------- ------- RESULTS WORKSHOP ON ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS FOR THE SURFACE WATER PROGRAM JULY 1989 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GLNPO Library Collection (PL-12J) 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, II 60604-3590 ------- RESULTS WORKSHOP ON ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS FOR THE SURFACE WATER PROGRAM March 28-29,1989 Alexandria, Virginia Preparedfor: EPA OFFICE OF WATER REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS and EPA OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS AND EVALUATION Prepared by: TEMPLE, BARKER & SLOANE, INC. 18751 STREET, N.W., SUITE 1050 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 ------- TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE i BACKGROUND 1 STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT 3 THE WORKSHOP 3 Workshop Structure 4 RESULTS OF WORKSHOP GROUPS 6 Workgroup # 1 Status and Trends 6 Workgroup # 2 Program Effectiveness 8 Workgroup # 3 Source Evaluation 13 TABLE 1: WORKSHOP RESULTS 15 ATTACHMENT 1: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 16 ATTACHMENT 2: WORKSHOP AGENDA 23 ------- PREFACE This document summarizes the results of a workshop on identifying indicators for surface water quality programs, held on March 28-29, 1989, in Alexandria Virginia. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) extends its appreciation to the workshop participants and to the organizations they represented. A complete list of participants is included at the end of this document. The EPA personnel who were responsible for planning and overseeing the workshop were Wayne Praskins from the Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS), and Kim Devonald and Kristina Groome from the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation (OMSE). Background research was performed by OMSE, assisted by Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. (TBS). The workshop was prepared for and held under contract no. 68-01- 7288. This document has been prepared under contract no. 68-03-3548. ------- BACKGROUND The use of environmental measures, or indicators, that can help identify program effectiveness in meeting environmental goals at State and Federal levels is becoming an important evaluation tool for many programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In its 1988 report, "Protecting Human Health and the Environment Through Improved Management," the General Accounting Office (GAO) noted that EPA needs to develop measurable goals that reflect environmental improvement rather than continuing to rely on "administrative" measures of success that count program activities instead of results. EPA Administrator William Reilly has endorsed the call for more accountability in EPA program management and for the use of environmental indicators. He is establishing a new strategic planning process designed to increase the focus of EPA programs on environmental results. For each EPA program area, the selection and use of appropriate environmental indicators would be an important part of that process. The Office of Water Regulations and Standards (OWRS) and the Office of Management Systems and Evaluation (OMSE) at EPA are jointly supporting an effort to identify environmental indicators that could be used to track the status of the nation's surface waters and the programs that are designed to protect them. These two offices have long been involved in the process of providing Congress and water resource managers, at EPA and elsewhere, with information on the quality of the aquatic environment. In December 1985, OMSE and the Office of Water began a two year study on EPA water monitoring activities that culminated in the release in September 1987, of a report entitled Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change. In initiating that study, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water noted that "[w]e all recognized that we will never have, nor can we afford, a complete understanding of water quality. Nevertheless, I am convinced that we need a better understanding than we currently have of water quality for some of the things we are trying to accomplish today. We also should be obtaining baseline and trend measurements that will be needed in the future." One of the major recommendations of that study was that EPA should improve its own, and states', knowledge about sources and uses of existing water-related data. The report found that water quality managers often do not make sufficient use of existing data sets in setting priorities or making day to day decisions on program direction. The use of a select group of indicators based on existing data sources could help respond to this concern. Currently, the primary use of indicators in surface water programs is in the biennial state assessments of their water quality, the 305(b) reports. In these reports, states indicate the degree to which their waters are meeting "designated uses." EPA also encourages states to report on the extent to which waters meet the "fishable" and "swimmable" goals of the Clean Water Act (CWA); the extent to which waters are not supporting their "uses" due to various causes and sources of pollution; and a variety of other indicators including shellfish bed or beach closures, fishing restrictions, fish kills, closure of drinking water supplies, incidents of water-borne disease, sediment contamination, and waters affected by toxics. EPA then assembles these individual assessments into a report to Congress on the nation's water quality. ^ ------- It is difficult for EPA to aggregate the diverse state reports into a meaningful national assessment that can adequately address questions about the quality of the nation's surface waters. There is no uniform methodology by which states collect, analyze and report water quality data. Consequently, states compile and interpret data on a variety of chemical, physical and biological measures. Also, states have considerable discretion to define the criteria by which they will decide whether a waterbody is supporting a particular "designated use". Finally, different proportions of various states total waters are assessed to obtain information used for 305(b) reports, and the same waters are not assessed from one year to another in most states. EPA and the states are instituting changes in the 305(b) reporting process, most notably through development of a computerized data system (the Waterbody System) that states are being encouraged to adopt. This system is designed to standardize formats for 305(b) information storage. In addition, EPA is encouraging states to supplement monitoring data with evaluative information and is working with the states to improve consistency in "designated use" reporting and other definitions. The identification of environmental indicators will, however, go beyond making improvements to the 305(b) reports. Information on the status of the environment is needed not only by EPA and state personnel for management purposes but also by the public and elected officials in order to build understanding of water quality programs and support for them. Historically, EPA's accountability systems have focused on the specific activities that the Agency has undertaken rather than the results of those actions. Making better use of environmental indicators would improve the ability to evaluate progress in terms that the public can use in assessing whether sufficient progress is being made towards environmental goals. ------- STRUCTURE OF THE PROJECT The overall goal of this project, which is to be completed in three phases, is to develop a set of indicators EPA and the states can use to track progress in protecting surface water nation-wide. As well as identifying those existing data sets that could be used to develop indicators, a second goal of the project is to help design future monitoring and data collection activities. An essential element of the first Phase of the project was the identification of those existing databases that can be more efficiently utilized to provide information on the status of water quality and of programs designed to protect it. The scope of indicators under consideration included measures of freshwater, estuarine, and coastal environmental quality and considered the conditions of living resources as well as ambient parameters. This information has been compiled in a separate document entitled Resource Document for Workshop on Environmental Indicators for Surface Water Programs, which provided the substantive basis for much of the discussion that took place at the workshop. The resource volume contains brief descriptions in the form of fact sheets of approximately two dozen potential indicators, divided into five general categories: chemical/physical properties in water; toxics in other media (including fish and wildlife tissues and sediments); biological community measures; other living resource measures; and indicators of designated use attainment. Each fact sheet contains a general description of the proposed measure, a discussion of its major advantages and disadvantages, its applicability to different categories of water bodies and the availability of the data to support it. The final task in Phase I was the convening of a workshop to discuss, review and revise the candidate list of indicators identified in the resource document. Phases n and IE will involve further refinement of the indicator list; testing the feasibility of the measures, based on data availability or practicality, and preparing a report that describes those indicators recommended as most meaningful and practical for use by EPA and the states. This process will be directed by a senior Work Group of water quality program managers. THE WORKSHOP On March 28-29, a workshop designed to complete Phase I of this project was held in Alexandria, Virginia. The context and purpose of the workshop are described in more detail in a separate volume titled Workshop on Environmental Indicators for the Surface Water Program. Participants representing state governments, EPA Regional offices, EPA Headquarters, and other organizations shared their views on the strengths and weaknesses of potential indicators, including but not limited to those identified in the resource document prepared for the workshop. A complete list of participants is included as Attachment 1. ------- Workshop Structure A copy of the Agenda for the workshop is included as Attachment 2. The workshop consisted of three elements: 1) Presentations to the full group 2) Workgroup discussions 3) Full group discussions 1) Presentations to the Full Group The morning session of each day began with a series of presentations to the full plenary group. On the first day, representatives from the State of Maryland, the State of Ohio and EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office gave presentations on the utility of specific indicators that they have used. On the second day, representatives from the U. S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reported on data collection activities on chemical and physical parameters in surface water, toxics residues in fish tissue, and shellfish closures, respectively. A second NOAA representative gave a report on that Agency's efforts to develop a set of environmental indicators for marine waters. 2) Workgroup Discussions The business of the workshop was conducted primarily in three separate workgroups, of approximately 15 people each. Individuals chose one of the 3 following issue areas they wanted to address during the small group sessions. Each workgroup attempted to answer the same series of questions, focusing on its particular area of concern. The workgroups addressed the following potential uses of the indicators: For reporting status and trends; For evaluating program effectiveness; and Evaluating the impacts of specific source categories on surface water quality. During the small group sessions that were conducted over the two-day workshop, each group attempted to define the following: The audience for whom the indicators were being developed; The objectives of the type of indicator that was being addressed; Specific criteria that applied to indicators that would meet these objectives; and ------- An identification of the particular indicators that met the objectives and responded to the concerns of the identified audience. The workgroups then addressed the question of whether changes should be made in the information the states collect and report in their 305(b) reports. As well as modifications and improvements to data reporting systems, the workgroups also discussed whether environmental indicators could be incorporated into existing management systems (e.g. EPA's Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS)) to encourage their use. 3) Full Group Discussions After the individual workgroup discussions, each group presented a brief (five minute) report of its discussion and conclusions to the full group. During the last full group discussion, participants were given the opportunity to offer additional views on the issues raised and recommendations made during the course of the workshop. ------- RESULTS OF WORKSHOP GROUPS The main points and recommendations of the workgroups are captured in the following sections. For each of the three workgroups, the potential audience, objectives, and the criteria for indicators that meet their specific purposes are discussed. These questions are obviously interrelated, and the objectives for a measure will change depending on the audience. Moreover, the criteria for an indicator will depend on the objectives of its use. A summary table (Table #1) highlighting the recommendations of each of the groups follows this discussion. Workgroup #1 Status and Trends As noted earlier, one of the main objectives of the indicator program has been the identification of those measures that can help answer questions on the relative status of the surface water resource, such as "What is the quality of the resource?" "Is it improving?" Some members of the group referred to status and trend measures as the "GNP" of environmental indicators. In addition, the workgroup also addressed questions concerning the utility of information on status and trends that is unconnected to information on sources, causes, or program activities. In that regard, one member of the group noted that data are only valuable if they can affect decisions. The group started off by attempting to define what it meant by indicators of status or trends. Measures of status were defined as snapshot looks at specific waterbodies, defined either geographically or by different classes of waterbodies including lakes, streams, or estuaries. Measures of trends, on the other hand, address water quality across temporal or spatial scales, across various waterbody types and in relation to other trends (e.g., changes in population). Audience The group identified a number of potential users of status and trend measures, as listed below: Federal/State/Local government Media Interest Groups Business and Industry Academic and Research Communities Objectives of Indicators As noted earlier, the objectives identified can vary depending on the audience to whom the indicator is directed. For example, the government official would be most interested in a measure that might evaluate program management while the media representative might be more interested in an indicator that would identify a particular ------- 7 problem or provide some idea as to the general condition of the waterbody. The workgroup identified the following potential objectives of status and trends indicators: Program management -- identify problems and sources of the problems -- identify status of waterbodies; changes over time - target resources and program activities to problem areas -- evaluate overall success of programs affecting waterbodies Public education/outreach Establish credibility and significance of Agency programs Criteria for Indicators Working from the list of potential criteria presented in the resource document, the group identified the following as being important (though not necessarily required) in determining a good environmental measure: National in scope Consistent methodology and reporting Scientifically defensible Relevant and comprehensible to the particular audience Tied to risk Low cost/feasible to accomplish Timely Able to be presented effectively Recommended Indicators During the second day of the workshop, the group identified the particular measures that it believed worthy of further investigation as indicators of surface water quality. In its deliberations, it was guided by the definitions of criteria, objectives and potential audience of the measures that had been determined previously. The workgroup discussed the need for a "high-visibility", qualitative, aggregate indicator of status and trends as well as for other, more specific, quantitative indicators. The high visibility indicator is intended to make people ask questions and generate attention, but not necessarily to answer those questions. The high visibility measure should integrate a number of variables as is accomplished by the designated use information reported in 305 (b) reports. While some members of the group indicated their dissatisfaction with the designated use measure, noting for example, its lack of consistency, the workgroup decided that it would recommend that a "designated use" measure be recommended for the high visibility, integrative indicator. One workgroup ------- 8 member noted that a "high visibility indicator" might be constructed by agreeing on a consistent way to report severity and extent of adverse impact while a variety of tools may be used in assessing impacts. He noted that "inconsistency" in evaluation of "designated use support" can be viewed as a strength-allowing the flexibility to use many potentially effective assessment tools to evaluate water quality. Appropriate assessment tools will vary with the situation. The group then identified three other categories (water and sediment measures, biological measures, and administrative measures) for which it would recommend specific indicators. These are shown below: Water and sediment -- water quality index Biological - community structure measure such as IB I and ICI -- tissue survey (like FWS work on toxics in fish tissue) -- organism health (i.e., tumor incidence or reproductive failure) "Administrative" or regulatory action measures health advisories (based on risk assessment) - beach closures ~ consumption advisories Additional Recommendations The workgroup participants discussed whether any changes should be made to Section 305(b) reports, which contain the designated use indicator identified as the high visibility, integrative, measure of choice. The group recognized the need to make 305(b) reports more consistent by providing additional guidance to the states, and by providing < additional guidance on determining attainment of the CWA's fishable and swimmable goals. The workgroup also recommended that a statistically designed study be developed to collect nationwide information for a specific set of measures. Although this approach does not generate information specifically aimed at states needs, it provides a nationally consistent method of comparison. Workgroup #2 Program Effectiveness There is a consensus that EPA and states need to improve their ability to measure the success or lack of success of particular programs in achieving environmental results. The workgroup discussed a number of general issues relating to the use of indicators to evaluate program effectiveness. Included among these were questions such as whether program effectiveness can be measured solely by the degree to which water quality standards are met? Like workgroup #1, this group addressed the problem of inconsistency in the way that designated use support is evaluated. This would have to be improved if the degree of support of designated uses were to be used as an indicator of program effectiveness. ------- Audience EPA (water programs and other programs) -- primary audience now for State reporting State Entities -- regulatory boards -- legislatures -- program managers -- legal boards of review (i.e., for lawsuit resolutions) Public Congress News Media Regulated Community -- to increase understanding, willingness to adopt new controls Environmental Action Groups Other Federal Agencies Objectives of Indicators In its discussion of the objectives, the group discussed the appropriate program level that the indicator should address. Should an indicator be directed at specific programs, or at a combination of them? After much discussion, the workgroup identified four specific objectives ranging from evaluation of specific water programs to an evaluation of overall water quality management on a national or state basis. The four objectives are: 1. Evaluate success of overall water quality management/regulatory programs on a national and state basis 2. Help prioritize regulatory and other management actions, plan for the future, and set environmental goals 3. Evaluate success of all environmental programs in protecting water quality (including air, waste programs, etc.) on a national basis 4. Evaluate success of specific water programs, (for example: the traditional NPDES program for point sources; the Nonpoint Source Program; the new storm drain management program; CSO programs; possibly standards programs) in protecting water quality. ------- 10 Criteria for Indicators The workgroup identified criteria for indicators that would respond to the different objectives. While there is a high degree of overlap among the criteria chosen for the different uses, the group did identify some distinctions: Objective I: For evaluating success of overall water programs -- consistent or comparable information across geographic areas of concern (national or state) -- direct measure of environmental conditions (may be difficult in some situations) -- readily understood by managers ~ readily understood by public -- timeliness reference values available to distinguish from background Objective II: Priority-ranking actions/plan for the future ~ direct measure of environmental conditions ~ readily understood by managers -- timeliness ~ reference values available to distinguish from background -- sensitive measure of incremental changes -- measures conditions known to be affected by the sources programs are responsible for controlling Objective III: National assessment - overall environmental program effectiveness (water, air, waste) ~ consistent or comparable information nationally direct measure of environmental conditions -- readily understood by managers -- readily understood by public -- reference values available to distinguish from background sensitive measure of incremental changes - Agency monitoring personnel regard as feasible and reasonable - flexible, so that data from other collecting organizations can be used Objective IV: Program-specific indicators ~ reflects specific program action -- measure of or linked to environmental conditions - readily understood by mangers -- readily understood by public timeliness ------- 11 Recommended Indicators The workgroup decided to vote for their recommended indicators. Each workgroup member voted for up to three indicators. The group felt the voting would be essentially the same for Objectives 1, 2 and 3; but that Objective 4, Evaluation of Specific Programs, would require a different set of indicators. In addition, the group decided that for Objectives 1, 2 and 3, indicators should be divided into two groups: those for protecting ecological health, and those for human health. The three resulting sets of indicators are presented below, with only those indicators that received 5 or more votes listed. (Numbers in parentheses are numbers of votes for each indicator, out of 13 members voting) Indicators Recommended for Objectives 1 to 3. with emphasis on Ecological Protection Biological community integrity (fish, benthos or others depending on the system involved) (10 +) (note: this indicator was created by the group, after voting was completed, as a composite of other indicators. It was felt that if a full vote was repeated with this option available, it would receive between 11 and 13 votes.) Toxics in fish tissue (10) Designated use support (with major caveat re inconsistency) (6) Chemical and physical properties of water (5) Disease in fish (5) Indicators Recommended for Objectives 1 to 3. with emphasis on Human Health Toxics in fish tissue (9) Shellfish closures (7) Water contact recreation closures (6) Chemical and physical properties of water (5) Drinking water closures (5) Water-borne disease incidence (5) Indicators Recommended for Objective 4. Program-Specific Indicators Chemical and physical properties of water (12) ------- 12 Loads (10)1 Ambient water toxicity (6) The workgroup then looked briefly at various indicators that might be appropriate for specific water programs (see objective 4). This evaluation was discontinued due to lack of time. Point source controls in general -- Shellfish register - Loading ~ Chemical/physical properties Ambient water toxicity Storm Drains -- Chemical/physical properties ~ Loading With regard to non-point sources, the group noted that fish kills or other biological indicators might be more applicable than expensive physical monitoring. Additional Recommendations Need guidance and standardized methods for assessing water toxicity. Federal and State agencies responsible for water monitoring and reporting should cooperate with each other and with state activities, such as the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Agencies' proposed 1992 trend reporting activity, to avoid redundancy and to achieve the most cost-effective use of limited financial resources. Need guidance on appropriate methodology for biological community variables. A National Survey of Aquatic Biological Community Conditions could coordinate with an update of the National Fisheries Survey and/or with NAWQA. With regard to use of 305(b) reports, the group agreed that indicators should be reported somewhere other than just in the 305(b) assessments. -- include with SPMS measures, (will require some flexibility and creativity). 1 Note that the Group realizes that this is not a true environmental indicator, but that it is nevertheless a very useful measure for program-specific evaluations. ------- 13 Workgroup #3 Source Evaluation The participants in this workgroup attempted to identify a series of measures that EPA could use to try to relate incidences of pollution in various surface waterbodies to specific sources (point and non-point). EPA already has some information as to the relative contribution of various types of sources to surface water pollution. For example, in a January 1989 document entitled Non-point Sources: Agenda for the Future, the Office of Water at EPA provides information on the relative concentration of non-point versus other sources of pollution to the nation's estuaries, lakes, and rivers. In addition, the document shows, with the non-point source category, the contribution of various types of non-point pollution, from agriculture to urban runoff. The workgroup wanted to develop indicators that could provide a more direct link between a particular source and degradation in a specific waterbody segment. Audience Decision makers/program mangers (State and Federal Level) Media General Public Legislative bodies Regulated entities Objectives of Indicators There was some overlap between the objectives identified by this workgroup and the other groups. Some participants saw the identification of trends and the ability to measure program effectiveness as potential uses of these indicators. After a lot of discussion, the group agreed to leave those areas to the other workgroups and identified the following list of objectives: Provide a check on permits (are permit limits being met) Correlate sources to problems -what is causing the problem -how severe is it Targeting and resource allocation Focus on all types of waters ------- 14 Criteria for Indicators Provide a qualitative correlation between the sources and the pollution - data on both Have predictive capability Understandable to the audience Relevant to the audience Relevant to ecological impacts Inexpensive Recommended Indicators The workgroup spent most of the second day of the workshop trying to identify indicators that would meet the objectives set the day before. The final result of the deliberations was, however, that there were no existing measures that could meet these goals. The participants concluded that more research was necessary to help establish quantitative links between incidents of pollution and the sources that caused it. The group determined that small-scale, specific studies on known problems and known sources should be undertaken to try to establish linkages between pollution and sources that could then be applied to other situations. One participant noted, after the workshop, that studies in Duluth, Minnesota demonstrated the ability to predict biological impacts from effluent and ambient toxicity tests. Site-specific or regional indicators, the group concluded, would be more useful than nationally relevant measures, and biological indicators would be more important than chemical/physical ones. Finally, the workgroup discussed potential changes to the 305(b) reports that might facilitate or research in this area. It was suggested that states be encouraged to conduct and report on the type of site-specific studies necessary to learn more about the linkage between problems and the specific sources that contribute to them. Addendum to Workgroup #3 Report After the workshop one participant noted that one of the reasons the third workgroup failed to agree upon a list of indicators was that the wrong questions were being addressed in that workgroup. He thought that rather than focusing on efforts to link pollutants to their specific sources (which requires a lot of specific information about the site), the group should have looked more closely at indicators that could evaluate impacts. A list of indicators should be developed to answer questions such as "Is there a problem; what is the problem; and how bad is it?", in order to help identify local problems. Potential indicators that could be of help in this are biological community measures, immunological markers in fish, or some other early warning measures such as metal binding proteins and stress proteins. ------- Jj gfffc 6 £ |.Ği Big5 C a. a; w. A o o s IB t-a S a -a Ğ 1 1 I ."° a 8 b fr §> ! o details on liei text for ctiveness G PrQgr 1 . 1 5 1 *io ^ ? o Ğ 1 11 , ili I a 1 '8 Z < 3 Ğ P 1C ------- ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ------- 17 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS Name Dave Buzan Bruce Cleland Bob Currie John Davis Kim Devonald Steve Dressing Chuck Evans Bob Frey Laura Gabanski Organization/Address Texas Water Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78736 U.S. EPA, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Seattle, WA 98101 U.S. EPA OPPE/OMSE 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Delaware DNREC P.O. Box 1401 Dover, DE 19903 U.S. EPA OPPE/OMSE PM-222A 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 U.S. EPA OWRS 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 ASIWPCA 444 N. Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 330 Washington, DC 20001-1512 PA Dept. of Environmental Management 3rd & Locust, Fulton Bldg. llth Floor Harrisburg, PA 17120 NOAA National Ocean Pollution Program Office 11400 Rockville Pike Room 610 Rockville, MD 20852 Telephone 512-463-8471 206-442-1106 202-382-5439 301-736-4590 202-382-4900 202-382-7110 202-624-7782 717-787-9633 301-443-8823 ------- 18 Name Sherman Garrison TJ. Glauthier Steve Glomb Kristina Groome Geoff Grubbs Jim Harrison Margarete Heber Rollie Hemmett Tom Holloway Organization/Address MD Dept. of the Environment Watershed NFS Division 2500 Broening Highway Baltimore, MD 21224 Temple, Barker & Sloane, Inc. 1875 I Street, N.W., Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20006 U.S. EPA Office of Marine & Estuarine Protection WH-556F 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 U.S. EPA OPPE/OMSE PM 222A 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 U.S. EPA OWRS/AWPD WH-553 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 EPA, Region 4 345 Courtland Street Atlanta, GA 30365 U.S. EPA OWEP/Permits Division EN 336 01 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 EPA, Region II 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278 EPA, Region 7 726 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, KS 66101 Telephone 301-631-3575 202-223-2002 202-475-7114 202-382-4910 202-382-7040 404-347-2126 202-475-9530 201-321-6687 913-236-3884 ------- 19 Name Pete Hudelson Kim Hummel Carol D. Janzen Carol Hudson Jones Robert Kramer Dorothy Leonard Organization/Address Chemical Manufacturers Association 2501 M Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20037 EPA, Region IE 3ESOO 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 Washington Department of Ecology 7272 Cleanwater Lane Olympia, WA 98504 U.S. EPA OWEP 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 EPA, Region III 3ESOO 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 NOAA/NOS Strategic Assessment Branch 11400 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20851 Telephone 202-887-1188 215-597-3362 206-586-5495 202-475-8487 215-597-8330 301-443-8843 Keith Little Ed Liu Gail Mallard Research Triangle Institute P.O. Box 12194 Triangle Park, NC 27709 EPA, Region 9 W-3-2 215 Fremont Street San Francisco, Ca 94105 U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Division 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive Reston, VA 22092 919-541-5918 415-974-8281 703-648-6872 ------- 20 Name Alice Mavio Sylvia McCollor Jay Messer Carl Myers Jim Newsom Bruce Newton John Norton Ernest Pizzuto, Jr. Donald Porteous Ken Potts Organization/Address U.S. EPA OWRS/AWPD WH-553 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 520 Lafayette Road St. Paul, MN 55155 U.S. EPA ORD/OMMSQA MD-75 Research Triangle Park, NC 27514 U.S. EPA OWRS/AWPD 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 EPA, Region III ESD 841 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 U.S. EPA Assessment & Watershed Protection 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 CA Water Resources Control Bd. P.O. Box 100 Sacramento, CA 95801 CT Dept. of Water Compliance 122 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06106 EPA, Region I ESD 60 Westview Street Lexington, MA 02173 U.S. EPA OWRS/CSD 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Telephone 202-382-7018 612-296-7249 919-541-0150 202-382-7040 215-597-8173 202-382-7074 916-322-0214 203-566-7049 617-860-4317 202-475-7324 ------- 2! Name Wayne Praskins EdRankin Jackie Romney Peter Ruffier Michael T. Sauer Andy Schwarz Kathy Smith Don Steffeck Tim Stuart Organization/Address U.S. EPA OWRS/AWPD WH-553 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Ohio EPA 1030 King Avenue Columbus, OH 21312 U.S. EPA OWEP/Permits Division 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies 1225 I Street, N.W. Suite 300 Washington, DC 20005 ND Dept. of Health/ Water Supply 1200 Missouri Ave., Box 5520 Bismarck, ND 58502-5520 Temple, Barker & Sloane Inc. 1875 I Street, N.W., Suite 1050 Washington, DC 20006 U.S. EPA OWEP/Permits Division EN-336 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1000 N. Glebe Road Room 601 Arlington, VA U.S. EPA OWRS/AWPD 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Telephone 202-382-7010 614-466-3700 202-475-9528 202-682-5886 701-224-2354 202-223-2002 202-382-6963 703-235-1904 202-382-7074 ------- 22 Name Organization/Address Telephone Peter Truitt U.S. EPA 202-382-4900 OPPE/OMSE 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 Glenn Warren U.S. EPA 312-353-2117 Great Lakes National Program Office 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Sam Williams U.S. EPA 202-382-5940 ORD/OEPER 401 M Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20460 ------- ATTACHMENT 2 WORKSHOP AGENDA ------- 24 SURFACE WATER INDICATORS WORKSHOP Tuesday, March 28 Registration/Coffee (8:30 - 9:00) Opening Session (9:00 - 10:15) Welcome Environmental indicators in EPA and State surface water programs and our goals for this workshop Indicators of environmental quality: their use and lack of use in other programs BREAK Plenary Session: Illustrating the Use of Various Indicators (10:30- 11:45) Chemical and Physical Properties in Maryland Streams Fish Assemblages and Benthic Invertebrates in Ohio Rivers and Streams Biological Communities in the Great Lakes Tim Stuart Geoff Grubbs Robert Currie Sherman Garrison Ed Rankin Glenn Warren Plenary Session: Introduction to Workgroups (11:45 - 12:00) LUNCH Workgroup Session 1 (1:00 - 3:30) Discussion Group #1: Indicators for Reporting National Status and/or Trends Discussion Group #2: Indicators for Evaluating EPA and State Program Effectiveness Discussion Group #3: Indicators for Evaluating the Impact of Sources of Pollution In each session, participants will discuss: o what specific questions do the public, or program managers, want answered? o what characteristics should a good indicator of status and!or trends have to answer each question? Plenary Session: Workgroup Progress Reports (3:30 - 4:30) ------- 25 Wednesday, March 29 Plenary Session: Illustrating the Use of Various (Nationally Reported) Indicators (8:30 - 10:00) Toxic Residues in Fish Tissue Don Steffeck, USFWS Chemical and Physical Properties Gail Mallard, USGS Shellfish Closures Dorothy Leonard, NOAA BREAK Workgroup Session 2 (10:15 - 12:00) In each discussion session, participants will: o work toward a consensus on which indicators EPA and States should report on (whether we now report on them or not) in any future national studies, networks, or programs; o discuss general design characteristics that future studies, networks, or programs should have; o discuss the extent to which other national monitoring programs meet national assessment needs. LUNCH Workgroup Session 3 (1:00 - 2:30) In each discussion session, participants will: o work toward a consensus on whether EPA and States should make any changes in the mix of indicators that States now report on in their §305(b) assessments; o discuss other ways that we might improve the §305(b) reporting process (e.g., tracking a subset of waters); o discuss environmental indicators that could be incorporated into existing systems for managing Regional and State performance (e.g., EPA's Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS)). Final Plenary Session (2:30 - 4:00) Discussion groups present their recommendations General discussion and workshop follow-up Adjourn ------- u 3 Envir-:r.--ital Protection Agency GLNPO Lie;;;,y Collection (PL-12J) 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, IL 60604-3590 ------- |