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
------- |