EPA 440/9-76-025   '
Basic
Monitoring
Program

-------
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                          WASHINGTON, D.C.  20460
                                                                   OFFICE OF THE
                                                                  ADMINISTRATOR
To the Reader:
     This document recommends changes 1n the EPA and State water monitoring
programs.  Developed by the Standing Work Group on Water Monitoring, with
the help of the EPA Regions and the States, it is an essential  step in
beginning to make the fundamental changes that are needed in our monitoring
programs.

     This basic program document is not a regulation or a set of strict
quidelines and should not be implemented blindly.  Instead, you should
consider the program as a basic structure which, when realized, will
contribute to a more effective use of our water monitoring resources.

     While the development of this structure has been a long and difficult
task, and has involved contributions from many talented people the real job
lies ahead.  As the pollution problems become more complex, our monitoring
programs must become more sophisticated and cost-effective.  We cannot
control what we cannot measure and we cannot correct what we do not know.
This program is intended to form the basis for our future water monitoring
efforts by stabilizing the existing programs around some reasonable goals.

     Finally, this program projects the need for a strong partnership among
the States and the Regions.  I urge each State and Region to foster this
cooperation through the implementation and operation of this program, and
beyond.  Your combined cooperation is vital to the success of the monitoring
programs and, ultimately, to the pollution abatement programs as well.
                                            )hn R. Ouarles, Jr.
                                           Deputy Administrator

-------
                                    Errata She. r~:t
              Table 4  page  25  has  been corrected to read  as  fellows
Parameter

Weight (fish/shellfish  only)
% lipid content  (fish/shellfish
PCLs
Alcrin
Die! drir,
Total DDT
  :, p DDE
  r» P'^C
  i, p ODD
  p, p1 ODD
  0; p DDT
   >    '
                                                       STORE"  oaranieter cede
Chlordane
  cis isorr.er  of  crilordane
  trans  i senior of  chlcrdane
  trans  ison;er  of  noneciiicr

Mot; oxychlor
ilexcchlcrcbenzei r>
P&Mdchl croohenol
Hexachlorccyclohexane
  •  1 ph£  EHC  i sorer
  gan:ri.".  is crier
Arsenic"

ChroPiiun:
Copper
Jcrcury
Lead
                                                      (34307)
(7194C)
(71939)
(71937)
(71930)
(71936)
                                                                39105)
                                                                         ~c- d i n e r. t s
                                                                          (ug/U)

                                                                          (39519)
                                                                          '39333^'
                                                                          (39383)
                                                                           (39291)
                                                                           (39301)
                                                                            o r, ~»
                                                                            -, M /
                                                                            J ^ / '
                                                                           v 39061)

                                                                           (3 907 1-'
                                                                           (3951" )
                                                                           (01003)(r.q/k.-
                                                                           , 01028) (mg/kn
                                                                           (01029)(irg/kf
                                                                           ''01039)(i-'g/kg
                                                                           (71921)(nig/ko
                                                                           (01052)(trg/kg

-------
                                               Foreword
              This "Basic  State Water Monitoring  Program"  has been developed  in response to an
          expressed need to bring some structure and order to the many State monitoring programs. Most of
          the State monitoring program designs and  rationales were seriously disrupted by the passage of
          Public Law 92-500. It is safe to say that the provisions of PL 92-500 are much different than those of
          the previous legislation and, therefore,  the monitoring required to support the  "Act" is much
          different.
              The need for routine surveillance of water quality standards violations at a large number of
          monitoring stations in each State has been replaced by the need for routine inspection of major and
          minor dischargers for NPDES permit violations. The setting of NPDES permit conditions  is done
          either by the use of uniform effluent guidelines for each industry or by direct and rigorous cause-
          and-effect water quality analysis in those areas where effluent guidelines  are not sufficiently
          restrictive. The monitoring required to support permit issuance or revision is, therefore, primarily in
          the form of  intensive stream surveys that directly tie water quality conditions  to discharger
          conditions.
"--_            Similarly, the "Act" does not intend for Statewide assessments of water quality problems and
^        conditions to be divorced from assessments of the major determinants of water quality problems:
          point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Again, each assessment is best made with the use of an
          intensive stream survey that ties dischargers to water quality conditions.
              At  the national level, the broad policy, legislative and budgetary issues in water quality
          protection are most effectively addressed through a uniform network of fixed monitoring stations
V        used in conjunction with the State reports to Congress required by Section 305(b) of the "Act".
v'^       These  issues are generally unpredictable in terms  of scope or required response time and the
          impacts of their resolution on national and State water pollution control programs is large. As a
 ,o       result,  each  State must be concerned with how well EPA can analyze and explain water quality
o-o       issues and conditions in the national aggregate.
r^           The Standing Work Group on Water Monitoring, with the active cooperation of the EPA Regions
<7       and the States, has attempted to forge a consensus on what a basic State program under PL 92-500
          should  be. In so doing, a partnership has been formed between the States, the EPA Regions and
          the EPA  headquarters Offices. The  strength and  endurance of that  partnership through  the
          implementation process will determine the success or failure of the EPA and State water monitoring
          programs' performance in the future.

-------
                          Acknowledgment
   The Standing Work Group on Water Monitoring would like to thank the Regional Offices and the
many States that have contributed to the development of this document. Appreciation is also
extended to the members of each Program Office within EPA headquarters for their assistance.
                                      IV

-------
                                      Preface
  On December 24, 1975, EPA Deputy  Ad-
ministrator John R.  Quarles established  a
Standing Work Group on Water Monitoring and
a similar group for air monitoring. The Standing
Work Group  was charged with  the task of
reviewing ongoing  monitoring activities  and
developing  cost-effective  water  monitoring
programs in the EPA Regions and the States.
  The   Standing Work   Group  on  Water
Monitoring is made up of representatives from
the Office of  Research and Development, the
Office of Planning and Management, the Office
of  Enforcement,  the  Office  of  Water  and
Hazardous Materials,  the Surveillance  and
Analysis  Divisions  (Region  V),  The Water
Divisions (Region III), The State of Washington,
the State of Texas, The State of Wisconsin,  The
State of Florida and The State of Maryland. A
membership roster follows:

Robert L. Grim, Chairman
Office of Water and Hazardous Materials
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
202/755-1567

David Lyons/Donald Olson
Office of Water Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
202/755-0994

Truman Price
Office of Planning and Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
202/755-0350
 Robert Booth
 Office of Research and Development
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 513/684-7301
 Christopher Timm
 Surveillance and Analysis Division, Region V
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 215/353-2300
 Fred Grant
 Water Division, Region III
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 215/597-9410
 Tim Stuart
 Department of Environmental Regulation
 State of Florida
 904/488-6221
 Jerry McKersie
 Department of Natural Resources
 State of Wisconsin
 608/266-2879
 Linda B. Wyatt
 Texas Water Quality Board
 State of Texas
 512/475-5695
 Richard Cunningham
 Department of Ecology
 State of Washington
 206/434-2845
 Henry Silbermann
 Department of Natural Resources
 State of Maryland
301 / 269-3548

-------
                               Contents
 FOREWORD	   iii
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT	   iv
 PREFACE	   v
 CHAPTER 1.—INTRODUCTION
    BACKGROUND	   1
    PROGRAM OBJECTIVES	   1
    PROGRAM DESCRIPTION	   1
    PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION	   2
    ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES	   2
    CONTINUING PROGRAM REVIEW	   3
    FUTURE ISSUES	   3
 CHAPTER 2.—QUALITY ASSURANCE
    QUALITY ASSURANCE	   5
 CHAPTER 3.—INTENSIVE SURVEY PROGRAM
    INTRODUCTION	    7
    SCOPE OF INVESTIGATIONS	    7
    INTENSIVE SURVEY ABSTRACT	    7

 CHAPTER 4.—AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM
    INTRODUCTION	    9
    PROGRAM DESCRIPTION	    9

 CHAPTER 5.—EFFLUENT MONITORING PROGRAM
    INTRODUCTION	   11
    BASIC EFFLUENT MONITORING PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS	   12
    SAMPLE COLLECTION AND HANDLING	   12

 CHAPTER 6.—PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
 PROGRAM (PILOT PROGRAM)
    INTRODUCTION	   13
    DEFINITIONS	   13
    PROGRAM DESCRIPTION	   14
    COST	   16
    REFERENCES	   16

CHAPTER 7.—DATA INTERPRETATION AND REPORTING
    INTRODUCTION	   17
    DATA STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL	   17

TABLES
    1. Parameter List and Sampling Frequency For
      The Proposed Basic Biological Monitoring Program	   15
    2. Minimum Parameter List and Sampling Frequency
      For The Basic Ambient Monitoring Program	   24
    3. Detection Limits for Ambient Measurements	   25

                                   vii

-------
     4. Trace Organic and Metals Analysis For
       Fish /Shellfish Tissue and Sediments	25
     5. Trace Organic and Metals Analysis	26
     6. Water Quality Summary	30
     7. Water Quality Relative to Standards	31
     8. State Water Quality Standards	31
     9. Discharger Inventory	31
    10. Nonpoint Source Problem Summary	32
    11. Pollutant Sources	32
    12. Costs of Pollution Control	32
    13. Cost of Laboratory Analysis For the
       Proposed Ambient Monitoring Program	33
    14. Estimated Manpower Requirements
       for Intensive Surveys	34
    15. Monitoring Costs—FY1975	41
 APPENDICES
 APPENDIX A—NATIONAL AMBIENT MONITORING
 PROGRAM STATION DESCRIPTION FORM
    FORM	22

 APPENDIX B—AMBIENT MONITORING
 PROGRAM SPECIFICATIONS
    STATION SITING CRITERIA	23
    PARAMETER COVERAGE AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY	24
    SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS	27
    TISSUE BANKING	27
    REFERENCES	   28
APPENDIX C—SECTION 305(b) REPORT OUTLINE
    SUMMARY	29
    CHAPTER 1: CURRENT WATER QUALITY AND RECENT TRENDS	29
    CHAPTER 2: WATER QUALITY GOALS AND CONTROL PROGRAMS	29
    CHAPTER 3: COSTS AND BENEFITS	29
    CHAPTER 4: NONPOINT SOURCES	30
APPENDIX D—COST
    COST	33
APPENDIX E—OVERVIEW OF WATER MONITORING
    INTRODUCTION	35
    INSTITUTIONAL SETTING	35
    MONITORING USES	36
    MONITORING SYSTEMS	39
    DATA SYSTEMS	40
    MONITORING COSTS	40
    PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION AND TENTATIVE REMEDIAL ACTIONS	41
    WORK GROUP STUDY EFFORTS	43
APPENDIX F—SAMPLE INTENSIVE SURVEY ABSTRACT OUTLINE
    INTENSIVE SURVEY ABSTRACT OUTLINE-SAMPLE	51
                                      viii

-------
                                    Chapter 1.
                                  Introduction
  The totality of monitoring  is categorized as
 follows:
  •  Monitoring  which is  needed  by  EPA to
     meet national requirements:
  •  Monitoring  which is needed by EPA and
     the States  to meet  joint  requirements.
     This monitoring must be uniform; and,
  •  Monitoring  which is needed by the State
     to meet State requirements.
  The first two categories will be addressed in
 this basic  program.  The  third category,  al-
 though not specifically addressed, is an essen-
 tial part of  a state  monitoring program and
 should be a high priority in  the total monitor-
 ing structure.
Background
  The first task undertaken by the Work Group
was to develop a broad perspective on monitor-
ing activities,  uses, problems  and potential
solutions  at the  Federal  and State  level
(Appendix  E).  This was handled  primarily
through a series of interviews with headquar-
ters' officials who are  responsible for or  in-
volved in some way with the collection or use of
monitoring  data.  A  questionnaire was  also
provided each person  prior to  the interview.
The information obtained from the interviews
was supplemented with similar  information
provided by the EPA Regions and the States.
  As a result of this effort, the Work Group
determined that:
  • Monitoring is not  a single program but
    rather  consists of several smaller  pro-
    grams that are not integrated;
  • There  is too much  money being spent for
    too little total information;
  • There  is a deficiency  of information  in
    several areas,  primarily  regarding toxic
    substances; and,
  • There  is concern  and  confusion  on the
    part of most States in understanding EPA
    monitoring priorities and direction.
Program Objectives

  With this as background, the Standing Work
Group established four  primary  objectives
upon which the following basic program  was
developed:
  •  Develop a  monitoring program  that will
     stabilize State programs, clearly stating
     what is expected of EPA and the States;
  •  Develop a  monitoring program  that will
     improve the effectiveness of State  and
     EPA programs and reduce duplication of
     effort;
  •  Develop a  monitoring program  that will
     ensure that fundamental data needs are
     met; and,
  •  Develop a monitoring program that makes
     the  best use of  existing resources  and
     technology.
Program Description

  The basic program is a "core" program which
is designed to:
  •  Redirect ambient and effluent monitoring
     at the State level from a fixed-station, sin-
     gle  discharge approach  to  an  intensive
     survey approach;
  •  Identify dischargers to the States' waters
     and assess their water quality impact;
  •  Define  a  minimum  number  of  fixed
     ambient stations that are to be operated
     at the  State  level,  within  a consistent
     framework;
  •  Provide a coordinated nationwide assess-
     ment of selected toxic pollutants; and,
  •  Ensure that data which are collected are
     used in the decision-making process and
     to educate the public and inform the Con-
     gress.
  State conditions  should  be  adapted  to  this
"core" program  through addition, rather than
subtraction or substitution.

-------
   The basic features of the program* are as fol-
 lows:
   • Goals have been set for  the operating
     level of intensive surveys done as part of
     the basic program. The goal is to conduct
     an intensive survey at least once within
     five  years  on every river,  lake, estuary,
     bay  or aquifer where  waste loads are
     allocated  or  significant  water  quality
     changes have either been identified oreire
     considered probable.
       The intent is for the  State  to use the
     intensive survey as the primary vehicle in
     determining whether water quality condi-
     tions are  improving  or getting  worse.
     Interpretation of survey data is to be in-
     cluded in the Section 305(b) Report.
       Intensive surveys can  be used  to ad-
     dress specific issues such  as cause-arid-
     effect relationships and waste load alloca-
     tions. Intensive surveys can also be used
     to explain  the spatial  significance  of
     ambient  station siting, to facilitate inter-
     pretation of the data collected at ambient
     stations, and as a mechanism for integrat-
     ing monitoring components to  improve
     resource management.
   •  Goals  have been  set for  the operating
     level of ambient fixed stations selected as
     part of the  basic program. Parameter cov-
     erage, sampling frequency and station sit-
     ing criteria are specified for those fixed
     stations that will  be operated as  part  of
     the minimum core program.
       The ambient  stations  will be operated
     by the State with the data to be aggre-
     gated nationally and will be used primarily
     to determine national trends in water use
     areas (water supply, fishing/shellfishing
     areas etc.), problem areas, land use are'as
     (municipal/industrial,  agricultural/rural),
     and  in areas where future development
     may  impact water quality and thus base-
     line trends are needed.  These analyses
     are to be used  in developing control  and
     budget  strategies,  initiating  legislation
     and supporting budget and grant requests
     at the national level.
      The ambient  stations  selected for the
     core  program should be a subset of exist-
     ing State and Federal networks.
  *A basic biological monitoring pilot program is included
in this document but is not a program requirement (see
Chapter 6).
   •  Goals have  been set for the operating
      level of  effluent monitoring  programs.
      Major dischargers  should be  inspected
      annually with sampling as necessary to
      ensure compliance with  applicable efflu-
      ent limitations.
       Effluent infonmation will be used to sup-
      port enforcement actions, to measure the
      success of abatement activities and  to
      supplement  and explain  ambient  trend
      information. Particular emphasis will be to
      improve the quality of discharger-supplied
      monitoring data.
   •  This program should result in information
     supplied in a manner  and in terms that
     should be readily understood  by the Con-
     gress and the general public.
   Each component is discussed in greater de-
tail in its respective chapter.
 Program Implementation

  The basic program document is intended to
 serve as monitoring guidelines under the Sec-
 tion 106 Appendix A regulations  and  will be
 implemented through the FY78 State and Re-
 gional program guidance.
  During  FY77  each  Regional  Administrator
 should join with his States in preparing a  pro-
 gram implementation plan. The plan should in-
 clude, in part, those fixed stations selected as
 part of  the basic ambient  "core"  program,
 delegation of effluent monitoring responsibili-
 ties, and a five-year p>lan for intensive surveys.
  Program operation is expected in FY78; full
 operation is expected by FY80, with selected
 exceptions.
  Funding for the program is considered avail-
 able as  part of the existing  Section 106 grant
 funds.
Roles and Responsibilities

  This program recognizes the State responsi-
bility for sample collection, laboratory analysis
and data interpretation and reporting in coop-
eration with the Regions.
  If a State has not developed the capability for
complete laboratory analysis, the  Regions will
assume responsibility  until such  time  as the

-------
State has developed the necessary capability.
After one full year of operation, the Region
should  return the responsibility back to the
State.  Under unusual circumstances, a one-
year extension  can be considered. The State
also has the option of entering into a contrac-
tual  arrangement to perform any  of  the  re-
quired activities.
  Responsibilities  associated  with  National
Pollutant  Discharge  Elimination  System
(NPDES) authority remain unchanged.
Continuing Program Review

  While monitoring programs require stability,
they must be flexible enough to maintain rele-
vance to changing program objectives.
  To  maintain  this  consistency,  the  entire
program will be revaluated on an annual basis
cooperatively with the States. Needed adjust-
ments will be a part of the annual State and
Regional program guidance.
Future Issues

  Several items must still be addressed by the
Standing Work Group. These include:
  •  Biological monitoring;
  •  Integration  and  coordination  of other
     monitoring programs;
  •  Monitoring for water supply; and
  •  Maximizing the  use  of  NPDES  self-
     monitoring data (DMRs).
  The States are encouraged to provide input
to these and any other issues to the EPA Re-
gional Office and to the Chairman of the Stand-
ing Work Group on Water Monitoring.
  The general process for resolving issues is
as follows:
  1.  Identification of the issue;
  2.  Development of an EPA/State proposal;
  3.  Draft distribution, comments and  discus-
     sion at meetings of the Standing Work
     Group on Water Monitoring;
  4.  Discussion at direct  meetings with  the
     States; and
  5.  Incorporation  into   the  State/Regional
     Program Guidance.

-------
                                   Chapter 2.
                             Quality Assurance
  All samples collected as part of the basic
program  must be  collected,  preserved, and
analyzed according to approved methodology.
Approved methodology is cited in the Section
304(g) regulations.
  An  active  quality  assurance  program  is
required  for operating an adequate water moni-
toring  program.  This  is especially true in a
program  such as the NPDES Program in which
EPA or an approved State relies heavily on self-
monitoring data submitted by the permittee.
  An  adequate  quality assurance  program
should include: Replicate samples done 5-10
percent of the time; spike samples done 5-10
percent of the time; reference samples done

  •Available from the Office of Water Planning and Stand-
ards, Monitoring and Data Support Division (WH-553), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M  Street,  S.W.,
Washington, D.C., 20460.
once  a quarter; and,  performance samples
done once per year.
  Also, to support the operation of a consistent
quality assurance program, the following docu-
ments should be consulted:
  1. Model State Water Monitoring Program,
    USEPA,  June   1975,  Chapter  VI,
    (EPA-440/9-74-002).*
  2. Minimal Requirements for a Water Quality
    Assurance Program, USEPA, 1976, Wash-
    ington, D.C., (EPA-440/9-75-010).*
  3. Program Grants, State and  Local Assist-
    ance, Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 35, Appen-
    dix A, USEPA, Federal Register, Vol. 41,
    No. 82, Tuesday, April 27,1976.
  4. Handbook for Analytical Quality Control in
    Water   and  Wastewater  Laboratories,
    USEPA,  NERC  Cincinnati,   Ohio, June
    1972.

-------
                                    Chapter 3.
                        Intensive Survey Program
 Introduction

  A program of intensive water quality investi-
 gations  of  high-priority  streams,  lakes,
 estuaries,  bays,  or  aquifers should be  con-
 ducted  to  address  specific  issues  such as
 cause-effect relationships, waste load  alloca-
 tions and water quality standards assessment.
 These surveys should also be used to explain
 the spatial significance of ambient station sit-
 ing  and  facilitate interpretation  of data col-
 lected at ambient stations. But most  impor-
 tantly, intensive surveys  should be used  as a
 mechanism for integrating  monitoring compo-
 nents to improve resource management  (i.e.,
 intensive surveys to support planning,  permit
 revision,  etc.).
  These  intensive surveys will assist the State
 and Areawide Water Quality Planning and Man-
 agement Agencies  in  developing  their water
 quality management  plans under 40 CFR Parts
 130/131.  These planning agencies will need
 data  necessary to define water  quality prob-
 lems, effluent  surveys  in combination  with
 NPDES compliance monitoring data to  define
 point source contribution and periodic surveys
 to assess non-point source contribution.
  Intensive surveys will also  assist State and
 Areawide Water Quality Planning and Manage-
 ment Agencies in developing wasteload  alloca-
 tions and in setting water quality standards.
 Specifically, data from such surveys will be
 used in  the validation  of segment classifica-
 tions and in the calibration and verification of
 mathematical models.
  Water monitoring for State and areawide wa-
ter  quality  planning and  management  will
usually be conducted by the State or the area-
wide  agency (usually through contracts),  and
can be funded for up to two years by a Section
208 grant.  The intensive surveys  conducted
through this Basic Program should provide, in
many cases, much of the required data. Careful
coordination should  therefore exist between
State Sections 106 and 208 undertakings.
  Intensive surveys will vary widely in scope
depending on the nature of the water  body or
aquifer and  problem(s)  under investigation.
Some  investigations may involve a one-time
survey of a lake or river to document point-
source-related problems or improvements at a
critical season of the year.  At the  other  ex-
treme, studies to relate land-use practices or
non-point sources to water quality may require
several intensive surveys of the same  body of
water or aquifer at various times during a given
year.
  The goal is to conduct an intensive survey at
least once within five years on every river, lake,
estuary, bay or aquifer where waste loads  are
allocated  or significant water quality changes
have either been identified or are considered
probable.  Specific water regions to be  consid-
ered for intensive study are to be selected
annually  by the  State in  cooperation with  the
EPA Region  through annual  revisions to  the
five year plan for intensive surveys.
Scope of Investigations

  It is not feasible or desirable to specify the
details of the proposed  investigations.  Sam-
pling frequency, station locations, study  dura-
tion, and  parametric coverage will be deter-
mined by the specific objectives of the investi-
gations. There  are some features,  however,
which should be common  to all intensive inves-
tigations. These include:
  1. The data obtained should improve  inter-
    pretation  of  the  data  from  existing
    ambient stations, and should explain the
    spatial significance of ambient station sit-
    ing. This may require concurrent sampling
    of an ambient station with other survey
    stations, conducting time of travel or dilu-
    tion studies, etc. A result of the  studies

-------
   may be recommendations  for adjusting
   the siting  of ambient  stations, or estab-
   lishing additional ambient stations. To the
   extent that laboratory  and field resource
   constraints permit, the parameters meas-
   ured during the intensive investigations
   should,  at  a minimum,  be  the same as
   those for the ambient stations (at least for
   selected stations and sampling periods).
2. Where mathematical  models are to be
   operated,  the  design  of these intensive
   surveys should include location and num-
   ber of stations, parameter coverage, and
   the sampling frequency necessary to sup-
   port development, calibration and verifi-
   cation of the models.
3. The  intensive  investigations  should
   account for the effects  of all significant
   point  sources  impacting  the study area.
   This will generally involve roughly concur-
   rent effluent sampling and receiving wa-
   ter monitoring. Clearly defining the loads
   and resulting impacts is very important in
   developing  cause-effect  relationships,
   providing input to modeling efforts, and in
   establishing the  relative  effects of point
   and non-point source pollution. The efflu-
   ent sampling  should result in  a  compli-
   ance determination for the source(s) and
   should include any known or expected
   problem contaminants, toxic substances,
   etc., which  may not be  covered by the dis-
   chargers' NPDES permit.
4. If toxic substances are discharged with n
   the basin under study, the intensive sur-
   vey should include some assessment of
   the  distribution   and   accumulation of
   these toxic substances. In addition to the
   sampling necessary to define the effects
   of known toxicant discharges, the surveys
   should include selected  samples of sedi-
   ment  and  appropriate biota to allow a
   screening for toxic substances.
5. The studies should begin with available
   data, including DMR data, and resources
   of other State and  Federal  agencies.
   Many  of these agencies are responsible
   for activities which  directly or indirectly
     impact water quality. Moreover, many of
     them   have  sponsored   or  conducted
     studies which may provide  input to the
     design of the intensive investigations in
     question. Quite often, a rigorous analysis
     of existing data from these agencies will
     answer many of  the  questions  facing
     environmental agencies and may  reduce
     the scope or occasionally  eliminate  a
     proposed intensive investigation. If a sur-
     vey is  needed, the appropriate  agencies
     should be consulted in  planning and con-
     ducting the study. Many of  these agen-
     cies are developing  or expanding  their
     environmental  studies  and  monitoring
     programs and are looking for guidance in
     water  quality  monitoring. Participation in
     intensive   investigations  will  provide
     needed training for other agency person-
     nel and will establish or improve working
     relationships. Frequently, these  agencies
     may  establish  longer-term  studies  or
     monitoring programs to  follow up on prob-
     lems identified by the intensive investiga-
     tions.
  6.  The studies should  include an assess-
     ment of attainment or  non-attainment of
     the 1983   "fishable-swimmable"  water
     quality goal. The assessment may  involve
     actual  field data or may be based on an
     analysis of data from  fishery agencies,
     county  health departments,  and other
     local  agencies. Water  quality standards
     should be highlighted in the assessment.


Intensive Survey Abstract

  For each  intensive survey conducted, the
State should  prepare  a  very  brief abstract
(two-to-three pages)  describing  the  survey
area and briefly summarizing the results of the
survey.  These abstracts should be forwarded
to the EPA  Region  upon completion  of the
survey.
  The interpretation  of  intensive  survey  data
should  be  the basis for  the  Section  305(b)
Report.

-------
                                    Chapter 4.
                     Ambient Monitoring Program
 Introduction

  Since the ambient monitoring program must
 maintain a uniformity among the States so that
 the data can be aggregated nationally, much
 more detail is necessary for this section than is
 required for the other sections.
  Uniformity is essential to the effective opera-
 tion of the ambient monitoring  program. If the
 parameter coverage for a particular station(s) is
 altered, that State will have little or no impact
 on analyses or decisions made at the national
 level. Also if a parameter is dropped because it
 is "not a problem", the national  analyses will
 emphasize water quality problems and any de-
 cisions based on these analyses will therefore
 be biased. So that a consistent format is main-
 tained  throughout  the  document, detailed
 specifications for the ambient monitoring pro-
 gram are presented separately as Appendix B.
  The following ambient monitoring program is
 designed to measure progress toward achiev-
 ing  water  quality goals at the national  level.
 This  is a basic ambient monitoring  program.
 The intent is to redirect, to the extent possible,
 a portion of the State's monitoring program to
 address national needs without hindering State
 response to State and local needs.
  The ambient monitoring program  seeks to
 provide  information  necessary  to answer the
following questions:
  •  Are water quality conditions at the na-
    tional level improving or getting worse?
    This broad  question has two  essential
    components:

    1. Are potentially toxic constituents that
       may seriously  affect the health of the
       ecosystem  and  impair the safe  con-
       sumption of fish and shellfish being ac-
       cumulated within the food chain? Fish
       and  shellfish  are specifically  refer-
       enced because: (1) These organisms
       are used directly by man as foodstuffs;
       and (2) since fish are situated near the
        top of the trophic chain, they  reflect
        disturbances within the chain.
        We are  concerned not only with the
        health of these  aquatic species but
        also with human  health following their
        consumption.
     2.  Is the quality of  the  Nation's waters
        generally suitable for their intended
        water uses?
        Primary emphasis is placed on compli-
        ance  with  approved water  quality
        standards.
  •  What  is the extenl  of  compliance with
     water quality standards  nationally and
     what is required to insure that the compli-
     ance levels improve or remain high?
      This involves long-term analysis of wa-
     ter quality trends and an assessment of
     program plans, standards, pollution con-
     trol  programs and strategies  at the na-
     tional level.

  The following monitoring activities are nec-
essary in order to begin to define quality trends
and conditions.
  •  Collecting,  analyzing,  and  interpreting
     water samples for chemical,  physical and
     bacteriological information to define wa-
     ter quality trends and to  determine com-
     pliance with water quality standards.
  •  Collecting,  analyzing,  and  interpreting
     fish and shellfish tissue samples for bio-
     accumulation information.
Program Description

  The following describes the basic ambient
monitoring  program for rivers and  streams,
lakes and impoundments,  and estuaries and
bays.
  The goal of the basic ambient monitoring pro-
gram is to set up a national network of not less

-------
than 1,000 stations comprised  primarily  of a
minimum "core" network of State stations se-
lected as a subset of ongoing State programs.
The intent of this program is not to develop a
new network of stations but to  make portions
of existing State networks uniform. Based on
the monitoring specifications presented in Ap-
pendix B, the Regions and States should coor-
dinate in developing a list of stations for each
State for inclusion  in the basic ambient pro-
gram network. At  each designated  station,
parameter coverage and sampling frequency
must comply  with  the  monitoring  specifica-
tions described in Appendix  B. These stations
will then be aggregated on a national level to be
used for national assessments and analyses as
required by Congress or budgetary agencies.
  This core network of ambient  stations is not
intended to satisfy State or local needs. State
and local needs should be addressed by build-
ing upon the core network or preferably by us-
ing intensive survey data.
  The   NATIONAL  AMBIENT  MONITORING
STATION  DESCRIPTION  FORM (Appendix  A)
must be completed by each State for each des-
ignated station. This form should also be used
to describe special station characteristics such
as parametric  fluctuations  or other unique
environmental factors. A State map depicting
station locations is also required.
  In selecting these stations, the Regions and
States  should familiarize themselves with the
other  monitoring activities performed within
their jurisdiction.  The States and Regions are
strongly encouraged to coordinate with these
other monitoring activities, wherever possible.
  Of  particular note  are the monitoring  pro-
grams and cooperative monitoring programs of
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
                                           10

-------
                                   Chapters.

                     Effluent Monitoring  Program
Introduction
  To achieve the goals established by the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 (PL 92-500), Section 402 of the Act au-
thorized the creation of the NPDES program to
issue  permits for discharges  into  navigable
waters. Permits issued pursuant to Section 402
of the Act contain specific and legally enforce-
able effluent  limitations  and  self-monitoring
requirements.  The NPDES permit is the princi-
pal regulatory  tool for reducing the quantity of
pollutants discharged  to the Nation's  waters
and for obtaining data on  point source dis-
charges.
  Monitoring, recording and reporting require-
ments  for any State or interstate agency par-
ticipating in the NPDES program are contained
in 40 CFR 124 Subpart G and 40 CFR 125.27.
Requirements  for inspection and surveillance
support for the NPDES  program are contained
in 40 CFR Part 124.92.
  Generally, compliance monitoring  data col-
lected as part of the NPDES program are used
in compliance  evaluation and in support of en-
forcement. However, compliance monitoring is
also an essential element of a complete water
monitoring program. The  term "compliance
monitoring"  as  defined  in  Subpart C(5)  of
Appendix  A of 40 CFR 35.559(b)  (1), means
measuring and analyzing pollutant sources, re-
viewing reports and  information obtained from
dischargers, and all  other activities conducted
by the  State or EPA to  verify compliance with
effluent limits  and compliance  schedules. As
thus defined, compliance monitoring is com-
posed of two sub-elements:
    Compliance Review

      The review of all written material relat-
    ing to the status of a permittee's compli-
     ance  with  an NPDES permit including
     Compliance Schedule Reports, Discharge
     Monitoring  Reports, Compliance  Inspec-
     tion Reports, etc.

       If a State does not have NPDES author-
     ity, compliance review is the responsibil-
     ity of the USEPA for all permittees in that
     State. In a State that has been delegated
     NPDES authority, EPA  retains compliance
     review responsibility for the State  com-
     pliance program.
  •  Compliance Inspection

       All field-related activities conducted to
     determine the status of compliance with
     permit  requirements,  including compli-
     ance evaluation  inspections  (non-sam-
     pling), sampling inspections, production
     facility  inspections and remote sensing
     (aerial photographs). All compliance in-
     spections  are to  be conducted on  the
     premise that these activities may lead to
     enforcement action.
  The primary purpose of the compliance moni-
toring program is the verification of compliance
with effluent limitations and compliance sched-
ules. The information derived  from  this pro-
gram can also be applied to the interpretation
of national water quality trend data and can be
used along with other information as  useful in-
puts to other planning and water quality control
programs. Self-monitoring (DMR) data, which
presently amount to over 130,000 reports  an-
nually for major permittees, should be better
utilized in the various water quality planning
and management activities.  It is necessary to
stress the importance of all aspects of permit-
tee  quality assurance during  compliance evalu-
ation and sampling inspections  so that  the
quality of the DMR data is maintained and/or
upgraded.
                                          11

-------
 Basic Effluent Monitoring
 Program Specifications

  The  goals of the basic effluent monitoring
 program are the following:
  •  Sampling inspections annually at all major
     permittees  that  have  completed  and
     placed on line facilities to meet statutory
     permit requirements.
  •  Compliance  evaluation  inspections  an-
     nually of major  permittees  that  have
     either not completed construction of fa-
     cilities to meet statutory requirements or
     have previously demonstrated the ability
     to meet statutory requirements.
  •  Examination of permittees' quality control
     procedures during Federal/State  inspec-
     tion to ensure the reliability of self-moni-
     toring data.
  •  Coordination,  whenever practicable,  of
     sampling  inspections as part of intensive
     surveys to avoid sampling duplication and
     to maximize the usefulness of data ob-
     tained from these activities.
  These goals  are  intended to be achieved by
the joint efforts of the States and the  USEPA
Regional Offices. The distribution of work will
be   negotiated  through  the  Section   106
process.
  Compliance inspection activities may  include
either a compliance evaluation inspection (non-
sampling) or a sampling inspection. A  compli-
ance evaluation inspection is undertaken for
one or  more of  the following purposes:
  1. Observe  the  status of construction re-
     quired by  the permit;
  2. Assess adequacy of the permittee's self-
     monitoring and reporting program;
  3. Check the completeness and accuracy of
     permittee's  performance/compliance
     records;
  4. Evaluate  the permittee's  operation and
     maintenance activities; and,
  5. Ensure  that permit  requirements are
     being met.
  For more detailed guidance on procedures
for conducting a compliance evaluation inspec-
tion see  the  NPDES Compliance Evaluation
Inspection Manual.*
  A sampling  inspection should satisfy all  of
the above purposes. It may be appropriate  in
the case of some industries  to sample  or in-
spect production  processes. In  municipal per-
mits with  percent removal  effluent limits and
some industrial inspections it will be necessary
to sample the plant's influent and the effluent.


Sample Collection and

Handling

  Procedures must be instituted for ensuring
sample  integrity during collection, transporta-
tion, storage, and analysis.  These procedures
must protect against misidentification, loss or
error of data relating to  sampling, and  theft;
loss, damage, or  alteration of the sample.  In
those cases where samples are being collected
for  evidence, the  integrity of the sample must
be   guarded  and  thoroughly  documented
through chain-of-custody procedures. A chain-
of-custody procedure is described in Part VI,
Quality Assurance, Model State Water Monitor-
ing Program (EPA-440/9-74-002).
  *NPDES  Compliance  Evaluation  Inspection Manual,
USEPA Office of Enforcement, Office of Water Enforce-
ment, July 1976.
                                          12

-------
                                       Chapter 6.
              Proposed Biological Monitoring Program
                                   (Pilot Program)
                    NOTE

  This Section is included as a pilot test. It is
 not a requirement of the Basic Water Monitor-
 ing Program at this  time. All States should re-
 view  this  section  of  the  program  and are
 encouraged  to implement this  proposed pro-
 gram on a trial  basis. All suggested  changes
 and  test results should  be forwarded to the
 Chairman, Standing Work Group on Water Mon-
 itoring. This section will not  be formally in-
 cluded in the Basic  Water Monitoring  Program
 without a thorough review by the States.
 Introduction

  The protection and continued propagation of
 aquatic life is vital to human health and welfare
 because of  the importance  of  aquatic orga-
 nisms as sources of human food, and their role
 in replenishing the earth's atmospheric oxygen
 supply and supporting recreational and aesthe-
 tic  uses of  water  resources. This was recog-
 nized in the "Declaration of Goals and Policy,"
 Section  101(a)  of Public  Law  92-500,  which
 stresses the need to restore and maintain the
 biological integrity of the Nation's waters and
 to achieve a water quality which provides for
 the protection and propagation  of aquatic life.
 Aquatic organisms are very  efficient pollution
 monitors because they integrate the effects of
 water quality over long periods of  time,  and
 show  the   ill  effects  of  spills or  chronic
 discharges of toxic  substances, brief sags in
 dissolved oxygen concentrations, and  other
 short-lived  episodes that could  otherwise be
 detected  only  by   maintaining continuous
 chemical monitoring programs.
  Biomonitoring is defined in Section 502(15)
as  "The determination  of  the effects  on
aquatic  life,  including the accumulation of pol-
 lutants  in tissues, in receiving  waters due to
the discharge of pollutants (A) by techniques
and  procedures, including sampling  of  orga-
nisms representative  of appropriate levels  of
the food chain appropriate to the volume and
the physical, chemical and biological character-
istics of the effluent, and (B) at  appropriate
frequencies and locations.
  The basic minimal ambient biomonitoring
program described in this  document is de-
signed with these specifications in mind.
  The objective of this proposed program is  to
begin  to  define   the relationship  between
chemical/physical   monitoring  at  selected
points and biological  monitoring in the areas
surrounding  those  points. This will lead to a
better definition of  the water  quality impact  of
pollutant discharges.
Definitions

Plankton—Small plants and animals, mostly microscopic,
  that either have relatively small powers of locomotion
  or drift in the water, subject to the action of waves and
  current. The plankton include free-living bacteria, algae,
  protozoa, rotifers and other small forms.
Periphyton—An association of microscopic plants and
  animals that live on or are attached to the stems and
  leaves of submerged aquatic plants, boat hulls, pilings,
  rocks,  bottom ooze, and other submerged surfaces.
  The periphyton include filamentous bacteria and algae,
  protozoa, and other small forms.
Macroinvertebrates— Invertebrates that (are large enough
  to be seen by the unaided eye and) are retained by a US
  Standard No. 30 sieve, and live at least a part of their life
  cycles within or  upon the bottom of water bodies. The
  macroinvertebrates include worms, insect larvae, snails,
  clams, crayfish, etc.
Biomass—The weight of organisms in a specified unit of the
  environment; for example, the weight of macroinverte-
  brates per square meter of stream bottom, or the weight
  of the plankton in a cubic meter of water, usually ex-
  pressed as wet weight, dry weight or ash-free weight.
Chlorophyll—A green  pigment  in  plants which captures
  light energy for conversion to chemical energy necessary
  to synthesize carbohydrates from  carbon dioxide and
  water—a process termed photosynthesis.
                                             13

-------
 Ecosystem—Includes the biological communities and non-
  living environment.
 Eutrophic waters—Contain an abundant supply of dissolvsd
  nutrients; may support a large biomass, such as algal
  blooms.
 Species (singular)—A type of organism forming a natural
  population; or (plural) several types of organisms, forTi-
  ing a group of populations. Organism diversity refers to
  the numbers of species present in a community and the
  relative abundance (numbers or weight) of each specie,1;.
 program is to depict a national assessment, it
 must also  include relatively clean water areas.
 Wherever  possible,  stations should be located
 at sites where historical data are available for
 correlation purposes.  Specific  station siting
 criteria should conform with  those described
 as  part of  the  ambient monitoring program in
 Chapter 4.
 Program Description

  The proposed basic  biological  monitoring
 program for  rivers and  streams,  lakes and
 impoundments, and estuaries and bays  is de-
 scribed in the following discussion.
STATION SELECTION

  Wherever   possible,   biological  stations
should  be  located  so  that the data collected
can  be  correlated with the chemical/physical
data collected as part of the basic ambient
monitoring program.  A  biological  monitoring
station  will  often  encompass  broad  areas,
rather than points, within a reach of river or in a
lake or estuary. This is necessitated by the va-
riety of habitats typically present in the body of
water being  monitored.  Unless  there  is a
specific  need  to evaluate the effects of a
physical structure in the water, it is advisable
to avoid areas which  have  been  altered by
structures such as bridges, weirs, or within dis-
charge  plumes,  etc.  As  a result  of  these
requirements, biological sampling stations may
not always  coincide with chemical or sediment
sampling stations. The NATIONAL AMBIENT MONI-
TORING STATION DESCRIPTION FORM (Appendix A)
must be completed for each designated biolog-
ical station. This  form should also be used to
describe special  station characteristics such
as parametric fluctuations or other unique envi-
ronmental factors. A State map depicting sta-
tion  locations is also  required.  In  selecting
stations, the  Regions and States should again
familiarize themselves  with all monitoring ac-
tivities  performed  within their  jurisdiction.
Whenever  possible, all are strongly encour-
aged to  coordinate with these other monitoring
activities.
  When  selecting stations, emphasis should
not be placed solely on problem areas.  If this
 PARAMETER COVERAGE AND
 SAMPLING FREQUENCY

  The  principal   communities  of  aquatic
 organisms   are  the   plankton,  periphyton,
 macrophyton,  macroinvertebrates  and  fish.
 The algae in the plankton and periphyton, and
 the macrophyton (larger aquatic plants) are the
 food  producing (producers)  communities and
 the animal plankton and periphyton, macroin-
 vertebrates,  and fish are the food consuming
 (consumers) communities.  Properties which
 are  useful  in  determining  the condition  of
 aquatic communities include: (1) abundance
 (count and biomass), (2) species  composition
 and  diversity, and  (3) metabolic activity. The
 basic biological monitoring program  described
 below is designed to provide information on (1)
 the  trophic  status  of lakes, reservoirs, and
 estuaries, through the use of plankton chloro-
 phyll as an algal biomass (productivity) index,
 (2) the biomass (productivity)  and taxonomic
 composition  of the  periphyton,  which  is a
 lower-food-chain-level producer community, (3)
 the abundance and  species composition of the
 macroinvertebrates,  which  form   an  inter-
 mediate-food-chain-level consumer  commun-
 ity, and (4) accumulation of toxic substances in
 fish and shellfish, which are  upper-food-chain-
 level organisms.
  The  parameter   list,  sampling   season,
 frequency and method for each hydrologic area
 are listed in Table 1. In order to promote  con-
 sistency within the program,  which is a neces-
 sity  when  developing  reliable  water quality
 trends, Table 1 must be applied to each biologi-
 cal station, i.e., no substitutions may be made
to this list. Table 1 will be reviewed annually. At
that  time, amendments may be made based
 upon proper justification. The rationale for
 measuring  each of these  parameters is  dis-
cussed below.
                                            14

-------
Plankton
  Chlorophyll a—Since all algae contain 1-2%
chlorophyll  a on a dry-weight organic-matter
basis,  measurements of this pigment will give
some  indication  of the algal biomass and,
therefore, the amount of nutrients present in
the water body. In  lakes and estuaries, chloro-
phyll a will  increase  as  the concentration of
nutrients in  the lakes increases. Thus chloro-
phyll a measurements can provide information
on the current status  and rates of eutrophica-
tion. Because of the natural seasonal and tem-
poral variations in plankton populations, it is
necessary to  sample  this community  several
times at monthly intervals.
Periphyton
  Biomass (ash-free weight)—Natural  periphy-
ton communities are made up of many types of
organisms  (chlorophyll-bearing  and   non-
chlorophyll-bearing). To quantitatively measure
the relative size (abundance or biomass) of the
periphyton  community,  a  dried  sample  is
heated to 500 degrees C. for an hour to burn off
the organic matter. Simple subtraction of the
ash weight from the dry weight will provide the
amount of organic  material (periphyton com-
munity) in  the sample, commonly called ash-
free weight. The biomass will be reduced in the
presence of toxic substances.
  Chlorophyll a—The  chlorophyll content of
the periphyton is  used to estimate the algal
biomass and as an indicator of the nutrient con-
tent (or trophic status) of the waterbody.
  Autotrophic Index*—The  biomass (ash-free
weight) and chlorophyll a measurements can
be  used  in combination  to  determine the
extent of degradable organic pollution.  Peri-
phyton communities in  clean water are domi-
nated by the algae, and have a biomass to chl a
ratio of 50-100.  However, if the waterbody is
heavily   polluted  with  degradable   organic
waste,  non-chlorophyll  bearing,  consumer
organisms (e.g. bacteria, slimes) will crowd out
or overgrow the algae, and the biomass-chloro-
phyll a ratio for the community will  increase.
Values for  this  ratio (called the  autotrophic
index)  greater than  100 will indicate  organic
pollution.

  'Autotrophic Index = Ash-free wt (mg/m2)
                  Chlorophyll a(mg/m2)


Macroinvertebrates
  Species  Identification—The  presence  or,
perhaps  most  importantly, the  absence  of
                                          TABLE 1
                 PARAMETER LIST AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY FOR THE PROPOSED
                           BASIC BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM
Parameters
Counts
Species identification
Biomass (ash-free wgt.)
Chlorophyll a
Toxic substances
Habitat Types
Rivers
Lakes
Estuaries
Sampling Methods
Sampling season
Sampling frequency
Sampling method
No. replicate
samples
Plankton

X

X
X
6/15-9/15
monthly
grab
3
Community of Aquatic Organisms
Periphyton

X
X
X
X

6/15-9/15
once annually
glass slides
floating sampler
3
Macroinvertebrates Fish /Shellfish
X
X
X
X

6/15-9/15
once annually
Hester-Dendy
Multiplate
3

X
X*
X
X
X
6/15-9/15
once annually

   *Fish tissue analysis is a specific requirement of the basic ambient monitoring program. See Chapter 4.
                                           15

-------
specific organisms from an  area will give a
good indication of the water quality. For exam-
ple, several insect larvae (stoneflies, mayflies,
and  caddisflies)   are  largely  clean  water
organisms and their presence  and  relative
abundance usually indicate good water quality.
Sludgeworms and  blood-worms, on the other
hand, can tolerate  very heavy pollution levels.
Their   presence   and   abundance   usually
indicates poor water quality and/or undesira-
ble changes  in the physical and chemical na-
ture of the substrate.
  Counts—The total number of organisms and
the  number  of individuals in  each  species
within  the macroinvertebrate community will
serve as a good indicator of the productivity of
the water and also water quality.
  Species Diversity— The relative abundance of
the species can be used to  calculate a species
diversity index which is sensitive to changes in
the quality of the aquatic environment. In clean
water  areas,  species diversity  is  normally
significantly higher than  in polluted  areas. In
the  absence  of  pollution, the  numbers of
organisms in  each species are more evenly
balanced and are held in check by competition
for  food, predator-prey  relationships, etc.  If
organic  pollution  is  introduced,  intolerant
species will disappear or are greatly reduced in
number, and tolerant  species will increase in
abundance due to  a decrease in competition.
The result  will  be  a decrease in  species
diversity, indicating a decline in water quality.

Fish and Shellfish
  Shellfish—Shellfish, such as mussels, are
long-lived,  bottom-dwelling filter-feeders  that
accumulate toxic metals,  pesticides and other
hazardous  substances from  the  surrounding
water even when these pollutants are present
in concentrations far below the levels detecta-
ble  by chemical analysis of grab water samples.
Collection and  analysis of these  organisms
once annually, especially if taken during peri-
ods of low flow, will provide useful information
on  long-term trends in  the presence of toxic
substances in surface waters.
  Fin-fish—Samples  should include predators
and bottom  feeders. Predator fish  represent
the highest trophic level in  the aquatic ecosys-
tem and are  likely to have the  highest biomag-
nification of toxicants which  are passed  up
through  the food chain. The level of toxicants
in the bottom-feeding fish will reflect the con-
centration of pollutants in the sediments.
  Major  discussion of toxic substances in  tis-
sues is contained in Chapter 4.
Cost

  It is estimated that this proposed  biological
program will result  in an incremental cost of
$350-400/station/year over  the cost per  na-
tional ambient monitoring program station.
References

1. Weber, C. I. ed., 1973, Biological Field and Laboratory
  Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters
  and Effluents, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
  Cincinnati, Ohio.
2. U.S.  Environmental  Protection  Agency, 1975  Model
  State Water Monitoring Program,  U.S. Environmental
  Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 20460.
3. Mackenthun, K. M.  1973,  Toward a Cleaner Aquatic
  Environment, U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency,
  Washington, D.C.
4. Weber, C. I. 1973,  Recent Development in the Measure-
  ment of the Response of Plankton and Periphyton to
  Changes in Their Environment, In: Bioassay Tech-
  niques and Environmental Chemistry, G.  Glass, ed.,
  Ann Arbor Science  Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, pp.
  119-138.
                                             16

-------
                                   Chapter 7.
                 Data Interpretation and  Reporting
Introduction
  One of EPA's and the States' major concerns
is describing water quality to the Congress and
the general public in terms which are  easily
understood.
  EPA and the States rfiust, therefore, be able
to supply information on water quality trends
and conditions, bioaccumulation of toxic con-
stituents, and discharges to receiving waters in
a manner that relates water quality data to fac-
tors that directly affect the public welfare.
  Using the Section 305(b) reporting process,
the  States are  responsible  for  reporting
information on the quality of their waters, in-
cluding  current water quality relative to the
1983  goals, projected water quality following
implementation of point source controls, a de-
scription of the nature and extent  of nonpoint
source problems  and an  assessment of the
economic and social costs and  benefits  of
achieving the goals of the Act. Data presenta-
tion should be according to the Section 305(b)
reporting format outlined in Appendix C.
  The Section 305(b) reports will  be summa-
rized  and these summaries will then be used
along with the national ambient data analysis to
describe water quality on a national level to the
Congress.
  When reporting results concerning toxic sub-
stances,  the data should always  be accom-
panied by a statement of their significance in
terms of health or ecological effects and the
criteria used in making such a statement.
Data Storage and Retrieval

AMBIENT DATA
  The EPA requires its offices, and strongly
encourages the States, to submit their ambient
water quality data for storage in the EPA's
STORET system.
  If a State does not desire to use the STORET
system, ambient water quality data should then
be submitted  to the EPA  Regional  Office
 preferably in a STORET-compatible form,  or,
 minimally, in a machine-readable form having
 the  minimum  STORET  identifiers.  The  State
 should  review  the data being forwarded to
 assure  that any errors in  transcription  have
 been corrected. Data should be submitted at
 least quarterly.
  Storing  data and utilizing the STORET sys-
tem  will  facilitate data  interpretation  and
presentation in that:
  1.  Essential  interpretive  and  presentation
     techniques are available;
  2.  Data  interpretation and presentation on a
     full complement of data stored within a
     single  computer  system will  save  re-
     sources and provide a standard nomencla-
     ture;
  3.  Quality assurance indicators are included
     with data submission.
  If a State wishes to become a STORET user it
should first contact the appropriate EPA Re-
gional Office or the EPA STORET User Assist-
ance Branch (Telephone: 202-426-7792).

EFFLUENT DATA
  The State should prepare and submit to the
Regions on a quarterly basis an abstract con-
taining the following:
  1.  The number, name and date of each  sam-
     pling  inspection of a major permittee;  and,
  2.  The number, name and date of  each com-
     pliance evaluation inspection of a major
     permittee.

INTENSIVE SURVEY  DATA
  For each  intensive survey  conducted, the
State should prepare  a very brief abstract
(two-to-three  pages) describing the survey
area and briefly summarizing the results of the
survey. These  abstracts should  be  forwarded
to the EPA Region upon completion. A sample
outline is given in Appendix F.
  These abstracts are to be maintained in basin
files  by the Region to serve as a reference  on
the water  quality and discharge conditions in
each basin.
                                          17

-------
APPENDICES

-------
          Appendix A
  National Ambient Monitoring
Program Station Description Form

-------



















co
CO
0
c
T
*• '^
J >
1
- «

1 1

~
5 o
i ^
• (X

i «
L 'C
: «
z
* C
3 ~
03
5 -5
• 0
=• 1
5 E
• •«— •
\ I
I +•
: 03
' .a
3 ±:
5 |J
3 «
5 C
? 1
3 i
r 3




"c
o
g
03
c
c
o
g
o
_c
Ic
CO
^
0

w
—
o
_c
CO
H—
0
E
E
o
0

"oj
c
o
5 "ra
0
o
0

1
D
C
^^
_c
2
1
Water use classificat
*
|
0
0.






0
z











*
-t— 1
E
i_








0
05
)




Major dischargers:





















































































































































0
0
D)
O
o
1
"o
-
c
g
03
^
Q.
O
Q.

0)
O
O
^_
>s
^
03
(0
**—
O
General description















































































































































































"~-
^t
c
o
w
^
^t
c
g
•4— '
-2

to
^^



S
O T3
•^3 0)
2 •-
0 ^
"co ^^
CO


—
• — -
-^
0
"S
Q.


^jT
_ii
D)
C
CO

Station description:
Name of waterbodv:









































*
0
E
03
C
c
o
S
CO









































6
Z
11
DC
c
^^
CO







































^^
c
n . .
(Agency code/statii
State :









































>
c
c
O









































Latitude :









































0
•c
"c
3


































^
0)
|
****
in
c
g
a
"a
c
0
Stream miles betwe









































Remarks:
22

-------
                                   Appendix B
         Ambient  Monitoring  Program Specifications
Station Siting Criteria

  The primary concern for a national assess-
ment is to select stations in water use areas
such  as  recreational areas, commercial  or
sports  fishery areas, shellfish  areas,  popu-
lated  areas  especially  around raw surface
water supply intakes, land use areas such  as
municipal/industrial and agricultural/rural and
potential areas of development.
  When selecting  stations,  emphasis should
not be placed  solely on  problem areas. If this
program is to depict a national assessment, it
must also include relatively  clean water areas
of concern.
  For this program, stations should be sited
so that  a  representative sample of these dif-
ferent water areas can be obtained regionally.
  Wherever  possible,  stations  should be  lo-
cated at sites where historical data are availa-
ble for correlation purposes.

RIVERS AND STREAMS
  Ambient network stations should  be sited
according to any  one or combination of the fol-
lowing options:
  1.  In a  paired  configuration. For  example,
     upstream and downstream of representa-
     tive land use areas  (that is, municipal/in-
     dustrial, agricultural/rural).
     These stations will  be  used primarily  to
     measure the success of abatement activ-
     ities at the national level.
  2.  Single stations located  in  small and ho-
     mogeneous  subbasins.
     These stations may be  located in specific
     water use areas, for example: at surface
    water supply intakes, within recreational
    areas, or within commercial fishing and
    shellfishing areas.
  3. At locations within  major rivers and sig-
     nificant tributaries.
     For example,  these stations may be lo-
    cated:
     •  At the major outlets from  and inputs
        to lakes, impoundments, estuaries or
        coastal areas; or
     •  At the mouths of major intrastate and
        interstate streams and significant trib-
        utaries to these streams, etc.

LAKES  AND  IMPOUNDMENTS
  Ambient  stations in  lakes  and impound-
ments should be sited according to any one or
combination of the following options:
  1.  At  critical locations within eutrophic  or
     potentially eutrophic lakes and impound-
     ments.
  2.  In the following water use areas:
     a)  at or  near surface water supply in-
        takes;
     b)  in recreational areas; or,
     c)  in commercial  fishing  and  shellfishing
        areas.

ESTUARIES AND BAYS
  Ambient  stations in  estuaries and   bays
should be sited according to any one or combi-
nation of the following options:
  1.  At  selected  locations  in  estuaries  in
     areas of critical water quality problems or
     areas  where  maintenance  of existing
     high quality water is critical.
  2.  At  locations within the  following  estu-
     aries:
                   NOTE
     These  estuaries were  selected  be-
   cause they have great socio-economic
   value and pollution  potential and encom-
   pass a variety of estuarine types.
   Prince William Sound   Chesapeake Bay
                        Delaware Bay
                        Long Island Sound
                        Louisiana Marsh
  PugetSound
  San Francisco Bay
  Galveston Bay
  Escambia Bay
3. In the following water use areas:
   a) in recreational areas; or
   b) in commercial fishing  or  shellfishing
     areas.
                                          23

-------
Parameter Coverage and
Sampling Frequency

  Table 2 shows the parameter list and sam-
pling frequencies for each hydrologic area.
These parameters are  considered necessar/
to assess water quality nationally.  In order to
promote consistency within the network (a ne-
cessity when  developing   useable  nationail
water quality analyses), Table 2 must  be ap-
plied to each station in the ambient "core"
program. Parametric coverage is not limited to
those substances that are known to be a prob-
                lem,  but  also includes substances that can
                reasonably be expected to become a problem.
                One  purpose of  this  network is to identify
                emerging problems as well as to monitor exist-
                ing problems. No substitutions may be made
                to this list. Table  2 will  be reviewed annually.
                At that time, amendments may be made based
                upon proper justification (for example, if the
                concentrations  of  certain   parameters  are
                found to  be  insignificant over time,  the fre-
                quency may be relaxed).
                  Minimum  detection  limits for each  param-
                eter are given  in Table 3.
                  Where fish/shellfish  tissue  samples reveal
                                           TABLE 2
                       MINIMUM PARAMETER LIST AND SAMPLING FREQUENCY
                         FOR THE BASIC AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM
Parameter (Units)
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
pH (Standard Units)
Conductivity (umhos/cm @ 25°C)
Fecal coliform ( /100ml)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/l)
Nitrate + nitrite (mg/l)
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
Chemical oxygen demand (mg/l)
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
Riverii and Streams
(SJORET parameters code)
(00010)
(00300)
(00400)
(00095)
(31616)
(00625)
(00630)
(00665)
(00335)
(00530)
Representative fish / shellfish tissue analysis (see Table 4)
Flow (CFS)
(00060)
Sampling frequency
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
annually
monthly
pH (Standard Units)
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
Conductivity (umhos/cm @ 25°C
Fecal coliform ( /100ml)
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/l)
Nitrate + nitrite (mg/l)
Total suspended solids (mg /1)
Representative fish/shellfish tissue analysis (see Table 4)
Transparency, Secchi disc (meters)
Lakes and Impoundments, Including the Great Lakes
                 (00400)
                 (00010)
                 (00300)
                 (00095)
                 (31616)
                 (00665)
                 (00625)
                 (00630)
                 (00530)
                 (00078)
                                          Estuaries and Bays
seasonally
seasonally
seasonally
seasonally
seasonally
seasonally
seasonally
seasonally
seasonally
annually
seasonally
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
pH (Standard Units)
Salinity (%o)
Fecal coliform ( /100ml)
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/l)
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
Nitrate + nitrite (mg/l)
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
Representative fish /shellfish tissue analysis (see Table 4)
Transparency, Secchi disc (meters)
(00010)
(00300)
(00680)
(00400)
(00480)
(31616)
(00625)
(00665)
(00630)
(00530)

(00078)
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
monthly
annually
monthly
                                            24

-------
                    TABLES
 DETECTION LIMITS FOR AMBIENT MEASUREMENTS*
Parameter (units)
Detection limit
Temperature (°C)
Dissolved oxygen (mg/l)
pH (standard units)
Conductivity (umhos/cm @ 25°C)
Salinity (°/oo)
Fecal coliform (/100 ml)
Trace metals, total (ug/l)
  Arsenic
  Cadmium**
  Copper* *
  Chromium**
  Mercury
  Lead**
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (mg/l)
Nitrate + nitrite (mg/l)
Total phosphorus (mg/l)
Chemical oxygen demand (mg/l)
Total organic carbon (mg/l)
Total suspended solids (mg/l)
     0.1
     0.1
     0.1
     1
     0.1
     1

    10
    20
    50
    50
     0.1
   200
     0.1
     0.01
     0.01
     5
     0.5
     5
  'Detection limits that are achievable by the average
analyst in an average laboratory using the approved Section
304(g) test procedures.
  '"Detection limit may be improved by a factor of 10 by
using recommended extraction techniques.
                                            TABLE 4
                  TRACE ORGANIC AND METALS ANALYSIS FOR FISH/SHELLFISH TISSUE
                                         AND SEDIMENTS
high concentrations of a particular toxicant(s),
sediment samples  should then be  collected
and  analyzed for that  parameter,  wherever
possible. If  these samples  also reveal high
concentrations, grab  samples from the water
column  should then  be collected  and ana-
lyzed.  Parameter units and STORE! parameter
codes  for trace organic analyses in the water
column are given in Table 5.
  The  parameters given  in Tables 2, 4, and 5
were chosen because:
  1.  They reflect a broad range of water quality
     conditions and water quality problems:
     •   Temperature,  pH and dissolved oxy-
        gen are included because they are pri-
        mary parameters  in  most  chemical
        reactions that occur within  the water
        body. They are also essential factors
        that  govern  whether the  ecosystem
        will maintain aquatic life and are recog-
        nized as such in State water quality
        standards.
Parameter
Weight (fish / shellfish only) (pounds)
% lipid content (fish/shellfish only) (%)


PCBs
Aldrin
Dieldrin
Total DDT
o.pDDE
p,p' DDE
o,pDDD
p,p' ODD
O.pDDT
p,p' DDT
Chlordane
cis isomer of chlordane
trans isomer of chlordane
cis isomer of nonachlor
trans isomer of nonachlor
Endrin
Methoxychlor
Hexachlorobenzene
Pentachlorophenol
Hexachlorocyclohexane
alpha BHC isomer
gamma isomer
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
STORET parameter code
(00023)
(39105)
Tissue
(ug/g)
(39520)
(34680)(mg/kg)
(34684)(mg/kg)
(39387)
(39329)
(39322)
(39325)
(39312)
(39318)
(39302)
(34682)(mg/kg)
(39063)
(39066)
(39069)
(39072)
(34685)(mg/kg)
(39482)
(34688)(mg/kg)
(39060)

(39074)
(39075)
(01004)
(71940)
(71939)
(71937)
(71930)
(71936)


Sediments
(ug/kg)
(39519)
(39333)
(39383)
(39383)
(39328)
(39321)
(39316)
(39311)
(39306)
(39301)

(39064)
(39067)
(39070)
(39073)
(39393)
(39481)
(39701)
(39061)

(39076)
(39811)
(01003) (mg/kg)
(01028)
(01029)
(01039)
(71921)
(01052)
                                             25

-------
                   TABLE 5
     TRACE ORGANIC AND METALS ANALYSIS
                        STORETparameter code
 Parameter                       (ug/l)
 PCBs
 Aldrin
 Dieldrin
 Total DDT
  o,pDDE
  p,p' DDE
  o,pDDD
  p,p' ODD
  o.pDDT
  p,p' DDT
 Chlordane
  cis isomer of chlordane
  trans isomer of chlordane
  cis isomer of nonachlor
  trans isomer of nonachlor
 Endrin
 Methoxychlor
 Hexachlorocyclohexane
  alpha BHC isomer
  gamma isomer
 Hexachlorobenzene
 Pentachlorophenol
 Arsenic, total
Cadmium, total
Copper, total
Chromium, total
Mercury, total
Lead, total
(39516)
(39330)
(39380)

(39327)
(39320)
(39315)
(39310)
(39305)
(39300)
(39350)
(39062)
(39065)
(39068)
(39071)
(39390)
(39480)

(39334)
(39810)
(39700)
(39032)
(01002)
(01027)
(01034)
(01042)
(71900)
(01051)
       Temperature is also needed in order to
       correct conductivity measurements at
       ambient temperatures  to  equivalent
       (standard) values at 25 degrees C. if a
       temperature  compensated  meter is
       not used.
       A  conductivity  measurement is in-
       cluded  to  determine the degree to
       which dissolved solids are part of the
       water quality. This is a most reliable
       measurement and can be done on site.
       Salinity is measured in  estuaries and
       bays.
       Fecal coliform is included because it is
       at present the most reliable test for in-
       dicating the possible presence of path-
       ogenic  microorganisms in the water
       column.
       Trace metals were limited to those that
       are of high priority and are toxic. Since
       the concern of the program is to meas-
       ure the total  load,  total metals instead
       of dissolved forms are measured.
 To determine the extent of total nutri-
 ent  contribution,  total  phosphorus,
 total Kjeldahl nitrogen and nitrite + ni-
 trate are measured.
 Since the  basic concern of the pro-
 gram is the  total  nutrient load,  total
 phosphorus is measured instead of the
 other various forms  of phosphorus.
 This is also less costly.
 In determining the addition of nitrogen
 to the Nation's  waters, the concern of
 the program is to arrive at some under-
 standing of the stage of  nitrification
 within  the system.  Therefore, total
 Kjeldahl  nitrogen  is  included  as a
 measurement of organic nitrogen and
 ammonia,  and nitrate + nitrite is in-
 cluded to determine the extent of oxi-
 dized nitrogen.
 A total  suspended  solids  measure-
 ment is included to measure the con-
 tribution of solid material to the  sys-
 tem and to give  some  indication  of
 water clarity  and  the probability  of
 chemical adsorption.
 A chemical  oxygen  demand  (COD)
 measurement is included as an indica-
 tion of  the oxygen demand placed on
 the system. Chemical oxygen demand
 was chosen over biochemical  oxygen
 demand (BOD) or total organic carbon
 (TOC) because it is more reliable than
 BOD, does not  involve problems with
 holding time and sample transport as
 do  BOD samples,  and  does  not  re-
 quire the sophisticated equipment re-
 quired of a TOC measurement. COD is
 not measured in lakes and  impound-
 ments since it is usually found only in
 such  low concentrations that it ren-
 ders  the measurement  meaningless.
 TOC is measured in estuaries because
 the COD measurement does not yield
 satisfactory results in salt water due to
 chloride interference.
 The trace organics included in the pro-
 gram  were chosen because they ap-
 pear most frequently on the  priority
 lists of toxic substances. For example,
 measurements required for the permit
 program, measurements  required for
the drinking water  program, the Sec-
tion 307(a) list and several listings pro-
                                           26

-------
        posed by the EPA Office of Toxic Sub-
        stances were consulted.
     •  Flow is included for proper data analy-
        sis and it is necessary  to determine
        stream loadings.
     •  Transparency, Secchi disc is included
        in lakes, impoundments,  estuaries and
        bays because the results are easily un-
        derstood by the layman and it is a very
        simple measurement of water clarity.
     •  The  effects  of   contaminants  on
        aquatic organisms are complex. Syner-
        gistic  chemical/physical  reactions,
        biomagnification   and  other   natural
        events cannot be easily quantified. For
        these reasons and for the purposes of
        this program, the  best  approach,  at
        this time to  determine the presence
        and  therefore the potential  health
        threat of toxic substances in the eco-
        system appears  to be  the chemical
        analysis of fish and shellfish tissue.
  2.  These parameters are regulated through
     EPA guidelines, regulations, criteria and
     standards; and,
  3.  Sound and approved sampling and analyti-
     cal techniques  are available to measure
     the paramters.
Sample Collection and Analysis

  It is most important that  stations be sited
properly and that samples collected at the site
provide the best representation of the water
quality. Transects,  composite sampling, and
any other special sampling techniques should
be used to fix the sampling sites, where appro-
priate, and  should be properly noted when the
station is established. The  sampling pattern
should be determined through a site evaluation
study made at the time the site  is first  se-
lected. Station sites should  then be reviewed
periodically (at least every five years) to see if
changes in the waterbody such as dams, exca-
vations, dredging etc., have altered conditions.
  In  rivers, one representative water sample
should be collected. In homogeneous lakes,
impoundments, estuaries, and bays, one repre-
sentative water sample should be collected. If
stratified, one sample should be collected from
each stratum. In estuaries and bays, sampling
should be done at low tide slack water, wher-
ever possible. Mixing properties and any other
characteristics that may affect data interpreta-
tion should be noted.
   The detailed monitoring  of individual lakes,
 impoundments, estuaries and bays will be ac-
 complished through  intensive  surveys. How-
 ever, ambient  stations located in these water
 bodies and designated as part of the ambient
 program must comply with the specifications in
 Table 2.
   Wherever possible, the representative* fish
 samples should be collected annually in the fall
 and analyzed according to the established doc-
 umentation (see "References"). Residue lev-
 els are much more severe at this time of year
 because: The fish have just been subjected to
an increased use of pesticides during  the agri-
cultural growing season; there are more resi-
dent  populations of fish in  the fall (migrations
 usually  occur  in  the spring);  the  summer
months are the active feeding season for fish,
food  chain relationships  are  better-defined
and peak in the fall; and, spawning, which can
substantially reduce  contaminant concentra-
tions in fish, usually occurs in the spring.
  Two replicate whole fish composite  samples
of  a  representative bottom  feeder  and one
whole fish  composite sample  of  a   predator
species  should be collected at each station.
Commercially  or recreationally important spe-
cies should be collected, wherever possible.
Each  composite  should  include at least five
fish, each of approximately the same size.
  Because of  their great water filtering capa-
bilities, shellfish are excellent concentrators of
contaminants.  Therefore,  wherever possible,
representative shellfish samples should be col-
lected and analyzed, especially in estuarine en-
vironments.
Tissue Banking*
  After sample aliquots are analyzed for  the
parameters listed in Table 4, the remainder of
the tissue sample should  be  tagged,  pre-
served, according to recommended methodol-
ogy (see  "References"),  and  stored  for one
  "Only fish samples that will be most representative of
the water quality in the area should be collected for tissue
analysis. Migratory fish should be discounted.
                                           27

-------
year.  These  samples will be  stored in EPA
sponsored  national laboratories. This "Tissue
Banking"  procedure is being  adopted  to re-
spond to future individual hazardous substance
problems  (such  as kepone, PCBs etc.) that
may arise.
  The following information should be included
with the stored tissue samples.
  1. Sample description (species, approximate
    size, weight, % lipid, etc.)
  2. Date of collection day/month/year
  3. Station #	
  4. State	
  5. Who collected the sample,  name, phone #
  6. Who analyzed the sample, name, phone #
    Sample collection method	
    Method of preservation	
7.
8.
9.
     Condition of fish at the timeof collection
  The program will  operate as follows: Upon
identification of a hazardous substance prob-
lem, stored tissue samples will be immediately
withdrawn and  analyzed for the identified pollu-
tant. This information will  then  be correlated
nationally, documented, and presented in re-
port form to the EPA Administrator.
  Also, if the problem pollutant requires addi-
tional attention, it may be added to the ambient
parameter list (Table 4).
                                           References
1.  Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Human
    and Environmental Samples, USEPA, Per-
    rine Private Research Laboratories, Per-
    rine, Florida, 32157,1970.

2.  Handbook  of  Procedures for Pesticide
    Residue Analysis,  U.S. Department of the
    Interior,  Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau
    of Sports, Fisheries and Wildlife, Washing-
    ton D.C., August, 1972.

3.  Guideline on  Analytical Methodology for
    Pesticide  Residue  Monitoring,  Federal
    Working Group  on  Pest Management,
    Washington, D.C., 20460, June, 1975.

4.  Pesticide Analytical Manual, Volumes I and
    II, U.S. Department  of Health, Education
    and  Welfare, Food and Drug  Administra-
    tion, Washington D.C., December, 1971.

5.  Manual of Chemical  Methods for  Pesti-
    cides and Devices, USEPA, Office of Pes-
    ticide   Programs,  Technical Services
    Division, Chemical and Biological Investi-
    gations Branch, Published by AOAC, July,
    1976.
                                          28

-------
                                  Appendix C
                    Section 305(b) Report Outline
Summary
  The summary should briefly (in  about five
pages)  highlight the  important  conclusions
from each chapter  in the text, following the
same basic outline. Particular emphasis should
be placed on the conclusions affecting policy
issues, such as the degree of water quality im-
provement that can be expected under current
programs, the incremental benefits and costs
of going from  Best Practicable Technology
(BPT) to Best Available Technology (BAT) in-
dustrial  control levels, and any other issues
which are of conern.
  In addition, a map indicating those waters
currently supporting fishing  and  swimming,
those waters not currently supporting fishing
and swimming but expected to by 1983, and
those waters not expected to support fishing
and swimming by 1983 should be a part of the
report.
  If there is no change in the water quality of a
given basin, the State need only cite the previ-
ous report and abstract the information con-
tained therein.
Chapter 1: Current Water Quality

and Recent Trends

A. Waters  currently meeting  the  "fishable,
   swimmable" standards, as a percentage of
   total surface waters in the State.  Identify
   reasons  for these  waters  not meeting
   standards. This  section shall  include a
   summary similar to that shown in Table 6.
B. Major problem areas.
C. Statewide analysis  of  water  quality  by
   basin or river segment.
   A very  brief description of the area fol-
   lowed by a general description of the water
   quality in each area. Water quality should
   be described in reference to the intended
   use.
Chapter 2: Water Quality Goals

and Control Programs

A. 1983 Water Quality Goals
   1. Percentage of waters for which it is pro-
      jected that the "fishable,  swimmable"
      standards will be met by 1983.
   2. Percentage of waters, and their loca-
      tion, in which natural conditions will pre-
      clude fishing and/or swimming in 1983,
      and reasons.
   3. Percentage of waters, and their loca-
      tion, in which human influence will pre-
      vent attainment of  "fishable, swimma-
      ble" standards in 1983, and reasons.
       Reasons for inability to  meet goals,
       i.e.,:
       Specific point sources
       Specific nonpoint sources
       Lack of funds
       Administration problems.
B. Effects of  Control  Programs on  Water
   Quality
   1.  Description of programs
      a.  Point source control.
      b.  Nonpoint source control.
   2.  Recent improvements in water quality
      resulting from control programs.
   3.  Projected effect on  water quality of fu-
      ture programs, including the incremental
      improvement expected  in  going from
      BPT to BAT.
C. Recommendations concerning programs,
   legislation, administration, etc.
Chapter 3: Costs and Benefits

A. Costs
   1.  Municipal
      a.  1974  "Needs Survey" with any up-
         dates.
      b.  Costs to meet water quality goals, if
         different from "Needs Survey".
                                        29

-------
                                          TABLE 6
                                   WATER QUALITY SUMMARY

                                           Basin
Miles now Miles Miles
meeting expected now
Segment Total Class B to meet meeting
number miles (fishable/ Class B State
swimmable) by 1983 W.QStds.
1-1 1.5 0 1.5 1.5
1-2 5.0 0 5.0 1.0
3 5.5 1.0 5.5 1.0
1-4 2.5 0 0 0
1-5 5.0 3 5.0 3
1-6 4.5 3.0 4.5 3.0
1-7 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5
1-8 7.0 6.0 7.0 6.C
1-9 3.0 0 3.0 0
SEGMENT DESCRIPTION
1-1 Hoosic River— Mass, state line to Pownal
1-2 Hoosic River— Pownal to New York state line
1-3 Walloomsac River— Bennington to Paran Creek
1-4 Walloomsac River— Paran Creek to New York state
line
1-5 Paran Creek— S. Shaftsbury to Walloomsac River
1-6 No Name Brook— Fairdale Farms to Walloomsac
River
Nonpoint
Miles Point source source cause
not Water cause of W.Q. of problems
meeting quality problems 1= Major
State W.Q. problems* M = Municipal 2= Minor
1 = Industrial 3=N/A
0 2,6,1 M,l
4.0 1,2,6,5 I
4.5 6 M
2.5 1,2,5 M,l
26 M
1.5 5,6
0 M
1.0 6 M
3.0 6 M
1-7 Batten Kill River— Manchester Center Depot to
Arlington
1-8 Batten Kill River— Arlington to New York state line
1-9 Warm Brook— Fayvi lie Branch to Batten Kill
   'Column 7—Water quality problems: 1: Harmful subsiances; 2. Physical modification (suspended solids, temperature,
etc.); 3. Eutrophication potential; 4. Salinity, acidity, alkalinity; 5. Oxygen depletion; 6. Elevated coliform levels.
B.
2. Industrial
   a.  Costs  to achieve  BPT (1977) level
      treatment.
   b.  Costs  to achieve  BAT (1983) level
      treatment.
3. Other point source control costs.
4. Nonpoint source control costs, by type
   of source.
   Are the erosion  control programs of the
   Soil Conservation Service more or less
   than is required to meet water quality
   goals?

Benefits
1. Social  and  economic  benefits resulting
   both from enactment of control programs
   and from attainment of high water qual-
   ity. Quantify, wherever possible.
2. Costs vs. benefits for different levels of
   control.
   a.  Statewide.
   b.  By basin, river segment, etc.
Chapter 4: Nonpoint Sources

A.  By category:   Agricultural
                  Silvicultural
                  Mining
                  Construction
                  Hydrologic modification
                  Urban runoff
                  Residual waste disposal
                  Saltwater intrusion
                  Proposed energy
                   development
                  Others
    1. Sources.
    2. Pollutants involved.
    3. Extent of problem.
    4. Severity of problem.
    5. Loadings.
      a.  Compare to point source loadings.
      b.  Evaluate effect on water quality.
  Tables 7 through 12 may be useful in summa-
rizing water quality information.
                                            30

-------
                                                  TABLE 7

                                 WATER QUALITY RELATIVE TO STANDARDS
Basin-
Parameter-
Segment

Classification*

Stream
miles

Miles now
meeting standards

Miles meeting
standards by 1983

Sources of
problems

    NOTE: If standards are different from the 1983 fishable/swimmable goals of PL 92-500, specify also the percentage of
stream miles now meeting those goals and the percentage expected to meet the goals by 1983. Explain why the standards
are different from the goals (i.e., natural conditions, technological or economic limitations, etc.).
    'Include whether effluent limited or water quality limited and State classification (Table 2).
                                                  TABLE 8

                                    STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Stream classification
A


B

etc.
Water uses
XXX
XXX

XXX


Parameter
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

Standard
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX

                                                  TABLE 9

                                          DISCHARGER INVENTORY

                                        Type—(Municipal or Industrial)
                                                  Basin—
Name

Receiving
segment

Parameter

Current
discharge

Final permit
limitation

Basis for
limitation *

Compliance
date

    "Effluent limited or water quality limited. If water quality limited, give effluent limitation that would apply.
                                                    31

-------
                                             TABLE 10

                              NONPOINT SOURCE PROBLEM SUMMARY

                                              Basin-
                                            Parameter—
Category
Urban runoff
Agriculture
Silviculture
Mining
Construction
Hydrologic
modification
Other"
Stream miles 1 Percent of
affected / total stream miles








Severity of
problem '








Estimated
loadings








Degree of
control possible








 'What if any standards are being violated?
"Specify.
                                             TABLE 11

                                        POLLUTANT SOURCES
Basin-
Segment—
Parameter-

Industrial
Municipal
Urban runoff
Agriculture
Other NPS**
Total
loading
(Ibs.)

Seasonal

'Standards
violation rate

Percentage" of
violations
caused by

 * As a minimum, determine whether violations occur during dry or wet weather periods.
 ** Specify.
                                             TABLE 12

                                  COSTS OF POLLUTION CONTROL

                                               Basin-
                         Municipal
                           •  "Needs" survey summary by category
                           •  Estimated year-by-year expenditures
                         Industrial
                                                            (1)
                             Category            Cost Estimates
                                                   (2)
                                           BPT level      BAT level
                                           treatment      treatment
                             (1)  Based on surveys,  permits, etc.
                             (2) Costs to meet existing permit conditions
                         Nonpoint Source
                             Category            Costs to achieve
                                                 Best Management Practices
                           Urban runoff
                           Agriculture
                           Silviculture
                           Mining (includes abandoned mines)
                           Construction
                           Hydrologic modification
                           Other (specify)
                                                32

-------
                                      Appendix D
                                            Cost
 Cost

  Monitoring funds to support this program are
 through the PL 92-500 Section 106(e)(1) grant
 to the States.
  The  following is an estimated cost analysis
 for a station designated as part of the basic am-
 bient monitoring  program. These figures are
 based  on the specifications stated in Chapter 4
 and refer only to those currently operating sta-
 tions that are designated as part of the basic
 ambient program.
                       Dollars /Station / Year
                   Stream     Lake  Estuary/Bay
Sample collection
(labor) (20%)          479-685    202-289    513-733
Vehicle rental
+ mileage (10-25%)
(10-15% in lakes
and estuaries)

Miscellaneous
(includes boat/motor
rental, shipping
costs, etc.) (5%)
5-15% in lakes and
estuaries

Laboratory analysis
(35-50%)

Quality control**
(15%)

Total range
   240-855
101-217   256-549
   120-171
     1,198*
   359-513
  51-217   128-549
   506*
1,282*
152-217    385-549
2,396-3,422 1,012-1,446 2,564-3,663
   'See Table 13 for breakdown.
  **This includes:
   •  Replicate samples done 5-10% of the time;
   •  Spike samples done 5-10% of the time;
   •  Reference samples done once per quarter; and,
   •  Performance samples done once per year.
  The cost estimate  for laboratory analysis is
known. For the purpose of this exercise it will
therefore remained fixed.
  Based on  a general survey of USGS  cost
estimates for the NWQSS, the percent of total
cost attributed to the laboratory analysis varied
from approximately 35-50 percent. This was due
                                primarily to  the variability of field  sampling
                                costs (distance  traveled,  vehicle rental, labor)
                                in certain areas.
                                  Therefore,  in  this exercise, the percent  of
                                total cost attributed to laboratory analysis was
                                fixed at 35 percent and then at 50 percent while
                                the actual cost of analysis remained the same.
                                In this way, a range of total cost per station was
                                determined.

                                                  TABLE 13
                                    COST OF LABORATORY ANALYSIS FOR THE
                                        AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAM
                                                   Parameter
                                                            Cost/Sampler/Dollar
        Temperature
        Dissolved oxygen
        pH
        Conductivity
        Salinity
        Fecal coliform
        Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
        Nitrate and nitrite
        Total phosphorus
        Total suspended solids
        Chemical oxygen demand
        Total organic carbon
        Fish/shellfish tissue analysis
                                    2
                                    5
                                    3
                                    5
                                    5
                                    15
                                    15
                                    6
                                    7
                                    6
                                    15
                                    22
                                   250
  The figures in Table 13 do not reflect cost of
sample collection and shipment to the labora-
tory. Overall, the average cost is approximately
$10/constituent/sample. If a large number of
samples were being analyzed on a daily basis
by a laboratory, this cost would be reduced by a
factor of approximately  three, that is, $3/con-
stituent/sample.
  The following table estimates manpower re-
quirements for intensive surveys and an aver-
age total cost figure.
                               STORE! Funding
                                 EPA provides funds for STORET computer
                               support annually to non-EPA agencies. On the
                               average, it costs one cent per observation to
                               place data in the STORET system and approxi-
                               mately four dollars per retrieval for ten years of
                               data from  one hundred  stations from twenty
                                             33

-------
 parameters via a high speed remote  terminal.
 Retrievals run from a low speed terminal cost
 approximately four dollars more.
   On the average, it takes .02 man hours per
                         1,000 observations to  prepare data for match-
                         ing and  subsequent verification. On the aver-
                         age, 129 keystrokes per  observation are re-
                         quired for matching, i.e., keypunching.
                                               TABLE 14

                     ESTIMATED MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR INTENSIVE SURVEYS

                            (Source: USEPA, Model State Water Monitoring Program)
            Activity
          Personnel
(Manweeks)
           Remarks
Initial planning
Reconnaissance
Field party chief*
and laboratory personnel

Field party chief*
and biologist
Mobilize field
equipment and crew
technicians and laboratory crews

Field sampling
Fixed laboratory analyses
chemistry and biology
Data analyses
report preparation
Field party chief*
Field party chief*
2 laboratory crew
3 technicians
1 biologist

Chemist
Biologist
Field party chief*
chemist and micro-
biologist, typist
Total cost/year = 34/48 x $20,000.00** = $14,000
(Does not include overhead cost of 1/3 for fringe benefits)
      2MW
      1MW
      1MW
      1MW
      3MW
      4MW
      1MW

     15MW
      3MW
     3MW
                                                        Total 34MW
Assemble maps and
piost data

Select sampling
sites and synoptic
biological screening

Get all equipment
together and ensure
it is in working order.

F ield sample collection
and field laboratory analyses
Assume 20 samples per
clay for 15 parameters,
chemistry and plankton,
and invertebrate identifi-
cation, and enumeration

Analyze data, write and
type report
    *ln estuarine environments this would be an oceanographer.
    ** Based on estimate of 48MW per MY and an average salary of $20,000.OO/MY.
                                                  34

-------
                                   Appendix  E
                   Overview  of  Water  Monitoring
           Standing Work Group on Water Monitoring
                                   May 20,1976
 Introduction
  Serious management and other deficiencies
 in the EPA's Water Monitoring Programs were
 identified  in 1975 during a series of briefings
 held within the  Agency. The most important
 shortcoming was the lack of  an overall EPA/
 State water monitoring  conceptual framework.
 In order to  develop such a  strategy  and to
 examine problem areas that  might be identi-
 fied, the Deputy Administrator established the
 Standing  Work  Group  on  Water Monitoring
 (Work Group)  in December,  1975.  The Work
 Group consists  of members from four Head-
 quarters  Offices,  two Regions,  and   five
 States.*
  The Work Group's first task was to develop a
 road  perspective on  monitoring  activities,
 uses, problems  and potential solutions. This
 was handled primarily through a series of inter-
 views with 27 Headquarters' officials responsi-
 ble for administering monitoring systems or in-
 volved  in  using  monitoring data. In order to
 obtain  specific  data  and  to help promote
 responsiveness, a questionnaire in the form of
 a matrix was provided each person in advance
 of the interview (Attachment  1). Through the
 questionnaire, each interviewee was asked to
 (1) prioritize monitoring activities for which he
 had  responsibilities, (2) specify the kinds of
 data needed to support the activities, (3)  iden-
 tify data sources, and (4) identify primary moni-
  * Members: Robert Grim, Chairman, Office of Water and
Hazardous Materials; Robert Booth, Office of Research
and  Development;  Dave Lyons, Office of Enforcement;
Truman Price, Office of Planning and Management; Fred
Grant, Water Division, Region III; Chris Timm, Surveillance
and Analysis Division, Region V; Dick Cunningham, State
of Washington; Jerry McKersie, State of Wisconsin; Henry
Silbermann, State of Maryland; Tim Stuart, State of Florida;
Linda Wyatt, State of Texas.
toring  constraints. Information obtained from
the interviews was supplemented  by similar
information  provided  by  EPA  Regions  and
States.
  This  paper summarizes the results of the
"overview" effort. Following this introduction
are discussions  of the institutional setting of
the EPA's  monitoring  program,  the  uses of
monitoring data,  monitoring systems, data sys-
tems, monitoring costs, monitoring problems,
and a program of  suggested follow-up efforts.
Institutional Setting
  The institutional setting in  which the EPA
conducts its water monitoring activities is com-
plex. This  stems primarily from the  multiple
legislative authorities that control program ac-
tivities, the wide dispersion of responsibility
for various monitoring functions at both  Head-
quarters and in the field, and the heavy involve-
ment of non-EPA participants.
  The legislative authorities stem mainly from
six Acts:
   •  The Federal  Water Pollution Control
      Act.
   •  The Safe Drinking Water Act.
   •  The Refuse Act.
   •  The Marine Protection, Research and
      Sanctuaries Act.
   •  The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
      Rodenticide Act.
   •  The Solid Waste Disposal Act.
  The  monitoring  responsibilities—encom-
passing  both  the collection and use of data-
are highly decentralized. At Headquarters,  16
offices,  under five  Assistant Administrators,
are  involved  in various  monitoring functions
(Attachment 2). Similarly, field responsibilities
are dispersed among  the 10 Regional Offices
                                          35

-------
(Attachment 3) and  13 research laboratories
(Attachment 4).
  The  institutional  relationships are  further
complicated by heavy  involvement  of other
Federal agencies—principally the U.S. Geolog-
ical Survey (USGS)—the States, and pollutant
dischargers operating under effluent permits.
Monitoring Uses
  Monitoring data are used in a variety of ways,
require an array  of support systems, and in-
volve a  wide variety  of program activities.
Basically, data needs fall into four broad cate-
gories.
1.  Provide  Data  for  Developing, Assessing,
    and Revising National Strategies and Con-
    trol Programs.
  In the development of national control strate-
gies, monitoring data are needed  primarily to
assess trends and develop environmental indi-
cators. These measures are needed to provide
focus to the strategy-setting  process, espe-
cially with regard to selecting among alternei-
tive program strategies  and  resource alloca-
tions. The types of data required vary with the
type of  strategy under  development:  Point
source strategies  need ambient data as well as
effluent data; nonpoint source strategies need
ambient data as well as intensive survey data.:
drinking water strategies need intake ambient
data and treatment plant output data; and toxic
and hazardous pollutant strategies need all cf
these data.
  The measurement of progress toward achiev-
ing program objectives is a high-priority use of
monitoring data. Program managers need indi-
cators  of their  accomplishments  based on
measurable quantities for  several reasons:
    •   To provide support in selecting program
       alternatives.
    •   To provide  support  in allocating re-
       sources, and to channel work activity in
       the most productive directions.
    •   To provide feedback and  evaluate ac-
       complishments.
    •   To set performance standards for pro-
       gram staffs.
  As far as  developing data to measure pro-
gram  achievements is  concerned,  baseline
measurements  are  particularly  important. If
these measurements are  not available, special
efforts, including the design and execution of
intensive surveys, must be undertaken.
2.  Provide Basic Data on the Effects of Pollut-
    ant Exposure in the Development of Revi-
    sion of Models, Criteria, and Standards.
  Monitoring  data for developing  models,  cri-
teria, and standards are of major importance to
the EPA, primarily because most of its water
pollution control activities  rest  on these areas.
Some of the most important uses in this cate-
gory involve the following.
    •  Water Quality Models
        Data from intensive  or special sur-
      veys are used extensively  to develop
      and verify water quality models.  This is
      particularly the case where complex hy-
      drologic conditions exist such as in es-
      tuaries and streams with poor mixing.
    •  Water Quality Criteria/Ambient Water
      Quality Standards
        The Federal Water Pollution Control
      Act  (FWPCA) requires  States to adopt
      and enforce water quality standards for
      aH  navigable waters.  Each  standard
      consists  of:  (1)  criteria,  representing
      the acceptable limits of  pollutants in re-
      ceiving  waters  to  protect  the  desig-
      nated  use or uses of water; and (2) a
      plan  of  implementation and enforce-
      ment.  In development or revision of cri-
      teria, all types of monitoring data  are
      used.  Criteria for  health-related uses
      such as domestic supplies, protection
      and  propagation of aquatic  life, and
      water-based  recreation  rely to a major
      extent on  measurements of dissolved
      oxygen and on biological and toxic mon-
      itoring  data.  Criteria for  most  other
      users  tend to rely on the more tradi-
      tional  monitoring parameters such as
      temperature,  'turbidity,  pH, and  dis-
      solved solids.
   •  Drinking Water Standards
        The  Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
      requires the  development  of nation-
      wide maximum contaminant levels—or
      standards—for domestic  water sup-
      plies. Traditionally,  monitoring for do-
      mestic water supplies has emphasized
      fecal coliform, a  measure of bacterio-
      logical activity. At the present time, in-
      creasing attention is being directed to-
      ward   viruses  and potentially   toxic
                                           36

-------
 substances such as heavy metals and
 chlorinated hydro-carbons. To develop
 standards for these emerging pollutant
 areas,  biological  monitoring data as
 well as  physical/chemical data (often
 requiring sophisticated  sampling  and
 analysis techniques) are needed.
 Effluent Standards
  The  FWPCA requires the EPA to es-
 tablish separate effluent standards for
 municipal  and  industrial dischargers.
 The discharge of heat  and toxic  pollut-
 ants  receives  special  consideration.
 Municipalities are required  to provide
 secondary  treatment by mid-1977 and
 "best   practicable  waste   treatment
 technology" (BPWTT)  by mid-1983. In
 developing  a  definition of  BPWTT,
 monitoring  data,  primarily on alterna-
 tive waste management techniques,
 are needed.
  Two salient  requirements  are im-
 posed  upon  industrial  dischargers:
 Existing  industries must use  the "best
 practicable  control  technology  cur-
 rently  available"  by   mid-1977;  and
 "best  available  technology  economi-
 cally achievable" by mid-1983. Since ef-
 fluent  limitations must  be  developed
 for 46 major industrial categories and
 additional lesser  categories,  the need
 for specialized effluent monitoring data
 is great.
  In addition, new sources of industrial
 pollution must use the "best available
 demonstrated  control  technology"
 (BADCT) which the EPA is defining in
 the form of standards  of performance
 for various  industries.  Again, effluent
 monitoring  data are needed in defining
 BADCT for the various categories.
  The  FWPCA also requires standards
 for  industries  whose   effluents  are
 treated by  municipal treatment plants.
 In cases where the municipal  plants
 cannot effectively treat  the  effluents,
 pretreatment standards  are  required.
 Development of these standards also
 requires  detailed  effluent monitoring
data.
Thermal Standards
  Discharge of heat is considered a pol-
 lutant under the FWPCA, so  it is sub-
       ject to water quality standards. Thermal
       standards are set for ambient waters as
       well as point source dischargers. Devel-
       opment  of  such  standards  requires
       monitoring data, especially  data  that
       provide information on  the  responses
       of aquatic life to temperature changes
       and levels.
    •  Toxic Standards
         The FWPCA provides for control of
       toxic pollutants  through special efflu-
       ent guidelines and ambient  standards.
       Since dose-response relationships for
       many toxic  substances  are not fully
       known, there is great need for special-
       ized  monitoring. Sophisticated sam-
       pling and analytical techniques are fre-
       quently  required  because of the very
       low concentrations dealt with  in moni-
       toring toxic pollutants. Because  of dif-
       ficulties with  physical/chemical  moni-
       toring at low concentrations,  increasing
       attention is  being afforded  biological
       monitoring.

3.  Provide  Data, Including  Information on
    Baseline Conditions, for Developing  and
    Revising Local Pollution Control Plans and
    Permits.
  Monitoring data are needed for four planning
programs and three permit programs.
    •   Section 208 Areawide Plans
         Areawide planning  integrates  many
       elements of water pollution control, in-
       cluding  those which apply  to  point
       sources,  nonpoint  sources,  and  up-
       stream  sources.  Extensive monitoring
       data—effluent, ambient,  and  biologi-
       cal—are  needed  to adequately inte-
       grate these elements and devise broad
       control plans.
    •   Section 303 Basin Plans
         More detailed water quality  informa-
       tion is developed in  basin planning, in-
       cluding:
       — A display of in-stream water quality
         data to  indicate that  segments  are
         properly classified as effluent-limited
         or water-quality-limited.
       —An inventory and  ranking  of signifi-
         cant municipal  discharges, and an in-
         ventory  of  significant  industrial dis-
         chargers.
                                     37

-------
       — Recommendations for revising water
         quality standards.
         In  addition,  plans for water-quality-
       limited segments include:
       —An  assessment  of  total  maximum
         daily loads necessary to meet water
         quality standards.
       — Established  or targeted waste load
         allocations and effluent limitations.
       —An assessment of nonpoint source
         pollution.

  Extensive water monitoring data are needed
to develop these planning outputs.  In many
cases, intensive or special surveys  must  be
made.

   •   Section 201 Facilities Plan
         The impacts of alternative treatment
       schemes must be examined in order lo
       develop  plans  for municipal treatment
       facilities. Primarily,  ambient  data are
       needed to conduct such examinations.
   •   Pesticides Monitoring Plans
         The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
       and Rodenticide  Act requires  the EPA
       to formulate  and  periodically  revise, in
       cooperation with  other agencies, a na-
       tional  plan  for monitoring pesticides.
       The plan is to be restricted to ambient
       monitoring designed to assess the lev-
       els of pesticides in  representative seg-
       ments of the environment. Considera-
       ble monitoring data—biological as well
       as physical/chemical—will be needed
       to design and revise the national plan.
   •   NPDES Permits
        The FWPCA requires  that any dis-
       charge into the Nation's navigable wa-
       ters from any point source  may be
       made  only  in accordance  with  con-
       ditions of a discharge permit.  Usually,
       the   permit  conditions  conform  to
       nationwide  standards  such  as  best
       practicable technology,   best available
       technology, and BPWTT. In the case of
       water-quality-limited  segments of  wa-
       ter bodies,  however, limitations more
       stringent than nationwide  standards
       may be required.  In order to determine
       the levels of control needed, extensive
       use of effluent as  well as ambient moni-
       toring data is needed.
    •   Dredge or Fill Permits
         The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is
       authorized by the FWPCA to issue per-
       mits for disposal of dredged or fill mate-
       rials in navigable waters. The EPA fre-
       quently uses monitoring data to assess
       the impacts of such permits to prepare
       review comments by  the Corps. Am-
       bient and biological data are particularly
       important.
    •   Sewage Sludge Permits
         The FWPCA requires EPA to develop
       regulations governing  issuance of per-
       mits for disposal of sewage sludge.  In
       developing the regulations, monitoring
       data are required, primarily  data on the
       migration of  leachates to ground water
       aquifers and surface waters.
4.   Provide Monitoring and Case Support Data
    for Enforcement Activities.
  Once standards have been developed and
permit conditions set, there  is a continuing
need  for monitoring data to support enforce-
ment  activities. Data needs fall  primarily into
the following areas:
    •   NPDES Permits
         Compliance  monitoring  of  NPDES
       permits is a major program area. This is
       handled  primarily  through review  of
       self-monitoring reports,  which are ex-
       pected to total 120,000  in FY76. In many
       instances,  however, follow-up monitor-
       ing is  needed. This is  handled by sam-
       pling and reconnaissance inspections
       (3,000 projected for FY76). When ac-
       tions  are  taken against dischargers,
       additional monitoring  is  generally  re-
       quired. The extent of  such  monitoring
       varies considerably and may involve am-
       bient  as  well  as  effluent measure-
       ments.
    •   Pretreatment Standards
         Industries  that must meet  pretreat-
       ment standards may be required to pro-
       vide self-monitoring reports  on their
       discharges. The EPA and/or the States
       will  review these  reports, if required,
       and conduct follow-up  effluent monitor-
       ing inspections as necessary.
    •   Drinking Water Standards
         By  mid-1979,  it  is  expected that
       240,000 water  supply  systems will  be
       monitored for compliance with drinking
                                           38

-------
    water standards.  As  in the  case of
    NPDES  permits,  compliance  will  be
    handled primarily  by reviewing  self-
    monitoring  reports. Again,  as in the
    case of NPDES permits, the EPA and
    the States will need to conduct follow-
    up monitoring for compliance and sup-
    port of enforcement actions.
•   Sewage Sludge Permits
     Compliance monitoring requirements
    have not been developed for sewage
    sludge  permits. If sites are  properly
    selected, there may be no  need for
    leachate monitoring.
•   Dredge and Fill Permits
     Monitoring of dredge and fill  areas
    will be determined to a major extent by
    the types of areas involved and specific
    permit requirements.
•  Ocean Dumping Permits
   Monitoring of ocean dumping  sites is
   needed primarily in the permit develop-
   ment process.  In certain cases, how-
   ever, continuing  monitoring  may be
   needed for compliance purposes.
•   Oil and Hazardous Spills
    More than 10,000 spills occur annually
    in the United States. Approximately 80
    percent of this total involves petroleum
    or petroleum products. The EPA re-
    sponds to spills in inland waters, while
   the Coast Guard responds to those in
   coastal  waters and the Great Lakes. In
    FY76, the  EPA expects to investigate
   and/or prosecute 900 spill cases under
   civil  penalties, and 40 spill cases under
   criminal  penalties.  In most of these
   cases, monitoring data will probably be
    required. The monitoring process may
    involve  sophisticated  techniques for
   identifying pollutants.
   EPA Headquarters' personnel who use,
   or are responsible for monitoring data,
   have assigned priorities to the various
   uses. While these priorities vary  con-
   siderably  among  individuals and  pro-
   gram offices, certain uses are  per-
   ceived  as  being   of  generally  high
   priority (Attachment 5):

   1.  Measure progress toward achieving
      or maintaining ambient standards
      and legislative goals;
       2.   Provide research and other data for
           the development or revision  of ef-
           fluent  standards, toxic standards,
           and pretreatment standards;
       3.   Develop/assess/revise  point-
           source control strategies; and,
       4.   Allocate resources  among activi-
           ties.
  EPA Headquarters' personnel have also iden-
tified the  types of monitoring  data needed to
meet their responsibilities in the various use
areas. As  might be expected, they have  the
greatest need for ambient data (29 percent of
total needs) followed closely by effluent data
(26 percent) (Attachment  6). However, a sub-
stantial need is indicated for biological  data (22
percent) and health data (15 percent).


Monitoring Systems

  Monitoring data used by the EPA are derived
from a variety of sources:
National Water  Quality Surveillance  System
(NWQSS)
  This system has 188 paired stations  that  are
located above and below  major types of land
use areas, for example, industrial and  agricul-
tural areas. Most  samples are collected and
analyzed through  a contract with the USGS.
Data are stored in  the STORET computer sys-
tem.
NPDES Self-monitoring Reports
  These reports are  submitted by  municipal
and industrial dischargers. Generally, they  are
submitted  on  a  monthly  basis, with  about
60,000 to  be filed  in FY76. The data are filed
manually,  but an automated system is currently
being tested.

NPDES Sampling  Inspections
  It is anticipated that about 7,500 inspections
will be undertaken  in FY77. Data collected from
these inspections are filed  manually.

Toxic Monitoring
  Two contracts have provided monitoring data
on toxic substances; 200 ambient water  sam-
ples have been collected and analyzed from the
effluents of 150 industrial dischargers.  Data
from these surveys have been filed manually.
Contracts  are planned for additional surveys,
and an  automated  data system is being con-
sidered.
                                       39

-------
 National  Organic  Reconnaissance  Survey
 (NORS)
  This survey provides information on levels of
 organics in  the drinking water supplies of 112
 cities suspected  of having water quality prob-
 lems. The survey covers approximately 20 spe-
 cific organic compounds deemed to be candi-
 dates for particular concern.
 Environmental Radiation Ambient  Monitoring
 System (ERAMS)
  This system includes 55 ambient monitoring
 stations and 76 drinking water supply stations.
 The work is carried out through the  Regional
 Offices,  with analyses published  quarterly.
 Data are filed manually.
 Pesticides Monitoring Systems
  Cooperatively with the USGS, the EPA moni-
 tors 152 stations for  pesticides. Both water
 and sediment samples are collected from 17
 major fresh  water drainage basins and are ana-
 lyzed for 25 pesticides. Data are stored in the
 STORET system. Estuarine and marine moni-
 toring programs are also operating.
 Landfill Leachate Monitoring
  Approximately 10 landfill sites are monitored
 to determine effects of landfill runoff. The data
 are stored manually.
 Regional Monitoring Activities
  Although each Regional Office does not sup-
 port a formal monitoring system, various moni-
 toring activities are carried out, for example, in-
 tensive surveys  for  planning  purposes, or
 monitoring a localized area for a specific pollut-
 ant. Several Regions support local geographic
 monitoring  programs such as  monitoring of
 ocean dumping sites. Regions also support the
 national  monitoring  systems  as well as the
State programs.

 State Monitoring Programs
  As required by "Water Quality and Pollutant
Source Monitoring, Appendix A," each Stale
 must maintain an ambient monitoring program.
An objective of a State system is to assess the
effectiveness  of the State's pollution control
 program.  Data are  generally  stored in the
STORET system.
 computer  files. The term is an  acronym for
 STOrage and RETrieval  of water  quality data.
 The system was designed in 1962-63 by the
 Public Health  Service to handle  data from  a
 broad variety of activities in  the field  of water
 pollution control. Today, 42 States, 10 different
 Federal Agencies and a variety of local groups
 provide data to STORET. The more important
 STORET statistics for FY75 follow:
 Size
  Number of stations             214,802
  Number of observations       34,400,000
  (8 million added in 1975)
 Activity
  Storage jobs                   15,921
  Retrieval/analysis jobs           34,275
  Users                          240
 Costs
  Computer                  $1,352,000
  Personnel                    722,000
  Other (including contracts)        285,000
  Total                      $2,359,000
 Usage (Pertains to PL 92-500 retrievals except as noted)
                                  % of total use
 Planning (Sections 106, 201, 208,
  209,303)                              18
 Permitting (Sections 402, 404)                2
 Enforcement (Sections 308,309)              3
 Standards (Sections 304, 316)                 2
 Reporting (Sections 210, 305, 315)             17
 Surveillance (Section 104)                   29
 Research (Sections 105,314)                 5
 Control (Sections 108,313)                  5
 Non-PL 92-500 uses                       19
 (8-1  percent of the retrievals  were  made by  State and
 Regional users.)
  In addition to STORET,  EPA maintains a num-
 ber of manual files. The largest is maintained
 for NPDES self-moniloring reports. This file is
 rapidly growing (60,000 reports expected to be
 filed in FY76) and will probably require an auto-
 mated system in the near future. Other manual
 files are maintained  for NPDES sampling in-
 spections,  toxic monitoring surveys,  the  Na-
 tional Organics Reconnaissance  Survey,  the
 Environmental  Radiation  Ambient  Monitoring
 Survey, the Landfill Leachate Monitoring Sur-
vey, and miscellaneous Regional and State sur-
veys.
  A system has not yet been designed for  the
extensive  monitoring data that will be gener-
ated by programs of the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
Data Systems
  The  EPA's  monitoring data  are primarily
stored in STORET, one of the Nation's largest
Monitoring Costs
  Monitoring costs for the EPA and the States
                                            40

-------
 have not been compiled on a rigorous compre-
 hensive basis. However, a rough indication of
 costs can be obtained from budget information
 submitted for FY75 (Table 15).
                   TABLE 15
           MONITORING COSTS—FY1975
 Organizations
                                     SMillion
                                       27.8
                                       8.6
States
Regions (does not include automatic data
   processing)
  Permit issuance/compliance/
   enforcement                    6.4
  Planning                         0.6
  Water quality surveillance            0.4
  Management of State programs        0.2
  Other                           1.0
Headquarters                            13.0
Office of Enforcement                 0.7
(National Field Investigation Centers)
Office of Research and Development
  Quality assurance                  4.1
  National Eutrophication Survey        1.8
  New York Bight                    0.3
  Great Lakes                       1.7
  Miscellaneous lake monitoring         0.4
Office of Water Planning and Standards
  Computer support—STORET          1.5
  Managing and operating STORE!       0.4
  National Water Quality Surveillance
  System                          0.6
  Management of State monitoring       0.4
  Effluent Data System                0.2
  Water quality analysis of data and
   management of water quality
   inventories                      0.2
Office of Water Program Operations       0.7
  (ocean dumping)
     Total
                                      49.4
  It should be noted that this compilation does
not include costs for the pesticides and radia-
tion monitoring programs, and does not reflect
costs that may be expected in the future cover-
ing programs of the Safe Drinking Water Act.


Problem Identification and
Tentative Remedial Actions
  The primary water monitoring problems, their
contributing  causes  (or  sub-problems),  and
possible remedial  actions  fall into six  broad
categories:
1. EPA  has no cohesive  policy that encom-
   passes all water monitoring activities.
    •  Organizational and programmatic frag-
       mentation present difficult obstacles to
       unified policy.
    •  Legislative fragmentation in the form of
       six major acts requires an array of fre-
       quently  overlapping  monitoring activi-
       ties.
    •  There is no office or  group that has
       been  given  the responsibility to de-
       velop or coordinate broad policy in the
       area of water monitoring.
    Possible Remedial Actions
    •  Establish a continuing  Headquarters/
       Regional/State  policy  coordinating
       group. This group should address:
       — Quality control practices.
       —Communication and dissemination  of
         information.
       — Uniformity of reporting formats.
       — A methodology to  convert data into
         useful information.
       — Develop a water monitoring strategy
         that includes setting priorities.
       —This  strategy  must  address  short-
         term requirements as  well as  long-
         range  planning for  monitoring re-
         quirements.
       —A major consideration  in setting pri-
         orities will  be using  monitoring re-
         sources to their best advantage.
2.   Ambient  monitoring  systems do not pro-
    vide for ready reporting of Regional and na-
    tional water quality conditions and trends.
    •  Parametric  coverage,   sampling  fre-
       quency,  and station sitings are inade-
       quate.
    •  Quality control practices have been in-
       adequate to ensure that users receive
       valid data.
    •  There are insufficient resources as well
       as inappropriate resource allocations.
    •  Data collection, storage, and use are
       fragmented.
    •  A network to provide adequate informa-
       tion on oceans and estuaries is lacking.
    •  Laboratory  equipment  and  expertise
       are not used to the Agency's best ad-
       vantage.

    Possible Remedial Actions
    •  Design and  implement a multiple-use
       ambient water monitoring system.
    •  Develop an overall monitoring strategy.
                                             41

-------
    •  Expand the quality assurance program
       to stress sample collection and  data
       handling procedures.
    •  Augment or reallocate resources.
    •  Make greater use of intensive surveys
       for estuaries and other water bodies of
       complex hydrology.
    •  Coordinate EPA, State,  and USGS mon-
       itoring efforts.
3.  Monitoring systems do not provide data 1o
    adequately   document   progress  toward
    achieving program objectives.
    •  Objectives  requiring monitoring  sup-
       port  are  not specified  in a number of
       programs.
    •  Baseline data are inadequate.
    •  Poor  communication between collec-
       tors and users has resulted in an inade-
       quate understanding of what data are
       needed.
    •  Data collection  and handling functions
       are fragmented.
    •  Monitoring  systems  are inadequately
       designed.
    •  Meaningful  indices to  measure prog-
       ress are lacking.
    Possible Remedial Actions
    •  Develop an overall monitoring strategy
    •  Design monitoring systems that are ori-
       ented to priority uses.
    •  Develop and  implement improved coor-
       dination procedures.
    •  Increase and reallocate resources.
4.  Monitoring systems do not provide data to
    adequately  support development or  revi-
    sion of certain program elements.
    •  Ambient networks do not provide ade-
       quate data for Section 208 plans, espe-
       cially data on nonpoint sources.
    •  Monitoring  of   ocean  dumping  and
       sludge disposal sites is inadequate.
    •  Methods  currently used for  ambient
       monitoring of  certain  toxic  materials
       may  not be sensitive  enough  to be
       meaningful.
    •   Ambient systems are needed to  check
       on compliance.
    Possible Remedial Actions
    •   Redesign monitoring to  meet needs for
       specific program uses.
    •   Make  greater use of intensive special-
       purpose surveys.
    •   Increase or reallocate resources.
5.  Monitoring  systems do  not provide  ade-
    quate support for certain enforcement ac-
    tivities.
    •   NPDES self-monitoring reports are not
       verified.
    •   NPDES  self-monitoring  data are  not
       stored for ready retrieval and use.
    •   Ambient systems do not provide  ade-
       quate support for enforcing permit con-
       ditions based on load allocations.
    •   A data system to verify self-monitoring
       data is lacking.
    Possible Remedial Actions
    •   Redesign ambient systems, and stress
       intensive surveys and  special studies.
    •   Design  and  institute  a "manageable"
       NPDES automatic data processing sys-
       tem.
    •   Increase or reallocate  resources.
6.  Development  of  models,  criteria,   and
    standards is frequently frustrated by  una-
    vailable or inadequate data.
    •   Data  on background  levels are inade-
       quate.
    •   Data  on dose/response effects, espe-
       cially for toxics, are inadequate.
    •   Data  for  developing  and   verifying
       models are not sufficiently detailed.
    •   Sampling  and  analyses  techniques,
       especially for pesticides and toxics, are
       inadequate.
    •   Collection,  storage,  and  retrieval of
       data are fragmented.
    •   The   relationship between  point  and
       nonpoint sources  is  not well under-
       stood.
    •   Best  use of  existing  data and what is
       needed to complement it needs further
       study.
    •   Starting in FY77, additional information
       will be, required to develop more strin-
       gent  water  quality standards as  out-
       lined  in the FWPCA.
    •   Data are lacking for the wasteload allo-
       cation process and for writing permits.

    Possible  Remedial Actions
    •   Provide  emphasis  to  biological  and
       health effects monitoring.
    •   Provide emphasis to monitoring of toxic
       and  hazardous  pollutants; de-empha-
       size  monitoring of  traditional sanitary
       engineering parameters.
                                           42

-------
    •   Make greater use of intensive surveys
       and special studies.
    •   Augumentor reallocate resources.
    •   Develop and institute coordination pro-
       cedures, especially  between Office of
       Research  and Development and  pro-
       gram offices.
Work Group Study Efforts

  Most of the problems areas identified have
been caused  by the lack of an overall perspec-
tive to the monitoring program. The following
recommended tasks consider monitoring in its
entirety. The  Work Group should focus its ef-
fort on the following tasks:
1. Develop an agency-wide water monitoring
   strategy that would include:
   •  A statement of legislative goals.
   •  A statement of program objectives.
   •  A statement of monitoring priorities.
   •  A statement of monitoring roles and re-
      sponsibilities.
   •  A statement of monitoring outputs.
2. Design a cost-effective ambient monitoring
   network that would  include the following
   major elements and emphases:
   •  Station siting criteria should emphasize
      stations that provide data for problem
      evaluation and Regional/National trend
      analysis.
   •  Parametric coverage should emphasize
      toxic   pollutants and  biological  meas-
      ures.
   •  Monitoring   frequencies   should   be
      based   primarily  on  statistical  confi-
      dence.
   •  Data   development   and  processing
      should stress  quality assurance  and
      usability.
   •  Monitoring  requirements  should opti-
      mize  use of resources—labor,  equip-
      ment, shipping, and data processing.
3.  Design intensive and special purpose moni-
    toring surveys to provide ambient and other
    data  not available from fixed station net-
    works. Estuaries  and  marine  locations,
    which currently lack information, should re-
    ceive priority.
4.  Design an effluent monitoring program that
    would include the following major elements
    and emphases:
    •  Parametric coverage should emphasize
       toxic pollutants.
    •  Self-monitoring frequency should vary
       for different dischargers, based on spe-
       cific selection criteria.
    •  Selections for EPA/State nonsampling
       inspections should be  determined pri-
       marily by data processing systems.
    •  Selections for EPA/State nonsampling
       inspections should be  determined pri-
       marily by data processing systems.
    •  Selections  for  EPA/State  sampling
       inspections should be  determined pri-
       marily  by results of nonsampling in-
       spections and  manipulations of  data
       processing systems.
    •  Selected data should  be  stored  in a
       "manageable" automatic data process-
       ing system.
5.  Develop  a drinking water monitoring sys-
    tem  that  stresses  simplicity,  maximum
    State involvement, and  coverage of toxic
    pollutants.
6.  Identify priority research and quality assur-
    ance needs.
    •  Background level surveys.
    •  Health and biological cause/effect rela-
       tionships for toxic pollutants.
    •  Laboratory  and  technical  assistance
       support for sampling and  analysis for
       toxic pollutants.
    •  Quality assurance support for sampling
       and data preparation.
7.  Develop  alternative  operating  strategies
    based on  detailed  analysis of workloads
    and EPA/State resources.
                                           43

-------
                                                              APPENDIX E—Attachment  1
                                                                              (Page 1 of 2)
                          WATER MONITORING QUESTIONNAIRE
NAME	TITLE
 1.  Indicate, in matrix provided, the priority of use in your office or division: High (H), medium (M),
    low(L).

 2.  Specify kind of data needed: Ambient (A), discharge (D), biological (B), health (H), other (O).

 3.  Indicate deficiencies, if any,  with design of existing monitoring systems:  Parametric coverage
    (P), station coverage (S), frequency of sampling (F), data handling (D), other (O).

 4.  Indicate deficiencies, if any, with data received: Completeness (C), acuracy (A), timeliness (T).

 5.  Indicate sources of data used: STORET (S), non-computer (N), discharge reports (D).

 6.  Identify primary constraints: Manpower (M), cost (C), technology (T), other (O).

 7.  Where problems have been  indicated, please suggest changes for improvement (space at
    bottom of matrix may be used for suggestions, if needed).
 8. Identify major problems you have with State and Regional monitoring programs.
 9. Estimate the level of effort within your off ice/division devoted to data acquisition and/or
   analysis:

   man-years	        non-labor costs (e.g., computer time) $	
   Is this level appropriate to meet your responsibilities?    Yes	No	

10. Do you need historical data that are more than five years old? If so, for how many years?

11. Are there data which you will need in the future, but are not presently using? If so, indicate data
   need and use.

                                           44

-------
                                                       APPENDIX E—Attachment 1
                                                                        (Page 2 of 2)
Monitoring Use
                       Design        Data
Priority   Kind of data   deficiencies   deficiencies   Constraints
H/M/L   A/D/B/H/O   P/S/F/D/O     C/A/T     M/C/T/O
1 . Develop/ revise water quality standards.
2. Develop /revise Section 303 basin plans.
3. Develop / revise Section 208 areawide plans.
4. Develop /revise Section 201 facilities plans.
5. Document progress toward achievement/
maintenance of ambient standards and
legislative goals.
6. Monitor primitive areas for background
levels and significant deterioration.
7. Development of baseline information.
8. Model validation /development.
9. Health research /control techniques
development.
10. EIS development/evaluation.
11. Development/revision of effluent standards.
12. Formulate/revise discharge permits.
13. Permit compliance.
14. Develop /revise drinking water standards.
15. Develop/revise pesticides monitoring plan.
16. Develop/ revise toxic standards.
17. Develop /revise pre-treatment standards.
18. Single pollution incidents (fish kills,
oil spills).
19. Develop /assess /revise point source
control strategies.
20. Develop/assess/revise nonpoint source
control strategies.
21. Resource allocations.
22. Public reporting (indices, trends, etc.)
23. Support of enforcement actions.
24. Other.



























































































































































                                 45

-------
                       APPENDIX E—Attachment 2
                                    (Page 1 of 1)


cc
0
NISTRAT
S
Q
<


rr
O
<
ADMINISTR.
>
5?
Q

nt guidelines/
ards (municipal,
s?
5= *
LU t5
•
HOIVHI
^^
ii
,
"^ co C
-1
Si
cfl nj
5 CO
•























basin plans
• Section 208
areawide plans
OF OF
PLANNING
ANDARDS
OFF
WATER
ANDST
1


o|S»
o5ga
^ ^o^
0I^
1


LL z CO
005
LUH<
0S£
1


LL 1
Otts
ufo
u_ 5o
° 1
1


CEOF
STRATION
OFF
ADMIN
1

to ^
o o U3
tl 8 I ra _ | o
£•? S IE »£ = £
— C- -O CO, O ^ *: rnO
t " » 5 S 5 E Jo j E „, c °
g?^ S is- - ?E Illl
fell I 1 s?a IS g| ||ss
°So 1 i E B2° °° go. ^ 555-
SS?;; ° u.5'5 o £E? ^ S gc u^co Eg ^ gg" =
cog c oSi t- _ o to oo .3? oo E co .5 ott 55^-3
to"  oioioS
Scro^ra o£j c Q--- u%£ " o. >, Ofg T3 5- B" ?cSra
f5g|5 [t55 2m«c?a -6" S^g1 tiHg «£ t£ 5 5 5 S
iglig °s= |Sis^ ° 1 §|? oa- s§ °| E§|?
SmzS'? S «~5.S50 2otJ Q- ^ * QQ™3

— C
CQ a>
. I 11! If. I
1 b 1 IB- Hi |«
Q-QJ cD^Xo ^OO0-^ — =5
? j? £ E sas ^F2 °^ 50
o£s °a«;; Q^^o^a;« « os
!jf •!! Iiili >i HitJf >i| II,
5o2g o|£ Q-g-TJ = ggj So-^i-C™ g2g "£m
Hi- °is HI!- °p 11 § HI SEI if!
£2?m^ < Q^^S-^ 5^ SoS.^0 ^< ^S-E
• • • * * ^ * • • •

cu
s^
•PCO
1?«
re E ... q
"- b-g ' ™
ScS "
Ii! p -!i
c c S to oS«o — S
Itlf °lis 1!
m< DC o _J E
• • •

^l> t I
IS? 5 o
E c to o
CL ° F r- *~
oE|-5 "-ag
SgIS §«"
-Sg ™ S tj §2
||_1 wjg
sls^g^
tto IM c Mgc
ssspssa
Q-D-CDPOQCOr^
ZZQ o siro^

to
CO CO
E"0
^0 co "
s" go
»5 5. IS
29- ra z D
ajO- m5 c ..Q to
^S Og| « fegfe s
°«. S5§ § Sp E
III si i ^l 1
Q u_ « CC < CL
• • • *
1 1

46

-------
                                          APPENDIX E—Attachment 3
                                                         (Page 1 of 1)
   REGIONAL WATER MONITORING ACTIVITIES
•   NPDES compliance monitoring.

•   Section 303 basin plans.

•   Section 208 areawide planning.

•   STORE! input and use.

•   Section 305(b) water quality reports.

•   Section 201 municipal facilities plans.

•   Ocean dumping (Regulations II and III).

•   Administration of Section 106 State monitoring requirements.

•   Quality assurance activities:

       —Laboratory evaluations;

       —Certification of drinking water laboratories; and,

       —Assistance of State and local agencies
         concerning techniques, methodology,
         quality control, and laboratory support.

•   Gathering of pesticide samples.

•   Emergency and spill response—oil and hazardous materials.
                       47

-------
                                                                       APPENDIX E—Attachment 4

                                                                       (Page 1 of 1)
E
to
75

OFFICE OF HEALTH AND
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Headquarters Technical Divisions
Health Effects
Ecological Effects
Criteria Development and
Special Studies

OFFICE OF AIR LAND,
AND WATER USE
Headquarters Technical Divisions
Media Quality Management
Waste Management
Agriculture and Non-point
Sources Management

OFFICE OF ENERGY MINERALS
AND INDUSTRY
Headquarters Technical Divisions
Energy Processes
Industrial and Extractive
Processes

OFFICE OF MONITORING AND
TECHNICAL SUPPORT
c
•4- °~ C
« 1 o |
1 ^ 1 1
issss
aT £5 l-|-
rr i




I
flggE* S||
Health Effects Research
RTP


• Treatment and disposal
of wastewater sludges,
improvement of public
drinking water supplies,
management of waste
3 _
11
1"
Sir
1

• Oil spill and
hazardous material
identification
I -
2 £
> u
Ul -C
£ "
ICE
1



• Methods standardiza-
tion and quality
assurance
• Reference and
performance
c
11
-0
fl
1™

1

CC
UJ
X

generation
c
c
O

"o
C
o
03
O
C

-------
                                                                      APPENDIX E—Attachment 5
                                                                                       (Page 1 of 1)
               PRIORITIES ASSIGNED MONITORING USES BY EPA HEADQUARTERS OFFICIALS'
1
,<0
S 5 2
Q 0. U|
WHM(8)
Q
To document progress toward achievement or
ma ntenance of water quality standards and
legislative goals.
• Monitor primitive areas for background
levels and significant deterioration
• Allocate resources
• Develop baseline information.
To provide support for public reporting of
trends, indices, etc.
To test compliance with, and monitor enforcement of
regulations limiting discharge volume and pollutant
concentrations.
• Formulate / revise discharge permits
• Determine permit compliance
• Investigate single pollution incidents
(fish kills, oil spills); and
• Support enforcement actions.
To provide supporting data for the development/
revision of plans and standards.
Develop / revise water quality standards
Develop /revise Section 303 basin plans
Develop /revise Section 208 areawide plans
Develop /revise Section 201 facilities plans
Develop /revise drinking water standards
Develop /revise pesticides monitoring plan
Develop /revise toxic standards
Develop /revise pre-treatment standards
Model validation /development.
To acquire a data base for the correlation of
pollutant levels with effects on human health,
plants, animals, and for future epidemiological
and morbidity analyses.
To provide for development, assessment, and
revision of pollution control programs and strategies.
• Develop/assess/revise point source
control strategies
• Develop /assess /revise nonpoint source
control strategies.

2.5


1.8
2.5
2.4

2.1


2.4
1.8
2.0

2.0
2.1

2.4
2.0
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.7
1.6
2.6
2.6
2.2


2.0


2.2
2.6

2.0


2.5






2.3


2.5






2.3











2.5


2.0





2.4






2.2


2.8






2.4











2.4


2.4





2.3


2
3
1

3


1.4
1.0
1.0

1.0
1.0


1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0


1.0



3

3


1.6


1
3
1

1.5


2.4
3
3

1.5
3.0


1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
2.5


1.5



2

1.5


2.5


1.5
2.6
2.9

2.6


2.0
1.3
1.5

2.0
1.6


2.2
2.2
1.5
1.0
2.0
1.8
2.6
2.5
2.0


2.0



2.6

2.2


2.1


3.0

2.2

1.0


2.4
1.0
2.0

3.0
2.0


3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0


2.2



2.2

1.5

   1 Priorities computed by assigning numerical values: Low priority, 1; medium priority, 2; high priority, 3. (Parentheses
show number of officials).
                                                49

-------
                                                                 APPENDIX E—Attachment 6
                      TYPES OF MONITORING DATA NEEDED FOR EPA USES            (Page 1 of 1)
                                              Ambient
       Headquarters Officials Needing Data'
       Biological   Effluent    Health     Other
Develop/revise water quality standards.
Develop /revise Section 303 basin plans.
Develop /revise Section 208 areawide plans.
Develop /revise Section 201 facilities plans.
Document progress toward achievement/maintenance
of ambient standards and legislative goals.
Monitor primitive areas for background levels and
significant deterioration.
Development of baseline information.
Model validation/development.
Develop health research /control techniques.
Develop/evaluate environmental impact statements.
Develop /revise effluent standards.
Formulate /revise discharge permits.
Determine permit compliance.
Develop /revise drinking water standards.
Develop /revise pesticides monitoring plan.
Develop /revise toxic standards.
Develop /revise pretreatment standards.
Investigate single pollution incidents (fish kills, oil spills).
Develop/assess/revise point source control strategies.
Develop/assess/revise nonpoint source control strategies.
Allocate resources.
Report indices, trends, etc., to the public.
Support enforcement actions.
8
4
5
3
11
11
10
5
5
4
3
3
2
4
3
5
7
5
8
7
5
5
3
5
3
4
1
9
9
8
4
4
3
2
2
1
3
2
4
4
6
5
5
. 3
5
3
2
5
6
5
7
4
8
5
3
5
7
5
4
1
2
5
6
6
8
7
5
5
4
2
1
2
1
6
3
4
1
3
1
2
2
2
4
2
5
3
3
3
3
2
6
3




2
3
3
2

2

1
1


1
1
3
3
4
3
4
2
      Total
      % of grand total
126
95
115
29
22
 26
64
15
35
' 23 officials canvassed.
                                            50

-------
                          Appendix F
                  Sample Intensive Survey
                       Abstract Outline
I.  INTRODUCTION

II.  SUMMARY

III.  DESCRIPTION OF SURVEY AREA

   A. Water Quality Problems
   B. Waste Sources in the Survey Area

IV.  PRESENTATION OF SURVEY RESULTS
                                51
                                         6 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977 O—229-196

-------