-------
-------
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
------- |