EPA-440/9-74-002
mo6el state
monitORinq
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MONITORING AND DATA SUPPORT DIVISION
-------
EPA-440/9-74-002
MODEL STATE WATER MONITORING PROGRAM
Prepared by
the
National Water Monitoring Panel
Edited by
the
Water Monitoring Task Force
R. L. Crim, Chairman
Environmental Protection Agency
June, 1975
-------
NATIONAL WATER MONITORING PANEL
Billy H. Adams
Environmental Protection Agency
College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30601
/404-546-3117 (FTS)
William C. Blackman, Jr.
NFIC-Denver
EPA
Denver Federal Center
Room 410 Building #22
Denver, Colorado 80225
/303-234-4656 (FTS)
Robert L. Bluntzer
Water Availability Division
Texas Water Development Board
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
/512-475-3606 (Comm.)
Robert Booth
Environmental Protection Agency
1014 Broadway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
/513-684-2983 (FTS)
Robert Bordner
Environmental Protection Agency
1014 Broadway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
/513-684-2928 (FTS)
Robert J. Bowden
Environmental Protection Agency
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
/312-353-1466 (FTS)
Richard Christensen
Department of Natural Resources
Steven T. Mason Bldg.
Lansing, Michigan 48926
/517-373-2867 (Comm.)
Robert Crim
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 935 WSME
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
/202-426-7766 (FTS)
• Participants —
John Hagan
Environmental Protection Agency
College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30601
/404-546-3137 (FTS)
Ralph Harkins
Environmental Protection Agency
Robert S. Kerr Research Center
P.O. Box 159
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
/405-253-2328 (FTS)
Roy Herwig
Georgia Dept. of Natural Resources
Environmental Protection Agency
47 Trinity Ave., SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
/404-526-0111 (FTS)
Ask for 656-4988
Allen Ikalainen
Environmental Protection Agency
New England Regional Laboratory
240 Highland Avenue
Needham Heights, Massachusetts 02194
/617-223-6039# (FTS)
Tom Jones
Environmental Protection Agency
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
/415-556-7554 (FTS)
William D. Kelley
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
1014 Broadway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
/513-684-2535 (FTS)
Daniel J. Kraft
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 908
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
/212-264-0854 (FTS)
Ronald Kreizenbeck
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Ave.
Seattle, Washington 98101
/206-442-0422 (FTS)
-------
Victor W. Lambou
Environmental Protection Agency
National Environmental Research Center
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
/702-736-2969 X391 (FTS)
Milton Lammering
Environmental Protection Agency
Suite 900
1860 Lincoln Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
/303-837-2226 (FTS)
Don Lewis
Environmental Protection Agency—Headquarters
Room 1021—CM #2
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
/202-557-7484 (FTS)
Norman Lovelace
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 935 WSME
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
/202-426-7766 (FTS)
Cecil V. Martin, Chief
Surveillance and Monitoring Unit
State Water Resources Control Board
Room 1015
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814
/916-445-0975 (Comm.)
David Minard
Environmental Protection Agency
Surveillance & Analysis Division
100 California Street
San Francisco, California 94111
/415-556-2270 (FTS)
Thomas Murray
Environmental Protection Agency
Room 935 WSME
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
/202-426-7766 (FTS)
Herbert Pahren
NFIC-Cincinnati
5555 Ridge Road
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
/513-684-4260 (FTS)
Oscar Ramirez
Surveillance and Analysis Division
1600 Patterson Street
Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75201
/214-749-1121 (FTS)
Aaron Rosen
Environmental Protection Agency
5555 Ridge Avenue
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
/513-684-4373# (FTS)
William Schmidt
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
/206-442-0422 (FTS)
William H. Shafer, Jr., P.E.
Environmental Health Services
Arizona State Dept. of Health
1740 West Adams Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
/602-271-4655 (Comm.)
Lee B. Tebo
Environmental Protection Agency
College Station Road
Athens, Georgia 30601
/404-546-2292 (FTS)
Terry Thurman, Engineer
Oklahoma Water Resources Board
2241 N.W. 40th
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112
/405-528-7807 (Comm.)
Orterio Villa
Environmental Protection Agency
Annapolis Science Center
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
/513-684-2983 (FTS)
Carl Walter
Environmental Protection Agency
1735 Baltimore Avenue
Kansas City, Missouri 64108
/816-374-4461 (FTS)
Linda Wastler
Environmental'Protection Agency
Room 935 WSME
401 M Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
/202-426-7766 (FTS)
-------
Dr. Cornelius Weber
Environmental Protection Agency
1014 Broadway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
/513-684-2913 (FTS)
Llew Williams
Environmental Protection Agency
National Environmental Research Center
P.O. Box 15027
Las Vegas, Nevada 89114
/702-736-2969 X391 (FTS)
Linda B. Wyatt
Texas Water Quality Board
Box 13246
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
/512-475-5647 (Comm.)
A. Wayne Wyatt
Groundwater Data and Protection Branch
Texas Water Development Board
P.O. Box 13087
Capitol Station
Austin, Texas 78711
/512-475-3606 (Comm.)
-------
CONTENTS
PART I, INTRODUCTION/1-3
PART H, PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
Introduction / II-3
Basin and/or Segment Definitions / II-3
Segment Priorities / n-3
Work Plan, State Strategy, EPA
Coordination / H-5
Features of the Work Project
System / H-5
Agency Needs / n-6
Field Work/H-6
Data Base 'and Information Handling
System / II-6
Reports / H-7
Outside Data / H-8
Analysis / n-8
Training / n-8
Summary / n-9
References / n-9
PART m, AMBIENT WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Introduction / IH-3
Fixed Station Monitoring Networks / m-3
Intensive Surveys / m-7
Ground Water Monitoring / m-13
References/m-18
PART IV, BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
Introduction / IV-3
Objectives/IV-3
Strategy / IV-3
Parameters / IV-4
Sampling Frequency and
Replication / IV-4
Quality Assurance / IV-6
iv
-------
Data Presentation / IV-6
Eutrophic Condition Monitoring / IV-6
Resources / IV-6
Data Interpretation / IV-11
References/IV-13
PART V, COMPLIANCE MONITORING
Introduction / V-3
Components of A State Compliance
Monitoring Program / V-3
Compliance Monitoring Sampling / V-5
Unit Manpower Requirements For
Major Discharger Monitoring / V-6
PART VI, QUALITY ASSURANCE
Components of a Quality Assurance
Program / VI-3
Chain-of-Custody / VI-4
Quality Assurance for^Biological
Monitoring / VI-6
References / VI-6
-------
TABLES:
Table m.l: Recommended Minimum Parametric Coverage and
Sampling Frequencies for the Primary Monitoring Network / III-8
Table m.2: Resources Estimates Per Station Primary Network / m-9
Table HL3: Estimated Manpower Requirements for Intensive
Surveys / IH-14
Table HL4: Estimated Manpower Requirements for Lake
Surveys / IH-14
Table III.S: Manpower Estimates for Ground Water Monitoring /111-17
Table IV.l: Biological Monitoring / IV-5
Table IV.2: Parameters of Biological Communities / IV-7
Table IV.3: Parameters for Evaluating Changes In Trophic
Condition / IV-8
Table IV.4: Suggested Parametric Criteria for Determining
Trophic Status of Lakes / IV-9
Table V.I: Estimated Number of Analyses/Analyst/Day / V-7
FIGURES:
Figure n.l: Monitoring in Perspective / II-4
Figure III. 1: Station Definitions / HI-6
VI
-------
PARTI
INTRODUCTION
-------
This model state water monitoring program was
developed by a panel of Federal and State pro-
fessionals actively engaged in managing and oper-
ating monitoring programs. It is presented to others
in monitoring and the field of water pollution con-
trol in order to:
• Provide some basis to the States for building
and operating water monitoring programs;
• illustrate the various types of monitoring
activities, their costs and their uses; and,
• suggest to EPA Regions and States how they
can best use monitoring resources in carrying
out their responsibilities in pollution control and
abatement.
Such a program should fulfill most of the needs
of the States in their water'pollution control pro-
gram and the monitoring requirements of the Fed-
eral Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 (PL 92-500). Since each State has its own
unique water quality problems and organizational
structure, each State should determine, along with
the respective EPA Regional Office, relative levels
of effort for the various monitoring activities.
The panel has set down the essential elements of
a monitoring activity, explained its purposes and
uses, suggested various procedures for conducting
the activity, and estimated general manpower re-
quirements for each. As operating experience is
gained, certain of the procedures may change and
requirements may be refined.
Additional comments, suggestions, and observa-
tions concerning the contents and use of this docu-
ment are invited by the editors.
1-3
-------
PARTH
PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
-------
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this section is to place the moni-
toring element in its proper perspective as a funda-
mental part of the water pollution control program
and to suggest ways of planning and managing the
monitoring resources. The planning and manage-
ment functions are concerned with management
techniques for data collection, data evaluation, and
data handling to provide the information needed to
operate the State pollution control program suc-
cessfully.
Figure II. 1 illustrates the role of monitoring in
relation to the planning, permitting, compliance,
enforcement, and evaluation functions. It is ob-
vious that if each function is to produce its required
actions the proper type and amount of data must
be provided by the monitoring program. With the
large number of individual programs relying on
the monitoring program for support, some system
of priorities must be established for both the tasks
to be accomplished, and the geographical areas of
effort.
From the priority systems a schedule of work
loads and outputs can be drawn up. Without such a
schedule the monitoring program cannot be planned
—it can only react. The day-to-day operation in
the field will become a series of alternating crash
projects and empty tune.
Establishment of an efficient and adequate moni-
toring program will require that the persons respon-
sible for monitoring maintain frequent and sub-
stantive contact with those programs needing
information. Monitoring as a service function must
anticipate the data needs and make provisions to ful-
fill these needs when called on. On the other hand,
monitoring people are the closest to the pollution
problem and may be in the best position to sug-
gest future actions and priorities for planning,
enforcement, or management based on their knowl-
edge of the situations in the field.
BASIN AND/OR SEGMENT DEFINITIONS
States have found it useful for their planning
and monitoring programs to subdivide large river
basins and lengthy streams into segments (EPA
Sec. 303(e) Regulations, 40 CFRPart 131.201(b)).
The required segmentation makes work, areas smaller
and more manageable for such tasks as providing
public information, briefing conferences, data re-
view, revision of basin plans, and report prepara-
tions. Data from segments can be assembled for
basin status report preparation or publication of
water quality and discharge evaluations for the
entire State.
Boundaries of the basin and stream sub-units
should be selected recognizing the extent of pollu-
tion, number of discharges, extent and magnitude
of significant stream impact, location of water re-
sources projects, populations affected, etc. Gener-
ally, water quality situations within the sub-unit
should be separable to some degree from those of
contiguous subunits
SEGMENT PRIORITIES
The resources required to meet each and every
monitoring need will rarely be available during any
given fiscal year. Therefore, good program man-
agement will require that a priority system be
established and followed. The priority system should
reflect the management decisions that must be made
within the next 18 to 24 months. The priority sys-
tem should reflect an objective view of the location
and severity of pollution problems. Some suggested
factors for inclusion in the segment priority rating
system follow.
Severity of Pollution. For basin subunits and
stream reaches.
• Ratio of total waste discharged hi subbasin
to total estimated 7 day-10 year low flow leav-
ing basin.
• Number of waste treatment facilities hi sub-
basin.
• Total waste flow in subbasin.
Population Affected.
• For basin subunits, total population in subunit.
• For stream reaches, population affected by
waste treatment measures.
Treatment Levels. For stream reaches and sub-
basins.
• Total untreated waste flow.
• Total primary treated waste flow.
• Total secondary treated waste flow.
• Total advanced treated waste flow.
• Number of overloaded facilities.
• Total design flow of overloaded facilities.
• Estimated total nonpoint source contribution.
n-s
-------
MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM EVALUATION;
PRIORITIES - POLICIES
Reporting, Monitoring Needs
Program Priorities
Reporting, Monitoring Needs
PLANNING
Basin Plans
Areawide Plans
Program Priorities
L
PERMIT ISSUANCE
Municipal Permits
Industrial Permits
Load Allocations
/ Data for load/
/ allocations, facility/
/ siting, etc. /
I
Reporting, Monitoring Needs
Program Priorities
COMPLIANCE
List of violatots
Enforcement Priorities
Permit Conditions
ENFORCEMENT
Bring violators into
compliance
Permit Violations
Additional data
for/perm it
conditions
Data from
compliance
surveys
Data for
evidence
Data for program eval
uation; fixed stations,
trends, new problems,,
water quality changes]
1
i
1
II 1 1
MONITORING
-------
Eutrophication.
• For subbasins, ratio of land to lake, and im-
poundment area.
• For stream reaches, downstream lakes or im-
poundments.
Waters Below Standards. For subbasins and
stream reaches, estimated total miles of streams
having water quality standards violations.
WORK PLAN, STATE STRATEGY,
EPA COORDINATION
Once data and analysis needs have been identi-
fied and prioritized, the State can design its strategy
and work plans for monitoring hi the upcoming year.
There are three basic types of monitoring and
monitoring-related activities which the State may
design into its work plan. These three can be sub-
divided according to the goal of the activity and
include the items shown in Figure II. 1.
In general, effluent monitoring is related to spe-
cific, permitted discharges, intensive surveys to
specific geographical areas, and fixed station moni-
toring to large geographical areas of statewide in-
terest. A particular activity may be of 1-day dura-
tion or continue for a number of years. It may be
very simple or very detailed and complex. The point
is that it should be designed to meet the specific
need for information.
The various monitoring activities should be care-
fully coordinated. For example, operations and
maintenance inspection activities ' and compliance
monitoring within a specific area should be sched-
uled at the same time as an intensive survey in
that area. Intensive survey design should include
data gathering to be used for evaluation and, where
necessary, modification of the trend monitoring
station network.
A suggested method the State can use to distrib-
ute its workload is as follows.
1. Define each monitoring or monitoring re-
lated need as a work project. Assign a profes-
sional staff member to be responsible for the
completion of the work. His duties will in-
clude determination of feasibility, detailed de-
sign of the project, field reconnaissance, field
supervision, data compilation and evaluation,
report composition, and recording of man-
power and money resources used.
2. Define, hi narrative form, the purpose, scope,
and level of detail for each work project.
Make each work project as small as possible
to maximize flexibility.
3. Estimate the number and type of field, labora-
tory, and office assignments to be accom-
plished, e.g., sampling runs, procurement of
sampling supplies, field trips, field stations,
number and type of lab analyses, and extent
of final report.
4. Estimate in man-days the number and type
of personnel required.
5. Where work involves a consultant or co-
operator contract, state the expected result
and cost of the contract.
6. Once all the manpower and money resources
available have been allocated to the work
projects, prioritize and schedule the projects,
combining as many as possible.
It is useful to allocate resources to reserve proj-
ects to allow for a certain number of unforeseen
events; e.g., enforcement actions, complaint inves-
tigation. It is also advisable to have a number of
work projects designed and waiting in reserve in
case the original projects are accomplished earlier
than anticipated or unforeseen events allowed for do
not occur. These reserve projects should be those
of a high priority for the following fiscal year.
FEATURES OF THE WORK PROJECT SYSTEM
• Permits the design of a monitoring and related
workload commensurate with the staff and
money available.
• Permits the scheduling of field and office work
in coordination with the analytical laboratory.
• Promotes professionalism by providing for
delegation of supervisory responsibility among
the staff.
• Provides for orderly accomplishment of work
from concept through final report.
• Provides for work accomplishment on a priority
basis.
• Provides the basis for improving cost estimates.
• Allows continuing evaluation of personnel per-
formance and training requirements.
n-5
-------
AGENCY NEEDS
Once the workload has been distributed based
on resources available, the agency or agencies
responsible for monitoring and related activities
can compare the available workload against the
requested workload which would appropriately meet
the State's needs. Annual manpower and money
needs can then be documented.
The documentation of resource allocation and
needs will improve with each fiscal year with accu-
rate recordkeeping by responsible personnel. This
is important information to have available when
audits are made and when dealing with State legis-
latures, EPA, and the Congress.
Equipment needs, personnel needs, and space
needs should be programed as far in advance as
possible since purchasing and space allocation pro-
cedures are lengthy and involved. If shortages in
these areas cannot be avoided, temporary relief "may
be found by using personnel of other State, Fed-
eral, or academic institutions or with consultants.
FIELD WORK
Field work can be designed and accomplished
using the suggested technical guidance which follows
in this document. Each field work item should be
designed so as to produce the specific result needed.
Thus, the type, amount, and level of detail of the
work should be commensurate with the need to be
filled. Careful consideration should be given to the
skills to be employed, the number of stations to be
established, the parameters to be analyzed, and the
sampling riming and frequency.
DATA BASE AND INFORMATION
HANDLING SYSTEM
The quality of the State's data base and data
handling system contributes as much to the suc-
cess and efficiency of the State program as any other
item. Considerations in designing the State system
include the following.
1. Information should be obtainable on a sub-
watershed and segment basis to facilitate
planning.
2. Output formats should be designed to facili-
tate publication of documents such as statu-
torily required reports, discharge lists, seg-
ment priority lists, public information reports,
etc.
3. Output formats should be designed to facili-
tate work project reports.
4. The State should use the storage and retrieval
(STORET) computer system, or operate its
own system which is compatible with this
system.
Whatever the design for the State's system, its
purpose is to make current data readily available to
users in a timely fashion with a minimum of manual
handling. The well-designed system will also en-
hance data analysis and aid the management decision
process.
The data handling and processing needs of all
components of water monitoring programs differ
only in detail. The general needs are the same
throughout whether the system is manual, micro-
filmed, or computerized, or any combination of these.
Timely Reporting. For monitoring data and infor-
mation to be useful to the planning and enforce-
ment functions of a water pollution abatement
program, it must be readily available in an orderly
form within a time frame consistent with plan-
ning and enforcement activity requirements.
Preparation of data for input to the data system
should be done concurrently with the field survey,
sampling activity, or permit application receipt.
Input should follow immediately, after data re-
view and correction.
Quality Control During All Phases of Data
Handling From Logbook or Bench Card Entry,
or Permit Application Receipt to System Output.
Normally will include the following steps.
1. Review of original documents by other than
the original analyst, or permit application re-
viewer.
2. Spot checking of data tabulations or transcrip-
tions by other than the original transcriber.
3. Plotting data, as appropriate, to show anoma-
lies.
4. For data to be entered on computer files,
verification both by verifying machines and
visual review of printouts of keypunched data.
5. Provide computer input system with screen
and edit routines (e.g.,. ranges not to be ex-
ceeded). On output, provide at least minimal
screening (e.g., printing outliers of a record)
n-6
-------
to prevent acceptance of unexpected line
errors, etc.
Established Methods for Basic Data Manipulation.
The same statistical or other mathematical tech-
niques should be used for at least initial interpre-
tation of monitoring data within a single program
to allow for comparison of data among studies,
for the development of trend analyses, or for
comparison of permits among similar industries.
Clearly Defined and Documented Methods for
Using the System. Straightforward instructions
should be provided to simplify training and sys-
tem use. Similarly, straightforward instructions
should be available for production of standard
data reports.
Appropriateness to the Overall Monitoring
System and to the Program Needs Which the
Stored Data and Information Will Serve. As the
size and complexity of the monitoring program
should be scaled to the planning and enforcement
functions, the size and staffing of the State's moni-
toring program will dictate the type of data
handling and processing system needed. In some
cases, a logbook and file cabinet will suffice; in
others, a sophisticated computer system may be
necessary.
Ordinary rules of good data handling should apply
in any case:
1. Transcribe data the fewest number of times to
minimize human error.
2. If possible, use logbooks and bench cards
which allow direct keypunching or other
1 tabulation for storage.
3. Use an open-ended system to allow for un-
foreseen developments (e.g., atypical values,
permit changes or amendments), or advancing
technology (e.g., lowered limits of detectabil-
ity).
4. Use standard data element names (e.g.,
parameters, station numbering schemes, units
of measurement) to allow comparability of
data.
5. Assume that no reasonable and achievable
amount of quality control is too much.
6. Protect master files by keeping a duplicate
of every transcription in a safe place.
While the outputs needed from a data handling
and processing system vary with the program they
serve, the form most generally useful is the excep-
tion report. For compliance monitoring, for example,
some systematic method of exception reporting (e.g.,
detecting and flagging violations) probably will be
necessary. Some of the types of exceptions in com-
pliance monitoring data files would be:
• Incomplete application.
• Obviously incorrect application.
• Missed implementation deadlines.
• Effluent violation.
• Technically inadequate permit.
• Nonrenewal or failure to update permit in-
formation.
In other types of monitoring data, exceptions may
include:
• Water quality below standards.
• Development of apparent trends.
• Rapid changes in water quality due to improve-
ments or degradation of waste treatment facili-
ties.
• Anomalies in otherwise consistent records, such
as the sum of chlorides, sulfates, etc., being
significantly different from TDS.
Whether manual or completely computerized,
capability for such reporting should be a part of
the data handling and processing system.
.REPORTS
Reporting the results of a water quality monitor-
ing survey or other activity is as important as the
study itself in terms of putting to use the knowledge
gamed. The first of the two basic types of reports
normally needed is the data report. The data proc-
essing and handling system should be designed to
provide such reports with a minimum of manual
handling. Whether the subject is a periodic report
on a fixed station or trend network, an intensive
survey, or a compliance inspection study, the basic
data report should include the following.
• A brief description of:
a. purpose of the report
b. purpose of the study
c. area of study.
n-7
-------
• Summary of conditions as indicated by the
data.
» Presentation of basic data.
The second type of basic report is the interpretive
report which centers on conclusions drawn from,
and recommendations based on, data concerning the
following.
• Problem identification.
• Alternative solutions:
a. documentation of solutions
b. predicted effects of solutions.
• Changes from previously reported status.
• Priority of proposed actions.
• Discharge characteristics and conditions.
• Water quality conditions.
• Biological conditions. *
• Socioeconomic conditions:
a. description of area
b. demographic status and trends
c. water uses
d. land uses.
• Description of study and methods.
• Data presentation.
These interpretive reports, particularly proposed
solutions and then: priorities, form the major input
of the monitoring program to the management func-
tion of the water pollution abatement program
whether the original study was a trend examination,
an intensive survey, a compliance study, a special
project, or an evaluation of the effectiveness of the
State program itself. The interpretive report is the
primary instrument for communicating the findings.
It should be direct and to the point.
OUTSIDE DATA
There are a number of data types that the State
agency or agencies involved in water quality man-
agement planning may not have responsibility for
such as land use, population projections, socio-
economic factors, etc. The agency will generally
obtain this information from outside sources for use
in its analysis effort.
ANALYSIS
Analysis includes data evaluation, mathematical
water quality simulations, aquatic community inter-
pretation, statistical analysis, etc. It is important to
note that analysis includes a review of the impact
and ramifications of management decisions in regard
to the overall water quality management program.
TRAINING
Implicit in the operation of a water monitoring
program is the continual need 'for manpower train-
ing. These needs occur in all facets of the operation,
but training needed is most often of three basic
types: introductory/orientation training, skills up-
grading, and refresher courses. The first is typified
by the situation in which a general engineer is hired
and requires some basic short course orientation in
applying his broad skills to a specific area such as
water data interpretation. The second is frequently
needed because of improvements in technology re-
sulting in the introduction into a working situation
of more sophisticated or complex analytical or com-
puting devices. Refresher courses would typically
consist of, or include seminars or workshops in
chain-of-custody, analytical quality control, or
sampling procedures.
The training needs of any operation vary, of
course, with the requirements of the individual
program itself. Some basic training requirements
are common to some part of the staff in almost all
water monitoring programs, however. These include
exposure to:
• Survey and network design criteria.
• Sampling procedures and handling of sampling
devices.
• Chart and map reading.
• Sample preservation and proper packaging.
• Field determination techniques and devices.
• Chain-of-custody procedures.
• Analytical quality control.
• Statistical quality control.
• Operation and use of new laboratory devices.
• Data handling and processing techniques and
devices.
• Data interpretation and evaluation.
H-8
-------
While this list is not all-inclusive, it represents
the most often needed training in a water monitor-
ing program. Some consideration to providing at
least these types of training should be given in plan-
ning any year's activities. An average of approxi-
mately one-man week per staff member should be
allocated annually. Costs will vary according to type
and duration of training.
SUMMARY
The state monitoring process is built on the
following principles.
• The ultimate goal of monitoring is to fulfill
the data and information needs of the State
pollution control program.
• Monitoring is part of the overall state program,
not an end in itself.
• Only justifiable work is to be done.
• Monitoring is used to collect, evaluate, and
present data and other information in a rational
and methodical manner.
• The annual monitoring workload is commen-
surate with the money and manpower resources
available.
REFERENCES
1. Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan-
ning Agencies, 40 CFR Part 35, Volume 39,
Number 93, May 13, 1974.
2. Water and Pollutant Source Monitoring, 40
CFR Part 35, Volume 39, Number 68, August
28, 1974.
3. Water Quality Control Information System, En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington,
D.C., 1974.
4. Water Quality Management Basin Plans, 40
CFR Part 130, Volume 39, Number 107, June
3, 1974.
n-9
-------
PARTIH
AMBIENT WATER QUALITY MONITORING
-------
INTRODUCTION
This part of the model program deals with the
following basic components of the monitoring pro-
gram.
• Fixed station monitoring networks.
• Intensive surveys.
• Ground water monitoring.
Each of these aspects of the monitoring program
is discussed separately in five broad categories.
General. A general discussion of the various
aspects of the monitoring activity.
Purposes. The general reasons for, and the pur-
poses of, the activity being discussed.
Design. This section discusses station locations.
Operation. Some of the aspects of conducting the
monitoring; primary emphasis is on sampling
frequency and parametric coverage with some
discussion of data handling and reporting.
Resources. An estimate of the manpower require-
ments for the monitoring activity with some
reference to equipment requirements.
Although three basic monitoring activities are dis-
cussed separately in this section, they should not be
considered as separate activities in actual practice.
Comprehensive data interpretation will require that
all monitoring data be considered together.
FIXED STATION MONITORING NETWORKS
General
The fixed monitoring network is a system of fixed
stations that are sampled in such a way that well-
defined histories of the physical, chemical, and bio-
logical conditions of the water and sediments can be
established. In general, other monitoring data will
be needed to explain, in detail, the trends observed
at the fixed stations. Thus, a high level of coordina-
tion between the fixed station monitoring network
and other monitoring activities is essential for devel-
oping a useful data base.
For the purposes of this discussion two types of
fixed monitoring networks are defined; a primary
network and a secondary network. The main differ-
ence between the two is that the primary network is
designed to meet a wide range of objectives while
secondary network stations are located and sampled
for the purposes of meeting more specific and short
term objectives. Primary network stations are
sampled throughout the year and are designed to
be operated for an extended time.
The discussion that follows is primarily directed
towards the primary monitoring network. However,
the same principles and design criteria may be
applied, as appropriate, to secondary monitoring
stations.
Purposes
The basic objective of the fixed monitoring net-
work is to provide data and information that, when
taken in combination with other data, will:
1. Characterize and define trends in the physical,
chemical, and biological condition of the
State's surface waters, including significant
publicly owned lakes and impounded waters.
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. Aid hi the identification of stream segments
as either effluent limited or water quality
limited.
6. Act as a triggering mechanism for intensive
surveys, enforcement proceedings or other
actions.
To meet these objectives it is essential that the
fixed station monitoring networks be established and
maintained in a uniform and logical manner. This
section presents some of the criteria upon which a
monitoring network can be designed and operated.
Since many monitoring and water quality problems
are unique to a given area or State, this section
should be viewed as a baseline from which the
actual monitoring networks may differ.
Network Design
The general characteristics of the water body are
most important hi locating fixed network stations.
This information can be obtained through intensive
surveys or from historical data. If no such data are
currently available, then a visual or superficial quan-
titative/qualitative survey (reconnaissance survey)
would be useful in siting stations. The use of pre-
dictive tools, such as mathematical models, can be
m-3
-------
particularly useful in selecting station sites, espe-
cially in those cases where such tools were utilized
to develop the current pollution control plan for an
area.
Two terms, "critical" and "representative" which
can be used to describe general station siting cri-
teria may be denned as follows.
Critical Site. That location in the surface water
that displays or has the potential for displaying
the most pronounced water quality or biological
problems. The data from a critical site will show
changes in water quality conditions at that site
and may act as a trigger for intensive surveys.
An example of a critical location is the area of
minimum dissolved oxygen within the water body.
Representative Site. A location in the surface
waters mat "Will produce data that reflects the
general condition of the majority of the water
body hi which it is .located. The selection of such
points will require a historical knowledge of the
characteristics of the water body. The official
definition hi 40 CFR Part 35, Volume 39, Num-
ber 168 reads: "The term 'representative_noinf
means a location in surface waters, groundwaters,
sewer systems, or discharger facilities at which
specific conditions or parameters may be measured
iirsuch amanner as to characterize or approxi-
5e"same at some other location, or through-
out a reach, rg"1""* "r %HY nt water?"
There are three basic types of sampling that may
be performed at fixed monitoring stations. These
are: (1) physical and chemical sampling of the
water column, (2) biological sampling of the water
column and benthos, and (3) physical and chemi-
cal sampling of the sediments. Due to the varying
nature of stream characteristics and water quality,
it often is not necessary to perform all of these
sampling activities at every location. The following
general criteria apply:
Biological Sampling. At locations speckled in the
trend monitoring requirements for biological
monitoring (see Part IV, BIOLOGICAL MONI-
TORING).
Sediments. In sink areas as determined by inten-
sive surveys, reconnaissance surveys, and histo-
rical data. A major concern of sediment monitor-
ing will be to assess the accumulation of toxic
substances.
Water Column. The following station locations
are suggested for the chemical and physical
sampling of the water column. Biological and
sediment stations should also be established at
these locations, as appropriate.
• At Critical Locations in Water Quality Limited
Areas
Stations should be located within areas that are
known or suspected to be hi violation ot water
(TQallty_gtaiidarHs iHpally at the, site o^ the
most pronounced water quality degradation.
The data from these stations should gauge the
effectiveness of the pollution control measures
being required in these areas.
• At the Major Outlets Fromand at the Major
or Significant Inputs to LaEes. Impoundments.
Estuaries, or Coastal Areas That Are Known
to Exhibit Eutrophic Characteristics
These stations should be located hi such a way
as to measure the inputs and outputs of nu-
trients and other pertinent substances into and
from these water bodies. The information from
these stations will be useful in determining
cause/effect relationships and hi indicating ap-
propriate corrective measures.
• At Critical Locations Within E.ut,r"phfc nr
Potentially Eutrophic Lakes,
—Estuaries, or Coastal Areas
•— •—
These stations should be located hi those areas
displaying the most pronounced eutrophication
or considered to have the highest potential
for eutrophication. The information from these
stations, when taken in combination with the
pollution source data, can be used to establish
cause/effect relationships and to identify prob-
lem areas.
• At Locations Upstream and Downstream of
Maior Inoculation, and/or Industrial Centers
lave Significant Waste Discharges into
Flowing Surface WaTers '
These stations should be located hi such a way
that the impact on water quality and the
amounts of pollutants contributed can be meas-
ured. The information collected from these
stations should gauge the relative effectiveness
of pollution control activities.
Upstream and Downstream of Representative
Land Us
Wit
m-4
-------
These stations should be located and sampled
in such a manner as to compare the relative
effects of different land use areas (e.g., crop-
land, mining area) and morphologic zones
(e.g., piedmont, mountain) on water quality.
A particular concern for these stations is the
evaluation of nonpoint sources of pollution
and the establishment of baselines of water
quality in sparsely populated areas.
• A4-4he_fc|ouths of MajprorJSignificant
Tributaries to MainstenTstreams. Estuaries,
or Coastal Areas
The data from these stations, taken in concert
with permit monitoring data and intensive sur-
vey data, will determine the major sources of
pollutants to the State's mainstem water
bodies and coastal areas. By comparison with
other tributary data, the relative magnitude of
pollution sources can be evaluated and problem
areas can be identified.
• At Representative Sites in Mainstem Rivers,
Estuaries^-Coastal-Areas. Lakes, and
Impoundments
These stations will provide data for the general
characterization of the State's surface waters
and will provide baselines of water quality
against which progress can be measured. The
purpose of these stations is not to measure
the most pronounced areas of pollution, but
rather to determine the overall quality of the
State's water. Biological monitoring will be a
basic tool for assessing the overall water qual-
ity of an area.
In Major Water Use Areas, Such as Public
Water Supply intakes. Commercial "FJihing
creational Areas
These stations serve a dual purpose; the first is
public health protection, and the second is for
the overall characterization of water quality in
the area. Determining the presence and ac-
cumulation of toxic substances, and pathogenic
bacteria and their sources are primary objec-
tives of these stations.
To the extent possible these stations should be
located in such a manner as to aid cause/effect
analyses. Some station requirements may be such
that, with careful station siting, one particular sta-
tion could meet the criteria of a number of types of
stations. Caution should be exercised to avoid com-
promising the worth of a station for the sake of
false economy.
In general, the quality of a monitoring network is
not judged solely by the number of stations. A few
critically located stations may be extremely valuable
while a large number of randomly selected stations
may yield meaningless data. Resource constraints
will probably limit the total number of stations in
the fixed network. Figure III.l shows some examples
of station definitions.
The stations shown on Figure III.l are described
as follows:
1. At a water supply intake; upstream station
of a pair bracketing a municipal and indus-
trial center.
2. At a critical location in a water quality
limited segment; downstream station of a
pair bracketing a municipal and industrial
center; mouth of a significant input to a res-
ervoir known to exhibit eutrophic charac-
teristics.
3. At a critical location hi a reservoir known
to exhibit eutrophic characteristics; hi an
area of recreation.
4. Upstream of a major land use area (strip
mining); major outlet from a eutrophic reser-
voir.
5. Downstream of a land use area (strip min-
ing); mouth of a significant tributary to
mainstem river.
6. Upstream of a major land use area (irri-
gated cropland).
7. Downstream of a land use area (irrigated
cropland); mouth of a significant tributary;
representative site for other streams passing
through same land use.
8. Upstream of a major land type area (wilder-
ness).
9. Downstream of a major land type area (wil-
derness); mouth of significant tributary to
mainstem river.
10. Representative site in mainstem river.
11. Representative site in mainstem river,
mouth of major input to a potentially
eutrophic estuary.
ra-5
-------
FIGURE m.l
STATION DEFINITIONS
1. (C, B) Water
Supply Intake
MUNICIPAL-
INDUSTRIAL
COMPLEX
IRRIGATED
CROPLAND
STRIP MINING AREA
WILDERNESS AREA.
MOUNTAINOUS & FORESTED
X STATION NUMBER
(X, X) STATION TYPE
C CHEMICAL (Water Column)
B BIOLOGICAL
S SEDIMENT
ffl-6
-------
12. Representative site in estuary, recreational
area, shellfish harvesting area.
Network Operation
The primary network should be operated uni-
formly. The secondary network, because of the pos-
sibility of varying objectives for each station, may
not be uniform in its operation. Following is a gen-
eral discussion of the sampling frequencies and
parametric coverage for fixed network stations.
The frequency at which a fixed network station
is monitored will be a function of the variability of
the chemical, physical, and biological conditions
inherent in the water body. In general, the data
collected at primary stations must be representative
of the variations in water quality and changes in
pollution occurring over the course of a year,
whereas the data collected at secondary stations
must satisfy some specific objectives. This may
require varying sampling frequencies, depending
upon the'season, nature of pollution sources, time
of water travel from station to station, tidal and
diurnal variations, etc.
The following general principles should apply to
the operation of primary network stations and to
secondary stations, when appropriate.
1. Parametric coverage at primary stations
should not be limited to those substances
that are known to be a problem, but should
also include substances that can reasonably
be expected to become a problem. One of
the objectives of this network is to identify
new problems as well as to. monitor existing
ones.
2. Periodic sampling should be performed specif-
ically for toxic substances in both the water
column and the sediments. If these substances
are present in sufficient quantity to present a
problem or are displaying trends that repre-
sent an actual or potential problem, then they
should be incorporated into the regular set of
parameters monitored at that station.
3. Parameter coverage should be as uniform as
possible throughout the entire primary, moni-
toring network. This will permit detailed and
quantitative comparisons from one station to
another. Table III.l presents a suggested
minimum for parametric coverage and
sampling frequency at primary network
stations.
4. All monitoring performed in the fixed net-
works should be in accordance with the qual-
ity assurance requirements set forth in this
document (see Part VI, QUALITY AS-
SURANCE). The collection of accurate data
using uniform data collection and analysis
techniques is essential in maintaining good
quality control within the fixed monitoring
networks.
5. Of primary importance is the maintenance of
the compatability of the data collected within
the fixed networks with other monitoring ac-
tivities. The data generated by the fixed net-
works should be periodically reviewed for the
purposes of evaluating individual station loca-
tions, parametric coverage, and sampling
frequency with respect to the objectives of the
networks.
Resources
The resource estimates given here are based on
primary network stations. Estimates for secondary
stations are not given because of then* flexibility.
A single station is assumed to be the basic build-
ing block. Consequently, this activity needs a field
capability to collect samples, perform analyses such
as pH, dissolved oxygen, and temperature on site.
If the sample station is over 6 hours travel time
from the laboratory, then some time-dependent
determinations, such as fecal coliforms, should be
completed at the station site.
Estimates for laboratory support for a station are
on the basis of 30 analyses per station plus 3-6
(10-20%) additional analyses (standard additions
and duplicate analyses) for quality control.
Table III.2 shows the resource estimates on a per-
station basis.
INTENSIVE SURVEYS
General
Intensive surveys are a major element in the
monitoring program. Fundamentally, the intensive
survey: (1) bridges the gap between the data bases
generated by effluent monitoring and fixed station
monitoring; (2) provides the definitive basis for
understanding and describing receiving water quality
and the mechanisms and processes that affect water
quality; (3) provides the documentation required to
explain the trends observed at fixed network stations;
m-7
-------
TABLE m.l
RECOMMENDED MINIMUM PARAMETRIC COVERAGE AND SAMPLING
FREQUENCIES FOR THE PRIMARY MONITORING NETWORK
Parameters
Frequency
Remarks
(1) Streamflow
(2) Stage or water
surface elevation
(3) Tidal stage
(4) Parameters specifically
cited in the State's
water quality standards
(5) Parameters known or
suspected to be associated
with major upstream
pollution sources
(6) Heavy metals and other
toxic materials, oil and
grease, COD, total
Kjeldahl N, pesticides
(7) Dissolved oxygen, tempera-
ture, pH, specific conduct-
ance, total phosphorus,
total Kjeldahl N,
NOZ+NO,, TOC, COD
(8) Biological parameters (as
specified in Part IV,
BIOLOGICAL
MONITORING)
(9) Biologically related chemi-
cal and physical parameters
and observations including
chemical analysis of tissue
(10) Total Coliform bacteria,
fecal Coliform bacteria
(11) Fecal streptococci
(12) Specific pathogens
e.g. (salmonella)
Concurrently with water
quality measurements
Concurrently with water
quality measurements
Concurrently with water
quality measurements
Monthly
Monthly
Annually
Monthly
As specified in Pan IV,
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
Annually
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Monthly
Determined at all stations in
rivers and streams
Determined at stations in lakes
and reservoirs where water quality
variations are related to stage
variations
Determined at all stations in tidal
water bodies. Sampling at a given
station must be conducted at a
specified tidal stage, preferably at
slack tide, to permit meaningful
analysis
As specified for the given
sampling area
In sediments at
sediment stations
At all stations
At appropriate stations
At selected stations as necessary
to determine the presence, extent,
and impact of toxic pollutants
At all stations, including
commercially harvestable shellfish
areas, as specified by the National
Shellfish Sanitation Program
At all rural
freshwater stations
As appropriate
m-8
-------
TABLE IH.2
RESOURCES ESTIMATES PER STATION PRIMARY NETWORK
Activity sampling
Time required
Equipment required
Remarks
a. By cooperator
b. By agency
personnel
Laboratory
analyses
Data handling
One man trained
through standard
2-week course
approximately 4 hours
per station per sample
Six stations per day
using two men
One man-week per
three samples
One man-day per
four stations
BOD incubator, pH
meter, DO meter, ther-
mometer, coliform
apparatus, sample
collecting device, con-
tainers, preservative,
shipping containers
Use of mobile or
temporary laboratories
necessary for trips over
6 hours distance
from laboratory. BOD
work on site is neces-
sary unless time
approaches 8 hours
Complete operating
water quality
laboratory
Computer support
Paid cooperators in
remote areas shipping
preserved samples into
laboratory are
economical
Includes data summary,
glass washing and
some secretarial help.
Assume chemistry and
microbiology compe-
tency in the laboratory
Includes keypunching,
verifying, inclusion in
laboratory analysis
management system,
entry into STORET
and manipulation after
sufficient base has
been collected
and, (4) is a method for determining the ultimate
fate of pollutants in the water environment.
However, some generalizations concerning the
overall nature of intensive surveys and their plan-
ning and execution follow.
1. Repetitive measurements of water quality are
made at each station (sources and receiving
water). The stations will comprise a short,
very dense, sampling network throughout
the duration of the field effort.
2. The duration of an intensive survey is dic-
tated by the objectives of the survey,. with
3 to 14 days being typical for freshwater
streams, lakes and reservoirs. Surveys hi tidal
bodies are typically more complex and longer
in duration.
3. The measurements taken during an intensive
study vary. A study may be oriented towards
one particular type of data (chemical, bio-
logical, sediment, etc.) or it may involve the
collection of many types of data.
4. Point sources within the survey area are
monitored during the study.
Purposes
Intensive surveys are conducted within the frame-
work of a well defined set of objectives. Intensive
ra-9
-------
surveys are support activities, that are conducted in
response to the needs and objectives of operational
programs, principally water quality planning and
enforcement. Some of the major uses of intensive
surveys follow.
1. To set priorities for establishing or improving
pollution controls.
2. To support and to set priorities for enforce-
ment actions.
3. To determine quantitative cause and effect
relationships of water quality for making load
allocations, assessing the effectiveness of pol-
lution control problems, or for developing
alternative solutions to pollution problems.
-<
4. To identify and quantify nonpoint sources of
pollution and to assess their impact on water
quality.
5. To assess the biological, chemical, physical,
and trophic status of publicly owned lakes
and reservoirs.
6. To provide data for the classification or re-
classification of stream segments as being
either effluent limited or water quality limited.
7. To evaluate the locations and distribution of
fixed monitoring stations.
8. To determine if toxic substances are entering
the State's waters and, if so, to identify and
establish priorities for controlling the sources.
The above list of objectives for intensive surveys
should not be viewed as being restrictive. Certainly,
there will be other valid reasons for conducting
intensive surveys. The above objectives, however,
should also be considered mutually compatible. The
incremental cost of expanding a single purpose sur-
vey into a multipurpose survey should always be
evaluated prior to conducting the survey.
Listed below are some specific examples of in-
tensive surveys, the purposes they serve, and the
general characteristics of each of these types of
surveys.
Compliance Monitoring—Segment Surveys. These
are short term studies that generate data for the
purposes of: (1) Detecting significant waste
sources that are not permitted; (2) assessing com-
pliance with permit conditions; (3) assessing
the water quality response to either compliance
or noncompliance with permit conditions; (4)
developing priorities for enforcement actions; and
(5) evaluating self-monitoring reports. In the
simplest case this type of survey will have the
following characteristics.
1. Duration of up to 5 days.
2. Composite samples of all permitted discharges
in survey area.
3. Sufficient receiving water samples to define
the stream profiles and distributions of the
substances of interest. (In tidal bodies, re-
ceiving water samples should be taken during
slack tide conditions.)
4. Parametric coverage limited to those sub-
stances that are known or suspected of being
discharged and those substances that are im-
pacted by discharged substances, such as dis-
solved oxygen. Biological and sediment
samples may be desirable especially when
toxic substances are known or suspected to
be present.
Load Allocations—Development and Refinement.
The survey requirements for load allocations are
largely dependent on the method or technique
used to make the allocations. All water quality
prediction methods require values for in-stream
constants, such as biochemical rate constants,
which must be determined from survey data.
Normally, more than one intensive survey will be
required for a load allocation. Typically, a water
quality prediction method must be calibrated and
validated before it can be used with confidence.
The data requirements for the calibration process
may be more comprehensive than for validation.
In general, studies for load allocations develop-
ment will be more involved than compliance
monitoring segment surveys. Most load alloca-
tion surveys will have the following character-
istics.
1. Duration of up to 14 days.
2. Samples of waste sources within survey area;
either composite or grab samples, depending
on the analysis requirements (usually com-
posite).
3. Sufficient receiving water samples to define
the stream profiles and distributions of the
substances of interest. (Samples should be
m-io
-------
taken during slack water conditions in tidal
bodies.)
4. Physical and hydrological data will be needed
for the development and calibration of pre-
dictive tools.
5. Biological and sediment data as required.
6. Parametric coverage at least as extensive as in
compliance segment surveys. Additional
parameters may be required, depending on the
complexity of the system and the require-
ments of the predictive tools used.
7. Specialized methodology may be required for
such measurements as reaeration rate, in-situ
sediment oxygen uptake, time of water travel,
dispersion, etc.
8. Surveys will usually be conducted during
critical water quality periods, such as low flow
periods.
Investigations of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution.
Surveys will be for the purposes of: (1) Identify-
ing and quantifying nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion; (2) evaluating their impact on the receiving
water quality and biota; and (3) providing the
physical, chemical, biological, and hydrological
data necessary for the development and evalua-
tion of abatement measures. Studies of nonpoint
sources will be similar in level of effort to load
allocation surveys. However, their timing will be
geared to the hydrological conditions (e.g.,
streamflow and rainfall) that are associated with
nonpoint pollution sources rather than to critical
water quality conditions, although the two condi-
tions may coincide. The quantitative identifica-
tion of all point sources is essentially in nonpoint
source investigations. Typically, nonpoint source
loadings are obtained by mass balances: Sub-
tracting point source loads from the total load.
Information about land and water use practices,
topography, and geology should also be ob-
tained for the purpose of identifying the sources
of nonpoint loadings. Generally, several studies
under different hydrological conditions will be
required to fully assess the nonpoint sources of
pollution in an area. Some features of nonpoint
source surveys are:
1. Samples of waste sources are taken. These will
normally be composite samples.
2. Sufficient receiving water samples to define
stream profiles and distributions of the sub--
stances of interest. Samples representing cross-
sectional averages will normally be required
for computing loads. In tidal areas, enough
samples should be taken to define the net
mass flux over a tidal cycle.
3. Parametric coverage will vary widely from
area to area, depending on the known sources
of pollution. Those substances that are known
or suspected of being discharged from either
point or nonpoint sources should be moni-
tored. Analysis of the point source samples
should include those substances that are
known or suspected of originating from non-
point sources, even if they are not specified
in the permit.
4. Biological and sediment samples as required
to evaluate impact of nonpoint pollution
sources and in the case of suspended sedi-
ments, to evaluate the magnitude of the
problem.
5. Specialized measurements and sampling in-
tervals.
6. Hydrological and physical data.
Basin Status Surveys. In the broadest sense, these
surveys are conducted to assess the total condi-
tion of a basin or portion of a basin and to pro-
vide data for the evaluation of the pollution
control program. As such, they are comprehen-
sive and will require the collection of many forms
of data. Basin status surveys will require a larger
resource commitment than other intensive surveys
with more specific objectives. These surveys will
satisfy the objectives of a number of other types
of intensive surveys because of their complete-
ness. For this reason they should be considered
as multipurpose surveys with their primary
objective being to assess the overall condition of
the water body. Some of the general characteris-
tics of basin status surveys will be:
1. Duration of up to 28 days.
2. Samples of waste sources are taken during the
survey. These will probably be a combination
of composite and grab samples.
3. Sufficient receiving water samples to define
profiles and distributions of substances of
interest.
m-n
-------
4. Parametric coverage will vary. However, a
total assessment may require extensive cover-
age.
5. Biological and sediment data.
6. Physical and hydrological data.
The above examples do not represent all the
types of intensive surveys nor the only purposes
for conducting intensive surveys. However, they
do point out that intensive studies vary, depending
on their purpose. In general, a study will have to
be tailored to each locality and objective. Combin-
ing the objectives of a study with others to make
a multipurpose survey may prove to be a practical
and economical method of scheduling and planning
intensive surveys.
Survey Design
The overall success or failure of an intensive sur-
vey, with respect to its stated objectives, will be
controlled to a large extent by the adequacy of the
presurvey planning. Two levels of planning and
scheduling are suggested for intensive surveys. The
first is a yearly schedule describing the anticipated
surveys, their objectives, expected duration, loca-
tion, time of year during which they should be con-
ducted, and estimated resource expenditures. The
second level of planning will address each survey
separately and outline the detailed requirements
for the survey. The first level of planning is dis-
cussed hi the planning and management section of
this document; the second level will be discussed
here.
The second level of planning will yield a compre-
hensive work plan for the survey. Included in the
plan will be: Station locations, manpower and
equipment requirements, parametric coverage,
sampling frequencies, and work assignments for the
field and laboratory crews. The survey objectives
will govern a number of these items, such as station
locations and parametric coverage. Implicit in the
second level of planning is that all personnel (field
and laboratory) associated with the survey will be
thoroughly briefed on the objectives and nature of
the survey.
In general, the development of a survey work
plan should take the following course.
1. Desk top review of the available data on the
water body under investigation. Almost all
surface waters hi the United States have been
studied to some extent.
2. If the data from step 1 is not sufficient or if
the area is unfamiliar to the survey personnel,
then a field reconnaissance of the study area
may be necessary. The field reconnaissance
is an invaluable tool which should be used to
familiarize the principal investigators with
the study area, aid in the selection and siting
of sampling locations, aid in the selection of
sampling procedures (boat versus bridge,
wading, etc.), locate potential sites for field
laboratories (if needed), and provide some
insight to the quality of water to be encoun-
tered through limited collection of grab
samples.
3. Arrange schedules with other agencies that
may be involved in the study; e.g., the U.S.
Geological Survey for flow measurements.
4. From the information 'obtained in (1), (2),
and (3), develop a field study plan.
5. To the extent that the resource expenditures
and time required differ from those estimated
hi the first planning level, some modification
of the optimal study plan may be required. If
modifications are required, every effort to
maintain consistency with the original study
objectives should be made.
Station locations, and sampling frequencies will
be two of the controlling factors hi the overall study
plan. Some general statements concerning these
factors follow.
Station Locations. In general, station locations will
be located within the survey area hi such a way
as to measure: (1) Inputs and diversions; (2)
transformation of substances; (3) movement and
distribution of substances; and (4) inputs and
outputs of substances to and from the study
area. Some typical station locations are as
follows.
• In wastewater outfalls for measuring contribu-
tidns from point sources.
• At representative sites hi tributaries that feed
the study area.
• Within the water body to define distributions
and gradients of substances.
• At the study boundaries.
ni-12
-------
• At any fixed monitoring network station that
is located within the study area.
• At locations suited for biological monitoring.
• In sediments for measuring such things as
benthic oxygen uptake, pollutant concentra-
tions, sediment transport, etc.
Sampling convenience and ease of access to the
water should be considered in establishing station
locations. However, they should not be considered
as limiting factors. If a critical location is located
several miles upstream of a bridge and not acces-
sible by car, the station should not be moved to the
bridge and data extrapolated, but the mode of
sampling should be changed to boating or walking.
Sampling Frequencies. Sampling frequencies are
established by the variations of the system
(sources and receiving water) and the nature of
the pollutants (conservative and nonconserva-
tive). Frequencies should be adequate to account
for variations in the flows and quality of pollution
sources, and the variations in stream flow, and
tidal action. This establishes a spectrum ranging
from a daily grab sample (suitable for the rare
steady-state condition) to continuous collection
over a suitable time period.
Operation
The study plan will control the overall conduct of
the survey.
Data generation in an intensive study is subject
to the quality assurance procedures (field instru-
ment calibration, sample preservation, laboratory
quality control procedures, etc.) outlined in Part
VI, QUALITY ASSURANCE.' Field personnel
should be familiar with the appropriate quality as-
surance procedures.
A technical summary document (including pro-
cedures and data) should be prepared for each
study. Included in the report should be a statement
of the study objectives and a description of the work
plan. This information will allow for independent
assessments of the study and provide information
upon which to base future studies.
Resources
The resource commitment for the conduct of in-
tensive surveys is somewhat variable. The resource
estimates given here are based on a capability to per-
form one load allocation survey per month. Many
States will require a greater capability, while some
may require less. Estimates for lake surveys are also
included, although these surveys may also require
fixed station monitoring.
The conduct of an intensive survey requires suf-
ficient resources to design and conduct the field
operations with backup support in biology, chemis-
try, and microbiology, including both a fixed
laboratory and, if needed, a mobile laboratory or
temporary remote laboratory.
The basic unit manpower for the estimates made
here consist of a field party chief, three qualified
technicians, a chemist, a microbiologist, and a
biologist. It is assumed that the minimum sampling
period would be 5 consecutive days. The basic in-
tensive survey unit manpower estimates are shown
in Table III.3.
The primary emphasis of a lake monitoring pro-
gram is to establish the trophic levels and in cases
where lakes exhibit eutrophic conditions to identify
the causative factors. Resources for this specialized
form of monitoring are reasonably well covered in
the estimates for intensive surveys. The exception
is that a qualified limnologist, with competency in
the physical and biological aspects of lake dynamics,
should be in charge of both monitoring network de-
sign and data interpretation. Also, a more intense
parametric coverage for macro, and micro nutrients
as well as developing an understanding of the pro-
duction potential at different trophic levels is
required.
Additional resources for lake monitoring include
the ones listed on Table III.4.
GROUND WATER MONITORING
General
The use of ground water for public and private
water supplies is steadily increasing. Concurrently
with the increase of ground water use has been an
increase in the pollution and contamination of
ground waters. New and stringent Federal and
State pollution control laws governing the disposal
of wastes in the traditional manners (surface waters
and air) have, hi many cases, increased the attrac-
tiveness of resorting to subsurface or surface (land)
disposal of waste. Because of this increasing threat
to the quality of ground water and because of a
general lack of comprehensive information on the
origins, scope, and nature of existing ground water
pollution problems, it is important that monitoring
m-13
-------
TABLE IIL3
ESTIMATED MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR INTENSIVE SURVEYS
Activity
Initial planning
Reconnaissance
(if needed)
Mobilize field equip-
ment and crew
Field sampling
Fixed lab analyses
chemistry and biology
Personnel
Field party chief*
and lab personnel
Field party chief*
and biologist
Field party chief*
technicians and
lab crew
Field party chief*
2 laboratory crew
3 technicians
1 biologist
Chemist
Biologist
Time
(man-weeks)
2 MW
1 MW
1 MW
1 MW
3 MW
4 MW
1 MW
15 MW
3 MW
Remarks
Assemble maps and
post data
Select sampling sites
and synoptic biological
screening
Get all equipment
together and ensure it
is in working order
Field sample
collection and field
lab analyses
Assume 20 samples
per day for 15
Data analyses and
report preparation
Field party chief*
chemist and
microbiologist, typist
3 MW
parameters, chemistry
and plankton, and
invertebrate identifica-
tion and enumeration
Analyze data, write
and type report
• In the case of estunrlne or near coastal studies this would be an oceanographer.
TABLE m.4
ESTIMATED MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR LAKE SURVEYS
Activity
Personnel
Time
(man-weeks)
Remarks
Network design
Fixed station
sampling
Intensive survey
Fixed laboratory
analyses
Data interpretation
and report
Principal
limnologist
Field limnologist
and technician
Full field crew
and limnological
guidance
100 analyses per
week—lab members
1 MW
Review historical data
and establish stations
Time dependent on
number of stations and
mode of transportation
ra-i4
-------
programs be established and maintained to monitor
ground water quality. A ground water monitoring
program should reflect the needs of the ground
water management program.
Purposes
The overall objectives of the ground water moni-
toring program are as follows.
• To obtain data for the purpose of determining
baseline conditions in ground water quality
and quantity.
• To provide data for the early detection of
ground water pollution or contamination, par-
ticularly in areas of ground water use.
• To identify existing and potential ground water
pollution sources and to maintain surveillance
of these sources, in terms of their impact on
ground water quality.
• To provide a data base upon which manage-
ment and policy decisions can be made con-
cerning the surface and subsurface disposal of
wastes and the management of ground water
resources.
Network Design
Within the context of a model program, it will
be assumed that the ground water monitoring effort
will be a joint effort among the State and Federal
agencies concerned with well drilling, geology, water
resources, public health, ground water, etc. No
attempt will be made to outline the administrative
responsibilities of the program. Only the functional
aspects of the program will be discussed.
The design of a ground water monitoring network
requires a knowledge of the following.
• The physical, chemical, and biological charac-
teristics of the pollutants that are known or
suspected of entering the ground waters.
• The physical and chemical characteristics of
the aquifer(s) of interest, including mineralogy
and natural water quality.
• The pattern and rate of movement of ground
water in the aquifer(s) of interest.
• Present and intended uses of the ground water
resource.
In the process of network design this information
may be used to predict the course of pollution.
These predictions can then be used for locating
sampling locations.
The compilation of the above data will involve
the utilization of available information for the pur-
poses of:
1. Identifying and describing the principal
aquifers within the State.
2. Describing and defining known geological or
hydrogeological structures that could affect
water quality. Included in this data should be
information on wells which have been plugged
or abandoned and represent actual or poten-
tial pollution sources, such as oil and gas
wells.
3. Identifying areas where geological or hydro-
geological data are lacking and initiating
efforts to obtain the required data.
4. Developing an inventory of actual or poten-
tial ground water pollution sources. This in-
ventory should include consideration of the
following.
a. Landfills and open dumps.
b. Holding ponds and waste disposal pits.
c. Municipal and industrial waste lagoons.
d. Chemical stockpiles.
e. Fuel tank farms.
f. Injection wells for waste disposal.
g. Feedlots.
h. Areas of known or suspected saltwater
intrusion.
5. Developing an inventory of existing or poten-
tial ground water quality monitoring wells.
The inventory should include information
from well drilling logs and a description of
the length and location of the well casing and
screens. This inventory may include the fol-
lowing information.
a. Drinking water supply wells.
b. Irrigation wells.
c. Injection site monitoring wells.
d. Wells for monitoring saltwater intrusion.
6. Evaluating existing well water quality data.
m-15
-------
The above inventories and information should
provide the basic information upon which a monitor-
ing network can be designed. The effective main-
tenance of a monitoring program will require that
the above information be updated and evaluated on
a regular basis.
Station siting is perhaps the most difficult step
in establishing a ground water monitoring system.
One of the most important factors in assessing the
need for monitoring in an area will be the probability
of pollution or contamination and the associated
hazards of the pollutants or contaminants. A moni-
toring network should have stations that:
• Provide data that can be used to establish
baselines in quality and detect trends in the
.water quality of principal aquifers. The data
from these stations may become part of the
data base upon which management and policy
decisions are based, particularly hi the area
of new pollution sources and their control.
Generally, a true representation of an entire
aquifer cannot be achieved due to the inherent
heterogeneities in aquifers. Therefore, repre-
sentative sampling will probably be limited to
those portions of aquifers which are significant
with respect to ground water use and pollu-
tion.
• Are located hi areas of high utilization of
ground water, such as drinking water supply
areas. These stations will be used to evaluate
the ground water quality with respect to its
suitability for use. Degradation or improve-
ment of water quality should be correlated
with other monitoring data and inventories to
form a data base for effective ground water
management.
• Are located at representative points relative to
ground water pollution sources. These stations
will provide data for the characterization of
different types of sources with respect to their
impact on ground water quality and for early
detection of pollution.
The exact location and number of ground water
monitoring stations will be governed by the nature
and degree of ground water use and the distribution
of actual or potential pollution sources. Existing
wells should be used, when possible, for monitoring
purposes. However, it may also be necessary to
establish new wells to provide adequate coverage.
Network Operation
The substances to be measured at ground water
monitoring stations will vary with the natural and
manmade conditions and with the use of ground
water. The inventory of pollution sources will help
to determine the parameters to be measured. Some
examples of pollution sources and their associated
pollutants are:
• Saltwater intrusion: High dissolved solids, par-
ticularly sodium and chlorides.
• Industrial lagoons: Heavy metals, acids, sol-
vents, and other inorganic and organic sub-
stances.
• Cesspools, septic tanks, and sewage effluent
lagoons: High dissolved solids, chlorides,
sulfates, nitrogen, phosphates, detergents, and
bacteria.
• Tank farms, refineries for gasoline, fuel oil,
solvents, and other petroleum related chemi-
cals: Phenols, suspended solids, oil & grease,
chromium, sulfide, pH, ammonia, BOD, COD,
TOC.
• Landfills and dumps: Soluble organics, iron,
manganese, methane, carbon dioxide, nitrogen,
phosphates.
• Stockpiles of chemical materials: Heavy
metals, salts, other organic and inorganic
chemicals, and high dissolved solids.
The sampling frequency for ground water moni-
toring stations will also be controlled by local
conditions. The proximity of pollution sources to
aquifers and areas of water use and the rate of
water movement within the aquifers will probably
be the two most important factors hi determining
an adequate sampling frequency.
All sampling should be done by trained personnel
with a knowledge of the various methods of well
sampling and in-place measurements. Sample pres-
ervation and laboratory analyses should be per-
formed in accordance with the procedures outlined
in Part VI, QUALITY ASSURANCE.
Resources
The resource estimates made here are based on
performing the following activities.
1. Identifying and describing principal aquifers.
ffl-16
-------
2. Describing the geological and hydrogeologjcal
structures of principal aquifers.
3. Developing inventories of existing monitoring
wells and potential or actual pollution sources.
4. Evaluating existing data.
5. Designing the ground water monitoring net-
work.
6. Arranging for sample collection, using either
agency personnel and/or cooperators.
7. Providing the primary laboratory support and
coordinating efforts to continue the monitor-
ing program.
8. Providing data analysis and summarizations
to show baselines, trends, problem areas, and
to identify areas in need of further study.
Table III.5 gives the manpower estimates for
maintaining a ground water monitoring program.
TABLE IH.5
MANPOWER ESTIMATES FOR GROUND WATER MONITORING
Item
Personnel
Time
Remarks
System design
and operation
Sample collection
Laboratory
analysis
Data compilation
and analyses
Location and logging
existing and new
pollution sources
Program chief
and secretary
Technician
Chemist and
technicians
Program chief and
statistical staff
Engineer
Fulltime
Fulltime
per 300
wells
1 man-
week/100
analyses
1 man day
per well
year
record
Full time
Collects samples.
Trains cooperators
and furnishes holding
and shipping .containers.
Maintains sample log.
Assume annual well
sampling.
Assume 80 analyses
per year per well.
20 Quality Control.
m-17
-------
REFERENCES
Listed below are some general literature refer-
ences for each of the three monitoring activities
discussed in this section. The references given are
not all of the available information on monitoring.
However, a review of the listed references should
be useful in establishing a basic knowledge of the
subject matter.
Fixed Monitoring Networks and
Intensive Surveys
1. Federal Water Quality Administration, Design
of Water Quality Surveillance Systems, Cyrus
W. M. Rice Division, NUS Corporation, Con-
tract No. 14-12-476, August 1970.
2. Kittrell, F. W., A Practical Guide to Water
Quality Studies of Streams, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Administration.
3. Mackenthun, K. M., Toward A Cleaner Aquatic
Environment, Environmental Protection Agen-
cy, Office of Air and Water Programs, 1973.
4. Mackenthun, K. M., The Practice of Water
Pollution Biology, U.S. Department of the In-
terior, Federal Water Pollution Control Ad-
ministration, 1969.
5. Proceedings of the National Symposium on
Estuarine Pollution, Sponsored by: The Amer-
ican Society of Civil Engineers and Stanford
University, Stanford, California, August 1967.
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Hand-
book for Monitoring Industrial Wastewater,
August 1973.
7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pro-
cedural Manual for Evaluating the Performance
of Wastewater Treatment Plants, May 1972.
8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Water
Quality Studies, Training Manual, Water
Quality Office, March 1971.
Ground Water Monitoring
9. Charles E. Pound, Rondal W. Criter, Waste-
water Treatment and Reuse by Land Applica-
tion, Metcalf and Eddy Inc., Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and De-
velopment, Contract No. 68-01-0741, May
1973.
10. Groundwater Pollution From Subsurface Exca-
vations, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Ak and Water Programs, Water
Quality and Nonpoint Source Control Divi-
sion, 1973.
11. H. E. Legrand, Patterns of Contaminated Zones
of Water in the Ground, Water Resources
Research, American Geophysical Union, Vol-
ume 1—First Quarter, Number 1, 1965.
12. R. J. Pickering, Robert W. Maclay, Steps To-
ward Design of Systems for Monitoring
Groundwater Quality, U.S. Geological Survey,
Washington, D.C., Presented at the 106th Na-
tional Meeting of the American Chemical
Society, Chicago, HI., September 1970.
13. Well Water Journal, The Authoritative Primer-
Ground Water Pollution, Special Issue, July
1970.
Data Interpretation
14. Federal Water Pollution Control Administra-
tion, Data Evaluation and Analysis, Training
Manual, December 1969.
15. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sim-
plified Mathematical Modeling of Water Qual-
ity, Hydroscience, Inc., Division of Water
Quality Standards and Planning, March 1971.
ra-is
-------
PART IV
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
-------
INTRODUCTION
Biological monitoring is receiving increased at-
tention with passage of the recent Federal legislation.
This change is principally due to the fact that bio-
logical data is organism-dependent and can give the
surest knowledge of effects of pollution.
Aquatic organisms and communities act as natural
pollution monitors. When an aquatic community
undergoes a stress (pollution), the community
structure is affected. For monitoring purposes, this
effect can be long term and can be detected, meas-
ured, and analyzed. Since aquatic organisms respond
to their total environment and since this response is
not short lived, they can often provide a better assess-
ment of stream quality and environmental damage,
than can other monitoring methods.. Some organisms
tend to accumulate or magnify toxic substances,
pesticides, radionuclides, and a variety of other pollu-
tants. Organisms also can reflect the synergistic and
antagonistic interactions of point and nonpoint
source pollutants within the receiving water system.
In order to properly assess pollution and deter-
mine corrective actions, it is essential that the per-
tinent scientific and nonscientific disciplines work
in concert. Many times, the taxonomic complexity
and the use of Latin terms veil the importance of
biological data to the nonbiologist; yet valid water
assessment is sometimes impossible without biologi-
cal data.
In biological studies, perhaps more than In any
other single area of water quality studies, the re-
liability of study results and data interpretation
depend on the experience and judgment of the staff
involved. Such studies to be of full use to the plan-
ning, enforcement, and management of a State
water pollution abatement program, should be
multidisciplinary.
Because of the complex nature of biological
studies, the staffing guides and other materials in this
section are somewhat more detailed than elsewhere.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of a biological monitoring pro-
gram are to gather biological data in such a manner
as to:
• Determine suitability of aquatic environments
for supporting abundant, useful, and, diverse
communities of aquatic organisms.
• Provide information adequate to detect, evalu-
ate, and characterize changes hi water quality
through the study of biological productivity,
diversity, and stability of aquatic systems.
• Detect presence and buildup of toxic and po-
tentially hazardous substances in aquatic biota.
• Provide information adequate to periodically
update the eutrophic condition classification of
freshwater lakes.
Such a program should include the following.
Intensive Surveys. The results obtained from the
biological analyses will be combined with water
quality data results and thoroughly studied be-
fore final assessment is made.
Long-Term (Trend) Monitoring.' Long-term
trends should be determined in part from the
results of statistical and subjective evaluation of
the biological data.
Toxic Materials Monitoring. The detection and
analysis of toxic substances, radionuclides, pesti-
cides, heavy metals and any other potentially
hazardous pollutant that will be picked up and
assimilated by a number of different organisms
and magnified through the aquatic food web.
Eutrophic Condition Monitoring. Classification of
freshwater lentic environments according to
trophic condition.
For purposes of biological monitoring, a station
will normally encompass areas, rather than points,
within a reach of river or area of lake, reservoir,
or estuary adequate to represent a variety of habi-
tats typically present in the body of water being
monitored. Unless there is a specific need to evalu-
ate the effects of a physical structure, it will nor-
mally be advisable to avoid areas which have been
altered by a bridge, weir, within a discharge plume,
etc. Thus, biological sampling stations may not
always coincide with chemical or sediment stations.
STRATEGY
Trend Monitoring
A system of long-term biological monitoring sta-
tions should be established as follows.
1. At key locations hi water bodies which are
of critical value for sensitive uses such as
domestic water supply, recreation, propagc
tion, and maintenance of fish and wildlife.
IV-3
-------
2. In major impoundments near the mouths of
major tributaries.
3. Near the mouths of major rivers where they
enter an estuary.
4. At locations in major water bodies potentially
subject to inputs of contaminants from areas
of concentrated urban, industrial, or agricul-
tural use.
5. At key locations in water .bodies largely un-
affected by man's activities.
Intensive Surveys
Periodic intensive surveys should be conducted
in the following situations.
1. In major water bodies having high or poten-
tially high public water use values from the
standpoint of water supply, recreation, propa-
gation, and maintenance of fish and wildlife.
2. To determine cause and effect relationships
in water bodies where long-term (trend)
monitoring reflects a deterioration in environ-
mental quality.
3. To provide data on damage in situations
where compliance monitoring indicates vio-
lations of permits and/or water quality
standards.
Toxic Materials Monitoring
Uptake and concentration by the biota of toxic
and potentially hazardous substances should be
studied at key long-term biological monitoring sta-
tions established as discussed in Part in, AMBIENT
WATER QUALITY MONITORING.
PARAMETERS
Trend Monitoring
Priority 1 parameters listed in Table IV.l.
Intensive Surveys
Priority 1 and 2 items listed in Table IV.l.
Toxic Materials Monitoring
Chemical analyses of representative whole finfish
and/or shellfish at selected stations.
SAMPLING FREQUENCY AND
REPLICATION
Recommended sampling frequency for various
parameters should conform as closely as possible to
those shown in Table IV.l.
Sections of the EPA Biological Field and Labora-
tory Methods provide guidelines concerning sample
replication. The following are suggested as minimum
levels for various parameters. If resources are avail-
able, these minimums should be increased.
Plankton Grab Samples
1. Trend Monitoring—Three near-surface grabs.
2. Intensive Surveys
a. Standing waters—Three near-surface grabs,
three at 50-percent light extinction, and
three at 1-percent light level.
b. Flowing waters—Three near-surface grabs.
Periphyton
1. Trend Monitoring—Four replicate slides per
station for counts and identification.
2. Intensive Surveys-^Four replicates each for
counts, chlorophyll a, and biomass. (Chloro-
phyll a and biomass can be obtained from the
same slide.)
Macrophyton
1. Trend Monitoring—Prepare maps showing
area! coverage by major species and species
associations in vicinity of sampling stations.
2. Intensive Surveys—Same as above plus four
random samples for biomass determination
from a randomly selected quadrant in each
vegetative habitat type mapped.
Macroinvertebrates
1. Trend Monitoring—Four replicate artificial
substrates per station.
2. Intensive Surveys—Same as trend monitoring
plus four replicate samples using an appro-
priate grab in each major substrate type. For
flesh tainting (where commercially valuable
shellfish are present) and toxic substance
analysis, collect three specimens of one or
more species of shellfish (crustaceans and/or
bivalves).
Fish
1. Trend Monitoring—A minimum of four speci-
mens of a major piscivore at each station for
chemical analysis.
IV-4
-------
TABLE IV. 1
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
Community
Parameter
Collection & Anal- Sampling Frequency * * *
Priority * ysis Method**
Plankton Counts and identification; 1
Chlorophyll a; 2
Biomass as ash-free weight.
Periphyton Counts and identification; 1
Chlorophyll a; 2
Biomass as ash-free weight; 2
Macrophyton Areal coverage; 2
Identification; 2
Biomass as ash-free weight. 2
Macroin- Counts and identification; 1
vertebrate Biomass as ash-free weight. 2
Flesh tainting; 2
Toxic substances in tissue.**** 2
Fish Toxic substances in tissue; **** 1
Counts and identification; 2
Biomass as wet weight; 2
Condition factor; 2
Flesh tainting 2
Age and growth. 2
Grab samples
Artificial
substrates
As circumstances
prescribe
Artificial and
natural
substrates
Electrofishing
or netting
Once each—in spring,
summer and fall
Minimally once annually
during periods of peak
periphyton population
density and/or diversity.
Minimally once annually
during periods of peak
macrophyton population
density and/or diversity.
Once annually during
periods of peak macro-
invertebrate population
density and/or diversity.
Once annually during
spawning runs or other
times of peak fish
population density
and/or diversity.
* Priority.
1—Minimum Program.
2—Add as soon as capability can be developed.
•• See EPA Biological Methods Manual.
*•* Keyed to dynamics of community.
• •** gee Analysis of Pesticide Residues In Human and Environmental Samples, "USEPA, Perrlne Primate Research Laboratories.
Perrlne, Florida 32157 (1970)," and "Pesticide Analytical Manual," USDHEW, PDA, Washington. D.C.
IV-5
-------
2. Intensive Surveys—Same as above plus four
30-minute units of electrofishing effort during
both daytime and nighttime (total of eight
30-minute units of effort). If electrofishing
methods are not appropriate, then suitable
netting or trapping gear should be used.
Because of gear selectivity, if time and re-
sources are available, a variety of sampling
gear should be used.
QUALITY ASSURANCE
Refer to Part VI, QUALITY ASSURANCE.
DATA PRESENTATION
For the parameters of biological communities
shown in Table IV.2, the mean and standard devia-
tion should be presented in tabular form (Macken-
thun, 73). When more than 1 year of data are ob-
tained at long-term stations, then trends should be
shown pictorially by a suitable technique, such as
bar graphs.
EUTROPHIC CONDITION
MONITORING
There is likely no single parameter or group of
parameters that will serve as a universal mechanism
to detect changes in the trophic status of all the
diverse types of freshwater lentic environments in
the U.S. Nevertheless, by a careful establishment of
criteria, it is possible to derive a list of parameters
which can be practicably measured and which have
adequate sensitivity to provide meaningful assess-
ments. In selecting parameters, it should be kept in
mind that the primary objective in trophic condition
monitoring is to detect change, not cause and effect
relationships. The following criteria were utilized in
selecting parameters shown in Table IV.3. Table
IV.4 gives an example of some parametric values
which can serve as criteria for determining trophic
status. The National Eutrophication Survey, being
conducted by EPA's National Environmental Re-
search Center in Las Vegas, is presently involved in
the search for "standard" indexes with which to
quantify trophic conditions.
Redundancy. Parameters should not be selected
that are closely related and/or correlated in such
a manner that they provide similar information
(e.g., conductivity, hardness, dissolved solids, and
alkalinity). In such a case, select the parameter
most simply and inexpensively measured.
Fluctuation. Parameters that are subject to severe
hourly, daily, and/or seasonal fluctuation (i.e.,
lack stability) should be avoided or subject to
very careful interpretation.
Integration. Parameters whose level is a func-
tion of the interacting effects of several physi-
cal, chemical, and biological factors are highly
desirable.
Sensitivity. Parameters should be sensitive to
subtle perturbations of the system.
Cost. Parameters should be simple and inexpen-
sive to measure.
In addition to the above criteria, a minimum
number of parameters must be selected which pro-
vide a means of simple classification of lake types
so that other parameters may be more meaningfully
assessed. Some of these parameters (such as mean
depth) may only have to be measured infrequently.
RESOURCES
Staffing
1. Areas of Expertise
a. Critical.
(1) Aquatic Botanist.
(a) Plankton analyses.
Phytoplankton Sedgewick-Rafter
count and identification.
Diatom species proportional count.
Biomass and chlorophyll analysis.
Algal assay.
(b) Periphyton analyses.
Algae, bacteria, etc., cell count,
and identification.
Diatom species proportional count
and identification.
Biomass and chlorophyll analysis.
(c) Macrophyton.
Identification.
Area! coverage.
Biomass and chlorophyll analysis.
(2) Macroinvertebrate Specialist (fresh-
water).
(a) Collection.
(b) Identification.
(c) Numerical and biomass analysis.
(3) Macroinvertebrate Specialist (marine)
(for coastal States).
(a) Collection.
IV-6
-------
TABLE IV.2
PARAMETERS OF BIOLOGICAL COMMUNITIES
Community
Parameter
Units
Plankton
Periphyton
Macrophyton
Fish
Counts
Chlorophyll a
Biomass (ash-free dry
weight)
Numbers/ml by genus and/or
species
mg/ms
mg/m3
Counts Numbers/mm2
Chlorophyll a mg/m2
Biomass (ash-free weight) mg/m2
Autotrophic index Ash-free weight (mg/m*)
Chlorophyll a (mg/m2)
Areal coverage Maps by species and species
associations
Biomass (ash-free weight) g/m2
Macroinvertebiate Counts
Biomass
Toxic substances
Toxic substances
Counts
Biomass (wet weight)
Condition
Grab—number/m2
Substrate—number/sampler
g/m2
mg/kg
mg/kg
Number/unit of effort, expressed
as per shocker hour or per
100 feet of a 24-hour net set
Same as counts
105 X weight in grams
K(TL) •
V (length hi mm)
IV-7
-------
TABLE IV.3
PARAMETERS FOR EVALUATING CHANGES IN TROPHIC CONDITION
Parameter
Frequency of
measurement
Priority
Comments
PHYSICAL
Temperature
profile
Mean depth
Conductivity
Color
Secchi disc
transparency
CHEMICAL
DO profile
Sediment volatile
solids
Total N
Total PO4 (as P)
BIOLOGICAL
Plankton algal
diversity
Seston ash-free
Chlorophyll a
Periphyton biomass
on slides
Macrophytes—percent
surface coverage
Algal assay
Once annually—
midsummer
Once every 5-10 years
Once annually—
midsummer
Once annually
Once annually—
midsummer
Once annually-
midsummer
Once annually
Once annually-
midsummer
Once annually-
midsummer
Once annually—
midsummer
Once annually—
midsummer
Once annually
Midsummer—2-week
exposure
Early summer
Once annually—
midsummer
2
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
To determine if lake is thermally
stratified
For classification purposes
As a function of TDS, alkalinity,
and hardness; this is a measure
of potential
For classification
Function of suspended solids, color,
and biological growths
Should be done in mid-afternoon
Measure of organic character of
sediments. Express as percent by
weight
Helps establish cause and effect
relationships
Helps establish cause and effect
relationships
Near-surface sample
Sometimes correlated with bio-
seston biomass
»Priority 1 parameters meet all of the five criteria listed and have maximum utility In assessing changes in trophic status.
Priority 2 parameters do not meet all criteria but may have utility in certain situations or may be useful in evaluating cause
and effect relationships and/or management needs.
IV-8
-------
TABLE IV.4
SUGGESTED PARAMETRIC CRITERIA FOR
DETERMINING TROPHIC STATUS OF LAKES
Trophic status
Plankton parameter Oligotrophic Mesotrophic Eutrophic
Algae/ml 0-2,000 2,000-15,000 15,000
Chlorophyll (mg/m8) 0-3 3-20 20
Primary production
(gc/mVday) 0-0.2 0.2-0.75 0.75
Biomass (mg/1) 0-1 1-10 10
Cell volume (mm3/!) 0-5 5-30 30
Rotifers/liter 0-10 10-250 250
Microcrustacea/liter 0-1 1-25 25
Species diversity low high low
IV-9
-------
(b) Identification.
(c) Numerical and biomass analysis.
(4) Fishery Biologist.
(a) Sampling and identification.
(b) Growth and condition.
(c) Flesh taste and odor studies.
(d) Bioassay.
(e) Fish kills.
b. Desirable.
(1) Aquatic Microinvertebrate Zoologist.
(a) Zooplankton counts and identifi-
cation.
(b) Periphyton counts and identifica-
tion.
(2) Fish Histopathologist.
(a) Fish kill investigation.
(b) Bioassay.
(3) Plant Physiologist (metabolic studies).
(a) Plant production and respiration.
(b) Benthic respiration.
2. Minimum Types of Expertise Required
a. To conduct complete biological sampling
programs a staff having the following spe-
cializations will be needed.
(1) Aquatic Botanist.
(2) Macroinvertebrate Specialists.
(a) Freshwater.
(b) Marine (for coastal States).
(3) Fishery Biologist.
b. The number of these specialists required
will depend on size of the program. As-
suming full-time assignment to monitoring
activities, a responsible program with SO
trend stations and four intensive surveys a
year would, on the minimiinij require:
(1) Aquatic Botanists.
(a) Taxonomic specialist — 1.
(b) Metabolic specialist — 1.
(2) Macroinvertebrate Specialists.
(a) Freshwater — 2.
(b) Marine (if needed) — 1.
(3) Fishery Biologist — 1.
(4) Technicians — 3-4.
A total of five professionals (six hi coastal
States) and three to four technicians are
needed to conduct a responsible monitoring
program. The technicians are needed for
assisting hi the field work and to perform
routine functions hi the laboratory.
3. Training and Experience Desired
a. Aquatic Botanist.
(1) Phytoplankton and periphyton Sedg-
wick-Rafter counts and identification.
(a) Training desired:
Formal training—Bachelor's De-
gree in biology, with courses in
phycology, plant physiology, and
plant ecology.
In-service training—Specialized
training in algal taxonomy and
ecology.
(b) Experience desired to reach an ac-
ceptable level of performance—1
year.
(2) Diatom species proportional count and
identification.
(a) Training desired:
Formal training—Bachelor's de-
gree in biology, with course hi
diatom identification.
In-service training—Specialized
training hi diatom taxonomy and
ecology.
(b) Experience desired to reach an ac-
ceptable level of performance—2
years.
(3) Macrophyton identification.
(a) Training desired:
Formal training—Bachelor's degree
hi biology, with courses hi vascular
plant taxonomy and ecology.
In-service training—Specialized
training hi aquatic plant taxonomy
and ecology.
(b) Experience desired to reach an ac-
ceptable level of performance—1
year.
(4) Biomass and chlorophyll.
IV-10
-------
(a) Training desired:
Formal training—Bachelor's de-
gree in biology, with courses in
plant physiology and general or-
ganic chemistry.
In-service training—Pigment anal-
ysis by spectrophotometric and
fluorometric techniques.
(b) Experience desired to reach an ac-
ceptable level of performance—r6
months.
b. Aquatic Microinvertebrate Zoologist (zoo-
plankton and periphyton analyses).
(1) Training desired:
Formal training—Bachelor's degree in
biology, with courses in protozoa, roti-
fer, cladocera, and copepoda taxono-
my and ecology.
In-service training—Specialized train-
ing in protozoa, rotifer, cladocera, and
copepoda taxonomy and ecology.
(2) Experience desired to reach an accept-
able level of performance—2 years.
c. Macroinvertebrate Specialist.
(1) Training desired:
Formal training—Bachelor's degree in
biology with courses in taxonomy and
invertebrate zoology.
In-service training—Experience in sam-
pling and analysis of benthic samples
and taxonomy.
(2) Experience desired to reach acceptable
level of performance—1 year.
d. Fishery Biologist.
(1) Training desired:
Formal training—Bachelor's degree hi
biology with course work hi ichthyol-
ogy, fishery biology, and limnology.
In-service training—Experience hi
sampling and analysis of fish samples.
(2) Experience desired to reach acceptable
level of performance—1_ year.
Space and Equipment
1. Space
a. Storage of field equipment (boat, motor
sampling equipment, etc.) requires a
garage type enclosure of at least 400
square feet.
b. Laboratory analysis (sample preparation,
counting, identification, bioassay, etc.) re-
quires at least 1200 square feet.
c. Sample storage area within the lab requires
an area of no less than 400 square feet.
2. Equipment
For an abbreviated list of equipment and
supplies used for the .collection and analysis
of biological samples and their approximate
costs (Mackenthun, 73).
Data Storage and Retrieval
If the size of the monitoring program necessi-
tates the use of a computerized system, an informa-
tion system should be used that is capable of making
biological data readily available and easily accessible
to the user population within a required time frame.
Water quality data validation and edit routines are
essential to maintain quality control. The system
should also provide standardized processing tools
to facilitate data manipulation and interpretation.
For more information concerning data handling
refer to Part II, PLANNING AND MANAGE-
MENT.
DATA INTERPRETATION
The purpose of this section is not to recommend
one particular data evaluation method, but to point
out a number of more common methods. Some of
these methods may not be applicable to each
stream or water body hi the United States.
Water quality is reflected in the species com-
position and diversity, population density, and
physiological condition of indigenous communities
of aquatic organisms (Weber, 73). A number of
data interpretation methods have been developed
based on these community characteristics to indi-
cate the degree of water quality degradation, and
also to simplify communication problems regarding
management decisions.
These methods can be categorized within four
basic subject areas: Presence and/or absence of
specific indicator organisms; community diversity;
bioaccumulation studies; eutrophication-lake classi-
fication; and other methods.
IV-11
-------
Presence and/ or Absence oi
Specific Indicator Organisms
This system is usually based upon a classification
of organisms as either pollution sensitive (intoler-
ant), facultative (variable), or tolerant. For ex-
ample, usually stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies are
considered sensitive or facultative and, therefore, are
usually the first to suffer in a polluted environment.
Sludgeworms and bloodworms, on the other hand,
can tolerate very heavy pollutional loads.
A classic example of a system using the presence/
absence criteria, is the Saprobien system which
recognizes three basic zones of pollution ranging
from a zone of heavy pollution (polysaprobic)
characterized by a lack of dissolved oxygen, an
abundance of bacteria, and the presence of a few
tolerant species, to a zone of recovery (oligosa-
probic) characterized by relatively pure water with
a somewhat stable species diversity and dissolved
oxygen concentration. This system is widely used hi
Europe but its usefulness is limited to organic pollu-
tants in slow moving streams and is not always ap-
plicable to rivers and streams of the United States.
Some Americans have tried to modify the Sapro-
bien system. Wilber, in The Biological Aspects of
Water Pollution, 1969, classifies stream segments
as follows.
• A clean stream—one with clean water, con-
taining many varieties of fishes and weeds and
aquatic organisms.
• A zone of degradation—the zone into which
waste material is discharged. Dissolved oxygen
is low in amount the water tends to be turbid;
many aquatic organisms disappear. So-called
sport fish are replaced by "rough" fish. Slimy
growth of fungi appears, deposition of sludge
on the bottom.
• A zone of active decomposition—natural proc-
ess of purification begins. Usually, no fishes of
any sort; dissolved oxygen about zero, water
dark in color, offensive in odor, large amounts
of sludge on the bottom, and gas bubbles may
be seen rising to the surface.
• A zone of recovery—the effect of the natural
recovery process are first seen here. Increase
in amount of dissolved oxygen, turbidity de-
creasing, a few fish, little or no sludge on the
bottom.
• A clean stream—the water has been returned
to its clean natural condition. The sizes of the
several zones and their distance from the area
where the pollution material was introduced
into the stream will vary with factors such as
volume and rate of flow of the stream, tem-
perature of the water, time of year, and other
local factors.
This approach is highly subjective and would
naturally vary from one stream to another. It is
also restricted to organic-type wastes.
Community Diversity
This involves the development of biotic indexes
based on the relative impact of stress (pollution)
on the species diversity, the total number of orga-
nisms and redundancy or the dominance of orga-
nisms in each species population within the aquatic
community. EPA procedures regarding quantita-
tive data interpretation using diversity indexes are
discussed in the EPA "Biological Field and Lab-
oratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of
Surface Waters and Effluents" hi the macroinverte-
brate section.
Bioaccnmnlation Studies
These methods apply hi the detection and anal-
ysis of toxic substances, radionuclides, heavy metals,
pesticides, and any other potentially hazardous pol-
lutants that can be assimilated by a number of dif-
ferent organisms and concentrated through the food
chain. Studies are conducted using various popula-
tions of organisms from the algae through the
macroinvertebrates to the fish. Studies may be cen-
tered on the organism as a whole or perhaps on an
individual organ within the organism.
Entrophication—Lake Classification
A fourth method of water quality assessment or
classification pertains to lake eutrophication.
A number of different sets of criteria have been
developed to ascertain the degree of eutrophication.
The only agreement seems to be in the nomenclature
used: (oligotrophic, mesotrophic, and eutrophic).
The National Eutrophication Survey is continually
searching for better methods with which to quantify
lake trophic conditions.
It should be noted that biological monitoring
does not replace chemical or physical monitoring.
These monitoring activities are supplemental to
each other, and should be mutually supportive. It is
JV-12
-------
difficult for any discipline to translate the knowledge
it has accrued and the data it has obtained to the
language of another discipline without losing some-
thing in the translation. However, through the use
of certain statistical methods, sets of criteria, or
analytical methods biological data can be better
understood. The criteria that these biological
methods are based upon are not foolproof. For
example, the breakdown of an assemblage of
organisms into pollution tolerant, intolerant, and
facultative is somewhat subjective for the same
organisms may vary under a different set of en-
vironmental conditions. Therefore, the concept of
the use of "indicator" organisms to evaluate biologi-
cal water quality can present real difficulties. Every
stream is different and complex data interpretation
requires a qualified biologist.
Other Methods
A number of other methods deserve mention.
Beck's Biotic Index. Beck (1955) devised the first
really simple method of illustrating biological data
in an easily understood form. This method divides
certain organisms (the organisms chosen are in-
digenous to the State of Florida and, therefore*, may
not be applicable to the rest of the country) into two
categories:
Class I—Those which can tolerate no significant
amounts of pollution.
Class II—those which can tolerate moderate
organic pollution, but disappear in conditions
which are anaerobic or nearly so.
In computing the index more weight is given to
Class I organisms because they are the least tolerant
of pollution.
This index has proven useful in the Florida re-
gion, but does not take into account the relative
abundance of individuals of different species nor
the presence of most of the species in the com-
munity.
Wilhm's Species Diversity Index (Wilhm, Dorris,
1968). This index is based upon information
theory and is an attempt to give a numerical value
to the environmental changes caused by waste dis-
chargers. This index takes into account not only
the number of species encountered, but also the rela-
tive abundances of the different species. Results from
this system indicate that values of d less than one
are indicative of heavy pollution, values from one
to three indicate moderate pollution and values
above three are found in clean water areas.
The Sequential Comparison Index (SCI) (Cairns
1968). This index is a simplified method for esti-
mating relative differences in biological diversity. It
was developed to fill the need for a rapid numerical
method of assessing the biological consequences of
pollution. The SCI is an expression of community
structure since it is dependent not only upon the
compositional richness of the community, but also
upon the distribution of individuals among the taxa.
In this technique, similar organisms encountered
sequentially are grouped into "runs." The greater
the number of "runs" per number of specimens
examined, the greater the biological diversity. A
numerical diversity index, DI, can be calculated for
each community and statistically analyzed.
Harkins and Austin (1973) have also developed
a method that appears to be universal in scope and
has worked well in diverse situations. This method
is based on average diversity per individual and
redundancy which are reduced to a single index
value per sample utilizing a nonparametric dis-
crimination technique which then gives a unique
distance value from a predefined "biological desert"
condition (control values). This condition exists as
the case of no organisms present or only one species
containing n organisms.
Computer programs have been written to per-
form the needed calculations as well as the analysis
of variance which can be used with this method.
Harkin's and Austin's method then is essentially
an objective method for reducing several biological
indexes to a single meaningful value that will reflect
subtle changes in the structure of aquatic communi-
ties. The resulting sets of standardized distance
values can be compared subjectively or can be sub-
jected to statistical evaluation and probability level of
differences assessed. With this method any changes
of quality will be detected and can be plotted for
long-term trend analysis.
REFERENCES
1. Bartsch, A. F. and Ingram, W. M., Stream
Life and the Pollution Environment, Public
Works, 90, pp. 104-110, 1959.
2. Beck, W. M., Suggested Methods for Reporting
Biotic Data, Sewage Industrial Wastes, 27, pp.
1193-1197, 1955.
IV-13
-------
3. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for
Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and
Effluents, USEPA, (Macroinvertebrate Section,
pp. 26-31), 1973.
4. Cairns, John, Jr., K. L. Dickson and Lanza,
Guy, Rapid Biological Monitoring System for
Determining Aquatic Community Structure in
Receiving Systems, Biological Methods for the
Assessment of Water Quality, ASTM, STP
528, American Society for Testing and Ma-
terials, pp. 148-163, 1973.
5. Cairns, John, Jr., Dickson, K. L., Sparks, R. E.
and Waller, W. T., The Sequential Comparison
Index—a Simplified Method for Nonbiologists
to Estimate Relative Differences hi Biological
Diversity in Stream Pollution Studies, Journal,
Water Pollution Control Federation 40, pp.
1607-1613, 1968.
6. Forbes, S. A. and Richardson, R. E., Studies on
the Biology of the Upper Illinois River, Bul-
letin, Illinois State Lab Nat. Hist. 9(10), pp.
481-574, 1913.
7. Goodnight, C. J., The Use of Aquatic Macro-
invertebrates as Indicators of Stream Pollution,
Trans, Amer. Micros. Soc., 92(1), pp. 1-13,
1973.
8. Harkins, Ralph D. and Austin, Ralph E., Re-
duction and Evaluation of Biological Data,
Journal, Water Pollution Control Federation,
45(7) pp. 1616-1611, 1973.
9. Hynes, H. B. N., The Biology of Polluted
Waters, Liverpool University Press, Liverpool,
pp. 161-162, 1963.
10. Kolkwitz, R. and Marsson, M., Ecology of
Animal Saprobia, International Revue Der
Gesamten Hydrobiologie and Hydrogeographie
(International Review of Hydrobiology and
Hydrogeography), 2(1909), pp. 126-152.
11. Kolkwitz, R. and Marsson, M., Ecology of
Plant Saprobia, Berichte der Deutschen Botan-
ischen Gesellschaft (Reports of the German
Botanical Society) 26a, pp. 505-519, 1908.
12. Mackenthun, Kenneth M., The Practice of
Water Pollution Biology, U.S. Department of
the Interior, FWPCA, p. 48, 1969.
13. Mackenthun, Kenneth, M., Toward a Cleaner
Aquatic Environment, USEPA, OAWP, Chap-
ters 12-13, 1973.
14. Weber, C. L, Biological Monitoring of the
Aquatic Environment by the Environmental
Protection Agency, Biological Methods for the
Assessment of Water Quality, ASTM, STP
528, American Society for Testing and Ma-
terials, pp. 46-60, 1973.
15. Wilber, C. G., The Biological Aspects of Water
Pollution, Charles C Thomas, Springfield,
Illinois, pp. 10-11, 1969.
16. Wilhm, J. L. and Dorris, T. C., Biological
Parameters for Water Quality Criteria, Bio-
science 18, pp. 477-481, 1968.
IV-14
-------
PART V
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
-------
INTRODUCTION
This part describes a compliance monitoring pro-
gram for those States which operate or intend to
operate a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program and to provide advice to
other States. Generally compliance monitoring data
is used in support of enforcement. Such data can
be used along with other information as useful
inputs to certain planning and water quality control
processes. BTthe following, the elements of a com-
pliance monitoring program, which can be applied
to the NPDES system, are described hi some detail.
The same general approach can also be used to ac-
complish other aims of compliance monitoring
programs.
This Model State Compliance Monitoring Program
description recommends procedures to determine
compliance with NPDES permits and compliance
where water quality standards apply, to validate
self-monitoring reports, and as necessary to provide
technical support for enforcement actions.
COMPONENTS OF A STATE
COMPLIANCE MONITORING PROGRAM
The components of a State Compliance Monitor-
ing Program are:
• Application verification.
• Plant process verification.
• Compliance schedule monitoring.
• Monitoring of compliance with permit condi-
tions.
• Documentation of violations of toxic pollu-
tants standards (Sec. 307(a) of PL 92-500).
• Evaluation of compliance with pretreatment
standards (Sec. 307 (b) of PL 92-500).
• Documentation of emergency powers cases
(Sec. 504 of PL 92-500).
• Identifying nonfilers.
Visits to major dischargers are required at least
annually. Minor dischargers may be visited ran-
domly as little as once during the term of the per-
mit. Some visits may be only visual or qualitative
and not require sampling. In other cases a quanti-
tative inspection where samples are collected and
analyzed may be necessary, particularly when there
are suspected violations or when a case is being pre-
pared for enforcement.
A minimal qualitative visit should include review
of:
1. The permit.
2. Self-monitoring data.
3. Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure
Plan implementation, if appropriate.
4. Laboratory analysis techniques, if applicable.
5. Field, sample transport, and preservation, and
laboratory quality control procedures, if ap-
plicable.
6. Data handling procedures.
7. Compliance with implementation schedules.
A quantitative inspection should consist of all of
the above elements, plus the sampling and analysis
of effluents and the process stream, as stipulated in
the applicable permit or as otherwise needed. It
may be appropriate in the case of some industries
to sample or inspect production processes. In some
municipal and industrial inspections it will be neces-
sary to sample the plant's influent in addition to the
effluent.
Recommended procedures relative to each com-
pliance monitoring component are discussed below.
Application Verification. Application verification is
the examination of applications for new or renewed
permits. It includes:
1. Verification of information supplied by ap-
plicants.
2. Assuring correction of identified errors in the
application.
Plant Process Verification. Plant process verification
is the periodic verification that processes raw ma-
terials, water usage, waste treatment processes, pro-
duction rate, and other factors relative to concen-
trations and loads of pollutants contained hi dis-
charges are substantially as described in the permit
application and the issued permit.
It also may include determining that pollutants
removed from wastewaters are not being allowed to
enter navigable waters and that preparations have
been made for controlling waste discharges in the
event of power failure.
Compliance Schedule Monitoring. Compliance sched-
ule monitoring is the review and evaluation of
progress toward scheduled pollution control measures
V-3
-------
as set forth in the permit. Evaluation is based on
data supplied in progress reports submitted by the
applicant and through facilities inspections.
Monitoring of Compliance With Permit Conditions.
Monitoring of compliance with permit conditions is
the collection and evaluation of data required to
show whether pollutant concentrations and loads
contained in permitted discharges are in compliance
with the limits specified in the permit. Such monitor-
ing includes the following.
* The self-monitoring reports from the permittee
should generally serve to flag apparent violations
on effluent characteristics. When these reports are
received from the permittee they should first be
reviewed for completeness and for violations. If
no violations are reported and the report appears
to be in order, the report may be processed for
automatic and/or manual data storage. Apparent
violations should be reported to the appropriate
enforcement authority.
• Self-monitoring verification is the periodic veri-
fication that self-monitoring is being properly
executed and reported. This includes sampling,
flow measurement, plant inspection, and records
review and is usually, but not always, conducted
with prior notice to the permittee. Self-monitoring
verification generally should be conducted at least
yearly at principal discharge sites, but may be
conducted anytime upon receipt of information
indicating possible violations. Consultation and
advice to the permittee concerning proper tech-
niques or methods may be a good approach to
achieving compliance with permit conditions in a
minimum amount of time.
• Case preparation monitoring includes process
stream sampling, flow measurement, plant inspec-
tion, records review, and where State statutes
require, development of supportive stream quality
evidence. All case preparation monitoring should
be performed with adequate chain-of-custody .pro-
cedures. Case preparation monitoring should be
carried out according to need with priorities as
follows,
a. Dischargers with unsatisfactory effluents
causing obvious water quality degradation.
b. Dischargers with unsatisfactory discharges
causing marginal water quality degradation.
c. Dischargers with unsatisfactory discharges
causing little or no obvious water quality
degradation.
d. Other dischargers.
Documentation of Violations of the Toxic Pollutant
Standards. Documentation of toxic pollutant stand-
ards violations is the collection of evidence to support
litigation against the discharger of a toxic sub-
stance(s). This activity is to be conducted as
needed, based upon reports, observations, or the
nature of the discharge. Chain-of-custody procedures
are necessary.
Evaluation of Compliance With Pretreatment Stand-
ards. Where applicable to the State's program, at
least annual evaluation of compliance with pretreat-
ment standards should comprise a part of the com-
pliance monitoring program. This program compo-
nent includes:
1. Periodic review of municipal ordinances relative
to pretreatment of industrial wastes discharged to
publicly owned collection and treatment systems.
2. Review of pertinent reports, e.g., self-monitoring,
GPSF files.
3. Evaluation of loads and concentrations of the in-
fluent to, and the discharge from, the publicly
owned system.
4. Evaluation of monitoring and enforcement pro-
cedures by the public entity.
5. Review of inventories of new connections to
the system. Chain-of-custody methods should be
discretionary according to the likelihood of
litigation.
Documentation of Emergency Powers Cases. Emer-
gency powers cases under Sec. 504 of PL 92-500 are
part of the Federal program. In cases where serious
problems are encountered in the course of regular
activities or by citizen complaints, the State should
notify EPA of the situation and present evidence as
required by PL 92-500. (Documentation of emer-
gency powers cases is the collection of evidence to
support litigation by the Federal government for in-
junctive relief against dischargers causing "... immi-
nent and substantial endangerment to the health or
the welfare of persons ..-.")
Identifying Nonfilers. Identification of nonfilers may
be accomplished in a number of ways. Remote
sensing (e.g., flyovers using infrared photography)
V-4
-------
may be useful in high population areas, but usually
nonfilers are located by searching through manufac-
turer's indices, talks with municipal or county offi-
cials, checks of phone book yellow pages, etc., or by
stream surveys.
COMPLIANCE MONITORING SAMPLING
In addition to the quality assurance techniques in
Part VI, the following points should be considered in
carrying out an effective compliance monitoring
program.
Relevance of Data
Data gathered by field and laboratory activities
must match the stipulations of the discharge permit
in question and be appropriately flow weighted. For
purposes of case preparation monitoring, the follow-
ing paragraphs describe recommended sampling and
measurement definitions which may be applied to
specific permit limitations.
1. Instantaneous maxima are those that occur at
any single moment hi time. This is determined
by the analysis of a "grab sample."
"Grab samples" are individual samples col-
lected over a predetermined period usually not
exceeding IS minutes. The volume of sample
should be sufficient to provide any necessary
replicate aliquots for the analyses required.
Where needed as a safety precaution or as evi-
dentiary support, field measurements and ob-
servations should be made by more than one
person.
Nonrepresentative samples of effluents con-
taining materials not uniformly dispersed, e.g.,
"oil and grease," cannot be subdivided into
aliquots. Grab samples of such effluents should
be taken hi replicate, one after another hi a
minimum time from the same sampling point
to provide adequate volume for laboratory
analysis.
2. One-day average conditions. The time frame
for the expression of limitations is a production
day or as otherwise stipulated in the applicable
permit. Where the nature of the effluent will
allow (absence of separating, interacting, or
unstable components), compliance with 1-
day average conditions is determined by analy-
sis of a daily composite sample or an average
of the analytical results from a number of indi-
vidual samples. In most cases, the composite
itself acts as a 1-day average and can be used
for subdividing into various aliquots for subse-
quent laboratory analysis, necessary replicates,
and spikes for quality control.
In those cases where a 1-day average con-
centration is required and a sample cannot be
composited, such as oil and grease, or for time
dependent determinations, individual grab
samples should be collected within prescribed
time intervals, analyzed individually, and aver-
age value calculated. Sampling for calculation
of weekly or monthly conditions should be by
the same techniques over a production week or
month.
Sample Collection and Handling
Procedures must be instituted for assuring sample
integrity during collection, transportation, storage,
and analysis. These procedures must protect against
misidentification, loss or error of data relating to
sampling, theft, loss, damage, or alteration of the
sample. In those cases where samples are being
collected for evidence, the integrity of the sample
must be guarded and thoroughly documented
through chain-of-custody procedures. A chain-of-
custody procedure is described in Part VI, QUAL-
ITY ASSURANCE.
If the permittee requests split samples or co-
incident measurements or observations, the following
procedures are recommended:
1. Double volume samples should be mixed and
divided evenly.
2. Grab samples should be taken alternately in
the same manner by the State personnel and
the permittee representative.
3. Instrument readings and observation of spe-
cial conditions should be taken jointly by the
permittee and by State personnel.
4. In the event that the State supplies o sample
to the permittee, this transfer should be made
at the sampling site where possible and re-
ceipted by the permittee who will be respon-
sible for subsequent steps of preservation,
transport, and sample integrity. Splitting ali-
quots should be done hi a manner to assure
that all aliquots are homogeneous. This means
the sample must be agitated during the all-
quoting procedure.
V-5
-------
Flow Measurement
Independent gaging of the larger point sources,
for example, a waste treatment plant with a dis-
charge of 20 million gallons per day—will generally
not be feasible. Readings from the permittee's flow
gaging equipment may be used after calibration by
the sampling crews or other acceptable certification.
UNIT MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS FOR
MAJOR DISCHARGER MONITORING
Estimated man-days required for each compliance
monitoring program component are presented be-
low. Total manpower requirements can be obtained
by estimating the number of units of each com-
ponent in the program to be conducted and accumu-
lating those that must be carried on concurrently.
Allocation of resources for investigation of com-
plaints should be a standard part of each year's
budget. Complaints are expected to increase with
public expectation of cleanup resulting from permit
programs, etc.
Application Verification (3 Man-Days Per Permit)
Verification of the application including requests
for additional information to process the application,
requests to apply for permit, familiarization with
particular industrial processes, occasional travel to
plantsites and occasional preparation of recom-
mendations with supporting documentation for in-
stituting proceedings against a discharger by the
appropriate enforcement authority are estimated to
require an average of 3 man-days per permit.
Plant Process Verification
(4 Man-Days Per Verification)
Process verification will generally be concurrent
with verification monitoring. The unit of work will
include: Travel to the plantsite; familiarization with
the process; onsite review of plant records, proc-
esses and waste streams, updating files; and an
occasional requirement to modify or terminate a
permit. Process verification generally requires an
average of 4 man-days per verification.
Compliance Schedule Monitoring
(6 Man-Days Per Schedule)
Review of progress reports, evaluation or progress,
occasional site inspections, computer processing and
updating of compliance data, modification of sched-
ules, and actions necessary when there is failure to
submit a report or there is a violation of the com-
pliance schedule is estimated to require an average
of 6 man-days per compliance schedule during the
period of the schedule.
Monitoring of Compliance With Permit Conditions
Verification Monitoring. 14 man-days per verification
of waste streams, any industrial waste pretreatment
processes, and other activities necessary to meet
State requrements. An average survey is considered
to have the following characteristics: A two-man
team would travel to a plant, become familiar with
the physical layout, set up composite sampling equip-
ment at up to 5 outfalls for a 24-hour sampling
period, verify flow measuring and other continuous
monitoring devices, remove and clean sampling
equipment, and return to point of origin. This portion
of verification monitoring consumes 8 man-days per
verification. If additional surveys are conducted in
the same vicinity a 50-percent savings may accrue on
each subsequent verification.
Case Preparation Monitoring. 90-125 man-days
per case (based on availability of a mobile labora-
tory).
These estimates for case preparation studies are
based on a 7-day sampling period. It is assumed that
8 man-days for travel and setup or cleanup would
be required by the field crew at each end of the
survey. Typically, a 2-man team would be required
for sampling the parameters of interest with com-
posite samplers and verifying continuous monitoring
devices. This effort would require about 21 man-
days. Mobile laboratory requirements would demand
similar travel times for a team plus 12 days to
complete all analytical procedures before the labora-
tory can be moved. This requirement is estimated at
38 man-days. Preparation for travel, data compila-
tion, and report writing will require an additional 15
man-days for a total of 90 man-days. Manual
sampling would raise this total to an estimated 125
days.
Documentation of Violations of Toxic Pollutant
Standards (30 Man-Days Per Documentation)
To follow chain-of-custody procedures, a 2-man
team should be considered for a 3-day sampling
period in which up to 5 outfalls may be sampled
with automatic samplers. Two days for travel and
setup or cleanup at each end of the surveys would
also be required. Analytical support, if available at
a fixed laboratory should require 6 man-days. Three
V-6
-------
man-days should be required to prepare a report.
The total requirement for a documentation is then
30 man-days. On the same basis, manual sampling
would increase this requirement to 47 man-days.
Evaluation of Compliance With Pretreatment
Standards (4 Man-Days Per Evaluation)
This unit of work will require an effort similar
to plant process verification.
Documentation of Emergency Powers Cases
Federal only after receipt of evidence. No man-
power projection made.
Identification of Nonfilers
(3 Man-Days Per Identification)
This work unit will require assembly of reference
materials, cross-checks with permit applications re-
ceived, and usually a visit to -document that sus-
pected installations are actually nonfilers.
To determine laboratory requirements, Table V.I
presents estimates of tunes required for many stand-
ard and some specialized analytical procedures. As-
suming that on the average the parameters meas-
ured during verification monitoring include flow,
temperature, pH, BOD, TSS, COD, oil and grease,
or a similar combination of parameters, the labora-
tory time required will be 3 man-days per verifica-
tion if samples are returned to a central laboratory.
Office work necessary to correlate data and prepare
necessary reports probably requires an additional 3
man-days for a total of 14 man-days.
TABLE V.I
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF
ANALYSES/ANALYST/DAY
Measurement
No./day/analyst*
BOD 10-15**
Solids 15
COD 15
Oil & Grease 10
TOC 30
DO 100
TKN (automated) 70
NO2+NO,-N (automated) S5
NH-N (automated) 85
Total P (automated) 80
Ortho P (automated) 85
Phenolics (manual) 8
Cyanide (manual) 5
Turbidity (Hack 100) 75
Alkalinity (potentiometric) 75
Acidity (potentiometric) 75
Chloride (manual) 100
Hardness (manual) 100
Sulfate (turbidimetric) 75
Arsenic (colorimetric) 10
(AA) 10-30
Selenium 10
Fluoride (probe) 100
Metals by AA
(no preliminary treatment) 60
Metals by AA
(with preliminary treatment) 10-30
Mercury 20
GLC 2
GLC + Mass Spec 0.5
Membrane filter analysis (total coli-
form, fecal coliform, and fecal
streptococcus) 15
MPN analysis (total and fecal coli-
form-confinned procedure) 10
* Excluding administrative overhead, chain-of-custody pro-
cedures, report writing, etc.
** Depends on type of sample (sewage, industrial, or
stream). Estimates given by the EPA National Field
Investigation Centers.
V-7
-------
PART VI
QUALITY ASSURANCE
-------
A strong program of quality assurance is required
for operating an adequate water monitoring program
which produces valid data. The text which follows
outlines such a program and lists references which
can provide full information on the subject addressed.
COMPONENTS OF A QUALITY
ASSURANCE PROGRAM
Elements of an Overall Quality Assurance Program
1. Calibration of sampling equipment and flow
measuring devices.
2. Calibration of direct-reading field instruments
such as pH, conductivity, dissolved oxygen,
temperature, and fixed continuous monitoring
devices, etc.
3. Assurance of representative sampling, both as
to site selection and frequency.
4. Selection of proper sample container, preserva-
tive, transport, and storage tunes.
5. Use of documented, effective intralaboratory
quality control program that should include:
a. Calibration and maintenance of laboratory
instruments and equipment.
b. Verification of a working standard curve.
c. Determination of individual precision and
accuracy of the test procedures.
d. Analyses of samples approved by meth-
odology.
e. Use of replicate and standard or known
samples to verify daily results.
f. Use of quality control charts to document
validity of data.
6. Participation in interlaboratory investigations.
7. Accurate and timely recording, storage, and
retrieval of data.
Use of the Elements
An overall quality assurance program which in-
cludes the above elements requires approximately
15-20% of the resources allocated to monitoring. It
should be recognized, however, that many of these
elements are already an integral part of the monitor-
ing program but may not be labeled as quality
assurance techniques. Individually the elements
should be applied in the following manner.
1. Calibration of sampling equipment and flow
measuring devices—Sampling equipment and
flow measuring devices should be calibrated
according to manufacturer's specifications im-
mediately prior to and at the end of their use
in the field or more frequently if necessary.
Calibration and checks should be recorded
permanently.
2. Calibration of direct-reading field instruments
and fixed continuous monitoring devices.
a. Direct-reading field instruments should be
calibrated according to manufacturer's
specifications immediately prior to and at
the end of their use in the field. In addition,
spot checks should be made at reasonable
intervals throughout the sampling schedule.
b. Fixed continuous monitoring devices should
be calibrated according to manufacturer's
specifications and, where possible, results
verified by approved manual methodology.
The calibration of sensors should be checked
at least weekly and preferably daily.
c. Calibrations and checks of both types of
instruments should be recorded in logbooks
or other permanent records.
3. Assurance of representative sampling, both as
to site selection and frequency—The survey
design must assure that a sufficient number of
sampling locations, types of samples, replicate
samples, and the frequency of sampling will
provide a valid representation of the charac-
teristics being assessed and assure that the ob-
jectives of the survey will be met. The general
subject of sampling techniques is covered in
References 1-5.
4. Selection of proper sample container, preserva-
tive, transport, and storage times—References
6 and 7 should be consulted for information on
sample container and preservative, and for
transport and storage times. When potential
enforcement or judicial proceedings are in-
volved, the chain-of-custody procedures must
satisfy State rules or laws for introduction of
evidence.
5. Use of documented, effective intralaboratory
quality control program—EPA approved meth-
odology is defined in the Federal Register
(Reference 8). Methods of analysis are de-
VI-3
-------
scribed in References 9 through 13. Quality
control techniques covering the elements of an
overall intralaboratory quality control pro-
gram, are detailed in-References 14 (especially
Chapter 6) and 15.
6. Participation in interlaboratory investigations
—The laboratory should participate hi collabo-
rative testing evaluations of analytical methods,
conducted by the Environmental Protection
Agency Methods Development and Quality
Assurance Research Laboratory, EPA regional
offices, and other organizations in which the
laboratory wishes to validate its competency.
In addition, the laboratory should participate,
as appropriate, in established, continuing per-
formance evaluation programs available
through governmental agencies and/or profes-
sional organizations.
7. Recording, storage, and retrieval of data—Field
and laboratory personnel should keep complete
permanent records to satisfy legal requirements
for potential enforcement or judicial proceed-
ings. All field and laboratory data sheets should
be dated and signed by the sampler and analyst,
respectively. In addition, an information system
should be developed capable of preparing,
screening, validating, sorting, and making avail-
able to EPA the waterwaste monitoring data
collected by the State.
Resources
Laboratories (or combinations of laboratories)
supporting the State water quality monitoring pro-
gram should provide physical, professional, and
analytical capabilities and quality assurance measures
as follows.
1. Physical and professional capabilities—Physi-
cal and professional capabilities must be ade-
quate to perform required sampling and
analyses in accordance with the above ele-
ments. The skills required and the degrees of
technical competency required for such physi-
cal and chemical analyses are summarized in
tabular form in Reference 14, Chapter IX.
2. Quality control officer—The State should pro-
vide a Quality Control Officer who is familiar
with all aspects of approved methodology and
quality assurance techniques. He should main-
tain close liaison with the appropriate EPA
Regional Analytical Quality Control Coordi-
nator and should be responsible for the overall
laboratory quality control program in his
laboratory. He should report to the appropriate
level, making sure that in no case is his func-
tion subordinate to an individual responsible
for direct conduct of sampling or analyses.
While the overall program workload will deter-
mine whether this particular position is a full-
time or part-time responsibility, in most cases
it should be full time.
3. Training officer—The State should provide a
training officer. He may be a line supervisor or
an administrative employee, but he must recog-
nize the variations in ability and provide train-
ing to insure that professional skills are appro-
priate to the task. Training programs should be
carried out in order to develop the required
levels of competence necessary to carry out
assigned functions. These programs should be
carried out in full cooperation with the quality
control officer and the appropriate EPA re-
gional AQC coordinator.
4. Laboratory facilities—The State should pro-
vide a laboratory facility with an environment
which is free from those levels of atmospheric
contaminants which could adversely affect the
desired analyses. It should be clean, air-con-
ditioned and/or heated and have a well-lighted
work area. The facility and equipment shall be
maintained in a clean condition at all times to
prevent sample contamination. Safety features
and other facilities consistent with operational
requirements should be provided.
CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY
General
Quality assurance should be stressed in all com-
pliance monitoring and hi examination of self-moni-
toring programs no matter what the impetus for the
spot check or inspection. The successful implementa-
tion of a compliance monitoring program depends to
a large degree on the capability to produce valid data
and to demonstrate such validity. No other area of
environmental monitoring requires more rigorous
adherence to the use of validated methodology and
quality control measures.
It is imperative that laboratories and field opera-
tions involved in the collection of primary evidence
prepare written procedures to be followed whenever
evidence samples are collected, transferred, stored,
VI-4
-------
analyzed, or destroyed. A primary objective of these
procedures is to create an accurate written record
which can be used to trace the possession of the
sample from the moment of its collection through
its introduction into evidence. The procedures de-
scribed here have been successfully employed and
are presented as suggested procedures insofar as they
fulfill the legal requirements of the appropriate State
legal authority.
Preparation
The evidence-gathering portion of a survey is
characterized by the absolute minimum number of
samples required to give a fair representation of the
effluent or water body sampled. The quantity of
samples and sample locations are determined prior
to the survey.
Chain-of-custody record tags are prepared prior
to the actual survey fieldwork and contain as much
information as possible to minimize clerical work by
field personnel. The source of jeach sample is also
written on the container itself prior to any field survey
work.
Field logsheets used for documenting field pro-
cedures and chain-of-custody and to identify samples,
should be prefilled to the extent practicable to mini-
mize repetitive clerical field entries. Custody during
sampling is maintained by the sampler or project
leader through the use of the logbook. Any informa-
tion from previous studies should be copied (or
removed) and filed before the book is returned to
the field.
Explicit chain-of-custody procedures are followed
to maintain the documentation necessary to trace
sample possession from the time taken until the
evidence is introduced into court. A sample is in
your "custody" if:
• It is hi your actual physical possession; or
• it is in your view, after being in your physical
possession; or
• it was hi your physical possession and you
locked it in a tamper-proof container or storage
, area.
All survey participants should receive a copy of
the study plan and be knowledgeable of its contents
prior to the survey. A presurvey briefing should be
held to reappraise all participants of the survey
objectives, sample locations and chain-of-custody
procedures. After all chain-of-custody samples are
collected, a debriefing should be held in the field
to check adherence to chain-of-custody procedures
and to determine whether additional evidence
samples are required.
Sample Collection
1. To the maximum extent achievable, as few
people as possible handle the sample.
2. Stream and effluent samples are obtained using
standard field sampling techniques. When using
sampling equipment it is assumed that this
equipment is hi the custody of the source being
sampled.
3. The chain-of-custody record tag is attached to
the sample container when the complete sample
is collected and contains the following in-
formation: Sample number, time taken, date
taken, source of sample (to include type of
sample and name of firm), preservative,
analyses required, name of person taking
sample, and witnesses. The front side of the
card (which has been prefilled) is signed,
timed, and dated by the person sampling. The
tags must be legibly filled out in ballpoint
(waterproof ink). Individual sample contain-
ers or group of sample containers are secured
using a tamper-proof seal.
4. Blank samples are also taken. Include one
sample container without preservative and con-
tainers with preservatives from all of which the
contents will be analyzed by the laboratory to
exclude the possibility of container contamina-
tion.
5. The Field Data Record logbook should be
maintained to record field measurements and
other pertinent information necessary to refresh
the sampler's memory if he later takes the
stand to testify regarding his actions during the
evidence gathering activity. A separate set of
field notebooks should be maintained for each
survey and stored in a safe place where they
can be protected and accounted for at all
times. Standard formats have been established
to minimize field entries and include the date,
time, survey, type of sample taken, volume of
each sample, type of analysis, sample number,
preservatives, sample location, and field mea?
urements. Such measurements include temper
ture, conductivity, DO, pH, flow, and any other
VI-5
-------
pertinent information or observations. The en-
tries are signed by the field sampler. The prepa-
ration and conservation of the field logbooks
during the survey is usually the responsibility
of the survey coordinator. Once the survey is
complete, field logs should be retained by the
survey coordinator, or his designated repre-
sentative, as a part of the permanent record.
6. The field sampler is responsible for the care
and custody of the samples collected until
properly dispatched to the receiving laboratory
or turned over to an assigned custodian. He
should assure that each container is in his
physical possession or hi his view at all times,
or is locked in such a place and manner that
no one can tamper with it.
7. Colored slides or photographs are often taken
which show the outfall sample location and any
visible water pollution. Written documentation
on the back of the photo should include the
signature of the photographer, time, date, and
site location. Photographs of this nature, which
may be used as evidence, are handled by chain-
of-custody procedures to prevent alteration.
Transfer of Custody and Shipment
1. When turning over the possession of samples,
the transferee signs, dates, and times the re-
verse side of the chain-of-custody record tag or
record. Custody transfers, if made to a sample
custodian in the field, are made for individual
samples. The chain-of-custody tag or card must
be dated and signed by the second person who
takes custody. If a third person takes custody,
he must follow the same procedure. An addi-
tional custody tag or card is filled in by persons
who thereafter take "custody." Therefore, the
number of custodians in the chain should be as
few as possible. Additional cards should be
numbered consecutively.
2. The field custodian or field sampler, if a cus- •>
todian has not been assigned, ordinarily has the
responsibility of properly packaging and dis-
patching samples to the proper laboratory for
analysis. A "Dispatch of Sample" portion of
the chain-of-custody record tag or'card should
be properly filled out, dated, and signed.
3. Samples must be properly packed in shipping
containers such as ice chests to avoid breakage,
and the shipping containers padlocked for ship-
ment to the receiving laboratory.
4. All packages should be accompanied by a
"Sample Transmittal Sheet" showing identifica-
tion of the contents. The original and one copy
generally accompany the shipment and copies
are mailed directly to the laboratory, to data
management personnel, and to any other re-
sponsible agent. One copy is usually retained
by the survey coordinator.
5. If sent by mail, the package should be regis-
tered with return receipt requested. Hand de-
livery need only be recorded in the logbook.
Receipts from post offices and bills of lading
should be sent to be retained by the laboratory
custodian as part of the permanent chain-of-
custody documentation.
6. If samples are delivered to the laboratory when
appropriate personnel are not there to receive
them, the samples should be locked in a secure
area where no one can tamper with them. It is
necessary that the same person unlock the
samples and deliver custody to the appropriate
custodian.
Laboratory Custody Procedures
The following procedures are recommended by
EPA's National Field Investigation Centers and are
suggested to the State insofar as they satisfy the
State's statutory and regulatory requirements.
1. The laboratory directory designates one full-
time employee (usually the laboratory super-
visor) as a sample custodian and one other
person as an alternate. In addition, the labora-
tory sets aside a "sample storage security area."
This is a clean, dry, isolated room which can be
securely locked.
2. All samples are handled by the minimum pos-
sible number of persons.
3. All incoming samples are received only by the
custodian or, in his absence, the alternate, who
indicates receipt by signing the sample trans-
mittal sheets and, as appropriate, sample tags,
accompanying the samples and retaining the
sheets as permanent records.
4. Immediately upon receipt, the custodian places
the sample in the sample room, which is locked
at all times except when the samples are re-
VI-6
-------
moved or replaced by the custodian. To the
maximum extent possible, only the custodian
is permitted in the sample room.
5. The custodian ensures that heat-sensitive or
light-sensitive samples, or other sample ma-
terials having unusual physical characteristics,
or requiring special handling, are properly
stored and maintained.
6. Only the custodian, or in his absence, the al-
ternate, distributes samples to, or divides them
among, personnel performing tests. The custo-
dian enters into a permanent logbook the
laboratory sample number, time and date, and
the name of the person receiving the sample.
The receiver also signs the entry.
7. Laboratory personnel are then responsible for
the care and custody of the sample until ana-
lytical tests are completed. Upon completion of
tests the unused portion of the sample together
with all identifying tags and laboratory records
are returned to the custodian, who records the
appropriate entries in the logbook. These, and
other records are retained until required for
trial.
8. The analyst records in his laboratory notebook
or worksheet the name of the person from
whom the sample was received, whether it was
sealed, identifying information describing the
sample (by origin and sample identification
number), the procedures performed, and the
results of the testing. If deviations from ap-
proved analytical procedures occur, the analyst
is prepared to justify this decision under cross-
examination. The notes are signed and dated
by the person performing the tests. If that
person is not available as a witness at time of
trial the government may be able to introduce
the notes in evidence under the Federal Busi-
ness Records Act.
Samples, tags, and laboratory of tests may be
destroyed only upon the written order of the
laboratory director, who ensures that this in-
formation is no longer required.
QUALITY ASSURANCE FOR
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
Overall Time Allocated for Quality Assurance (15
percent)
1. Intralaboratory quality assurance—10 percent.
2. Interlaboratory quality assurance—5 percent.
Intralaboratory Quality Assurance
1. Maintain laboratory reference collection of
organisms of known identity.
2. Provide in-service training on identification and
other sample analyses. (Use outside specialists
where necessary for identification of difficult
specimens.)
3. Employ a staff of sufficient size and training to
permit specialization.
4. Analyze "blind" split samples prepared by the
laboratory supervisor. Provide replicate analy-
ses of samples which are not known by analyst
to be "check" samples.
5. Assure proper instrument calibration and main-
tenance for all sampling and analytical instru-
ments.
Interlaboratory Quality Assurance
1. Use EPA biological methods studies and refer-
ence samples including:
a. Microscope calibration, particle counting,
and sizing (simulated plankton sample).
b. Phytoplankton count and identification.
c. Chlorophyll extracts for spectrophoto-
metric and fluorometric analyses.
d. Macroinvertebrate identification sample.
e. Diatom species proportional counts and
identification.
f. Macroinvertebrate picking, counting, and
identification.
g. Zooplankton counting and identification.
h. Plankton biomass measurement.
i. ATP measurement.
2. Split samples are analyzed by EPA biologists.
REFERENCES
Sampling
1. Annual Book of Standards (Part 23), Water
and Atmospheric Analysis, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Method D 1496 +
510, pp. 72-91, Philadelphia, Pa. 1973.
VI-7
-------
2. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for
Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and
Effluents, C. I. Weber, Ed. Methods Develop-
ment and Quality Assurance Research Labora-
tory, NERC, USEPA Cincinnati, Ohio, July
1973.
3. Donahue, A., Sample Handling—Field Through
Laboratory, National Training Center, Outline
WP.SUR. Sq. June 12, 1971, NERC, USEPA
Cincinnati, Ohio, June 1971.
4. Handbook for Monitoring Industrial Waste-
water, Technology Transfer, USEPA, 1973.
5. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater (13th Edition), 1972, APAA,
AWWA, and WPCF, Washington, D.C., pp.
34-36, 1972.
Preservation and Holding Times
6. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and
Wastes, MDQARL, NERC, USEPA, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, September 1971.
7. Op. Cit., Reference 5.
Laboratory Analyses
8. Federal Register, Vol. 38, No. 199, Part H,
Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for
Analysis of Pollutants, pp. 28758-28760, Octo-
ber 16,1973.
9. Op. Cit., Reference 6.
10. Op. Cit., Reference 5.
11. Op. Cit., Reference 4 (Approved Methods
Only).
12. Op. Cit., Reference 3 (Approved Methods
Only).
13. Ocean Dumping Methods Manual (For Site
Monitoring and Sludge Analysis), USEPA,
OR&D, Washington, D.C., February 1974.
Laboratory Quality Control
14. Handbook for Analytical Quality Control
in Water and Wastewater Laboratories,
MDQARL, NERC, USEPA, Cincinnati, Ohio,
June 1972.
15. Industrial Hygiene Service Laboratory Quality
Control Manual, Technical Report No. 78,
DHEW, PHS, NIOSH, Cincinnati, Ohio, March
1973.
Other References
16. Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for
Analysis of Pollutants, 40 CFR Part 136, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Quality As-
surance Division, Washington, D.C., Number
199, pp. 28758-28760, October 16, 1973.
17. Proceedings of the First Microbiology Seminar
on Standardization of Methods, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Quality Assurance
Division, Washington, D.C., Report No. EPA-
R4_73_022, March 1973.
ttU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975—210-810:6?
VI-8
------- |