EPA-440/4-84-018
vvEPA
Unit 3d States Office of Water
Environmental Protection Regulations and Standards July 1984
Agency Washington, DC 20460
Water ~~
Planning and Managing
Cooperative
Monitoring Projects
-------
PLANNING AND MANAGING
COOPERATIVE MONITORING
PROJECTS
July 19R4
Monitoring Branch
Monitoring and Data Support Division
Office of Water Regulations and standards
U,S. Environmental Protection ,V-- "
li'-^-Ion 5, Library (5PL-16)
K.-J 3, Daarborn Street, Boom 1670
-------
PREFACE
The concept of cooperative monitoring is not new. Coopera-
tive monitoring involves shared efforts by individuals or groups
in assessing water quality conditions and developing local water
quality-based controls. Cooperative arrangements are encouraged
by the Clean Water Act which states in Section 104(a) that EPA
"in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies,
conduct and promote the coordination and acceleration of...inves-
tigations, .. .surveys, and studies related to the causes, effects,
extent, prevention, reduction, and elimination of [water] pollu-
tion." Also under Section 104(b), EPA is authorized to "cooperate
with other Federal departments and agencies, State water pollution
control agencies, interstate agencies, other public and private
agencies, institutions, organizations, industries involved and
individuals, in the preparation and conduct of...[the] activities
referred to [above]."
Cooperative monitoring projects require careful planning and
strong management controls. This report describes the factors
to be considered in designing and implementing cooperative monit-
oring projects so that specific provisions are made for the collec-
tion and analysis of scientifically valid water quality data and
so that the State water pollution control agencies have final re-
view and approval authority for all projects.
-------
CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
PREFACE
I . INTRODUCTION
Monitoring Objectives
Role of Monitoring in the Water Quality
Management Process
1 1 . COOPERATIVE MONITORING - OVERVIEW ..................... 3
Approach ........................................... 3
Incentives ......................................... 4
Appl ications ..................................... > 5
III. INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS ................................. 8
Identification of Needs ............................ 8
Opportunities for Involvement ...................... 8
Roles and Responsibilities ......................... 9
Meeting Project Needs .............................. 9
Project Agreements ................................. n
IV. FUNDING AND RESOURCE OPTIONS .......................... 12
Direct Funding ..................................... 12
Indirect Funding ................................... 13
Provision of In-Kind Services ...................... 13
Joint Funding ...................................... 13
User Fees .......................................... 13
Combined Arrangements .............................. 14
V. PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ................................ 15
Planning and Management ............................ 15
Technical Considerations ........................... 18
Water Quality Modeling ............................. 19
Quality Assurance/Quality Control .................. 20
Appendixes
Appendix A - Cooperative Monitoring Case Studies ........... A-l
Lower Fox River, Wisconsin ............................ A-l
Middle Wabash River, Indiana .......................... A-5
Appendix B - Sample Cooperative Monitoring Agreements ...... B-l
Illinois EPA with City of Chicago ..................... B-2
Fox Valley Water Quality Planning Agency .............. B-9
Monmouth County Health Department and New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection ....... B-14
Appendix C - Work/Quality Assurance Project Plan Guidance... C-l
- 11 -
-------
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to explain how local par-
ticipation in water quality management may be enhanced while
ensuring that scientifically valid data is collected and used
in decision making. Local participation through cooperative
monitoring agreements provides a mechanism for increased cooper-
ation among affected and concerned parties in assessing local
water guality and developing water guality-based controls. This
guidance document focuses on the incentives for these types of
projects and their role in the water quality management process.
The guidance also presents institutional options and consider-
ations for project implementation.
MONITORING OBJECTIVES
The objective of cooperative monitoring is to support a
particular water quality management activity or process. These
could be water quality management planning, reviewing water
quality standards, calculating total maximum daily loads/wasteload
allocations for water quality-based decisions, making construction
grant decisions, or determining permit limits for municipal or
industrial dischargers.
ROLE OF MONITORING IN THE WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PROCESS
The Clean Water Act provides federal and State regulatory
agencies with a variety of tools for water quality management to
assure that national water quality goals are achieved. These
tools include:
1. Water Quality Planning and Management (including
total maximum daily loads/wasteload allocations)
2. Water Quality Monitoring
3. NPDES Permits and Compliance
4. Municipal Treatment Facilities
5. Water Quality Standards
-------
These tools are dependent upon scientifically sound, site-
specific water quality data needed to support decision making.
In making decisions on the basis of water quality, the specific
characteristics of the discharges and the receiving water as
well as the constituents to be regulated must all be considered.
Site-specific data on the aquatic life present, the physical and
chemical characteristics of the water, background conditions,
and low flow conditions are often needed for determining which
controls are most appropriate and for establishing appropriate
water quality-based effluent limitations, i.e., controls
more restrictive than technology-based limits. Careful consider-
ation of well documented quality assurance/quality control proce-
dures will help ensure that data collected is representative and
scientifically valid.
This guidance document discusses the appropriate role of
State and local governments, environmental groups, industries,
and others in planning and conducting ambient monitoring with an
emphasis on cooperative monitoring agreements for developing
water quality-based contols. In light of increased demand for
federal and State resources, data resulting from local cooperative
monitoring efforts could become an essential factor in resolving
questions associated with the development and implementation of
water quality-based controls.
-------
CHAPTER II
COOPERATIVE MONITORING - OVERVIEW
APPROACH
Cooperative monitoring is where two or more parties agree
to collect water quality data needed to support water quality
management objectives. The parties involved may include the
State water quality regulatory agency, ?OR areawide planning
agency, the EPA or other federal agencies, municipal and indus-
trial dischargers, environmental groups, universities, and others
who are affected, concerned, or interested in local water quality
Cooperative monitoring is an approach to achieve maximum use of
limited public monitoring resources by combining them with other
resources in arriving at water quality decisions.
Cooperative monitoring projects have the same elements as
other monitoring projects. Data is collected, analyzed, and
reported in accordance with accepted scientific procedures and
the data is interpreted by the agency responsible for deciding
upon the level of controls that may be needed. However,
cooperative monitoring projects have several characteristics
which distinguish them from other monitoring projects:
1. Part or all of the cost of the monitoring, data
analysis, and data interpretation is borne by
government(s) or other participants.
2. Oversight of data collection, data interpretation,
and acceptance of the results is the responsibility
of the State, even though local government and industry
may participate in the project. Planning or regulatory
decisions influenced by the data are also the State's
responsibility.
3. Advanced agreement is obtained by the State regulatory
agency and all participants on objectives to be achiev-
ed, roles of each participant, scope and duration of
the study, quality control procedures, data handling
systems and procedures, water quality models to be
used, financing arrangements, and other important
elements.
-------
INCENTIVES
State regulatory agencies have a number of incentives for
encouraging cooperative monitoring agreements. First, the State
is able to obtain more site-specific and scientifically support-
able data for use in reviewing water quality standards, writing
NPDES permits, making municipal treatment decisions, and develop-
ing wasteload allocations. Second, decision making will be more
readily accepted by the regulated community and concerned public
if they are part of the process. Third, State monitoring re-
sources can be conserved and applied to other areas of the State
which could not otherwise be assessed. An additional benefit of
cooperative monitoring results from the potential reduction in
the number of adjudicatory hearings (and additional water quality
data collection) requested when water quality-based permits are
issued. This alone could save considerable resources of the
State regulatory agency.
The incentives for dischargers entering into cooperative
monitoring projects with State oversight are also significant.
Since the States are obligated to adopt water quality standards
that include use classifications and numeric criteria, the States
must rely on national criteria documents and other sources to
establish water quality standards where site-specific data is
lacking. These national criteria often cannot take into account
local variations in water quality, aquatic life, background
conditions, etc. which may influence the application of the
numeric criteria. As a result, national numeric criteria may be
more stringent than necessary to protect uses on a specific re-
ceiving water. Consequently, controls imposed by the State may
be more stringent than are actually necessary.
Local governments, environmental groups, and interested
citizens benefit from participating in these efforts by gaining
improved water quality and the opportunity to contribute assis-
tance and/or scientific/technical expertise.
Local universities and other learning institutions may also
benefit by participating in a local cooperative monitoring effort.
Valuable experience in water quality management as well as an
appreciation of all participants' needs can be obtained. In
addition to active involvement with local governments, universities
can benefit by providing real, "hands-on" assistance in the field,
in the laboratory, and in data processing/data analysis.
Adjustments in numeric criteria or water quality-based
effluent limits to reflect site-specific conditions offer the
possibility of substantial savings in capital and operating costs
for municipal and industrial dischargers. Site-specific data
allow managerial personnel to assure elected and corporate
- 4 -
-------
officials that the investments made for pollution control are done
on the most cost effective and scientifically supportable basis
to achieve the desired water quality.
APPLICATIONS
In order to provide a perspective on the different applica-
tions of cooperative monitoring, a distinction is made between
short term (relatively low level) cooperative monitoring efforts,
and longer term (more intensive and possibly more expensive)
cooperative monitoring projects. Short term cooperative monitor-
ing arrangements are generally aimed at filling data gaps to
establish effluent limits for permits in a relatively simple,
single discharger situation. This could be the setting of efflu-
ent limits for a municipal treatment facility or for determining
the level of treatment needed for a new facility. The short term
cooperative monitoring project is usually characterized by:
1. Simplified institutional arrangements probably involving
only a single discharger and the State agency.
2. Limited objectives involving immediate determination of
mixing zones, presence or absence of certain species of
aquatic life, immediate measurement of the impact of
existing treatment facilities on water quality or biota,
or other information necessary to determine effluent
limits for municipal treatment decisions or for revis-
ing permits. Data is necessary for augmentation,
clarification, or refinement of decisions.
3. Short duration ranging from one week to three months.
4. Relatively limited resource needs in terms of staffing,
analysis, interpretation, and reporting.
5. Use of definitive quality assurance project plans.
Long term cooperative monitoring arrangements may involve
data collection for one of (or a combination of) the following
object ives:
1. Establishing appropriate water quality standards,
including use classifications and numeric criteria,
either through an initial review process or a water
quality standards update.
2. Developing appropriate wasteload allocations for complex
situations and/or multiple dischargers.
- 5 -
-------
3. Determining use attainability.
4. Identifying impacts of both point and nonpoint source
discharges on a stream segment.
5. Developing information regarding the economics of
implementing various levels of treatment.
6. Follow-on monitoring for determining effectiveness of
control levels specified in NPDES permits.
7. Resolving interstate water quality issues which may
affect wasteload allocations, permit limits, or water
quality standards.
The long term cooperative monitoring project is usually
characterized by:
1. Complex institutional arrangements involving more than
one discharger, the State regulatory agency, and other
concerned, interested, or affected parties.
2. A detailed agreement delineating roles, responsibilities,
purposes, financial arrangements, duration of the
project, etc.
3. Significant environmental impact possible as a result
of the study.
4. Longer duration, usually three months to a year (although
this depends on the purpose).
5. Multiple sampling sites for several parameters including
physical, chemical, and biological data.
6. Use of data in any one of a number of water quality
management activities (standards decisions, permitting
decisions, wasteload allocations, point and nonpoint
source assessments, economic benefits, follow-on monit-
oring, resolution of interstate issues, etc.).
7. More extensive resource requirements.
8. Use of definitive quality assurance project plans.
Cooperative monitoring agreements are not appropriate in all
situations requiring monitoring. In the case where a short term
project involves small dischargers, the States may have to assume
the burden for monitoring and application of monitoring data and
use State resources to meet these needs. Where local funding is
-------
arranged, small dischargers may not be able to provide resources
equal to those of larger dischargers. Since they are, or may be,
affected by the outcome, they may choose to provide resources-in-
kind or participate in an advisory or other capacity.
- 7 -
-------
CHAPTER III
INSTITUTIONAL OPTIONS
IDENTIFICATION OF NEEDS
The need for local water quality data may be identified by
persons concerned or involved in the water quality management
process including the EPA, States, affected dischargers, environ-
mental groups, water users, and the public. Several considera-
tions may influence the decision to seek additional site-specific
information through a cooperative monitoring agreement. Some of
these are:
1. Available data is not adequate in terms of frequency,
duration, location, or constituents sampled.
2. The potential environmental consequences of the deci-
sion in terms of expenditures for pollution control or
impacts on the environment are significant.
3. The complexity of the situation (number of discharge
impacted, hydrology, nonpoint sources, biota, etc.)
warrflnfs adriihinnal data collection.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR INVOLVEMENT
Once the need for additional water quality data has been
identified, the next step is to decide who should be involved in
a cooperative monitoring project. This can be resolved by con-
sidering the following:
1. Who has responsibility for decision making?
2. Who is affected by the decision?
3. Who is interested in the decision?
The responsibility for decision making, whether for municipal
treatment (new facility or advanced treatment), revised NPDES
permit limits, or for nonpoint source controls (Best Management
Practices) rests with the State or EPA if authority has not been
delegated to the State. EPA, however, maintains oversight
responsibility. Others having responsibilities in the water
quality management process may include the regional areawide water
quality management planning agency and interstate commissions.
In many cases the parties most directly affected by a water
quality management decision will be municipal and industrial dis-
chargers who are discharging into a particular water body. They
- 8 -
-------
also have a vital interest in applying the most cost-effec-
tive method of protecting uses of the stream to which they are
discharging, as well as the impacts on downstream segments. It
is important to identify public interest groups who are parti-
cularly interested in the control decisions. Interested parties
may include recreational groups, water users groups, environmental
groups, sportsman associations, and downstream interests.
State water rights laws may also need to be considered in deter-
mining the potential interested parties. Involvement of public
interest groups in the project can provide a valuable source of
information and may provide a broader perspective to the project
than would otherwise be the case. It facilitates communication
and acceptability of results upon completion to have various
interest groups participating in the project, rather than
simply being informed of the results at the end of the project.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Institutional options that define the roles and responsi-
bilities for cooperative monitoring projects should be explored
to support the project's objectives and needs. No one set of
institutional arrangements will satisfy all roles in the water
quality management process. The institutional options are deter-
mined from who is responsible, affected, and/or interested.
Specific considerations include:
1. What is the objective?
2. What needs to be done?
3. Who has expertise?
4. Who has data?
Linkages need to be established between what needs to be
done and the identified participants in the project. The scope
of the study may vary from simple, one-time analyses needed to
support a permit or construction grant application to multi-year
studies. Once the objectives have been defined, the challenge is
to coordinate needs with all participants.
MEETING PROJECT NEEDS
The level of involvement in cooperative monitoring projects
will depend upon the complexity, potential impacts, and possible
consequences of the decision. The simplest situation involving
only the State and a discharger could be the refinement of a
specific effluent limitation. The most complex situation could
be the potential change of a designated use or the implementation
of water quality-based effluent limits for multiple dischargers.
- 9 -
-------
In complex situations, these responsibilities should be clearly
described in a written agreement which is approved by all
participants .
Project Management - Lead responsibilities for management
tr6J any or all of the participants. These
can include:
1. The State water pollution control agency.
2. The principal affected discharger.
3. The area-wide planning agency.
4. A designated lead agency such as U.S.G.S..
5. A consultant.
6. A committee of those who have responsibilities or
are involved and/or affected.
7. A management subcommittee.
Regardless of how project management responsibilities
are assigned, a qualified individual or individuals must
be made responsible for identifying the specific needs,
scheduling, resource management, reviewing interim data,
reporting to lead agencies and involved parties, quality
assurance and quality control procedures, and overall
program coordination.
Water Quality Study Design - The water quality study design
?TeJrfnJes~tnJe~anaiyc:tcai^cS'o'l to be used (e.g., mass balance
or mathematical model), the physical, chemical, and biological
constituents to be assessed, frequency of monitoring, location
of monitoring stations, collection of discharge (effluent)
data, monitoring of nonpoint sources, and hydrologic analyses.
A water quality study might involve hydrolog ists ,
engineers, biologists, statisticians, chemists, and other
technical specialists with adequate technical backgrounds to
design the study to meet the project objectives and to assure
that integrity of the data base is unquestionable. This is
particularly important where a mathematical model is being
used to predict water quality and the study design must in-
corporate data needs at specific sites to calibrate the model.
Study design should involve State agencies, since the results
of the study must ultimately be interpreted by them. Also,
the project design should be approved by the project manager
and the State water pollution control agency. A quality
assurance project plan should be prepared during this phase
- 10 -
-------
and it should be approved by the project manager
and State water pollution control agency.
Project Implementation - The implementation phase involves
the actual collection of water, sediment, or tissue samples,
the storage and transportation of samples, laboratory analysis,
and data generation and reporting. Individual assignments
may be given to State agencies, technical and laboratory
staffs of affected dischargers, State or federal agencies,
and/or contractors (including local universities and environ-
mental groups) and others specified in the agreement. The
project manager's responsibility in the implementation phase
includes assurance that data is being collected in a timely
manner, that it is being collected according to the study
design, that samples are being processed according to speci-
fied procedures, and that the quality assurance plan is
being followed.
Data Review and Interpretation of Results - Review and
interpretation of datais both a technical and managerial
function. Ultimately, the State water pollution control
agency will have to review and evaluate the data as well as
any conclusions drawn from the data by the project manager,
areawide planning agency, or management committee. Within
the process of reviewing and evaluating data throughout the
study period, there may be varied interpretations among
technical personnel. However, if proper study design and
quality assurance procedures have been used in data collection,
differences in interpretation will, in many cases, be
minimized. Where differences of interpretation may occur,
quality control procedures should assure that the integrity
and objectivity of the data base is not questionable.
PROJECT AGREEMENTS
Agreements regarding cooperative monitoring projects may
range from informal agreements to collect and evaluate
additional data to formal written agreements involving two or
more parties. A memorandum of understanding signed by various
parties may suffice as an informal agreement. For both simple
and complex projects, all participants should be encouraged to
agree in advance and in writing on all phases of the study.
The type of agreement used should depend upon the complexity
of the project, the number of parties involved, and the individ-
ual project roles and responsibilities. In complex situations
involving the State, municipal and industrial dischargers,
public interest groups, contractors, and consultants, a formal
written agreement should be developed to establish and assure
understanding of the project's objectives as well as the roles
and responsibilities for all involved parties. Sample agreements
from actual cooperative projects are found in Appendix B.
- 11 -
-------
CHAPTER IV
FUNDING AND RESOURCE OPTIONS
There are several options for funding cooperative monitoring
projects. Municipal and industrial dischargers may elect to
fund the project directly or provide other resources, such as
staffing or in-kind services for sample collection, laboratory
analyses, data reporting, and program management. These contri-
butions may be provided by any agency or party involved in the
study.
Funding options for a specific study should be arrived at
by consensus among all the participants. The variety of funding
options (each of which are discussed below) include:
1. Direct funding by dischargers
2. Indirect funding by dischargers
3. provision of in-kind services by parties involved
4. Joint funding
5. User fees
6. Combined Arrangements
Regardless of the funding mechanism used, it should be noted
that final interpretation of data and translating this data into
specific controls (including permit limits) remains the responsi-
bility of the State. It is also the State's responsibility to
assure that QA/QC procedures are established and followed through-
out the course of study and that precision, accuracy, completeness,
comparability, and representativeness of data are known and docu-
mented.
DIRECT FUNDING
Under the direct funding option the discharger (or dis-
chargers) would directly fund the cost of data collection. This
could include contracts with laboratories, consultants, State
agencies, or federal agencies for direct provision of services.
in the case of multiple dischargers, funding could be pro-rated
based on any number of factors (e.g., financial ability, flow,
even split, etc.) which would be determined by the project manager
and included in the written agreement. Collected data would be
reported to the discharger or the lead agency in accordance with
the terms of the formal or informal agreement which includes
provisions for QA/QC, and to the State agency for review and final
decision.
- 12 -
-------
INDIRECT FUNDING
Under the indirect funding arrangement, the dischargers
would provide funding to the lead agency (the State, areawide
planning agency or other agency) and the lead agency would arrange
for and contract with consultants or other agencies to provide
the services to meet project needs.
PROVISION OF IN-KIND SERVICES
Provision of in-kind services by dischargers, State
agencies, federal agencies or areawide planning agencies could
be a fundamental element of practically any kind of cooperative
monitoring project whether it is discharger direct funded, dis-
charger indirect funded, or other arrangement. Dischargers,
State agencies, areawide planning agencies, universities, and
some environmental groups often have capable staff which may pro-
vide some of the needs for data collection or analysis. This may
include management committee participation, project management,
design of the monitoring study, water quality sampling, laboratory
analysis, and analysis and reporting of data.
JOINT FUNDING
Given the responsibilities of those involved in the water
quality management process, joint funding of cooperative monitor-
ing projects may be appropriate. Under this arrangement, States
might provide total or partial funding to local agencies or dis-
chargers for them to obtain data needed by the State. This same
arrangement could also be applied to the areawide planning
agency. Joint funding arrangements could substantially augment
the resources provided by municipal and industrial dischargers
and enable additional study detail in key areas of concern.
USER FEES
The States may consider levying fees on all permitted dis-
chargers that are related to the expense of developing permit
limits and monitoring for compliance under the NPDES permit
program. Under the user fee approach, a portion of the fees
collected by the state from a discharger would be allocated to
areas where data is required for developing water quality stan-
dards, total maximum daily loads, wasteload allocations, and
water quality-based effluent limits on a priority basis within
the state. The State would then use these funds to finance all
or part of the cooperative monitoring project. The user fees
would provide the revenue source for conducting these analyses.
- 13 -
-------
COMBINED ARRANGEMENTS
Any combination of the described funding arrangements could
work in a given situation. The objective is to find an
approach which:
1. Meets the needs of the cooperative monitoring
project.
2. Is within the budgetary constraints of the
participants.
3. Reflects the environmental and financial stakes
involved.
4. Meets the regulatory requirements of the water quality
management process.
5. Addresses the concerns of the public and water user
groups.
- 14 -
-------
CHAPTER V
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
Elements of project implementation to be considered are
planning and management and technical considerations. Planning
and management considerations assure that all parties — the
regulatory agency, the regulated community, affected parties
and public interest groups — are working towards achieving
the established goals and that the appropriate quality control
features are being addressed. Technical considerations assure
that cooperative monitoring projects provide a scientific
approach to determine cause/effect relationships and that State
approved procedures are followed.
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
The level of effort associated with a project involving
several participants will be highly dependent upon the complexity
of the situation and the water quality management process or
function supported: planning, water quality standards, wasteload
allocations, permits, and municipal treatment decisions. To help
ensure that the planned goals of the effort are achieved, several
planning and management activities associated with the agreement
must be considered:
1. Defining the scope of the project
2. Project management and design
3. Project implementation
4. Data review and interpretation
5. Decision making
6. Follow-on monitoring
Project Scope. The key considerations in scoping a cooper-
ative monitoring project include:
1. Defining the purpose and objectives of the
project.
2. Identifying participants (who is responsible,
interested, affected; who already has data; who
has expertise).
3. Identifying hydrologic reaches or impact zones to
be considered.
- 15 -
-------
4. Identifying the tributary area impacting the
hydrologic boundaries of the study.
5. Determining what point and nonpoint sources will
be identified and characterized as part of the
study.
6. identifying the expected output of the project —
wasteload allocations, water quality-based permit
limits for specific constituents, recommended
water quality standards, or updated 208 areawide
management plans.
Project Management and Study Design. From among the
participants, a project manager or project coordinator
needs to be identified and a management structure for the
project must be decided upon. This is usually a management
committee, an advisory committee, etc. Management respon-
sibilities in cooperative monitoring projects include:
1. Designing the study.
2. Scheduling activities.
3. Developing a quality assurance/quality control
project plan.
4. Defining public participation needs.
5. Identifying funding and other resources needed to
carry out the cooperative project.
6. Identifying procedures for data handling and
management.
7. Assuring that project objectives are met on a
timely basis and within the resource constraints.
One of the most important functions of project manage-
ment is to design the water quality study. This is particu-
larly critical if a mathematical model is being used to de-
termine wasteload allocations or instream effects since data
collected will be used in calibrating the model. Consideration
must be given to the following when designing a water quality
study:
1. Physical, chemical, and biological constituents
(including stream charactersitics for water quality
models) to be monitored.
- 16 -
-------
2. Frequency of monitoring for each constituent.
3. Location of ambient monitoring stations.
4. Resource needs in terms of sampling, laboratory
equipment, analysis, and reporting.
5. Collection of water quality data on effluent
discharges.
6. Monitoring of nonpoint sources and background.
7. Monitoring of flow and hydrologic conditions.
8. Quality assurance procedures
9. Safety considerations
Project Implementation. The project implementation phase
may include the following activities:
1. Water quality sampling
2. Stream flow measurements
3. Laboratory analysis and data reporting
4. Biological monitoring (bioassay & biosurvey)
5. Historical hydrologic data analysis
6. Historical water quality data analysis
7. Discharge data analysis
8. Implementation of quality assurance/quality control
plan
9. Project coordination
10. Public participation
Responsibilities for all of these activities should be
clearly defined in the development of roles and responsi-
bilities for the project. The project manager's or management
committee's duties include overseeing all of these activities
during the implementation phase.
Data Review and Interpretation. Data review and interpre-
tation should be a continuing process during the program
implementation period, particularly if mathematical models
are used to predict instream conditions as the basis for
- 17 -
-------
wasteload allocations. It is extremely important that the
data be reviewed to ensure that it is sufficient to cali-
brate the model used. Review and evaluation during the
program implementation phase may indicate the need for
additional data or different kinds of data. State water
pollution control agency personnel should be involved in
the ongoing process of reviewing data, particularly where
the data is to be used in writing permits, reviewing or
revising water quality standards, and construction grants.
All final data should be entered into EPA's STORET system
and all appropriate water quality data should be reported
to EPA in STORET compatible format.
Decision Making. Cooperative monitoring projects support
decision making in the water quality management process.
Site-specific data from a well designed monitoring project
will support conclusions which are incorporated into, or
influence, a water quality management decision in the areas
of planning, wasteload allocations, water quality standards
setting/revisions, permits, or construction grants.
Follow-on Monitoring. Follow-on monitoring (monitoring con-
ducted after controls are in place to ensure effluent limita-
tations are effective and that designated uses are being
restored or maintained) is one way of providing a margin of
safety and assure the validity of water quality management
decisions. Follow-on monitoring can provide assurance to
regulatory agencies and the public that classified water
uses are being protected, and assurances to dischargers
that water quality-based controls are reasonable for the
use being protected. Follow-on monitoring projects require
the same kinds of activities as the initial cooperative
monitoring project. Roles and responsibilities have to
be defined, study plans developed, data reviewed and inter-
preted periodcally, and quality assurance plans developed.
Follow-on monitoring may or may not be part of a cooperative
monitoring project.
TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS
A key objective of cooperative monitoring is to identify
cause and effect relationships among pollution sources and
conditions which occur in receiving water bodies. Pollution
sources may include municipal and industrial discharges or non-
point sources such as urban runoff, agricultural return flows,
and runoff from construction areas, timber harvesting areas,
landfills, etc. Other factors which may affect receiving waters
include hydrologic conditions, physical conditions (stream bed
and bank), and habitat characteristics. The objective of most
monitoring projects is to provide a scientific basis for relating
pollution sources affecting receiving waters to observed or
expected conditions. Participants in cooperative monitoring
-18-
-------
projects should follow the State's guidance on approaches and
technical procedures. The State will also have access to EPA
guidance and recommended procedures which can be made available
to cooperative monitoring participants.
There are a number of techniques and procedures available
for defining causes and effects in water quality. These include
monitoring of the chemical constituents of receiving waters and
relating these constituents to specific point and nonpoint sources.
Constituents believed to be causing impacts (existing or projected)
should be monitored, as well as other related parameters to assure
that a logical relationship can be defined.
Flow measurements are commonly recognized as critical since
wasteload allocations, water quality standards, and most water
quality-based permit limitations are related to flow conditions
in the receiving water. Flow measurements make chemical data
useable in many cases, and provides an invaluable perspective on
the relationship between point and nonpoint dischargers and
their chemical impacts on water quality.
Biomonitoring of effluents and receiving waters is a useful
tool in defining existing or projected impacts of point and
nonpoint source discharges on biological communities, and for
relating limitations on biological communities to other factors
such as flow, benthic, or bank conditions. Biological monitoring
may encompass biosurveys in which the occurrence of fish or
benthic life in a stream are quantitatively measured, and sub-
sequently related to pollution levels or habitat characteristics.
Another useful biological monitoring tool is the habitat survey
in which stream bed and bank conditions are identified and factored
into the relationship between the overall characteristics of
the stream and the aquatic communities found in that stream.
Habitat surveys may be a critical element in defining the attain-
ability of aquatic life uses in many cases.
Another techniaue is the use of bioassays. Bioassays define
allowable levels of pollutants in specific receiving waters, and
can be carried to a level of sophistication where they are related
to the species which occur in specific receiving waters. Bioassays
are usually performed on the effluent from a particular discharger
and may be performed in conjunction with biological assessments
of the receiving waters.
WATER QUALITY MODELING
Mathematical models are frequently used in assessing water
quality and developing water quality-based controls. Water
quality models simulate the impact of point and non-point source
discharges on the quality of receiving waters, and they can be
- 19 -
-------
used to predict water quality under a variety of conditions.
Water quality modeling may be done by relatively simple hand
calculations or with sophisticated computer systems.
The principal advantages of water quality modeling are:
1. The impact of future wasteloads can be predicted.
2. The sensitivity of the receiving water body to chang-
ing waste loading or hydrologic conditions can be
analyzed.
3. Critical flow or loading conditions under present and
future flows can be identified.
4. The impact of new sources with respect to existing
sources can be analyzed.
5. The water quality benefits of potential point and non-
point source controls can be quantified.
With proper application, water quality modeling provides a
means of comparative anlaysis of existing and future conditions,
and of the potential benefits of alternative point and nonpoint
source wasteload allocations. Having identified the necessary
reductions in wasteloads, the ways and means of achieving those
reductions can be analyzed and the cost of alternative wasteload
allocations can be considered.
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
A fundamental element of any water quality data collection
and analysis effort, and particularly a cooperative monitoring
project where several participants are involved, is the quality
assurance project plan. A quality assurance project plan
establishes scientifically acceptable procedures to be used in
sampling, laboratory analysis, and reporting. Developing a
plan which is acceptable to the State and EPA at the outset of a
project and careful attention by those responsible for ensuring
that QA/QC procedures are followed can eliminate much of the
debate surrounding interpretation of data.
A combined Work/QA project plan should describe the project
and specify the project's organization and management responsi-
bilities. It should also include a thorough description of the
following specific items:
1. Quality Assurance Officer
2. Data Quality Requirements and Assessments
- 20 -
-------
3. Sampling Procedures
4. Calibration Procedures and Preventive Maintenance
5. Documentation, Data Reduction, and Reporting
6. Data Validation
7. Performance and System Audits
8. Corrective Action
9. Reports
These and other elements of a Work/QA Project Plan are
discussed in Appendix C. If additional information relative to
quality assurance and quality control is needed, the State Quality
Assurance Officer or the EPA Quality Assurance Officer in the EPA
Regional Office may be contacted.
- 21 -
-------
APPENDIXES
-------
APPENDIX A
COOPERATIVE MONITORING CASE STUDIES
Local cooperative monitoring projects have been conducted
throughout the nation for various purposes. Two of these projects
are included here as case studies to show how State and local
governments worked together with dischargers and others in a
cooperative effort to achieve common goals.
Selected as cooperative monitoring case studies are the
Lower Fox River, Wisconsin, and the Middle Wabash River, Indiana.
LOWER FOX RIVER, WISCONSIN
The Lower Fox River from Lake Winnebago to Green Bay,
Wisconsin experienced severe dissolved oxygen depletion problems
during several months of the year. Discharges from pulp and
paper mills and municipalities in certain areas created major
water quality problems including fish kills. This 40 mile stretch
of the Lower Fox River also received heavy waste loads from 14
paper mills and six municipalities. The river has relatively
low flows compared to most other streams receiving mill wastes
and has been extensively dammed for power generation and trans-
portation.
Concerned with the impact of the discharges on the water
quality of the Lower Fox River and Green Bay, the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) used a mathematical sim-
ulation model to determine if Best Practicable Technology and
secondary treatment systems would be adequate to achieve the
desired minimum desolved oxygen standard. Based on the results
of the study, the WDNR concluded that categorical effluent limit-
ations would not be sufficient to meet the established standard
for recreational use, fish, and other aquatic life in the Lower
Fox River. The river was described as having one of the ten worst
dissolved oxygen problems in the country. The WDNR requested that
the Fox Valley Water Quality Planning Agency (FVWQPA) - designated
under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act to conduct areawide
water quality management planning - develop wasteload allocation
(WLA) and policy recommendations for the Lower Fox River. The
philosophy of the WDNR was that once it determined the assimilative
capacity of the river, local parties should decide how to manage
or allocate the wasteload among dischargers.
A-l
-------
As a result of the WLA activity, some of the paper mills
along the Lower Fox and Wisconsin Rivers (WLA's were being develop-
ed for the Wisconsin River at the same time as those for the Lower
Fox) formed a consortum called the Industry Rivers Study Committee
(IRSC). Initially, the IRSC was organized because the industries
wanted to examine the QUAL III mathematical model used to predict
dissolved oxygen levels. The IRSC conducted some independent
monitoring, but it also performed monitoring in cooperation with
the local 208 Agency and provided useful comments on the modeling
process. In addition, the public was actively involved during
all stages of WLA development. The FVWQPA held several public
meetings to discuss the issues.
The WDNR and the local 208 Agency independently and in
cooperation with the USGS, IRSC, Green Bay MSD, University of
Wisconsin Sea Grant Program and others, participated in the
monitoring activities. Parameters measured for QUAL III included
river flow and temperature, headwater biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), nutrient concentrations, algae concentrations, sunlight
intensity, and BOD loads from each discharger. Sampling occurred
at five continuous monitoring stations and synoptic surveys were
done during the critical late spring, summer, and early fall
months.
Most laboratory analyses were conducted by the State Hygiene
Laboratory in Madison, Wiscbnsin. Additional analyses were
conducted at the University of Wisconsin - Oshkosh, and private
laboratories. Any incorrect sampling methods were rectified and
U.S. EPA guidance for quality assurance/quality control was
followed.
During the first two years of the project, federal grants
paid all the costs. The following three years were funded with
75% Federal, 12 1/2% State and 12 1/2% local monies. Subsequently,
the WLA effort was financed equally by EPA, WDNR, and the local
area. Industries have also provided some monitoring funds on a
matching basis with the Fox Valley Agency and local universities.
A summary of resources and responsibilities by participants for
1982-1984 is tabulated on the following page.
The wasteload allocations developed were for summer low
flows, high river temperatures, and other restrictive conditions.
As a means to provide the "real time" temperature and flow in-
formation that would be needed to implement variable permits, the
paper mills and municipalities along the Lower Fox River formed
the Lower Fox River Dischargers Association. The temperature and
flow information will be obtained daily by the Association and
transmitted to the participating dischargers and the WDNR.
A-2
-------
The yearly membership dues in the Association provides each
member with the daily readings necessary to meet its permit
requirements. Since monitoring has not yet started, operating
costs for the Association are not finalized.
All the parties involved in this unique WLA effort are
satisfied with the results so far. The dischargers believe the
WLAs evolved through the best and most equitable process possible
The only mill to contest its permit has ceased operation. The
other dischargers have accepted their effluent limitations.
REFERENCES
William Elman, Executive Director
Pox Valley Water Quality Planning Agency
140 Main Street
Menasha, WI 54952
(414) 725-3343
Dennis Hultgren, President
Lower Pox River Dischargers' Association
Appleton Papers Incorporated
Locks Mill
Combined Locks, WI 54113
Dale J. Patterson
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 267-9352
A-3
-------
SUMMARY OF RESOURCES BY PARTICIPANTS
PARTICIPANT
Fox Valley Water Quality Planning
Agency
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage
District
Industry Rivers Study Committee
RESPONSIBILITIES
Serve on Program Steering Ccmnittee.
Technical Co-ordination and Information
Transfer through Sub-Ccmmittee of
Technical Advisory Committee
River Monitoring
Assist in Field Program Cordination
River and Bay Monitoring
Serve on Program Steering Ccranittee
Fund UWM and UWGB During Feb.-Sep.,
1982
Sediinent Oxygen Demand Field Data
Aerial Photography
Consulting
Serve on Program Steering Conmittee
ESTIMATED CONTRIBUTIONS
$2,800 Cash (Monitoring)-1982 (ccmmitted)
$30,000 In-Kind (Staff)-1982 (ccmnitted)
Monitoring Equipment
Up to $100,000 Cash-1982 (comitted)
Up to $100,000 Cash-1983 (expected)
Up to $25,000 In-Kind-1982 (committed)
Up to $25,000 in-Kind-1983 (expected)
Up to $50,000 Cash-1982 (committed)
Up to $50,000 Cash-1983 (expected)
Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources
University of Wisconsin (Sea Grant,
Milwaukee, Green Bay)
Bay Lakes Regional Planning Agency
Model Development
Field Data Collection and Monitoring
Laboratory Analysis of Data
Serve on Program Steering Committee
Chair Program Steering Committee
Field Data Collection and Monitoring
Laboratory Analysis of Data
Adaptation, Calibration, and Verification
of model
Serve on Program Steering Committee
Serve on Program Steering Committee
Coordinate with other Green Bay Programs
Equipment and Personnel
$50,000 In-Kind-1982 (conmitted)
$50,000 In-Kind-1983 (expected)
Equipment and Personnel
$50,000 In-Kind-1982 (ccranitted)
$50,000 In-Kind-1983 (expected)
$50,000 In-Kind-1982,1983 (Sea Grant-
requested )
$50,000 In-Kind-1983,1984 (Sea Grant-
requested )
Up to $5,000 In-Kind-1982 (committed)
TOTAL
400,000 Cash-1982-1984
280,000 In-Kind-1982-1984
-------
MIDDLE WABASH RIVER, INDIANA
The Middle Wabash River extends approximately 150 river miles
from north of Lafayette to Merom, Indiana. Ten major industrial
dischargers, four steam electric generating stations, and six
municipal wastewater treatment facilities are located along this
reach of the River.
The Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board (ISPCB) and the
industrial dischargers along the Middle Wabash River disagreed on
permit effluent limitations based on wasteload allocations. The
WLAs were initially developed from a mathematical model using
fixed station monitoring data generated since 1957, and from data
collected during comprehensive surveys conducted in 1974 and
1977. Both the State and the Mid-Wabash Industrial Consortium
recognized the need for updated information on which to base
wasteload allocations that would be used to draft new NPDES
permits. The State and the Consortium agreed that a third-party
consultant should be employed to review all available data,
identify data gaps, recommend a plan of study, evaluate and
calibrate the model, and apply the model to the river.
The Mid-Wabash Industrial Consortium agreed to fund the
consultant's activities. The State then formed the Mid-Wabash
River Technical Committee which included representatives of the
State of Indiana, the U.S. EPA, the USGS, Purdue University, and
DePauw University.
The Technical Committee is open to industrial, governmental,
and political concerns and includes representatives from five in-
dustries, two universities, the Indiana Division of Water poll-
ution Control, EPA, USGS, four local governments, and two environ-
mental consultants. The Technical Committee organized three
subcommittees to address specific subject areas, and to evaluate
and recommend methods which would be appropriate for the Middle
Wabash River. Using the input provided by the subcommittees,
the Technical Committee developed a work plan provided through
the ISPCB. The work plan was reviewed and approved by EPA, and
the survey was implemented in the summer of 1981.
The survey required the participation of a number of organ-
izations and persons to complete the study tasks. The tasks and
participants in the survey were as follows:
o Intensive sampling and testing of the Middle Wabash
River and the industrial effluents to determine prescribed
water characteristics performed by ISPCB, DePauw and
Purdue Universities, and the Public Service of Indiana
(PSI).
A-5
-------
o Diurnal dissolved oxygen determinations by Purdue
University from hourly stream samples collected and
preserved in the field by the intensive sampling crews.
o Primary productivity and respiration measurements
determined by ISPCB and DePauw University using the
light and dark bottle method.
o Determination of ultimate BOD using both the inhibited
and uninhibited method on filtered and unfiltered
samples by Purdue University.
o Proportional analysis of major taxonomic groups of
phytoplankton by ISPCB.
o Determination of benthic oxygen demand by ISPCB.
o Bottom contour mapping conducted by DePauw and Purdue
Universities and PSI to be used for calibration of the
model's hydraulic component.
o Determination of time of travel and reaeration rate
coefficients by the USGS and ISPCB.
The field work has essentially been completed, but the model
and the final wasteload allocations have not been finalized. To
date, the Mid-Wabash Industrial Consortium has spent approximately
$280,000; the USGS approximately $50,000; and ISPCB over $120,000
on the study.
Quality assurance/quality control was maintained through the
careful outlining of procedures prior to the survey, sample
splitting, routine laboratory checks, and continuous communications
between all parties involved. Although the final results of the
study have not been completed, no major problems have occurred
with the methods employed or the quality of the data obtained.
The collected data are currently being inputted in the DIURNAL
model.
From the State's perspective, this cooperative monitoring
effort has been a success. The State believes that through local
cooperation, duplication of effort can be largely eliminated and
total combined costs reduced. The State plans to foster this
cooperative atmosphere through continued communication with the
industrial group. Currently, the State is planning a toxics
monitoring program for the Middle Wabash and East Fort White
Rivers. The ISPCB also anticipates local cooperation with
concerned industries in the toxics effort.
A-6
-------
Contact
Mr. John Winters
Indiana Stream Pollution Control Board
1330 West Michigan Street
Indianapolis, Indiana 46206
(317) 633-0719
A-7
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE COOPERATIVE MONITORING AGREEMENTS
The basic foundation to achieving a successful cooperative
monitoring project is a clear understanding by all participants
as to who will be responsible for the variety of activities to be
accomplished. These responsibilities should be defined in a care-
fully organized work plan with commitments specified in formal or
informal agreements. To assure the best level of understanding,
written agreements are preferable.
Several example agreements between various levels of government
and others are included here. These agreements are included
solely for example purposes and they are not to be considered as
endorsements or recommendations by the EPA.
B-l
-------
ILLINOIS EPA WITH CITY OF CHICAGO
B-2
-------
MEMORANDUM OF_AGREEMENJ_
BETWEEN THE ILLfMOIS"ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECT I ON_AGE.NCY_ (IEPA)_ANJ)
THE cirmrri
OF
The purpose of this agreement is to interlink the City of Chicago continuous
ambient water quality monitoring network with the State of Illinois network,
providing both parties access to the network information of mutual concern,
eliminating duplicative monitoring and meeting the following objectives:
1. Characterize and define trends in the physical, chemical and biological
condition of Lake Michigan.
2. Establish baselines of water quality.
3. Provide for a continuing assessment of water pollution control programs.
4. Identify and quantify new or existing water quality problems or problem
areas.
5. Act as a triggering mechanism for intensive surveys or other appropriate
actions.
I. The I EPA agrees to:
A. Provide the City of Chicago with water quality data from any portion of
the state-wide ambient monitoring network if so requested by the City of
Chicago. This will be performed to the extent available resources permit.
B-3
-------
Page 2
B. Enter the data from the IEPA ambinnt monitoring network into the STORE!
system for permanent record and retrieval purposes. Entry to be made within
90 days beyond the month in which the samples are collected.
C. Collect and analyze a split sample from each of the designated National
Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network Stations; parameters to include those
indicated below.
All laboratory test results on these samples will be routinely submitted to
the City of Chicago for comparative record purposes.
Parameter Name
STORE! Numbers
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Mercury
Lead
PCBs
Aldrin
Oieldrin
!otal DO!.
(01002)
(01027)
(01034)
(01042)
(71900)
(01051)
(39516)
(39330)
(39380)
(39327) (39320) (39315) (39310) (39305)
(39300)
B-4
-------
Page 3
Chlordane (39350) (39062) (39065) (39068) (39071)
Endrin (39390)
Methoxychlor (39480)
Hexachlorocycloliexane (39334) (39810)
Hexachlorbenzene (39700)
Pentachlorphenol (39032)
0. Furnish the Department a copy of the IEPA quality control manual to serve
as a guide in the audit of the procedures for sampling, transporting, and
analyzing samples.
11. The City of Chicago Agrees to:
Collect and analyze water column samples from Lake Michigan in the following
manner:
A. Samples are to be collected from the locations and frequencies indicated
in Appendix A.
(Appendix is not attached)
B. The Lake Michigan monitoring network will consist of 10 (11) stations of
the North Shore Lake Survey, the 11 stations of the South Shore Lake Survey,
the 23 (33) stations of the James W. Jardine Water Purification Plant Radial
Survey, the 22 (32) stations of the South Water Filtration Plant Radial Survey
and the 14 stations of the Lake Michigan Open Water Survey. The locations of
these stations are shown on Appendix A.
B-5
-------
Page 4
C. Water column samples are to be analyzed for the following minimum
parameters:
Parameter Mamo
STORE! Number
PH (00400)
Temperature (00010)
Conductivity (00095)
Dissolved oxygen (00300)
Total suspended solids (00530)
Total volatile suspended solids (00505)
Turbidity (00076)
Total ammonia nitrogen (00610)
Total organic nitrogen (00625)
Nitrite - nitrate nitrogen (00530)
Chemical oxygen demand (00335)
Fecal coliform (31616)
Total coliform (31503)
Orthophosphate (total) (70507)
Total phophorus (00665)
Chloride (00940)
Sulfate (00945)
Plankton . (60050)
Actinos ( )
Odor threshold (00086)
B-6
-------
Page 5
D. Perform bottom sediment monitoring in accordance with the Lake Michigan
sediment monitoring program of the City of Chicago.
E. Perform benthos monitoring in accordance with the Lake Michigan Benthic
monitoring program of the City of Chicago.
F. Enter the data from the monitoring described in this agreement into the
national STORE! system for permanent record and retrieval purposes; entry to
be made within 90 days beyond the month in which the samples are collected.
Additionally, the City of Chicago will enter all other data collected, such as
more complete parametric coverage, sediment and benthos surveys and other
special studies, into the national STORET system within the 90 day time
period.
III. The City of Chicago and IEPA jointly agree to;
A. Maintain a program of quality control and custody of sample acceptable to
the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) with coordination by the representative
designated by IEPA. A single coordinated quality control program bringing
together all participants will be a goal of this agreement.
B. Participate in a training program including field and classroom training
to ensure that proper collection procedures are followed.
C. Cooperate with each other as well as USEPA and USGS to provide a
laboratory quality control program. Such orogram will be coordinated by the
designated representative of the IEPA.
B-7
-------
Page 6
D. All differences or discrepancies will be negotiated vigorously to a
mutually satisfactory solution.
E. The effective date of this agreement is October 1, 1977.
F. If either party to this agreement for any reason wishes to cancel or
modify its involvement, at least ninety (90) days advanced notice to the other
party shall be provided.
date
signed by
for the City of Chicago
date
signed by
for the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
B-8
-------
FOX VALLEY WATER QUALITY PLANNING AGENCY
B-9
-------
INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT
for
SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDING OF 1982 RIVER/BAY MONITORING PROJECT
between
FOX VALLEY WATER QUALITY PLANNING AGENCY
and
GREEN BAY METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE DISTRICT
This AGREEMENT is made by and between the Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage
District (hereinafter referred to as "METRO") and the Fox Valley Water Quality
Planning Agency (hereinafter referred to as "AGENCY") and entered into this 2 y
day of Jsjjl-fiti *Hl '. 1982.
WHEREAS the AGENCY has been designated as an areawide waste treatment manage-
ment planning agency by the U.S. Environment Protection Agency pursuant to Section
208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 , (33 U.S.C.
1251 et. seq.) j and
WHEREAS the METRO is a Wisconsin municipal corporation organized to perform
regional wastewater treatment services under Wis. Stats. 66.20) and
WHEREAS the AGENCY has received a grant pursuant to Section 208 of the
Federal Act to do areawide waste treatment management planning within its planning
area and desires to contribute a portion of this grant toward a project known as
the 1982 River/Bay Monitoring Project} and
WHEREAS METRO is voluntarily functioning as coordinator for the various
federal, state, and regional and industrial organizations that are voluntarily
contributing personnel, financial, and equipment support towards the said project) and
WHEREAS the Agency shall be a member of the 1982 River/Bay Monitoring Project
Steering Committee;
NOW THEREFORE, by and in consideration of the covenants hereinafter expressed,
the AGENCY and the METRO mutually agree as follows :
1. PROJECT - The Project referred to herein is known as the 1982 River/Bay Moni-
toring Project which consists of voluntary cooperative efforts by numerous
federal, state, regional, industrial, and consulting engineer organizations to
establish existing water quality characteristics such as currents, temperatures,
dissolved oxygen, pH, sediment oxygen demands, and other parameters in the
Lower Fox River and waters of Green Bay.
2. COMPENSATION - (a) The AGENCY desires to contribute and will contribute the SUB
of $2,800.00 to METRO as a contribution toward the costs of completing the
said project.
(b) The stated $2,800.00 will' be paid to METRO and METRO will apply this sum
to a separate fund which has been established within the METRO accounting sys-
tem for purposes of isolating and recording all monetary contributions by
METRO and others, including the $2,800.00 from the AGENCY.
(c) Disbursements by METRO from this separate fund are for the sole purpose of
financially supporting River/Bay Monitoring Project expenses such as hardware,
salaries, services, and expendables as are approved by METRO and the other
contributors.
(d) The $2.800.00 contributed by the AGENCY will be disbursed from the separata
fund only for those purposes approved by the AGENCY prior to disbursal and as
shown on the attached Budget Summary.
B-10
-------
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE - The portion of the project supported by the AGENCY is
scheduled to run from September 1, 1982 to December 30, 1.982. This Agreement
will terminate December 30, 1982.
4. METHOD OF PAYMENT - The AGENCY will forward payment of the entire sum of $2,800.00
to METRO within ten (10) days of execution of this Agreement, to be deposited
in the METRO separate fund as specified herein. It is expressly understood and
•greed that in no event will the AGENCY contribution exceed the $2,800.00 stated.
5. RESPONSIBLE STAFF MEMBERS - William Elman of the AGENCY and Robert W. Bues of
METRO will be directly responsible for interagency coordination and the proper
conduct of this'Agreement.
6. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT - If for any cause, METRO or the AGENCY shall fail
to fulfill their obligations, or if METRO or the AGENCY violate any part of
this Agreement, the aggrieved party may notify the alleged violator of their
intent to terminate this Agreement. .If the violation has not been corrected
within thirty (30) days of the notice, the aggrieved party shall have the right
to terminate this Agreement by given written notice to the party who has al-
legedly violated terms of the Agreement at least ten (10) days prior to the
date of the termination.
7. INTEREST OF MEMBERS OF THE AGENCY AND OTHERS - No officer, member, or employee
of the AGENCY or METRO and no members of their governing bodies shall partici-
pate in any decision relating to this Agreement which affects their personal
interests or the interest of any corporation, partnership, or association in
which said persons are directly or indirectly interested or have any personal
or pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds
thereof.
8. OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT - No members of or Delegate to the Congress of the
United States of America, and no Resident Commission, shall be admitted to any
share or part hereof or to any benefit to arise herefrom.
9. U.S. EPA FUNDING AND PARTICIPATION - This Agreement is funded in part by a grant
from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This Agreement is subject to
regulations contained in 40 CFR Subchapter B and particularly Part 33 thereof.
Neither the United States nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is a
party to this Agreement.
10. RIGHTS TO DATA - It is understood by all parties contributing personnel,
equipment, supplies, personnel or financial support to the project, that all
data, tapes, recordings, logs, or any information collected, stored, evaluated,
printed, or otherwise acquired during the completion of the project shall be
public property, including tho public right to use, duplicate, and disclose
in whole or in part, in any manner for any purpose, or to have others do so.
METRO or the AGENCY do not claim any exclusive rights, privileges, or access
to said data acquired during the term of the project. METRO does not have nor
will it have responsibility to copy, transfer, store, collect, or file any
project data, nor does METRO accept or assume any responsibility for repre-
senting or organizing the project tlata in any form suitable for use on any
subsequent study, survey, or filing other than to preserve raw field data with
reasonable diligence and care, and to transfer said raw field data to the
custody of a duly designated depository.
B-ll
-------
Page 3 of 3
XM WITNESS WHBREQP. the AGENCY and METRO have caused thi» Ag
executed as of the data first written above.
reeaent to be
GREEN BAY METROPOLITAN
•CHERAGE DISTRICT
Robert W. Buee
Project Director
FOX VALLEY HATER QUALITY
PLANNING AGENCY
Kathleen Propp
Chairman
/tf
r"
Fred Whiting
Project Coordinator
River/Bay Study
William R. Elaan
Executive Director
Date
Date-
B-12
-------
RUDGFT SUMMARY
1982 River/Ray Monitoring Project
Item GBMSD FVWQPA IRSC Other Total
Hardware $37,500.00 R,000.00 $45,500.00
Independent Water
Duality Analysis 40,500.00 40,500.no
Service Contracts
IISGS 3,850.00 3,850.00
HW-Mil-Ifie 70,850.00 70,850.00
IlW-GP-Harris 17,460.00 17,850.00
IW-GB-Sager 2,300.00 ?,300.00
Green Bay Wfestern
Railroads 160.00 160.00
Development of
Data Library 3,777.00 2,800.00 ^.____ 6,577.00
$135,897.00 $2,800.00 $40,500.00 $8,000.00 $187,197.00
B-13
-------
MONMOUTH COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
B-14
-------
COOPERATIVE MONITORING AGREEMENT
between
Monmouth County Health Department
and
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
The rapid expansion and increasing complexity of water monitoring
needs in New Jersey necessitates improved coordination and planning
among all agencies involved. In recognition of this need, the Monmouth
County Health Department and the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection hereby agree to cooperate in the most effective and efficient
use of their respective water monitoring, laboratory analysis, and data
management resources.
It is hereby agreed that the attached delineation of responsibilities
and summary of respective agency water monitoring activities accurately
describes the cooperative program for the year 1983, and represents the
most effective utilization of the combined resources available to the
participants.
B-15
-------
1983
COOPERATIVE WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
The following information represents the planned contributions from the
respective agencies for water monitoring during the year 1983. It is understood
that resource availability and program emphases may shift during the period of
the agreement. Accordingly, the program shall be reviewed jointly on a quarterly
basis, and revisions made on notification of the cooperating agency.
I. Routine Surface Water Monitoring
A. Monmouth County Health Department agrees to monitor and analyze
samples from 47 stations throughout the county for bacteriological
and chemical parameters as per Appendix 1. Stations will be sampled
on a monthly basis. Data will be maintained in paper files and made
available to DEP on a request basis.
B. N.J.D.E.P. agrees to monitor and analyze samples from 13 stations
throughout the county for bacteriological and chemical parameters
as per Appendix 2. Data will be stored on STORETand made available
to the county on request.
C. N.J.D.E.P. agrees to provide technical assistance to the county in
designing and evaluating monitoring networks, training and evaluating
field procedures, and developing and implementing computer compatible
data management practices.
II. Recreational/Bathing Area Monitoring Network
A. The county health department agrees to monitor recreational and bathing
area waters (is 19 locations) for bacteriological quality during the
period May 15 - September 15 on a weekly basis. Data will be stored on
file and made available to DEP for incorporation into the C.C.M.P. report.
B. N.J.D.E.P. agrees to provide technical assistance in network design,
field procedures, and data management.
C. N.J.D.E.P. agrees to include county data in its annual C.C.M.P. Report,
and forward a copy of the report to the health department on an annual
basis.
III. Potable Water Network
A. The county health department agrees to monitor potable water supplies at
seventeen (17) locations identified in Appendix 3, for Safe Drinking
Water Act compliance on a quarterly basis.
B. N.J.D.E.P. agrees to provide technical assistance in evaluating
data.
B-16
-------
IV. Landfill Monitoring
A. The county health department agrees to monitor ovservation wells
at the Howell Municipal Landfill on a quarterly basis for those
parameters required by the Division of Waste Managemnt. Data
will be submitted to the Department of Environmental Protection
in accordance with regulation requirements.
B. N.J.D.E.P. agrees to provide technical assistance in data
evaluation and problem identification.
V. Intensive Surface Water Surveys
A. The county health department agrees to conduct streamwalk surveys
on sixteen stream segments.
B. N.J.D.E.P. agrees to provide technical assistance and follow-up
evaluation on problems identified in these surveys.
IV. Laboratory Services/Quality Assurance
A. The county health department agrees to develop laboratory
capabilities consistent with monitoring program needs and available
resources. Quality assurance practices in field procedures,
laboratory analysis, and data management will be employed to insure
the integrity and validity of generated data.
B. NJDEP agrees to provide technical support guidance, and training
as requested by the county to assist in the development and imple-
mentation of appropriate laboratory, data management, and field
monitoring capabilities and procedures.
B-17
-------
APPENDIX C
GUIDANCE FOR PREPARATION OF COMBINED
WORK/OUALITY ASSURANCE PROJECT PLANS
FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
(ORWS OA - 1)
OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
May, 1984
-------
FORMAT AND DESCRIPTION FOR WORK/0 A PROJECT PLAN
Title Page (With Project Officer, OA Officer and Agency/Division
--Sig natures . ) *
1. Project Name
2. Project Requested By
3. Date of Request
4. Date of Project Initiation
5. Project Officer
6. Quality Assurance Officer
7. Project Description
The purpose of the project description is to define the
objectives (goals) of the project and describe how the project will
be designed to obtain the information needed to accomplish the
project goals. The project description should consist of the
following :
A. Objective and Scope Statement
This section should consist of a comprehensive statement
addressing the project's objective (purpose) and an
overview of the project's scope (activities). Background
information pertaining to the project (i.e., reconnaissance
information) should be included.
* The exact format of this page will vary according to
specific State organizations and their designated
responsible individuals.
- C-l -
-------
B. Data Usage
This section should consist of a comprehensive statement
outlining the intended data usage. It is important to clearly
indicate this usage so that suitable sampling, analytical and
QA/QC protocols are selected- When applicable, secondary uses
of the data should be identified. The following are examples of
data uses:
- verify self-monitoring data;
- verify compliance with NPDES permit;
- support permit reissuance and /or revision;
- support other program elements such as water quality
standards; and
- possible usage in an enforcement action.
C. Monitoring Network Design and Rationale
This section should address the design of the overall monitoring
system, the specific locations of the sampling sites, and the
justification for the overall monitoring network design. As
discussed in Section II, data representativeness, comparability,
and completeness should be considered an integral part of the
monitoring design. Other relevant factors which influence the
design of the monitoring network should also be considered
and reflected in the plan (e.g., homogeneity of the system
under investigation, accessibility of the sampling area, stream
flow conditions, tidal fluctuation, weather conditions).
- c - 2 -
-------
D. Monitoring Parameters and Frequency of Collection
This section should discuss the types of parameters to be
collected at the various sampling sites. This may be done
in tabular form provided the following information is listed:
- sampling site location (e.g. latitude/longitude, River Mile
Index, Depth);
• type of sample (e.g.. grab sample, cross-sectional
stream composite sample);
- sample matrix (e.g., stream surface water, river bottom
sediment);
- parameters to be analyzed (e.g., copper, lead); and
- sampling frequency.
"Type of sample" should be only a brief description. A
detailed description of the sample collection method will be
addressed in Item 12.
E. Parameter Table
This table should provide the following information for each
parameter analyzed:
- sample matrix;
- analytical method reference; and
- sample holding time.
The analytical method reference must correspond to that specific
procedure which is followed in the laboratory for the analysis
of that parameter in that matrix. If an EPA-approved method is
used, a citation of the method's reference is sufficient. If
- c. 3 -
-------
no EPA-approved method is available or if the method to be used
is a modification of an EPA-approved method, the method must be
validated and documented in detail. The documented method should
be made part of the project plan by either incorporation into
the laboratory's Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) or by
becoming an attachment to the project plan.
8. Project Fiscal Information (Optional)*
To aid in the planning, control, and the allocation of existing resources
and to assist in the documentation and justification for future resources,
the financial requirements/expenditures for travel, per diem, mileage,
salaries and benefits, clerical services, expendable supplies, laboratory
services and any outside contractual arrangements should be delineated.
In addition, major equipment items such as automobiles, trucks, boats,
helicopters, drilling equipment, special safety equipment, etc., required
to implement the study plan for the project, should be specified and the
source and cost of each item identified. A factor for administrative
overhead cost may also be computed to complete the fiscal picture.
9. Schedule of Tasks and Products
The progress of the project from conception to implementation should be
followed. It is necessary to plot each phase of the project contained
in the project schedule, from initial request to final project report.
* This section is optional depending on existing State procedures.
- c . 4 .
-------
This includes:
- the date of the request which initiates the project;
- the date by which the project plan will be submitted to all
interested parties;
- the date by which comments on the plan are to be received by the
project officer;
- the date(s) of the field reconnaissance;
- the date(s) of the field sampling activities;
- the date(s) the samples will be submitted to the laboratory for analysis;
- the date(s) by which all analyses are to be completed and the data
submitted to the project officer;
- the date(s) the data will be entered into STORE! or other computerized
systems;
- the date of the completion of the draft interim/final project report;
- the date by which the reviewers' comments on the report(s) must be received;
- the date for completion of the peer review process; and
- the date for the issuance of the final project report.
Each step in this process should be scheduled in an objective and realistic
time frame to assure that adequate attention is devoted to the minimization
of effort and the maximization of information.
10. Project Organization and Responsibility
In order for a monitoring study to proceed smoothly and yield valid and
useable data, it is essential that all individuals are clearly informed.
- c- 5 -
-------
of their responsibilities. The Project Organization and Responsibility
Section of the Work/QA Project Plan should, at a minimum, identify key
individuals responsible for:
- sampling operations
- sampling QC.
- laboratory analyses
- laboratory QC.
- data processing activities
- data processing QC.
- data quality review
- performance auditing
- systems auditing (on-site.evaluations)
- overall QA
- overall project coordination
It is often useful on a project to indicate how these individuals relate
in the organization(s). An organizational chart is a convenient way of
illustrating this.
For each key individual named, a brief sentence or two explaining
that individual's responsibility should suffice. Telephone numbers should
be listed with the key individuals in order to facilitate communications.
Where there are several different monitoring institutions or subcontractors
involved, complete addresses should be provided.
- c. 6 -
-------
11. Data Quality Requirements and Assessments
It is important in project planning that a cooperative effort be
undertaken by the project officer, sampling, and analytical personnel to
define what levels of quality shall be required for the data. These data
quality requirements shall be based on a common understanding of the
intended use of the data, the measurement process, and availability of
resources. Once data quality requirements are clearly established, QC
protocols shall be defined for measuring whether these requirements are
being met during the study.
As a minimum, requirements should be specified for detection/quantitation
limits, precision, and accuracy for all types of measurements, where
these are appropriate. A procedure for determining method detection
limits is covered 1n "Methods for Organic Chemical Analysis for Municipal
and Industrial Wastewater," EPA 600/4-82-057.
Customarily, laboratory personnel provide the project officer with method
options covering a given parameter and type of sample. These options are
accompanied by respective detection/quantitation limits and statements of
precision and accuracy. Once the method options are selected, the detection/
quantitation limit, precision, and accuracy requirements should be
incorporated into the Work/QA Project Plan. Along with each requirement,
there should be a protocol for monitoring whether these requirements were
met. For example, intralaboratory precision can be monitored by using
replicate samples. Accuracy can be «o«itared *«t& ±&s use of fi£l4 £od
rnethod blanks, spikes, surrogate spikes, National Bureau of Standards'
Standard Reference Materials (SRM's), EPA QC reference samples, etc.
- c . 7 .
-------
Wherever possible criteria should be set for the "total measurement."
This could be accomplished, for example, with the use of field replicate
samples.
Frequency of QC sample analysis and statistical reporting units shall be
defined in the Work/QA Project Plan.
When discussing data quality requirements, consideration should also
be given to data representativeness, comparability, and completeness.
- Representativeness is a quality characteristic. For most water
monitoring studies, it should be considered a goal to be
achieved rather than a characteristic which can be described in
quantitative terms. An example of the need for representativeness
is in the planning for the collection of surface water samples
from a stream and the subsequent use of the data for determining
wasteload allocations. The question to oe addressed is how the
sample will be collected to ensure its relationship to the stream
characteristics (i.e., the taking of grab samples in a restricted
zone of the stream compared to a complete transect sampling).
- Comparability is also a quality characteristic which must be
considered in study planning. Depending on the end use of data,
comparability must be assured in the project in terms of sampling
plans, analytical methodology, quality control, data reporting,
etc. For example, a comparability question would be whether
analysis bas^tl on different portions of fish are comparable (i.«.,
whole versus edible portions).
- c . 8 -
-------
- Completeness is a messure of all information necessary for a valid
scientific study. A useful way to evaluate completeness is to
carefully compare project objectives with the proposed data
acquisition and resulting potential "short falls" in needed
information. Generally, it is not useful to try and measure this
in quantitative terms for most water monitoring projects.
12. Sampling Procedures
For each environmental parameter or parameter group to be measured, a
complete description of the sampling procedure must be documented.
Included as vital elements in the sampling documentation should be:
inclusion of specific sampling procedures, (by reference to Standard
Operating Procedures or by detailed descriptions of state-of-the-art
methods, where used); flow diagrams or tracking mechanisms to chart
sampling operations; and descriptions of sampling devices, sampling
containers, preservation techniques, sample holding times and sample
identification forms.
13. Sample Custody Procedures
Sample custody is a vital aspect of any monitoring program generating
data which may be used as evidence in a court of law. In this regard, proper
procedures for the acquisition, possession, and analysis of samples for
documenting violations of State and/or Federal regulations and/or statutes
are vital to the acceptance of such data in court. This area is generally
referred to as the "chain-of-custody of samples".
- c - 9 -
-------
If the intended use of the data generated from this monitoring project
is enforcement related (see Item 78), then a detailed description of the
sample handling procedures utilized in the field, as well as the laboratory,
must be documented. This procedure may be made part of the project plan
or, if documented in the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) manual
(both sampling and laboratory SOP's), it may be incorporated by reference.
When documenting the sample chain-of-custody procedures, the following
information should be included:
1. Since chain-of-custody begins with the cleaning of the sample
containers to be used, a written record of the laboratory's
source and manner of preparation of all sample containers should
be referenced. This should include the laboratory's quality
control procedures for assuring that the "cleaned" containers
are truly decontaminated.
2. A detailed description of how sample containers are handled (in
both the field and laboratory) to prevent either inadvertent
contamination or potential opportunities for tampering.
3. An example of the chain-of-custody form should be included with
an explanation of the signing procedure.
14. Calibration Procedures and Preventive Maintenance
The purpose of this section is to document, by describing in detail or
referencing the appropriate SOP, methods which are utilized to assure
that field and laboratory equipment are functioning optimally. The
frequency of application of these methods should also be appropriately
recorded.
- c . 10 .
-------
Exhibits 14.1 and 14.2 are examples of check lists for field and
laboratory equipment.
An equipment log book is to be maintained in addition to the check list.
The equipment log book shoul.d remain with the piece of equipment except
when the equipment is sent out for repairs, rhe log book should contain
records of usage maintenance, calibration, and repairs.
Exhibit 14.1
Field Equipment Check List Example
Automatic Sample
Battery
Pump Tubing
Discharge Tube
Splash Shield
Bottles
Intake Nozzle
Task
Clean and charge
Soak, scrub, rinse
Soak, scrub, rinse
Scrub, rinse
Clean, rinse, dry
Disassemble, clean, rinse
Frequency
After each sampling
After each sampling
After each sampli ng
After each sampling
After each sampling
After each sampling
Exhibit 14.2
Laboratory Equipment Check List Example
Absorption
Spectrophotometer
Calibrate against
standard
Frequency
Each nth
determination
Identify Each Sample
Number and Date
Standard number 5.
11/10/82
15. Documentation, Data Reduction and Reporting
The purpose of this section is to describe documentation, data
reduction, and reporting:
- c - 11 -
-------
A. Documentation - There must be adequate documentation available with
all data. This is necessary to help in fully interpreting the data as
well as to protect it against legal and scientific challenges. Records
must be legible, complete and properly organized. In some cases, they
must be protected, using a document control system.
In the Work/QA Project Plan, SOP's should be referenced or included
which define the type of record to be maintained as well as indicating
where and how records will be stored.
B. Data Reduction and Reporting - "Paper work" errors are commonly found
in the calculations, reductions and transfer of data to various forms and
reports and transmittal of data into data storage systems. Quality
control procedures should be carefully designed to eliminate errors during
these steps. Calculation procedures should be described, to the extent
possible, in analytical SOP's. SOP's should be referenced in the Work/QA
Project Plan which describe review and cross-check procedures for
calculations. Also, the SOP's should completely cover the step-wise
procedures for entering data onto various forms and into computer systems.
In addition to handling data, procedures should cover routine data transfer
and entry validation checks. Where data forms are a^ed, they should
be included in the SOP's.
16. Data Validation
Each program must establish technically sound and documented data validation
criteria which will serve to accept/reject data in a uniform and
manner.
- c . 12 -
-------
Data validation can be envisioned as a systematic procedure of reviewing
a body of data against a set of established criteria to provide a specified
level of assurance of its validity prior to its intended use.
Data validation is, of necessity, conducted "after the fact." It requires
that the techniques utilized are applied to the body of the data in a
systematic and uniform manner. The process of data validation must be
close to the origin of the data, independent of the data production
process, and objective in approach.
Criteria for data validation must include checks for internal
consistency, checks for transmittal errors, checks for verification of
laboratory capability, etc. These criteria involve utilization of
techniques such as interpretation of the results of: external performance
evaluation audits; split sample analyses; duplicate sample analysis (field
and laboratory); spiked addition recoveries; instrument calibrations;
detection limits; intra-laboratory comparisons; inter-laboratory com-
parisons; tests for normality; tests for outliers; and data base entry
checks.
17. Performance and System Audits
Performance and systems audits are an essential part of every quality
control program. A performance audit independently collects measurement
data using performance evaluation samples. A systems audit consists of a
review of the total data production process which includes on-site reviews
of a field and laboratory's operational systems and physical facilities
for sampling, calibration and measurement protocols.
- c. 13 .
-------
To the extent possible, these audits should be conducted by individuals
who are not directly involved in the measurement process. Audits serve
three purposes:
(1) to determine if a particular group has the capability to conduct
the monitoring before the project is initiated;
(2) to verify that the QA Project Plan and associated SOP's are being
implemented; and
(3) to detect and define problems so that immediate corrective action
can begin.
A Work/QA Project Plan should specify who will conduct the audit, what
protocol will be used, what the acceptance criteria will be and to whom
the audit reports will go. Generally, the dates for conducting the
audits should be listed unless it is decided to conduct these unannounced.
Performance evaluation samples produced by EPA-can be used as a type
of performance audit. These samples can also be obtained from the
National Bureau of Standards, United States Geological Survey commercial
sources or in-house sources. Generally, it should not be necessary to
conduct these audits if the group being tested has successfully performed
within the last 6 months for the particular parameters in que^cion.
18. Corrective Action
A corrective action program, which must have the capability to discern
errors or defects at any point in the project implementation process, is
an essential management "tool for 1>oth project coordination and TJuaTHy
Assurance/Quality Control activities.
- c - 14 -
-------
A plausible corrective action scheme must be designed to Identify defects,
tally defects, trace defects to their source, plan and implement measures
to correct identified defects, maintain documentation of the results of
the corrective process, and continue the process until each defect is
eliminated.
Each organization must develop a corrective action protocol which is
technically effective as well as administratively compatible.
19. Reports
Formal reports must be issued to inform appropriate management personnel
of progress in the execution of the work plan. The reports should include
an assessment of the status of the project in relation to the proposed
time table. The reports should also address any results of ongoing
performance and systems audits, data quality assessments, and significant
quality assurance problems with proposed corrective action procedures.
The final report shall be issued, consistent with the rationale for
executing the Work/QA Project Plan. The report shall also include appropriate
data quality assessment.
- c - 15 -
------- |