or organization will assume the
primary leadership roie,
» Identify an objective, neutral organization to
lead recruiting, organizing, and educating
potential partners and facilitating the process
(if possible).
• Establish a plan for contacting partners in the
watershed and exploring monitoring strate-
gies.
• To the extent possible, tap leadership in ex-
isting organizations, associations, and fo-
rums.
• Spread leadership mantle over potential part-
'ners (for example, by speaking at existing
forums in the watershed, working on task
forces, and chairing task forces.
« Engage a representative of each potential
partner in the design and decision-making
process.
STEP 3: ESTABUSH CONSENSUS ON NEED FOR CO-
ORDINATED MONITORING
• After laying initial groundwork, establish a
broad-based consensus through a neutral
forum on the need for and genera! purposes
of the monitoring program. Use an existing
forum for consensus building, if possible.
* For NPDES permit holders ensure that the
coordinated monitoring program helps meet,
or offsets, regulatory requirements {to the
extent possible).
• Communicate specific expected benefits to
each partner group, including potential cost
savings and resource leveraging,
* Obtain buy-in or authority to develop recom-
mendations on specific monitoring goals and
objectives, monitoring design, project budget
and cost allocations, project governance and
management, and project evaluation.
• Establish a timeline and a task force for de-
veloping and reporting recommendations.
• The Task Force completes Step 4-10.
STEP 4: DESIGN THE MONITORING PROGRAM
• Draft specific monitoring goals and objectives
to guide program design,' If the monitoring
program is a component of a watershed
management framework, monitoring goals
should reflect needs and priorities for long-
term, baseline assessment as we!! as shorter-
term, strategic assessment.
« Design the monitoring program for the
flexibility and continuity to measure long-
term trends; regularly evaluate the monitoring
program to ensure that the project meets
goals and objectives cost effectively and
adequately addresses emerging issues and
priority concerns.
* Review and evaluate historical monitoring
data and protocols for the study area.
• Identify others who may participate in co-
ordinated monitoring and assessment, in-
cluding representatives from all levels of
government, the private sector, universities,
and regulatory and voluntary monitoring
programs.
• Design program to take advantage of
. historical and existing monitoring programs of
other agencies and overall capabilities and
resources of consortium members; avoid
duplicating efforts.
• Select monitoring parameters, sites, and
frequencies consistent with monitoring goals
and objectives.
« Establish flow measurement sites as well as
reference sites to aid in water quality data
interpretation and assessment.
* Using a performance-based monitoring ap-
proach, establish field sampling, laboratory,
and QA/QC protocols that are compatible and
yield comparable data.
• Where there are uncertainties about compati-
bility of protocols, incorporate tests into first
31
-------
NO. 3
.MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
year workplan {and subsequent years as
needed) to determine compatibility, and
institute changes in protocols in a timely
way.
• Jointly choose/design data interpretation
methods and indicators to measure progress
in meeting monitoring goals (related to Step
5 - Interpreting and Reporting Data). Make
sure monitoring design supports index
measurement and other assessment tools.
» Conduct pilot studies as needed.
« Document monitoring design, protocols, and
participants' responsibilities in a manual of
standard operating procedures.
Determine who wil
analysis.
do field work, and lab
• Develop annual cost estimates for the moni-
toring program, including field work, lab
analysis, and QA/QC.
STEP 5: PtAN HOW TO INTERPRET DATA AMD REPORT
FINDINGS
» Outline methods and types of data interpre-
tation (e.g., water quality trend analysis,
pollutant loading, and general conditions)
consistent with project goals and objectives.
Because the monitoring design must support
index measurement and other assessment
tools, the planning process for monitoring
design and data interpretation should be
integrated and concurrent,
• Determine audience for project reporting and
develop effective and appropriate formats for
each audience.
• Jointly select environmental indicators to
measure progress in meeting monitoring
goals. Make sure monitoring design supports
index measurement and other assessment
tools,
• Develop communication plan for regularly
scheduled data interpretation and report on
project findings.
» Develop mechanism for tracking benefits, in-
cluding documenting cost savings, for the
consortium collectively and for members
individually. Report benefits with other pro-
ject findings.
• Determine who will interpret data and
produce reports.
• Estimate annual cost for interpreting data and
reporting results to consortium members and
the general public.5
STEP 6: DESIGN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
* Implement a performance-based monitoring
system to obtain comparable data and
achieve more flexible use of monitoring and
laboratory analysis methods.
• Jointly develop standard names, definitions,
and formats for each data element. Produce a
cross-referencing code list and data
dictionary, as needed.
• Jointly establish QA/QC procedures for data
review, entry, verification, etc.
* Document methods, protocols, and QA/QC
procedures in a standard operating proce-
dures manual.
» Record metadata (e.g., data sources and
quality).
• Using standard programs, make data avail-
able to project participants and other inter-
ested groups.
Have central, automated
updated files and reports.
library for all
Determine who will manage project data.
Develop annual cost estimates for managing
data, including retrieving data from coop-
erating agencies and conducting QA/QC of
overall database.
STEP 7: ESTIMATE COST AND ACQUIRE FUNDING
* Add cost estimates from Steps 4-6.
to cUu eoHectiCfn .tnd d..u,i interpretation
32
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY
INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
» Estimate project administration/management
cost (at a minimum of 5% of total technical
budget).
• Identify funding sources for project monitor-
ing and administration, including likely cost-
share cooperative agreements; grants; and
federal, state, and local governments.
• Propose annual project budget detailing cost
and major revenue sources for the first phase
of the project, which is generally 3-5 years.
STEP 8: DRAFT CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS
• Draft contracts, memoranda of agreement,
cooperative agreements, a manual of stan-
dard operating procedures, and other
mechanisms for formalizing technical and ad-
ministrative roles and responsibilities of
consortium participants.
STEP 9: DEVELOP GOVERNANCE AGREEMENTS AND
STRUCTURES
• Include representatives of potential partners
early in the project design.
• Convene a subcommittee with policy and
technical representatives to draft proposed
project by-laws establishing roles, functions,
and membership as well as methods of
appointment and voting rules for the project's
steering committee.
• Develop criteria for allocating project costs
among and within member groups.
• Develop a subcommittee with policy and
technical representatives to draft proposed
project incorporation agreement, interlocal
agreement, memoranda of agreement, or
other instrument to formalize the purpose,
goals, and objectives of the monitoring
consortium; responsibilities of members;
duration of the project; and project budget,
method of allocating costs, and member
dues. Send draft agreement to potential
partners for ratification. {They should receive
it 4-6 months before new fiscal year to in-
clude project dues early in budget process.)
» Retain a project manager considered by all
task force members to be neutral and ob-
jective {if possible).
STEP 10: DEVELOP A TIMELINE AND METHOD FOR
EVALUATING THE PROJECT
« The measures for project evaluation are its
stated goals and objectives.
« Generally, the project should be comprehen-
sively evaluated every 3 to 5 years. This
should also be the duration for memoranda of
agreements and other contracts.
» The project should be adjusted annually, as
needed, to meet emerging issues or con-
cerns.
» Project evaluation should include benefits to
consortium members.
• After evaluation, proposed changes in the
project workplan, goals and objectives for the
next phase, as well as cost should be clearly
explained and defended.
• New contracts agreements should be drafted
and forwarded to consortium members to
reflect results of project evaluation.
» Experience indicates that this process™from
early explorations to initial field sampling-
will take at least 1 year, but more often 2
years, to fully implement.
CONCLUSION
Many environmental resource managers are
turning to a watershed-based approach to
restore and protect our natural resources. Key to
this approach is management that integrates a
wide range of technical expertise, regulatory
and non-regulatory authorities, and strategic
implementation. Increasingly limited program
resources intensify the need for strategic,
coordinated management and for decision-
making that remains focused on priority envi-
ronmental concerns.
In the last decade, groups have successfully
used monitoring partnerships to address many
different problems and monitoring objectives as
33
-------
NO. 3
MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
TOP TEN LESSONS LEARNED
Establish watershed-wide consensus on the need for a coordinated monitoring program.
Take advantage of existing organizations (particularly key leaders), current and historical !'
monitoring programs to establish a strong foundation.
Design a coordinated monitoring program that meets the collective and individual needs of the
participants. For example, to the extent possible, ensure that the monitoring helps the regulated
partners help meet or offset permit monitoring requirements.
Bring potential partners into the design and decision-making process early and spread the
leadership mantle.
Design the monitoring program for continuity (so you can measure long-term trends) and f
flexibility (so you are adequately addressing emerging issues and priority concerns). I
«
Using a performance-based approach, design field sampling, lab analysis, or data management
with flexibility and compatibility as your guiding principles.
Adequately plan and budget for data collection, management, and interpretation, Quality
assurance and quality control is essential for long-term program credibility.
Clearly and regularly communicate the program's benefits for each partner and for the region.
Regularly evaluate the monitoring program to make sure you are meeting the project's goals
and objectives cost effectively and that you are adequately addressing emerging issues.
Value the project's unquantifiable asset: the good working relationship you are building with
consortium partners.
well as waterbodies and ecosystems of varying
geographic scales. Moreover, they have saved
money in the process. Purposes of monitoring
programs vary from water supply protection to
coordinated, whole-basin wastewater discharge
management to ecosystem assessment.
Although the case studies highlighted some
differences in the approach to setting up and
maintaining a consortium, several common
themes on program pitfalls and successes, and a
ten-step process for building and maintaining a
strong monitoring consortium emerged.
Watershed management is a continuing cycle of
identifying, prioritizing, and mitigating key
watershed issues. Well-defined watershed
priorities depend on solid assessment of good
information; good information depends on well-
designed monitoring. Public and private agencies
should design a strategic, coordinated
monitoring program as a cycle within the larger
cycle of watershed activities.
34
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY ; INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
APPENDIX A
MAJOR ITFM RECOMMENDATIONS
A. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM DESIGN
• Design water-quality monitoring programs to measure progress in meeting clearly stated
goals for aquatic resources.
• Public and private organizations should develop and/or evaluate their monitoring programs
using the framework fro monitoring recommended in this report.
» Gather and evaluate existing information using geographic information systems to portray
water resources conditions and the River Reach File 3 codes to georeference water bodies.
• Adopt flexible monitoring program designs tailored to the conditions, uses, and goals for
water resources in specific areas.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
• Jointly choose specific environmental indicators to measure progress toward water quality
goals, including State standards for designated uses.
• Use the muitirnetric approach to characterize biological integrity.
* Agree on a core set of widely physical, chemical, and biological indicators that support
interstate and national aggregations of comparable information for assessments.
C. COMPARABLE METHODS AND DATA
» Jointly develop and adopt standard data-element names, definitions, and formats.
• Implement a performance-based monitoring methods system (PMBS) to achieve both
comparable data and more flexible use of monitoring methods.
» Jointly establish reference conditions as a key tool for shared use in biological and ecological
assessments.
D. DATA STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL
* Automate useful information .
• Use metadata standards to help secondary users judge whether data are useful for their
applications.
• Use standard data sets, communications, and access systems when they are available.
35
-------
No. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS
E. INTERPRETATION, ASSESSMENT, AND REPORTING
» Regularly interpret, assess, and report measurements and raw data for use by the public and
decision-makers. Do not simply collect data.
« Develop more effective reporting formats that are tailored for specific audiences.
• Seek a change in the Clean Water Act to alter the reporting period identified in section
305{b) from every 2 years to every 5 years.
F. TRAINING
» Promote training at all levels of government to transfer technology and to facilitate
comparable and scientifically sound methods and data.
G. VOLUNTEER MONITORING
« Establish formal links between volunteer monitoring programs and agencies at all levels of
government,
• Develop guidance to assist volunteer groups in documenting their methods and conducting
their programs,
H. EVALUATION
» Organizations should regularly evaluate the monitoring programs and resulting information to
ensure that they are meeting management goals and to adjust the programs as requirements
change.
• Nationwide evaluations of water-quality monitoring activities similar to the 1TFM effort
should be conducted every 5 years.
I, INSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATION
• Work with representatives from all levels of government and the private sector to improve
water-quality monitoring at national, interstate, State and Tribal, and watershed levels.
» Establish a National Water Quality Monitoring Council with broad representation to develop
guidelines for use nationwide, to foster technology transfer, and to coordinate planning and
resource sharing.
» Building on existing collaborative mechanisms, establish and maintain teams comprised of
monitoring organizations to implement the strategy within State and Tribal jurisdictions and
at the interstate level, as necessary.
• Link national ambient water-quality assessment programs.
36
-------
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES
J, PilOT STUDIES AND PLANNING
• Conduct additional pilot studies before widespread implementation of the ITFM proposals.
• Carefully plan and coordinate efforts to implement the ITFIVI recommendations. In particular,
special care must be taken to ensure that attempts to implement aspects of the strategy
using available monitoring resources do not adversely impact existing monitoring that now
supports critical objectives.
37
------- |