United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
August 1988
National Symposium on
Water Quality Assessment
Meeting Summary
June 1-3, 1988
Annapolis, Maryland
Maryland
Department of
The Environment
\
1
a
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
ANNAPOLIS, MARYLAND
June 1-3, 1988
Prepared by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Lafayette, California
EPA Contract No. 68-03-3475
for
Monitoring and Data Support Division (WH-553)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT 1-1
2. KEYNOTE ADDRESS 2-1
3. PANEL PRESENTATIONS 3-1
PANEL #1: OBJECTIVES AND APPROACHES TO MONITORING 3-1
Water Quality Monitoring as an Information System 3-1
State Perspective 3-1
EPA Perspective 3-2
Citizen Perspective 3-2
PANEL #2: REEVALUATING PROGRAM DESIGN: STATE PRESENTATIONS 3-3
Reevaluating Program Design in Montana 3-3
Surface Water Monitoring in New York State: 3-4
Rotating Intensive Basin Studies
Surface Water Quality Monitoring in Florida 3-5
PRESENTATIONS: MONITORING FOR NONPOINT SOURCE EFFECTS 3-6
Monitoring for Nonpoint Source Impacts 3-6
Monitoring Nonpoint Source Perturbations With Aquatic 3-7
Macroi nvertebrates
PANEL #3: ECOLOGICAL/BIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 3-8
IN MONITORING
Ecological/Biological Survey Methods 3-8
Advantages of an Ecoregion Concept for Monitoring 3-9
The Development and Use of Biological Criteria for Ohio 3-9
Surface Waters
Biological Standards in Maine 3-10
4. TECHNICAL SESSIONS 4-1
SESSION A 4-1
Fish Tissue Residue Monitoring 4-1
Volunteer Monitoring - Introduction 4-2
Volunteer Monitoring - Kentucky's Experience 4-2
Ambient Toxicity Testing 4-3
Status of Sediment Quality Criteria Development 4-3
Integrating Multidisciplinary Monitoring Data: 4-4
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
Page
SESSION B 4-5
What's New 1n EPA Data Systems (Including BIOS) 4-5
Analysis of Historical Water Quality Data 4-7
Water Quality Assessment in the State of Washington 4-9
Using the Waterbody System
Integrated Data Management and Analysis: Geographic 4-10
Information Systems (GIS)
Fish Habitat as an Indicator of Water Quality 4-11
5. WORKGROUP SESSIONS: ISSUE PAPERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-1
Workgroup #1 on Biomonitoring 5-1
Workgroup #2 on Trend Monitoring 5-5
Workgroup #3 on Assessment Criteria/Assessment Approaches 5-9
Workgroup #4 on Improving Access and Use of Existing Data 5-14
Workgroup #5 on Future Assessments/National Reporting 5-20
Workgroup #6 on Ambient Discharger Monitoring 5-25
6. EVALUATION OF SYMPOSIUM 6-1
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY 6-1
PARTICIPANTS
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: List of Registrants A-l
APPENDIX B: Symposium Agenda B-l
APPENDIX C: Contacts for Poster Session Topics C-l
APPENDIX D: Informal EPA Survey of State Monitoring D-l
Activities: Summary of Results
ii
-------
1. OVERVIEW OF SYMPOSIUM
-------
1. OVERVIEW OF NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON HATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
The National Symposium on Water Quality Assessment was held June 1,2,
and 3 in Annapolis, Maryland. The symposium followed the completion of a
major review of EPA and State surface water monitoring activities discussed
in Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework for Change (U.S. EPA Office of
Water/Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, September 1987).
The objectives of the meeting were to bring together representatives
from EPA, State water agencies, and other Federal agencies to exchange
information and ideas about the collection, analysis, management, and use of
surface water quality information, and to develop specific recommendations
on six key monitoring issues.
Geoffrey Grubbs (U.S. EPA) and Michael Haire (Maryland Department of
the Environment) opened the meeting. The first day continued with a
keynote address by Rebecca Hanmer, U.S. EPA Acting Assistant Administrator
for Water, three panel discussions, presentations on nonpoint source
monitoring, and an address by Abel Wolman, Professor Emeritus of The Johns
Hopkins University. The second day included two concurrent technical
sessions, six concurrent workgroup meetings, and finally a poster session.
On the final day, the six workgroups reported their findings and
recommendations at a plenary session.
This meeting summary includes the keynote address, abstracts for each
of the presentations, issue papers and recommendations for each of the six
workgroup sessions, and a summary of comments and recommendations made by
participants in their evaluations of the meeting.
Included as appendices are a list of registrants, the agenda, contacts
for the poster session presentations, and an informal EPA survey of state
monitoring activities and resources.
1-1
-------
2. KEYNOTE ADDRESS
-------
2. KEYNOTE ADDRESS
Rebecca W. Hanmer
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
It's a pleasure to be here this morning and have the opportunity of
addressing this diverse group. It is particularly significant for me
because I believe that you (and your counterparts who could not be here
today) hold a critical key in the evolution of the water program.
I have watched this evolution first-hand throughout my career. In the
1960's I worked with the Federal Water Quality Act (FWQA) on water quality
standards. In the 1970's and early 1980's the, program was squarely centered
on getting technology-based treatment standards implemented. Now the focus
is back to water quality and the path of future evolution is clearly toward
land-use management to control nonpoint sources and to protect critical
habitats. From this point onward, monitoring and assessment are a critical
function of the program.
I'd like to briefly explain why I think monitoring and assessment are
so important.
The first reason concerns the continued progress of the water quality
program. We as a society have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in
point source controls; yet overall, from the meager information we have, the
trend in water quality seems little better than static. There is a
legitimate argument that this represents a major accomplishment in light of
the growth in pollution generating activities. But the charge of the Clean
Water Act is to restore the nation's waters, not hold the line. Only
monitoring can tell us what's going on -- whether point sources, nonpoint
sources, atmospheric deposition, in-place pollutants, or other problems are
responsible.
The second reason concerns how we know what we think we know. Our
whole process of establishing criteria and water quality standards,
assessing waters, and determining permit conditions rests on numerous
assumptions. We assume that a few critters tested in artificial laboratory
conditions can represent an entire ecosystem. We generally ignore the
influences of habitat altering processes. We assume that pollutants act
independently of each other. And we assume that our toxicity testing and
modeling procedures properly account for the effects of fluctuating
exposure. I'm sure you can think of others. Considered all together, our
assumptions are pretty amazing. Ambient monitoring, particularly biological
assessments, come as close as we can get to the truth. And we need to learn
the truth occasionally.
2-1
-------
Third, monitoring provides a feedback loop. Any undertaking needs some
.means to determine success or failure. Too often we have focused on
programmatic bean-counting to gauge our success. Although appropriate for a
program driven by technology-based requirements, bean counting just doesn't
cut it for a water quality-based program. We need to be able to show real
progress and demonstrate accountability for our pollution control
investments.
My last reason I am beginning to view as perhaps the most important.
It concerns the question of funding. Federal funding for State programs is
an area of critical concern. We are currently examining options for
offsetting losses in Federal funding, but the bottom line is that the States
will have to provide more of their own funds. I believe monitoring and
assessment hold the key to generating public understanding, interest, and
support. Such support will be absolutely essential if we hope to get State
legislatures and local governments to provide the funds necessary to carry
out water quality programs. I will be particularly interested in your
recommendations on how we can educate, involve, and interest the public.
The organizers of this symposium have set out an interesting and
ambitious agenda. The goal of the symposium is to develop a series of
recommendations that will guide the formation of EPA/State workgroups and
set priorities for technical projects. In embarking on your task, I would
offer only one point of advice. My perception is that the people managing
monitoring and assessment programs view their function as primarily one of
support for other programs and also tend to focus on the details of their
job (for example, managing data).
I'd encourage you to think in terms of a leadership role. Only your
programs can tell us what the problems are and, in large measure, how to fix
them. You should work on enhancing investigative capabilities, decision-
making tools, and communication.
This symposium is just a first step. I believe that we at EPA now
appreciate how important monitoring and assessment are, and I hope we can be
a more active partner with the States in this program. It is important that
this symposium be a beginning, not an end. Your work here in Annapolis
should set in motion a process for education, consensus building, and
action.
You have a sound base for moving forward. There is an active research
program in several agencies. You have a breadth of experience that is
enviable compared with other programs. I am confident that you will develop
imaginative solutions to carry the monitoring and assessment program into
the next decade. Thank you.
2-2
-------
3. PANEL PRESENTATIONS
-------
3. PANEL PRESENTATIONS
PANEL #1: OBJECTIVES AND APPROACHES TO MONITORING
Water Quality Monitoring as an Information System
Robert Ward
Colorado State University
Water quality monitoring is increasingly being viewed as an
"information system" as the need for information on water quality behavior
in the environment shifts from a strictly problem-solving mode to that of
ongoing management. To meet these changing information needs, the
monitoring systems themselves often must be redesigned. The purpose of this
paper is to describe a framework for monitoring system design that accounts
for the evolving role of water quality information within water quality
management.
Water quality monitoring is viewed as a system which can be defined as
following the flow of information through its various tasks: 1) sampling;
2) laboratory analysis; 3) data handling; 4) data analysis; 5) reporting;
and 6) use of the resulting information. To design a successful water
quality "information" system, a designer must: 1) identify what information
is sought; 2) establish a statistical basis for the design; 3) determine
where samples will be taken, what will be measured, and how frequently to
sample; 4) specify operating procedures for the entire system; and, in
particular, 5) define the final information product (e.g., reports) to be
produced.
The connection between information expectations and the statistical
data analysis methods employed to meet these expectations is an area
receiving increasing attention in the design of water information systems.
This connection, in the above framework, is the key to successful
development and implementation of a water quality information system.
State Perspective
Steven Tedder
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
[Abstract not received]
3-1
-------
EPA Perspective
Catherine Kuhlman
U.S. EPA, Region IX
[Abstract not received]
Citizen Perspective
Frances H. Flanigan
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc.
My remarks on the subject of the citizen perspective on water quality
assessment will cover three general points:
1) how public interest groups do - or could - use water quality
information;
2) how the priorities of public interest groups coincide or conflict
with the priorities of EPA and the states; and
3) new approaches to monitoring to provide more cost-effective
information.
Throughout my remarks will run the theme that the public is one of your
consumers and that their needs ought to be taken into account as you plan
your assessment programs.
Public interest groups use - or could use - monitoring information for
all of the following purposes:
1) education: to inform their members and the general public about
environmental conditions, trends, changes and so forth;
2) program monitoring: to assess progress of environmental management
programs by observing changes and improvements in water quality
and/or living resources;
3) watchdogging: to assess the effectiveness of regulatory and
enforcement programs;
4) policy development: to enable citizen activists to participate in
an informed way in the process of program development and planning;
5) lobbying: to support programs, budgets, and new regulations.
Our priorities and yours often coincide but sometimes conflict. For
example, citizens' groups have a great need for timely information; they
need to have data analyzed and interpreted; and they need to be able to gain
3-2
-------
easy access to information. They sometimes want what you consider to be
confidential data. They have a need for clear, nontechnical presentations
of data, and they need a big picture view of what is happening in an
ecosystem, rather than small, out-of-context pieces of information. Most
managers undoubtedly have similar needs!
The use of citizen volunteers to collect data is a relatively new
approach that I would like to encourage you to consider. Citizen volunteers
have demonstrated that they can collect credible data for a wide variety of
parameters. Examples include water quality data, observational data on
habitat, observational data on problems such as spills and sediment
pollution, and anecdotal information on long-term changes. The benefits of
involving citizen volunteers in monitoring programs include more frequent
data collection, less expensive data gathering, development of a sense of
stewardship, building of an environmental ethic, and an increase in public
awareness and concern that can lead to increased political support for your
programs.
PANEL #2: REEVALUATING PROGRAM DESIGN: STATE PRESENTATIONS
Reevaluating Program Design in Montana
Loren L. Bahls
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Montana is a large and varied headwaters state with a small, largely
rural population. Among waterbodies with impaired beneficial uses, 95% (by
size) are impaired by nonpoint sources and only 5% by point sources. The
main sources of nonpoint pollution are agriculture, forest practices,
mining, land disposal, and hydromodification. The principal pollutants are
sediment, salts, heavy metals, and nutrients.
The State's assessment program has gone through three distinct phases
during the past 33 years. From 1955 to 1972, the program consisted of
intensive surveys to develop stream classifications and water quality
standards. From 1972 to 1982, the program concentrated on Basin Water
Quality Inventories and Management Plans and 208 Water Quality Studies. In
1977, Montana initiated seasonal ambient stream biomonitoring (for macro-
invertebrates and periphyton) at 85 stations covering all of the State's 16
river basins. This program was discontinued in 1981 with the loss of 208
funds. Meanwhile, the State maintained a water quality monitoring network
consisting of three fixed stations sampled monthly.
An unprecedented bloom of Anabaena on Flathead Lake and a controversial
discharge permit for the Champion International (now Stone Container, Inc.)
kraft paper mill near Missoula prompted the State to reevaluate its surface
water monitoring program in 1983. Since 1983, most of Montana's monitoring
resources have been directed at comprehensive programs in the Clark Fork and
Flathead River Basins. Thirty-nine stations are sampled 16 times per year
in these two programs for a variety of chemical, physical and biological
3-3
-------
parameters. A small number of intensive surveys are conducted each year
using one or more of the following: chemical analyses, streambank physical
feature inventories, instream biological assessments, and ambient or whole
effluent Ceriodaohnia bioassays. Fixed-station monitoring and intensive
surveys are conducted in cooperation with a large number of federal, state
and local water quality management agencies. State resources allocated to
surface water quality monitoring by the Department of Health and
Environmental Sciences amount to 2.3 FTEs and about $130,000 per year. Data
are collected for a variety of reasons to serve a large number of management
functions.
Surface Water Monitoring in New York State:
Rotating Intensive Basin Studies
Peter Mack
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
OBJECTIVES
Locate and identify water quality problems. Develop baseline data to
investigate water quality related cause/effect relationships (e.g.,
bioavailability of in-place toxics) and provide data to support regulatory
decisions.
PROGRAM
Each of New York's 17 major drainage basins is monitored extensively
for two years over a total six-year statewide cycle.
Sampling stations include major interstate waters, critical use areas,
stream segments with localized problems, and streams considered unimpacted
or background.
Twenty-four water column samples are collected at each site, primarily
during high flow periods. Analyses include heavy metals, volatile
halogenated organics, and conventional pollutants. Six water column samples
are subjected to ambient toxicity testing. Two composites of surficial
sediments are analyzed for heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides, PCB's,
total volatile solids, and grain size. Macroinvertebrates are collected
several times at all sites and evaluated for structure. Tissue is analyzed
for heavy metals, organochlorine pesticides, and PCB's. Finally, two to
four species of fish are collected at each site and evaluated in the same
manner as macroinvertebrates.
STATUS
We are in the second year of the first cycle. Reports will be
available in the second half of 1989.
3-4
-------
RESOURCES
Program resources include a staff of 10 with $644k available for
analytical services. $200k of the above is provided by the U.S. Geological
Survey through a cooperative agreement. $60k per year over a two-year
start-up period is provided by the EPA Great Lakes National Program Office.
Toxic monitoring is expensive; eight years ago our program costs were
less than half of those dedicated for today's needs.
Surface Water Quality Monitoring in Florida
Jerry Brooks
Florida Department of Environmental Regulations
Florida's surface water quality monitoring program has evolved over its
30 years of existence in response to changing demands. Two factors emerge
as having the greatest effect on the monitoring program: the nature and
extent of surface waters and a rapidly expanding population. Because of the
diversity and extensiveness of Florida's surface waters, it is difficult to
establish a monitoring network which provides sufficient data to address all
management needs. Within the State the management needs are often
different from one location to the other and change over time. This
condition is exacerbated by an explosive rate of population growth.
A statewide coordinated monitoring program began in the early 1970's.
This network consisted of approximately 100 fixed stations. Establishment
of ambient water quality for selected waterbodies was the primary objective.
Initially, there was little consistency between chemical and biological
stations. Over a period of several years, this inconsistency was corrected.
This network, although limited in its range of coverage, did accomplish its
objective. During the mid to late 70's, development in the state increased
significantly. Concomitantly, a shift in management data needs resulted.
Site specific data for predictive modeling became a high priority. By the
end of the decade, monitoring was beginning to focus on basin assessments.
In 1983 the state formally implemented a monitoring program designed to
focus on specific basins. The utility of the data resulting from this
monitoring design are variable throughout the state. This variability
results from the lack of a centrally coordinated monitoring plan and a clear
statement of the State's objectives.
Five years after the initiation of basin monitoring, the State is again
evaluating its monitoring programs. Recognized as important to this
assessment is an identification of data needs. From these needs a clear
statement of objectives will be established and prioritized. Prioritization
is considered important due to funding limitations. With the objectives
established, the most effective means for collection of the data will be
assessed. This will involve the integration of data from various programs
at the local, regional and state level. Following the collection and
interpretation of data, a format for the documentation of results will be
3-5
-------
developed. This final task of documentation is considered to be important
to ensure the data's availability for management decisions.
PRESENTATIONS: MONITORING FOR NONPOINT SOURCE EFFECTS
Monitoring for Nonpoint Source Impacts
John C. Clausen
Vermont Water Resources Research Center
University of Vermont
The need for well-designed nonpoint source (NPS) monitoring programs
has intensified due to the nonpoint provisions of the Water Quality Act of
1987 (Section 319). When planning a nonpoint water quality study, the first
decision should be to define the objectives of the study. Subsequent
decisions are needed to determine parameters to be measured, sampling
method, location and frequency of sampling, and a study design with a sound,
statistical basis. Most of these decisions will vary with the objectives
and the type of system studied (e.g., stream, lake, groundwater).
Parameter selections can be based on activity-water quality matrices,
correlations among parameters, or on the probability of exceeding a
standard. Grab samples will determine concentrations but composite sampling
is needed for an estimate of the mass loading to a waterbody. Sampling
locations are intimately related to study design. For stream systems,
alternative designs include: single watersheds with before and after
sampling, above and below sampling which also can occur before and after a
treatment, use of paired watersheds, multiple watersheds, or nested
watersheds. Use of a single watershed is susceptible to climate effects
from year to year. Two watersheds, each in a different land use or
treatment, are commonly used, but will not allow detection of treatment
effects. Paired watersheds, however, which undergo a calibration period and
a treatment period, allow detection of treatment effects and account for
climatic variations as well. However, results may not be widely
transferable. Multiple watersheds (about 15 per treatment) can be used
over wide regions which solve transferability problems. The frequency of
collecting samples from nonpoint sources is often biased. The preferred
frequency can be calculated based on the anticipated variation expected in
the data or on the observed variation in previously measured data.
Several techniques are available for analysis of nonpoint source data.
In complex, mixed land use watersheds, several methods of analyzing trends
have emerged. These range from a simple time plot to time-series analysis.
Some of these techniques are strongly influenced by climatic extremes.
Models are also helpful in NPS studies; they can estimate (not measure)
effectiveness of best management practices (BMP's), locate areas to target,
and evaluate alternatives. Geographic Information Systems are particularly
useful in tracking implementation and compliance.
3-6
-------
Monitoring nonpoint sources is different than point sources. Nonpoint
sources are driven by precipitation, a somewhat random event; whereas, point
sources are more constant, with some exhibiting diurnal fluctuations.
During storms, point sources are diluted but nonpoint sources are
concentrated. In response to treatment, point sources often show quick
improvements; nonpoint sources change more gradually. Within streams,
recovery zones often exist below a point source. The entire stream system
is usually impacted by nonpoint sources.
Several lessons have been learned from various NFS monitoring programs.
The Model Implementation Program (1978-82) in seven states indicated that
several years are needed to witness effects of NFS treatment, explicit goals
and objectives are necessary, and adequate funding is associated with
success. The Rural Clean Water Program experiences so far substantiate
these needs.
Monitoring Nonpoint Source Perturbations
With Aquatic Macroinvertebrates
Fred Mangum
U.S. Forest Service Intermountain Region Aquatic
Ecosystem Analysis Laboratory
The Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Program is part of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service Intermountain Region's General Aquatic Wildlife
System (GAWS). In the macroinvertebrate program, two diversity indices are
used. The DAT Diversity Index combines dominance and number of taxa or
species and the Biotic Condition Index or BCI integrates physical, chemical,
and biological data to produce a numerical score for a stream, that is like
a score on a test.
The BCI is sensitive to all types of environmental stress; is
applicable to various types of streams; gives a linear assessment from
unstressed to highly stressed conditions; is independent of sample size
providing the sample contains a representative assemblage of species in the
community; is based on data readily available or easily acquired; and meshes
readily with, and supports, existing stream habitat and/or water quality
management programs.
Aquatic macroinvertebrates continually monitor and respond to stream
environmental conditions that result from natural and managed activities
within a drainage. The macroinvertebrates have been found sensitive to
nearly every form of perturbation that affects environmental quality of
aquatic ecosystems.
Macroinvertebrate data have been effectively used by the Forest Service
and other agencies to help make management decisions required of public land
stewards. There have been many testimonies regarding the data's accuracy
and utility for documenting conditions and trends, and it has been a key
factor in out-of-court settlements for mitigations.
3-7
-------
Examples of forms of pollution or perturbations often monitored on
public lands are sedimentation, organic enrichment, heavy metals,
pesticides, acid deposition or drainage, thermal extremes, and dewatering.
These perturbations may be the result of toxic wastes, grazing activities,
mining activities, regulated flows, or activities associated with timber
harvest.
The USDA Forest Service Intermountain Region's Aquatic Ecosystem
Analysis Laboratory has provided ecosystem evaluations for various
government agencies since 1972, and an increase in monitoring efforts is
expected.
PANEL #3: ECOLOGICAL/BIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS IN MONITORING
Ecological/Biological Survey Methods
James Plafkin
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This presentation provides a basic primer on biological field methods
for sampling fish and macroinvertebrates. Various types of sampling gear,
such as bottom samplers and artificial substrates for benthos, and back
pack, pram, and boat electroshockers for fish, are illustrated. The
differences between qualitative and quantitative sampling, the importance of
appropriate station siting, and the effects of temporal and spatial
variability are discussed.
Recommendations on implementing biosurveys, developed at last
December's National Biocriteria Workshop, are also presented. These
recommendations point out the need for EPA to clarify the role of biosurveys
and biosurvey data in water quality programs. They emphasize that
biosurveys should be included within an integrated assessment strategy that
includes chemical, bioassay, and habitat evaluations as well as analysis of
the resident aquatic community. Within an integrated assessment strategy,
biosurveys are particularly well suited for fulfilling fundamental ambient
monitoring objectives: identifying impaired waterbodies, confirming
impairments predicted from source data, and documenting the "environmental
results" of control activities. Toxicity and chemical evaluations are, of
course, needed to identify stress agents causing the detected impairment,
to trace these agents to their sources, and to establish appropriate
treatment requirements.
U.S. EPA should also develop technical guidance for conducting
bioassessments. For example, guidance is needed on: developing QA
procedures and data quality objectives (DQO's) for biosurveys, using
ecoregions to help define biocriteria, and conducting habitat evaluations to
assess impacts, particularly from nonpoint sources. In addition, EPA needs
to revitalize its training programs for field personnel so that this
guidance will be effective. Finally, EPA must provide strong support for
data management systems that can efficiently process biological information.
3-8
-------
This would include long-term maintenance of BIOS coupled with periodic
improvements, e.g., incorporation of the ERAPT system developed by ERL -
Corvallis and "canned" programs for analyzing popular indices such as the
Index of Biotic Integrity and the Rapid Bioassessment Metrics.
Advantages of an Ecoreqion Concept for Monitoring
Robert M. Hughes
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Corvallis
Many of our most important scientific and management questions require
some sort of regionalization. Problems are too widespread and numerous to
be treated on a site-by-site basis and ecosystems are too variable to be
treated the same way nationwide. This presentation demonstrates the use of
a regional framework for monitoring and for determining chemical and
biological goals for surface waters. In four statewide case studies, an
ecoregion map drawn from landscape characteristics was found to stratify
effectively the naturally occurring variance in water quality and biological
communities.
An ecoregion framework helps us apply sound ecological theory to
establishing monitoring networks and to setting goals for entire states or
regions of the country. Such a framework is an important bridge between
site-specific and national approaches. When combined with appropriate
statistical design, the ecoregional approach can provide precise
expectations about large numbers of water bodies that would not be possible
from traditional site-specific or river basin monitoring.
The Development and Use of Biological
Criteria for Ohio Surface Waters
Chris 0. Yoder
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio EPA proposed the addition of biological criteria to its water
quality standards regulations on November 2, 1987. Biological criteria are
based on the measurable characteristics of fish and macroinvertebrate
communities that are indigenous to Ohio streams and rivers. This represents
a significant progression in Ohio's Water Quality Standards (WQS)
regulations which have singularly relied in the past on a chemical approach
for regulating and assessing surface water quality. While the chemical
approach remains an essential element of the program, the addition of
biological criteria significantly broadens the scope of surface water
evaluation and protection.
3-9
-------
Biological criteria are established by a knowledge of the structural
and functional characteristics of fish and macroinvertebrate communities at
selected reference sites across the state. This study design reflects the
practical definition of biological integrity as the biological condition
exhibited by the natural habitats of a region. Further organization of this
approach was accomplished by using ecoregions of which Ohio has been divided
into five. Seventy-six ecoregions have been defined for the U.S. and
reflect a commonality of land use, land surface-form, potential natural
vegetation, and soil type. Together, these factors determine the chemical
and physical characteristics of the watersheds which in turn influence the
biological characteristics. The results of sampling and analyzing fish and
macroinvertebrate data from more than 300 reference sites statewide were
used to establish attainable, baseline expectations for aquatic life stream
use designations.
Biological criteria also provide the opportunity to recognize and
account for the natural variability of the environment. This results in
having different biological goals between ecoregions and between different
size streams and rivers. This represents a shift from the traditional
chemical approach where a single criterion is often applied to different
situations. Primary uses of biological criteria are to define
attainment/nonattainment of legislative goals, to set attainable conditions
for various waterbodies, to assist in setting water discharge requirements,
to identify and quantify environmental problems and successes, and to
document changes over time. Biological criteria have meaningful application
to virtually any surface water program that has as one of its objectives the
protection of aquatic life.
The technical documentation and rationale for this approach to surface
water assessment are available in a three volume set entitled Biological
Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life. This report is available from
the Ohio Division of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment.
Biological Standards in Maine
David L. Courtemanch and Susan P. Davies
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Considerable attention has recently been given to the role of the
biological community as a source of important ambient monitoring
information. The State of Maine is developing an ambient biomonitoring
program through enactment of narrative biological standards in its water
classification statutes and development of administrative rules for data
interpretation. Program accountability is based on three considerations:
political accountability (basis in law), administrative accountability
(identification of unique role in monitoring), and scientific accountability
(appropriate use of available metrics in a decision process).
A basis in law is found in the Federal Water Quality Act which sets
goals to restore and maintain the biological integrity of the nation's
waters and specifies interim goals to achieve fishable/swimmable quality.
3-10
-------
The Act, however, does not provide a working definition for these goals.
Using its water classification law, the State of Maine has established three
levels of integrity in its standards: (1) "aquatic life as naturally
occurs" for Classes AA and A, which is the most strict interpretation of
integrity, (2) "without detrimental changes to the resident biological
community11 and "support indigenous species" for Class B, and (3) "maintain
structure and function of the resident biological community" and "support
indigenous fish species" for Class C which is an interpretation of
fishable/swimmable quality. Definitions are further provided in the statute
which specify ecological attributes of each standard.
Water quality standards can be used in either a regulating role
specifying discharger performance or in a planning role specifying program
goals. While the State of Maine found that it had adequate regulatory
standards, these standards were insufficient to monitor program goals. The
primary role of the biological information is to serve as impact standards
assessing overall progress toward goals. By relaxing the regulatory
function of biological information, constraints required in a legal
environment are eased and the full value of biological information can be
realized.
Scientific accountability has been afforded through the design of a
decision procedure which specifically addresses the unique, defined
ecological attributes of each standard. Use of metrics is individualized
for each biological standard. Attainment of classification (program goal)
is determined through a trichotomous decision key utilizing a hierarchial
progression starting with the most powerful metric. Where a metric yields a
high level of uncertainty, supplementary metrics and best professional
judgment are used to resolve attainment.
3-11
-------
4. TECHNICAL SESSIONS
-------
4. TECHNICAL SESSIONS
* * *
Session A * * *
Fish Tissue Residue Monitoring
Walter L. Redmon
U.S. EPA Region V
The fish in a waterbody are exposed to many pollutants that enter that
waterbody and, for bioaccumulative pollutants, can provide the best record
of the presence of long-term low level exposure. Means exist for prediction
of parameters most likely to accumulate, but actual fish tissue residue
measurement has been proven a practical and reliable tool necessary to a
complete environmental monitoring program. Tissue residues serve as a
direct prediction of human exposure through sport and commercial fish
consumption for many environmental toxicants which are present at levels too
low to detect in water or effluent analysis. The U.S. EPA National Dioxin
Study, as an example, identified through fish tissue analysis that bleaching
of certain paper pulps was a major source of high level contamination of the
environment. Earlier tissue work identified pesticides and mercury
contamination as a concern, and later PCBs; Kepone, etc. The National
Bioaccumulation Study is expanding on the dioxin study, developing a new,
more sensitive residue scanning method and searching downstream of
additional potential sources.
Multidisciplinary study design involving chemists and biologists from a
variety of Federal and State agencies has proved critical to successful fish
tissue residue studies. Nearly 20 years of residue trend analysis in Great
Lakes fish show clear trends for several parameters. Key factors for study
design are determined by the final uses of the data. Factors like species
and size selection, numbers of samples, site selection, and season are
critical to interpretation. Value of residue chemistry is controlled by
data quality. Detection levels, precision and accuracy, extraction and
cleanup procedures must be specified in any tissue analytical program, and
the laboratories must be held to quality performance. Study design requires
consideration of statistical methods, if any, to be employed and sampling to
support the methods chosen. Whole fish samples from species which are heavy
accumulators are chosen to screen for accumulative organics and for source
identification, as well as some long-term trend analysis. Sampling for
development of risk assessment and fish consumption advisories should
emphasize locally important commercial and sport fish species and edible
portion samples. Sampling costs can be limited or eliminated by
coordination with fish sampling agencies and planning lead time.
The key element in most successful studies is experience. Thus, we
recommend a small scale pilot study before any expensive project is
undertaken. Advice and assistance from representatives of the EPA, Food and
Drug Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and universities
experienced in tissue monitoring should be sought, as should sampling
4-1
-------
assistance from State fisheries personnel and others who routinely collect
fish from target areas. Together, intelligent data interpretation using
both biology of the fish and residue chemistry will produce good
information.
Volunteer Monitoring - Introduction
Meg Kerr
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA's September 1987 report, "Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework
for Change" identified specific steps that EPA could take to address the
inadequacies of past surface water monitoring programs. One recommendation
of this study was that EPA investigate ways to incorporate "citizens watch
programs" into the monitoring program.
Many water quality professionals are skeptical of using volunteers to
help with surface water monitoring. These professionals believe that
volunteers cannot collect useful data. However, some States have
successfully planned, organized, and executed volunteer monitoring programs.
They have found that a properly managed volunteer monitoring program can
have significant paybacks including public education, constituency building,
and collection of useful data.
A key element of a successful volunteer monitoring program is a real
commitment to the program by the government agency. This includes:
t State staff assigned primary responsibility for the program;
t A clear understanding and acceptance of the program's objectives at
all levels in the State water pollution control agency; and
t A clear understanding of how the collected data will be analyzed
and utilized.
Volunteer Monitoring - Kentucky's Experience
Ken Cooke
Kentucky Division of Water
The Kentucky Division of Water operates a citizens' volunteer
monitoring program for streams and rivers as part of its Water Watch
Program. The volunteers are trained and equipped by the agency and asked to
submit regular monthly reports on stream conditions for six physio-chemical
parameters. After a year of operation, over 600 reports from 57 stations
were received. Data are being used for background information on streams
4-2
-------
not covered by regular ambient monitoring. The information also led to a
number of investigations of water quality violations.
Analysis of performance by various volunteer groups showed that
performance of industrial environmental engineers, high school and college
science teachers, and stream side land owners exceeded the 80% reporting
rate goal; but performance of civic groups, fish and game clubs, and
recreational groups fell below the 80% reporting rate. A positive
relationship between scientific training and reporting rate was also found.
Ambient Toxicity Testing
Donald Mount
U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth
The ambient toxicity test consists of measuring the toxicity of ambient
water samples. Usually such samples have no acute toxicity, so chronic
tests must be used. The recent development of short duration chronic tests
makes such ambient sample testing practical. The sensitivity of such tests
is flow dependent. For point sources which are relatively constant in
discharge volume, low receiving water flow is the critical flow. For land
runoff and some leachate problems, higher flows or even flood conditions are
the critical ones.
Ambient toxicity tests measure only toxicity and therefore their
results are not expected to correlate with field measurements except where
the impact on the aquatic community is largely due to toxicity. Field
biological communities are impacted by many pressures other than toxic
chemicals. In fact, there are no data to suggest that toxic chemicals are
the most important stress on field communities since better treatment has
been installed.
Since most waste treatment is installed to reduce toxic chemicals,
toxicity tests are most specific for discharge evaluation. Since biological
survey data are comprehensive and include effects of much more than those
from discharges, they should be used where general well-being is of concern.
Biological survey data are not as useful for specific NPDES concerns.
Status of Sediment Quality Criteria Development
Frank E. Gostomski
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA's Office of Water Regulations and Standards has been actively
pursuing the development of numerical sediment criteria. These criteria are
intended to assist in assessing toxicity and to aid in making decisions
concerning contaminated sediments. These criteria are driven by biological
4-3
-------
and human health effects and are Intended to be as protective as existing
water quality criteria.
Considerable progress has been made with this effort, and as a result,
the methodology used to develop sediment criteria for nonpolar organic
contaminants will be presented to EPA's Science Advisory Board for review in
1988 and for metal contaminants at a later date. In an effort to better
understand the role sediment criteria will be playing in evaluating
hazardous waste sites and to develop insight on how to better focus future
sediment criteria development activities, several pilot studies were
conducted. These pilot studies focused on using interim sediment criteria
developed for 11 contaminants and applying these criteria at active
Superfund sites with contaminated sediment problems. For additional
information, contact Christopher S. Zarba at (202) 475-7326.
Integrating Multidisciolinarv Monitoring Data:
Maryland's Chesapeake Bav Program
Robert E. Magnien
Maryland Department of the Environment
Maryland initiated a comprehensive, multidisciplinary water quality
monitoring program for Chesapeake Bay in 1984. This program has three major
objectives:
1. Characterization: Developing baseline conditions on a Bay-wide
basis for important water quality indicators.
2- Trends or Changes: Detecting the response of the Bay to management
actions and to reveal potential water quality problems.
3. Processes: Interpreting multidisciplinary monitoring data along
with research and modeling to achieve a better understanding of the
factors controlling water quality and the linkage with living
resources.
To adequately achieve these objectives for the major water quality
concerns, a comprehensive set of water quality indicators was assembled into
a coordinated design. Because the water quality concerns of Chesapeake Bay
are complex (e.g., eutrophication), these water quality indicators are
needed to reflect the multidisciplinary nature of the problems. This set of
water quality indicators are broken down into seven major program
components:
1. Chemical/Physical Properties
2. River Inputs
3. Phytoplankton
4. Zooplankton
4-4
-------
5. Benthic Organisms
6. Ecosystem Processes
7. Toxicants
The major reason for conducting this monitoring program is to provide
the information necessary to guide and evaluate management efforts aimed at
restoring Chesapeake Bay water quality and living resources. Therefore, the
results must be promptly analyzed, interpreted, and used in decision-making.
A reporting process has been established that has as its foundation annual
cumulative technical reports from each of the individual program components.
On a biennial schedule, the information is assembled in a multidisciplinary
framework that specifically addresses the major water quality concerns and
management issues.
This multidisciplinary "Technical Synthesis" quantifies the ecological
sequence of events from nutrient inputs to nutrient transport and fate to
effects on phytoplankton growth. The plankton response is then evaluated
for its effects on hypoxia and for its role as a food source for higher
trophic levels. Information from the monitoring program is supplemented
with research and mathematical modeling results to provide the most complete
analysis possible. This synthesis of Chesapeake Bay water quality processes
is interpreted together with the characterization and trend information to
formulate recommendations on water quality management strategies. All of
this analysis from the biennial synthesis is distilled down into a
nontechnical report for the State legislature, water quality managers, and
interested citizens. In addition to this ongoing Bay-wide data
interpretation, the monitoring information is also used frequently to aid in
the management of local or unanticipated water quality problems.
* * * Session B * * *
What's New in EPA Data Systems (Including BIOS)
Rod Frederick
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Water Quality Data Systems Steering Committee was initially
recommended in the Surface Water Monitoring Strategy in September 1987 to
establish central coordination of EPA activities to integrate water related
data. One of the Committee's first decisions is critical to the future of
BIOS, EPA's National Biological Data Management System: a mission/systems
requirements study for the tissue residue and toxicity components.
The broad roles of the Committee are to ensure that State and EPA needs
are met by:
summarizing existing systems;
t recommending system enhancements;
t developing integration strategies;
4-5
-------
promoting technology transfer and better documentation; and
providing guidance on policy, management, and technical issues as
necessary.
The Committee is still working out some of the details of how it will
operate, but at the very least it will be providing advice to Office of
Water (OU) Directors and the OW Senior Systems Manager.
The Committee is made up of members, who make decisions, and attendees,
who provide advice to the members through three workgroups. Workgroups were
given the following broad roles:
Technical - provide advice on system capabilities and data quality
Issues;
Policy - recommend system development and integration strategies;
and
Communication - recommend actions to improve system usefulness and
Increase awareness.
Decisions made by the Committee in its May 11, 1988, meeting were to
establish some FY 90 initiatives, to work out details on how the Committee
will function, and to develop criteria the Committee will use to evaluate
the adequacy of water related data systems. There are a number of other
workgroup recommendations the Committee will prioritize to develop an
overall action plan by August. The Committee is very interested in keeping
the States informed and in finding ways States can participate.
I have saved the BIOS Committee decision until last. A statement of
work has been prepared by EPA's Office of Information Resources Management
(OIRM) to implement a mission/systems requirements study. The study is
designed to evaluate how tissue residue and toxicity components should be
added to the existing field sampling survey system. The Committee
specifically recommended that the tissue residue information in the Ocean
Data Evaluation System (ODES) be considered for inclusion in BIOS as well as
tissue residue information now included in STORET. The CETIS system for
effluent toxicity test results will also be considered as well as addition
of instream bioassay testing.
The purpose of the mission study is to document the clear programmatic
need for the toxicity and tissue residue data. The purpose of the syste~~
requirements study is to define the data elements based on the needs anc
uses for the data. Without this, users will have a hard time getting what
they want out of the completed tissue residue and toxicity test BIOS
systems. Those who want input into either study should contact Phil
Lindenstruth, Lee Manning, or myself so that your needs can be included in
the completed data system. OIRM estimates a completely functional system 18
months from July 1 when the study is expected to start.
The latest statistics on the BIOS field survey file are as follows:
The taxonomic data base is current. There are 64,000 critters in
the data base which is maintained by OIRM/NOAA.
4-6
-------
t OIRM has trained seven regions and received requests for training
in FY 89 from two others: Regions II & VI. Region VIII has not
yet requested training.
Standard STORE! retrievals are available as are retrievals which
read STORE! data into SAS routines. EPA's Monitoring and Data
Support Division and OIRM are looking into a SAS routine for use in
rapid bioassessments.
Analysis of Historical Water Quality Data
Joseph F. Rinella, Stuart W. Mckenzie,
Gregory J. Fuhrer, and !imothy L. Miller
U.S. Geological Survey
!he analysis of historical data can be used to 1) define water quality
conditions at a point in time, 2) define changes over time, and 3) to the
extent possible, assist in identifying the nature, location, severity, and
cause of water quality problems. Generally, historical information for a
basin is a compilation of data from many federal, state, and local agencies.
Different agencies tend to collect data for different purposes; thus,
inconsistencies exist in records between agencies owing to differences in
sampling methods, sampling frequency, geographic coverage within a basin,
constituents measured, length of record, and the quality assurance of sample
handling, laboratory analysis, and data storage. Moreover, there is a
dearth of historical data on potentially toxic substances-trace elements
and especially man-made organic substancesand on biological data that
could be used to estimate stream health. !hese myriad differences of data
among agencies and the lack of certain relevant data create a formidable
challenge to the interpreter of historical water quality conditions.
In the present study, these difficulties in the interpretation of
existing data have been recognized by separating the analysis into two broad
categories: qualitative and quantitative. In a qualitative
characterization, all of the available data for a selected constituent are
summarized for interpretation; consequently, the geographic coverage of the
data is usually considerable throughout the basin, especially for most of
the relatively inexpensive determinations of major inorganic constituents
and nutrients. However, the qualitative interpretations are limited to
qeneral regional comparisons and identification of potential problem areas.
These limitations result from data that were collected with 1) an unknown
sampling objective, 2) unknown quality assurance, and 3) poor temporal
coverage The difficulty of overcoming these limitations increases as the
data become older and fewer personnel at a collection agency are able to
address these concerns. For some constituents, such as toxic man-made
organic compounds and trace inorganic elements, even the geographic coverage
of the historical data is poor and provides limited opportunities for
interpretation.
4-7
-------
The water quality data used in the quantitative analysis are a subset
of the qualitative data and are representative of the seasonal and
hydrologic conditions that occur at a station. The representative data are
obtained by selecting stations with data that were collected during the same
time period and generally at the same sampling frequency (for example,
monthly). Unlike the qualitative analysis, quantitative data are used for
intersite comparisons and for determining the seasonal and annual
variability of concentrations. Additionally, results from time-trend
analyses and estimates of constituent loads can provide valuable insights to
water quality conditions, sources of loads, and causes of changes over time.
Examples of qualitative and quantitative analytical results are
presented using historical data collected from the Yakima River basin in
Washington, one of the Geological Survey's seven pilot studies (four
surface-water studies and three groundwater studies) under the National
Water Quality Assessment Program (Mckenzie and Rinella, 1987). Qualitative
results for total phosphorus show a wide variability of concentrations for
various types of conveyance channels in subbasins of the Yakima River basin.
Surface-water drains containing irrigation-return flow show the largest
concentrations and variability of phosphorus, while tributaries in the
forested headwaters show the smallest concentrations and variability.
Quantitative results for total phosphorus show that median concentrations
increase in a downstream direction from 0.01 milligrams per liter at river
mile 183 to 0.13 at river mile 30. Total phosphorus concentrations
downstream of river mile 83 routinely exceed the desirable goal of 0.1
milligrams per liter for preventing plant nuisances in streams (U.S.
Environmental Agency, 1986). The largest phosphorus concentrations were
observed downstream of the major tributaries containing irrigation-return
flows and point-source discharges. Time trends of total phosphorus showed
significant decreasing concentrations at stations throughout the basin for
the period 1974 to 1982. These trends may be associated with significant
decreases in flow that also occurred during this same period. Procedures
will be used to adjust the phosphorus concentrations for streamflow to
determine whether these phosphorus trends were due to changes in streamflow
or changes in other processes (Crawford, Slack, and Hirsch, 1983).
Quantitative results for DDT at a main-stem location near the mouth of
the Yakima River indicate decreases in DDT concentrations for both water and
fish tissue samples. These decreases occurred concurrently with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency ban on DDT application in 1972. For one of
the collecting agencies, DDT concentrations were largest during the snowmelt
and irrigation season. DDT data from the other collecting agency revealed
substantially smaller concentrations as a result of the limited number of
samples collected during the snowmelt and irrigation season.
Results from such a retrospective analysis that includes both
qualitative and quantitative approaches provide valuable insights to where
additional water quality information is needed.
4-8
-------
Water Quality Assessment in the State of Washington
Using the Waterbodv System
Ed Rashin
Washington State Department of Ecology
The Washington State Department of Ecology utilized the EPA's
Waterbody System (WBS) in preparing the 1988 305(b) and 319(a) statewide
water quality assessment reports. The Waterbody System is a computerized
information management system designed for compilation, storage, and
retrieval of water quality assessment information. The WBS is designed to
accommodate summary assessment information, such as designated use support
status and causes and sources of water quality impairment.
Complete assessments on over 370 waterbodies in Washington State are
stored in the WBS, and basic information has been entered on another 1000
designated waterbodies. The assessments are based on information from a
variety of sources within and outside of the agency, including fixed-station
monitoring data, local government and Indian tribe monitoring programs,
intensive survey reports, and hazardous waste site investigation reports.
Uniform criteria were applied to the information gathered to make the 15 or
so determinations required to complete assessments on each waterbody. Use
of the WBS in Washington has allowed a more comprehensive assessment of the
state's surface waters than previously possible. In addition to enhancing
reporting capabilities, WBS has allowed the assessment information to be
stored in a way that is readily updated and accessible to those who need it.
The primary steps involved in implementing the WBS are: careful
designation of waterbodies, development of uniform assessment criteria,
summarization of assessment information on WBS coding forms, data entry, and
data base checks. Once the proper information is entered into WBS and
verified, preparation of summary data reports such as those required for the
statewide water quality assessment reports is readily accomplished. In
addition, the WBS is capable of generating various waterbody lists such as
those required by Sections 303(d) and 304(1) of the revised Clean Water Act.
The WBS facilitates sorting based on waterbody characteristics and
assessment information and is useful in generating specialized reports and
disseminating information. Use of dBaselll Plus enhances the reporting
and data management capabilities of the WBS.
Among the major advantages of the WBS is the fact that one data base
meets several reporting needs, and the data base is readily updated to allow
reporting of current information. The WBS is expected to improve the flow
of assessment information to interested persons and decision-makers within
the Department of Ecology, other agencies, and the general public. Our
future plans for use of the WBS include: the development of customized data
elements to accommodate assessment of groundwater and wetlands and the
storage and use of more existing data, integration with the agency's
geographical information system, and distribution of the WBS data base to
potential users in Department of Ecology field operations and cooperating
agencies.
4-9
-------
Integrated Data Management and Analysis:
Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
Carol Russell
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
The State of Arizona is using a Geographical Information System (GIS)
for evaluation and assessment of nonpoint source pollution impacts. GIS can
be used very effectively in two situations: I) when one has a great deal of
information, GIS can synthesize and summarize the data; and 2) with few
data, some generalizations and projections can be made.
The roots of the geographic information system date back to the mid-
eighteenth century with the development of accurate base maps. The idea of
recording different layers of data on a series of similar base maps was in
use at the time of the Revolutionary War. In fact, a map of the siege of
Yorktown, done by the French cartographer Louis-Alexander Berthier,
contained hinged overlays to show troop movements in the final battle.
Until computers were applied to mapping, all maps had one thing in
common: the data base was a drawing on paper or film. The information was
encoded in the form of points, lines, or areas (vector data). More
recently, with the advent of aerial photography and satellite imagery, the
information is in the form of photographs or magnetic tape. These digital
data are not in the form of points, lines, and areas but are encoded in
picture elements or pixels (cells) in a two dimension matrix also referred
to as raster or grid cell data.
Overlays, in either vector or raster form, of topography, geology, soil
type, and land can be very revealing. These specific-purpose maps are often
referred to as "thematic" maps because they contain information about a
single subject or theme. The thematic maps can be overlaid to visualize
spatial relationships in information. An overlay program in itself can do
no more than just overlaying transparencies, but it allows it to be done
more quickly and more accurately.
GIS can make pretty maps, but it is a very expensive tool just to do
that. In the same way that different aspects of the earth's surface do not
function independently of each other, GIS systems allow data on sources,
pollution concentrations, and health impacts to be linked together. GIS
systems also allow data to be assessed, transformed, and manipulated
interactively. This method of data manipulation can serve as a tool for
studying environmental processes, analyzing the results of trends, or
anticipating the possible results of planning decisions.
For example, in Arizona we plan on using modeling techniques such as
CREAMS or the new SCS watershed model for nonpoint source assessments. The
Agricultural NFS model simulates physical and chemical processes that take
place within a watershed. One advantage is that this model can actually
predict sediment transport and loadings, nutrient transport and loadings,
and surface runoff volume. In Arizona the GIS system has served, and will
serve, as a useful tool in integrated data management and analysis.
4-10
-------
Fish Habitat as an Indicator of Water Quality
Rick Stowell
Nez Perce National Forest
The objective of this presentation is to convey to the audience the
concept of fish habitat as an index of water quality and the health of
designated beneficial uses. The presentation will also address fish habitat
variables used in monitoring for nonpoint source pollution and will discuss
a typical monitoring situation.
A major land management issue in the State of Idaho is the effect of
nonpoint sediment pollution on a major salmon and steelhead fishery in the
Columbia River Basin. The management of the timber resources in Idaho
produces quantities of sediment in excess of the natural condition. The
construction of roads to access this timber accounts for the greatest share
of this excess sediment. A geologic formation called the Idaho Batholith
is highly prone to erosion. When eroded, this material is essentially sand
and easily reaches stream channels and is transported to/through fish
habitat as bedload sediment. Sand bedload deposited in the stream
substrate affects the spawning and rearing life stages of fish. These
effects are cumulative in nature.
Using fish response models developed in Idaho, the Nez Perce National
Forest has established management standards (Best Management Practices) to
ensure protection of the fish resource (the beneficial use of the majority
of stream and rivers on the Forest). How well these practices protect fish
habitat from sediment impacts will be monitored several ways.
Monitoring of management practices first occurs on site (implementation
monitoring). Planned practices for roads and logging are first monitored
during project implementation. This monitoring is used to ensure that the
practice is applied correctly.
The Forest will establish stations to monitor the effectiveness of Best
Management Practices in protecting fish habitat in the streams affected by
management activity. These stations are located at critical reaches
essential to fish production, and each represents at least one of the
habitats affected by sediment. The quality and quantity of habitat, and
fish numbers, will be established at each station before and after
management activity. If change is detected which exceeds the objectives for
the stream, the practice will be modified or replaced. This is referred to
as the Feed Back Loop. The modified practice will then be tested again for
compliance by habitat monitoring.
4-11
-------
5. WORKGROUP SESSIONS
-------
5. WORKGROUP SESSIONS: ISSUE PAPERS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Workgroup #1 on Biomonitorlnq
Workgroup Chair: Susan Davies,
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
* * *
Issue Paper * * *
BACKGROUND
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act and its various amendments
outline the basic framework for restoring and maintaining "the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters" (Section 101(a)).
The Act prescribes two complementary approaches for achieving this
objective: a technology-based approach, which involves national pipe
standards, and a water quality-based approach. The latter approach involves
designating ambient water quality criteria and standards for specific
waterbodies, which then form the basis for regulation of pollutant inputs,
both point and nonpoint, to that system. Essentially three types of
criteria (endpoints) are used in the water quality-based approach:
1) chemical-specific criteria, 2) whole-effluent criteria, and 3) ambient
biological criteria.
In 1984, U.S. EPA published the national "Policy for the Development of
Water Quality-based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants," which
advocated the "use of an integrated strategy of both biological and chemical
methods to address toxic and nonconventional pollutants [from point
sources]." Although this policy included a strong chemical-specific
component and alluded to the potential utility of ambient biological data
for developing appropriate permit limits, the policy's primary purpose was
to clarify and accentuate the role of whole-effluent toxicity testing in the
water quality-based approach. In this regard, the policy has been very
successful.
Although the emphasis in recent years has clearly been on implementing
chemical and toxicity criteria, the use of ambient biological data has also
expanded, though at an understandably slower rate. Without national policy
or guidance, several States have developed their own bioassessment
guidelines for discerning aquatic life use attainment and have used them to
identify impaired waters, prioritize control actions, document
environmental results, and report on water quality status. Certain States,
notably Arkansas, Maine, and Ohio, have even developed comprehensive
biological criteria that have been incorporated into their water quality
standards.
Largely in response to growing interest among its States, EPA Region V
recently drafted a "Strategy for the Use of Instream Biosurvey Data in
Implementing the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Clean Water Act.
This draft statement attempts to articulate the role that biocntena and
ambient biological assessments should play in water quality programs. The
5-1
-------
objective of this workgroup is to consider certain fundamental issues raised
in this document and to discuss the appropriateness of developing a national
policy along similar lines.
GENERAL ISSUES
1. Do ambient bioassessments have enough potential utility to warrant a
national policy supporting their use?
2. Which programs need bioassessments the most?
3. Is a comprehensive policy needed or should individual programs
(monitoring, standards, permits, nonpoint sources, wetlands, marine,
and estuaries) each develop their own?
4. Can technically defensible bioassessments also be cost-effective?
SPECIFIC ISSUES
1. Can bioassessments effectively discriminate point from nonpoint source
impacts? toxic from nontoxic impacts? habitat from water quality
impacts?
2. Can bioassessment methods be sufficiently standardized to be
technically defensible? What would it take?
3. If bioassessment results conflict with chemical and/or toxicity
assessments, which should take precedence? How might a "weight of
evidence" approach be used?
4. How can bioassessments be used in developing wasteload allocations,
chemical criteria, controls for nonpoint sources, or habitat criteria?
* * * Workgroup Report * * *
I. Participation
Approximately 35 attendees in workgroup (mostly "hands-on"
biologists)
13 States (Idaho, Maryland, Maine, North Dakota, Mississippi,
North Carolina, South Carolina, Massachusetts, Texas, District of
Columbia, Georgia, Oregon, and New Jersey)
Four Regional EPA Offices represented (Regions 1, 4, 5, and 10)
EPA - Headquarters Criteria and Standards Division
EPA - Environmental Research Laboratory Corvallis
5-2
-------
Fish and Wildlife Service
t U.S. Geologic Survey
II. Major Conclusions
A. Unanimous workgroup support for issuing National Policy on
biomonitoring
B. Benefits of National Policy
Compel management recognition of the importance of instream
assessment
t Justify allocations of State resources
Justify use of Federal allocations (e.g., 106, 319, 205(j),
Superfund 314)
C. Biosurvey must be integrated into existing programs
III. Uses of Biosurveys
A. Foundation for ambient monitoring programs
B. Problem identification/prioritization
Sedimentation impacts
t Combined sewer overflows
Nonpoint sources
C. Assessments and trends
t 305(b) Report
304(1) Toxics
Nonpoint sources
D. Permitting and Compliance
Site-specific criteria
Wasteload allocation adjustment
Episodic events
IV. Policy Development
A. Ensure opportunity for participation of all States and Regions
(interaction of EPA Headquarters, Regions, and States)
B. Seek consensus of Chicago BioCriteria Workshop recommendations
C. Use Region V Statement of Use of Instream Biosurvev Data as
Strawman Document
5-3
-------
D. Allow opportunity for public comment of Biomonitoring Policy
(Federal Register)
V. Areas of Concern
How clean is clean?
Avoid initiating another swing between water quality-based and
effluent-based management.
Will this policy lead to substantial site-specific revision of
criteria?
5-4
-------
Workgroup #2 on Trend Monitoring
Workgroup Chair: Robert E. Magnien
Maryland Department of the Environment
* * * Issue Paper
* * *
BACKGROUND
This issue paper represents my attempt to develop a scope for the
trend monitoring workgroup session so that it can meet its major objectives
and result in specific recommendations during the limited time frame
allotted. The suggestions I have presented below to achieve the objectives
are merely that - suggestions. The first point of discussion in the
workgroup should be to evaluate and modify, if necessary, what I have
written and then move on. I look forward to hearing your ideas at the
workgroup meeting. - REM
SPECIFIC ISSUES
EPA, in conjunction with the States, is currently in the process of
reevaluating its surface water monitoring activities. This requires a
careful examination of what is expected and achievable from monitoring
programs. Trend detection is often identified as one of the principal
objectives of water quality monitoring programs. This workgroup, as stated
in the symposium agenda, will examine the question "To what extent, and to
fulfill what objectives, should States and EPA document trends in water
quality?". In attempting to answer the question, the group will focus on
developing specific reasons and benefits, if any, for including detection of
trend as one of the objectives for water quality monitoring programs. If
time permits, the group may also discuss, in a general sense, the attainment
of trend detection with the current level of resources and how trend
detection objectives might fit into an overall water quality monitoring
strategy.
A closer examination of the term "trend" is necessary to define the
workgroup's scope. A strict definition of temporal trends usually indicates
a directional type of change occurring in a consistent manner through time.
Trend, however, in the context of water cjality monitoring programs, is
often used more loosely to include any "cnanges" in the system. For the
purposes of this workgroup, I suggest that we adopt this broader definition
and define the scope to include "trends or changes" through time.
5-5
-------
In further examining the scope of this workgroup, there are spatial
and temporal scales to consider as well as the numerous variables that may
be measured. In terms of the spatial scales, these could range from a small
zone of influence around a discharge to a nationwide perspective. To limit
the scope of the workgroup to a manageable level, I would suggest that the
upper bound of the spatial scale be confined to a basin-wide or statewide
level. I don't believe much will be lost by taking this approach since the
larger, nationwide perspective usually relies on the compilation of
information developed on smaller spatial scales. The temporal scales for
detecting trends or changes in waterbodies are usually thought of as several
years or decades. This seems to be a reasonable time frame within which to
work. As far as the variables to include, I would suggest taking a rather
broad perspective to include physical, chemical and biological variables
that would constitute indicators of water quality. I see the
recommendations coming out of this workgroup as being somewhat generic to
water quality monitoring programs. A more detailed evaluation than is
possible at this workgroup session would be needed to rigorously define the
selection of variables to meet the specific objectives of a particular
monitoring effort. Nevertheless, it might be valuable to include in each
workgroup recommendation a mention of the categories of variables that it
would apply to.
Finally, I believe it might facilitate the development of
recommendations if I were to list, as a starting point, objectives for a few
categories of monitoring to detect trends or changes:
1. To document the response of a waterbody due to specific point or
nonpoint controls implemented over a period of time or with a
single event. The single event scenario, such as an upgrade in
the treatment of sewage, would include what is commonly termed the
"before and after" study. This is a large and important category
that actually could be broken down into several, more limited
objectives.
2. To identify changes in water quality that would reveal
environmental problems requiring further study or action.
3. To quantify the relationship between a certain level of pollution
control and the degree of change in the system. This differs from
I, above, in that a more rigorous level of data collection and
analysis is required and the results might be used to predict the
response to additional controls in that system or in other similar
systems.
4. To better understand how an aquatic system responds through time
to a lessening or worsening of an impact.
These preliminary objectives would need to be evaluated at the
workgroup meeting. The resulting objectives could then be fleshed-out with
more rationale and other supporting information. This information could
then be used as the workgroup formulates its recommendations.
5-6
-------
* * * Workgroup Report * * *
The workgroup on trend monitoring concentrated on achieving a strong
definition and specific objectives for "trend monitoring". It was
recognized that these fundamentals needed to be established before a
reevaluation of monitoring programs and their priorities could proceed. The
following definition of trend monitoring was agreed to by the workgroup
participants:
Definition: A program to determine changes in water quality, both
short and long term.
Having achieved a working definition, the group proceeded to discuss
the objectives for conducting trend monitoring of surface water quality.
This discussion led to the formulation of two fundamental types of
objectives for trend monitoring:
Objective 1: Measure the water quality response to management
actions.
Objective 2: Provide surveillance to guide development of water
quality management strategies.
Most of the remaining discussion centered on identifying specific uses
of monitoring information within the two categories of objectives. This
served to test the generality and sufficiency of the two stated objectives.
A list of these identified uses which are not meant to be exhaustive or in
priority order are presented below.
Objective 1 - Uses:
1. Determine effectiveness of both point and nonpoint source
pollution control programs.
2. Measure response to hydrologic modifications.
3. Determine whether water quality standards and habitat criteria
have been attained.
4. Validate models by confirming predictions.
5. Determine effectiveness of regulation (use limits or bans) of
toxicants.
6. Document water quality in support of permit development and
enforcement.
7. Rank and prioritize waterbodies in response to statutory
requirements.
8. Judge the effectiveness of Superfund actions.
9. Evaluate water quality response to biological resource management.
5-7
-------
Objective 2 - Uses:
1. Early warning system (temporal extrapolation).
2. Spatial extrapolation to judge regional impacts.
3. Identify public health concerns (e.g., bacteriological
contamination).
4. Establish baseline from which to detect trends.
5. Track potential impacts of land use modification and/or population
changes.
6. Determine current status of waterbodies as a secondary benefit of
a trend detection program.
7. Quantify natural variability (short term, long term, catastrophic)
to permit identification of anthropogenic effects.
8. Measure trend in irretrievable impacts (e.g., acid mine drainage)
and environmental catastrophes.
9. Assess habitat viability.
10. Meet commitments of interstate/international commitments and
compacts.
In summary, the workgroup established a number of recommendations that
it would like to see carried forward in future discussions involving the
evaluation of surface water monitoring activities.
Recommendations:
1. Trend monitoring is a necessary component of most surface water
quality monitoring programs.
2. Trend monitoring should be accompanied by defined objectives.
3. States should work together with EPA in:
a. setting priorities for trend monitoring.
b. setting priorities for trend monitoring vs. other objectives.
c. the process of moving from objectives into the design phase of
future monitoring efforts.
4. Guidance documents should be prepared to provide technical
assistance and consistency in monitoring programs.
5-8
-------
Workgroup #3 on Assessment Criteria/Assessment Approaches
Workgroup Chair: Ben Eusebio
U.S. EPA Region X
* * *
Issue Paper * * *
BACKGROUND
The EPA report, Surface Water Monitoring; A Framework for Change.
responding to recurring criticisms of the water quality assessment process,
recommends that EPA "issue guidance on efficacious approaches to
characterization, problem identification and trend assessment." Others
concur that guidance is needed to improve the ability of the assessment
process to provide for the timely identification of emerging problems, to
document the environmental results of pollution control efforts, and to
support other management needs.
EPA is committed to developing monitoring and assessment guidance to
meet State needs. EPA should not, and will not, however, develop guidance
in a vacuum. States must identify what kinds of guidance would be of
greatest use and what questions should be addressed in their development.
One or more study proposals (related to Specific Issues 1 and 3 below) will
be presented during this session.
The objective of this workgroup is to arrive at recommendations on what
type of guidance States need in the area of assessment methods, monitoring
program guidance, and assessment criteria. It is beyond the scope of this
half-day session to arrive at specific assessment directions. The purpose
here will be to "brainstorm" a list of concerns we would like to see
addressed in the near future. EPA staff, with contractor assistance and
direction from multi-agency workgroups, will then begin to develop the
guidance recommended here.
Workgroup participants should note that the focus of this group will be
to develop recommendations for technical and program guidance needed to
improve the assessment process. Other workgroups will address related
issues. Workgroup #5 participants will develop recommendations on
priorities among assessment objectives and initiatives for the 1990 and 1992
Section 305(b) reports. Workgroup #2 participants will examine the role of
trend assessments in State and Federal monitoring programs.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
1. Assessment Methods
The methods used to conduct a water quality assessment should be based
on current and future management objectives, the assessor's resources and
capabilities, and other factors. Any guidance document should, to the
extent practicable, take these factors into account along with scientific
and statistical considerations that provide the basis for most guidance.
5-9
-------
The workgroup is asked to develop recommendations on whether guidance is
needed to:
t conduct trend assessments;
t conduct biological surveys;
inform States of the range of assessment methods currently in use;
their applicability in meeting specific monitoring objectives;
their advantages, disadvantages, and cost;
9 define data quality objectives and statistical standards for
"monitoring-level" and "evaluation-level" assessments.
If the workgroup recommends that guidance be developed, how should it be
structured and what factors should receive emphasis?
2. State Monitoring Program Guidance
The report Surface Water Monitoring; A Framework for Change recommends
that States take stock of their surface water monitoring programs, identify
their weaknesses, and outline their goals for the next five years
(Recommendation la). On the first day of the symposium, three States will
discuss how they have restructured their programs. One proposal is for EPA
and States to develop comprehensive State monitoring program guidance that
would be based upon studies and discussions underway or planned.
Among the issues to discuss are:
whether the need and willingness exists among States to reexamine
the structure of their monitoring programs and whether a guidance
document would be useful;
what factors (e.g., future management needs, resource availability,
roles of chemical and biological monitoring, site and parameter
selection, site rotation, cost-effectiveness, State-specific vs.
national factors and objectives) should be considered in such a
guidance document?
3. Assessment Criteria
The 1988 Section 305(b) guidelines encourage the use of all levels and
kinds of water quality information in classifying use-support status, but
guidance on how this information should be applied is limited to a few
paragraphs and a one-page "figure." Is guidance needed to provide more
detailed direction on water status classification? If so, where is guidance
needed most?
Some ideas here include:
reviewing current practices and developing recommendations for data
analyses to determine use-support status using water column
chemistry data;
5-10
-------
assigning different levels of "confidence" to use-support status
according to the adequacy of the monitoring data. For example,
use-support (fully, partially, not meeting uses) could be described
as "confirmed" or "tentative" depending on whether or not the data
meets certain, well-defined statistical standards;
providing clearer definitions and specific examples of waters where
uses are "threatened" or "suspected";
0 providing guidance on determining use-support using data (e.g.,
sediment contamination, habitat.and biotic conditions) that cannot
be directly related to numeric water quality criteria;
t giving specific direction on how to apply "evaluative" information
(e.g., land use and source information, anecdotal statements,
qualitative observations) in a waterbody assessment.
4. National Monitoring Programs (to be discussed if time permits)
National monitoring programs (e.g., Aquatic Life, Dioxin,
Bioaccumulat-:on, and Acid Rain Surveys) have been oriented towards meeting
issue-specific national assessment objectives. There has been interest in
recent years in developing massive networks to assess national water quality
status and trends. Examples include the U.S. Geological Survey's National
Ambient Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program, and the EPA Office of
Research and Development's Ecological Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP).
0 How useful and cost-effective are uniform, statistically designed,
national surveys in assessing water quality?
0 Who should be involved in the original selection and design of
national surveys? Because State and Regional monitoring staff are
often asked to support sample collection and coordination efforts
and because State agency managers and planners would like to make
maximum use of the results, shouldn't they provide input early in
the process?
0 Should there be more written direction to ensure that parameters,
data quality objectives, and statistical standards match the
management objectives of the study?
* * *
Workgroup Report
* * *
Four issues were addressed:
1. Assessment Methods
2. State Monitoring Program Guidance
3. Assessment Criteria
4. National Monitoring Programs
5-11
-------
The following four sections summarize the workgroup's findings and
recommendations for each issue. The group attempted to identify specific
issues needing attention, products that would address each identified issue,
and whether EPA should give high, medium, or low priority to preparation of
each product.
Issue 1: Assessment Methods
The workgroup first discussed the need for clear definitions. Several
members of the group felt that there was a need to:
more clearly interpret the Clean Water Act's fishable/swimmable
goal;
develop consistent definitions of:
trends
use-attainability
biological integrity
threatened and full protection (need consistency between 305(b)
and WQS)
natural conditions.
The workgroup specifically recommended that one or more documents be
developed to address the following three topics.
0 The group gave high priority to interpreting and clarifying Clean
Water Act and program management goals;
The group gave high/medium priority to proceeding with EPA's plan
to study the capability of existing and emerging monitoring methods
to meet specific monitoring program objectives; and
0 The group also recommended that guidance be developed on the use of
historic data (e.g., QA, other agencies' data).
Issue 2: State Monitoring Program Guidance
State participants were asked to assess the need for programmatic
guidance that would assist States in clarifying their objectives and
evaluating how well their programs meet their objectives. They were also
asked what factors should be considered in such guidance.
There was a consensus that the 1976 Basic Water Monitoring Program be
updated. The workgroup suggested that the guidance articulate minimum
"requirements" but permit maximum flexibility for States to facilitate its
implementation. This effort was given a high priority.
5-12
-------
Issue 3: Assessment Criteria
Two needs were identified:
1. The workgroup recommended that EPA assist States in developing
integrated, holistic assessment criteria for evaluating the
fishable/swimmable and beneficial use attainment of all of their
surface waters (rivers, lakes, estuaries, wetlands). The criteria
would incorporate information on the chemical and biological
condition of the water and would account for site-specific
differences in habitat. Guidance would be provided on how to
resolve conflicting indications of use-attainment. This effort was
given a high priority.
The guidance would include information on assessment methodologies
appropriate to the specified criteria. A range of acceptable
methodologies would be presented, allowing States to select methods
in keeping with their resource constraints.
2. The group discussed EPA's plan to develop guidance on making use-
support decisions from chemical water column data. The guidance
will discuss ways to incorporate consideration of duration and
frequency of criteria exceedences into the decision-making process.
The workgroup gave this project a low priority and suggested that
the guidance document also address Data Quality Objectives.
Issue 4: National Monitoring Programs
The workgroup agreed that there was a need for national and regional
studies. "Cross-state issues", for example, were clearly seen to call for a
regional or national approach. The group emphasized, however, that States
and Regions should be involved in planning national studies early in their
development.
5-13
-------
Workgroup #4 on Improving Access and Use of Existing Data
Workgroup Chair: Thomas Holloway,
U.S. EPA Region VII
* * *
Issue Paper * * *
BACKGROUND
One of the major findings of a recent study of surface water monitoring
programs is that water quality data are not being used in the management of
programs. EPA has attempted to develop and provide to the States data
management systems with evidently less than satisfactory results. This
workgroup should focus on the "disconnect" between management needs and data
system outputs, EPA's role in the broad context of program implementation,
and priorities for specific actions recognizing that resources are limited.
SPECIFIC ISSUES
1. What can we conclude about which forms of data analysis and output are
needed to support management decisions?
2. What data management activities are EPA required to undertake by
statute, regulation, or agreement? What data management activities
should EPA conduct to take advantage of economy of scale and national
implementation?
The following are only potential activities the group might consider:
t data repository and large scale analysis service prior to
downloading for final analyses;
maintaining the integrity of nationally important data bases like
location data (Reach, etc.); and
t providing full analytical services as a software company.
3. What lessons can be learned from past efforts to improve the use of
data?
4. What additional specific recommendations can be developed? What
priorities should be recommended?
As a starting point for discussion, the following position paper was
prepared with input from EPA Region VIII and EPA Headquarters. The
discussions at the workgroup meeting are summarized at the end of the
position paper.
5-14
-------
POSITION PAPER
EPA and State agencies have spent significant portions of their budgets
to collect vast amounts of environmental monitoring data, which exist in
diverse locations in electronic and hard copy formats. However, because
those data are often difficult to access, analyze and interpret, they are
not always well utilized to support environmental management decisions. The
result, which is by no means unique to EPA, has been described by Ward,
Loftis, and McBride as the "Data Rich, Information Poor Syndrome"
(Environmental Management 10:291-297, 1986).
The mismatch between water monitoring and management decisions has been
cited in several studies, including reports by the General Accounting
Office ("Better Monitoring Techniques are Needed to Assess the Quality of
Rivers and Streams", 1981), the EPA Office of Water ("Improving Surface
Water Monitoring for Decision-Making: A Framework for Change", 1987), and
the EPA Science Advisory Board ("Draft Report of the Surface Water
Monitoring Subcommittee Environmental Transport and Fate Committee", 1987),
Similar mismatches exist for other media. Those mismatches result in
ineffective use of time, money and effort.
EPA has developed significant capabilities for data handling, data
analysis and information presentation which could help Program Divisions
make better management decisions by extracting pertinent information from
monitoring data. However, many of those capabilities are not widely known
or used.
This position paper presents in draft form a strategy by which the
agency can shift from an "Information Poor" to an "Information Adequate"
condition. It addresses specifically four of the recommendations made in
the SAB report (1987).
That analysts be employed to use data management systems to
aggregate, analyze and summarize scientific data for use by Agency
decision makers to identify and prioritize environmental problems.
That computerized data management systems be developed which
facilitate the rapid and efficient storage, sorting, assessment and
analysis of scientific data.
That the storage and use of environmental data be coordinated
across media and between EPA, other Federal and State agencies.
That emphasis be placed on the importance of precisely defining the
purpose (objectives) of a monitoring program before design and
implementation begin.
Strategy Overview
The strategy includes a short-term component and a longer term
component:
0 Optimize access to and use of existing data.
5-15
-------
Optimize future data collection and data use by carefully
considering diverse information needs prior to data collection.
Strategy Outline
A. Optimize access to and use of existing data:
Over 300 data bases are available Agency-wide to provide multi-media
environmental, political, geographical and other data. Information
Resource Management (IRM) Inventories, which describe the capabilities of
each existing Data Base, are available on Regional and Agency-wide levels.
The data in these data bases could provide environmental management
information, without new data collection efforts, if access and analysis
capabilities can be improved. At the same time, each data base and each
integration software effort has significant costs for planning, development
and maintenance. The process of optimizing access and use will require
choices among good options to ensure that maximum useful information is
obtained from the limited resources available. The strategy proposed for
discussion is to establish small work groups which will:
0 Survey the information content, by use, of the data bases in IRM.
Prioritize those data bases by potential for impacting
environmental management decisions and by potential for use by
technical personnel.
Explore ways to integrate those data bases which have the highest
priority and whose data are most compatible. That exploration would
be closely coordinated with the Steering Committee on Water Quality
Data Systems.
t Explore procedures for downloading and uploading data between PC's
and mainframes. That exploration would be closely coordinated with
the Steering Committee for Water Quality Data Systems. Initial
efforts are underway in the STORET Enhancement Program of the
Office of Groundwater and OIRM.
0 Assemble examples of data integration, data analysis and data
interpretation techniques, which meet the management and technical
needs identified earlier, with emphasis on graphical techniques.
Develop simple, clear documentation of how those examples were
produced.
Present workshop(s) for Program Offices, States and Regional
Offices, emphasizing the types of data analysis which could help
them and the techniques for doing those analyses.
Emphasize interpretive reports of monitoring studies, as opposed to
the data summaries.
Explore capabilities of Geographic Information Systems and their
application to environmental management decisions.
5-16
-------
t Recommend other specific actions which the Office of Water, the
Regions and the States can take as a group or individually to
optimize the use of existing data. These recommendations may
include staffing, hardware and software.
B. Optimize both the future collection and use of scientific data by
carefully considering diverse information needs prior to data collection,
and by coordinating monitoring efforts among different organizations.
The objectives for most water monitoring studies have been only vaguely
defined. As a result, the data collected have often failed to address the
real questions which managers need answered (Ward, 1985). A similar
situation holds for other media. Therefore, within-program coordination is
essential to effective monitoring.
Air, water, RCRA and Superfund programs may have interests in the same
geographic area, as would other Federal agencies. Multiple monitoring
efforts may be conducted in the same place by different programs and
agencies. Coordination between those groups would improve the cost-
effectiveness of monitoring.
Coordination within and between programs and agencies is difficult and
should be recognized as a long-term effort. The following strategy is
proposed:
Encourage long-range planning of monitoring activities in all media.
Establish communication between programs and agencies to coordinate
monitoring objectives and efforts. Target specific data for sharing
between organizations and work with those organizations to implement
that data sharing.
Encourage multi-purpose data collection efforts to maximize
information content while minimizing expenses.
t Identify specific primary and secondary uses of data prior to data
collection.
t Ensure that statistical design criteria; network design; and
procedures for sampling, preservation, laboratory analysis, quality
control, data management, data analysis and information reporting
are documented prior to sampling.
Explore emerging technologies (such as artificial intelligence,
remote sensing, laser disks, etc.) as a means to enhance the
planning, collection, interpretation and presentation of monitoring
studies.
* * *
Workgroup Report
* * *
The Workgroup on Improving Access and Use of Existing Data focused on
the mismatch between the information needed in order to make the best
5-17
-------
environmental management decisions and the current outputs from existing
data systems (including paper files). That mismatch has been described by
Ward, et al. (1986). The discussion centered around three questions:
1. What information do managers need to make good decisions?
2. What barriers keep us from using the existing data to provide that
information?
3. How can those barriers be removed or reduced?
The group recognized that managers need information on problems,
priorities and costs, and that simple and concise presentations of that
information are more effective (and demonstrate a better understanding of
the problems) than complex presentations.
The Workgroup directs the following recommendations (arranged in
descending priority order) to the Water Quality Data Systems Steering
Committee:
1. EPA should maintain national data bases which are easy to use,
which maintain current data, which use current technology, and
which provide for easy upload/download from/to personal computers.
Recognizing the extraordinary power available at minimal prices in
the growing decentralized/P.C. environment, EPA will need to
provide strong leadership to ensure that the national systems meet
State needs (and that the States therefore have a strong incentive
to use the national systems). This recommendation will take time
to implement and is intended as long-term advice to set a direction
for EPA information processing development.
2. EPA should actively "market" existing data systems. Those systems
have numerous capabilities which can meet information needs.
However, many managers do not know about those capabilities or how
to use them. We need to do a better job of communicating to them
the value which existing systems provide.
3. EPA should proceed with development of a Statement of Work for Data
Systems Modernization. Fourth-generation computer technology now
available commercially provides capabilities for much easier data
analysis and display than do current EPA systems. Future EPA data
systems should make full use of those capabilities. The Workgroup
recognizes that the system modernization process will take time and
intends this as a long-term recommendation.
4. While the Data Systems Modernization is being planned, EPA should
finish and maintain the General Query Software to provide data
integration capabilities for existing systems. Under that
software, a user should be able to access data from multiple data
bases (STORET, PCS, GICS, etc.) at a single terminal session
without having to learn different systems for logging onto and
accessing data from those individual data bases.
5-18
-------
5. EPA should develop mandatory data quality labeling requirements for
the data to be stored in its data systems so that users will know
the quality of the data they use for management decisions.
6. EPA should establish a clearing-house for software developed by
States and Regions. Talented people working for those
organizations have developed programs for water quality assessment,
data analysis, upload/download of data, etc., which could be useful
to other Regions and States. The clearing-house would make
information about those programs available to a wide audience.
7. EPA should provide resources to keep up with developing technology.
Although the unit cost of computing capability is dropping rapidly,
the fast pace of improvements in computer technology quickly makes
equipment obsolete. Therefore, continuing investment in new
hardware and software is necessary.
8. EPA should provide funds for State training and use of the National
Computer Center.
5-19
-------
Workgroup 15 on Future Assessments/National Reporting
Workgroup Chair: Bruce Newton
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
* * * Issue Paper * * *
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this paper is to define the issues to be discussed during
the workgroup session. Because we will have approximately three hours to
discuss the issues and outline a statement, it is important that we limit
the scope of the issues we consider. I welcome comments and opportunities
to discuss the issues and plans for the session. Regardless of your
workgroup preference, please feel free to call me at (202 or FTS) 382-7074.
GENERAL FOCUS
The broad goals of this workgroup are twofold. First, we should look at
the kind of assessments that will be important in the future, suggest
priorities, and suggest how priorities should be implemented. For this
question we should specifically consider the Water Quality Act assessments
(Sections 314, 319, and 304(1)). Second, we should examine the national
reporting process for communicating water quality status and program
results to Congress and the public and suggest improvements.
BACKGROUND
The Water Quality Act of 1987 represents an attempt by Congress to
correct a perceived deficiency in the water quality program. The perceived
deficiency is that we (EPA and the States) don't know where the problems are
or, if we do, are unwilling to tell the public or address the problems. The
Congressional response was to require statutory "assessments that call for
some nine specific lists of waters."
Prompted by these new statutory requirements and a major internal study
of monitoring, EPA and the States are beginning to reexamine surface water
monitoring activities. No one needs to be reminded that the resources
available for monitoring activities are insufficient to support all possible
monitoring objectives. Those responsible for monitoring must assess their
present and future needs, identify their priorities, and direct their
limited resources to achieving their most important objectives.
In this era of constant or declining budgets, water quality programs
need to develop and maintain public support. Program managers need to
successfully communicate water quality information to the public to
demonstrate results and accountability. EPA and the States need to develop
a consensus on how to make necessary improvements in reporting and
communicating with the public.
5-20
-------
SPECIFIC ISSUES
A. Future Assessments
1. How do we characterize the current emphasis of the monitoring/
assessment program? What objectives will be important in the
future?
The following are suggested as possible objectives which monitoring
could be designed to support:
determine trends in water quality;
enhance public understanding and support for water quality
programs;
identify impaired/threatened waters;
evaluate the effectiveness of control measures;
identify emerging problems;
characterize natural resources; and
provide data needed to implement controls.
2. What specific steps do we recommend EPA and the States take to
ensure that future assessment needs are met?
3. Should we undertake a major comparative assessment to mark the 20th
anniversary of the FWPCA in 1992? How should it be accomplished?
Reporting and Communication
1. How can we make the reporting process more effective and credible?
2. What are the major problems in national reporting?
3. On which facets should we concentrate to improve national reporting?
The following are suggestions:
better assess public health risk;
prepare inventories or assessments or document threats to
ecological resources;
document trends over time;
attempt to resolve inconsistencies in total waters definitions;
increase uniformity in use support decisions;
assess status of specific waters (impairment causes and
sources);
evaluate program effectiveness; and
increase coverage (waters assessed).
* * * Workgroup Report * * *
The composition of the workgroup was largely State managers of
monitoring programs. We spent the first hour discussing what the various
objectives of monitoring are and the best ways to accomplish them. This
discussion turned out to be very useful to achieving a common understanding
5-21
-------
of what Is meant by the various terms for objectives (e.g., trend monitoring
vs. problem identification). The discussion also provided a wealth of
information based on the experiences of the workgroup members.
After we achieved a common understanding of terms, we conducted an
exercise to rank how we perceived the current emphasis among the various
objectives and how we thought the emphasis should be placed in the future to
meet program needs. The ranking was done by voting. The results are
presented in the following chart (emphasis rank is in descending order):
PROGRAM EMPHASIS
Currently In the Future
ID Waters ID Waters
Controls Development Evaluate Controls
Assess Trends Controls Development
Evaluate Controls Assess Trends
Characterize Ecological Develop Public Support
Resources Characterize Ecological
Develop Public Support Resources
An explanation or discussion for each of the objectives follow below.
The discussion is by the order of the ranking for future program emphasis.
ID Waters - This objective was expanded to include identifying emerging
problems and developing information for targeting (in addition to
identifying impaired and threatened waters). This continues as top
priority.
Evaluating Controls - This was narrowly defined as evaluating specific
control actions (not broad-based trends). The objective was considered to
include developing and assessing new control techniques. It was strongly
felt that this objective cannot be met through a broad-based program design
(or "network") but requires carefully designed studies. This was second
priority (and moved up from the "current" ranking) because we need to show
our efforts are working, we need to address new problems with relatively
untested control techniques (e.g., NPS controls), and we need to justify
societal costs of controls.
Supporting Controls Development - Although this is a high priority
(because our business is regulation), the workgroup felt it must be kept in
perspective. This objective should not dominate the entire program.
Trend Assessment - This was defined as measuring broad-based changes
(e.g., on a Statewide basis). Much discussion centered on this topic. A
distribution was drawn between the "standard" approach of fixed station
networks routinely sampled for physical/chemical characteristics and other
approaches such as infrequently repeated intensive surveys and
habitat/biology characteristics. Workgroup members were generally very
negative about the value of the standard approach. Although a high program
priority in the past and currently for many States, the State workgroup
members had concluded that the data generated was of little value either for
5-22
-------
assessing trends or for any other program use. Most had cut back their
efforts on fixed station data collection. One State had spent several work
years on data analysis and concluded that trends could only be discerned for
sediment and nutrients. The workgroup felt that EPA should examine other
approaches to determining trends in water quality.
Enhancing Public Knowledge and Support - This is included because this
could be an objective for monitoring. As funding becomes more scarce,
public support in State Legislatures can be important. The workgroup felt
that, although this objective is important, it should not be a major item in
the program.
Characterizing Ecological Resources - This was included because recent
Congressional pressure and the interest of the EPA Administrator have
focused on the status of ecological resources. Although not a major
priority in and of itself, the workgroup felt this was somewhat connected to
identification of waters.
We next addressed the specific questions contained in the issue paper.
For each question, the group formulated a statement or list of
recommendations as outlined below.
A. Recommendations for EPA to ensure that future assessment needs are met:
1. Develop guidance on monitoring program design, data analysis, and
NPS designs.
2. Provide coordination and technology transfer
a. More national meetings like this one
b. Regional meetings (bring in experts)
c. Profile State programs and distribute
d. Keep up newsletter.
3. Increase ESD technical support.
4. Take a more active role in interagency and inter-State
communication.
5. Provide flexibility on SPMS commitments through SCWS process.
6. Support shifting monitoring responsibilities to "users".
B Should we do a major comparative assessment to mark the 20th anniversary
of the FWPCA in 1992?
The workgroup felt that a detailed analytical assessment would be a
waste of time because nothing is comparable between then and now (the
problems have changed, the data collected, and the methods used have
changed, etc.). If anything is to be done, the group recommended basing it
on qualitative information focused on regional summaries.
5-23
-------
C. How can we make reporting and communication more effective?
1. Reporting between monitoring personnel and management:
the analyst needs to understand managers needs;
all reports must have interpretation, recommendations, and
implications of recommendations;
need to use graphics and maps; and
more PC's are needed to support making better reports.
2. National reporting through the 305(b) process:
increase uniformity in use support decisions;
provide more assistance in assessing health risk;
resolve inconsistencies in total waters definitions; and
increase coverage (make use of other agencies).
5-24
-------
Workgroup #6 on Ambient Discharger Monitoring
Workgroup Chair: Carol Hudson Jones,
U.S. EPA Office of Water Enforcement and Permits
* * * Issue Paper * * *
BACKGROUND
This issue paper is designed to serve as a discussion guide for a work
group meeting at the Surface Water Monitoring Symposium June 1-3, 1988. It
covers key issues surrounding a draft feasibility study on Requiring
Permittees to Conduct Ambient Monitoring. EPA is seeking comment and
discussion of these key issues to be incorporated as appropriate into the
final report.
The need for the report arose from a major study EPA initiated in 1985
to determine where the Agency's surface water monitoring program should be
heading to meet the information needs of the 1990's. The study resulted in
the issuance of a report in 1987, "Surface Water Monitoring: A Framework
for Change". One of the six recommendations in the report was to conduct a
feasibility study on requiring NPDES permittees to conduct ambient
monitoring.
The following is based on a draft feasibility study written by EPA's
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits. There are two major questions:
1) Should permittees conduct ambient monitoring? and 2) Should permittees
pay permit fees to fund ambient monitoring? The following discussion leads
the reader through the major issues.
Whv Do Regions/States Need Ambient Monitoring?
The major uses of ambient monitoring data include to:
revise water quality standards;
assess whether water quality standards are met;
develop permits;
assess the effect of a discharge;
conduct water quality trend analyses;
develop lists of impaired waters for 304(1) including determining
whether additional toxics controls are needed;
develop 305(b) reports; and
verify 301(h) variances.
Where Do We Need Additional Ambient Monitoring Most?
What are the most critical areas of monitoring which are needed? toxics
monitoring for 304(1) assessments? etc. For which of the uses listed above
is there currently a significant need for data?
5-25
-------
ISSUE 1: SHOULD PERMITTEES CONDUCT AMBIENT MONITORING?
What Types of Honltorlno Could the Permittee Conduct?
Ambient monitoring can vary from simple temperature readings to whole
effluent toxicity monitoring and biosurveys. Some monitoring requires
technical expertise and judgment while other types are more straight
forward. Are permittees technically capable of conducting ambient
monitoring? What types? Is there sufficient laboratory capacity to conduct
increased analyses? Would the uncertainty in the quality of the data render
it useless?
Recommendation:
Monitoring by permittees should generally be simple and straight forward
(including some types of toxics monitoring); complex types of monitoring and
those which require significant judgment cannot be accurately conducted by
the great majority of permittees. Sufficient guidance should be supplied
and conditions established to ensure the quality of the data.
What Are the Pros and Cons of Permittee Conducted Monitoring?
Depending on the type and purpose for which the monitoring is conducted,
it can be used to:
Pros:
identify and/or characterize water quality problems
help identify program priorities
measure the effect of the program on water quality
reduce the cost to the agency of monitoring
fill gaps in monitoring data
Cons:
Costs/Impact of Implementation
a increases cost to permittee
increases reporting/paperwork burden to permittee
increases burden on agencies to implement, manage data, enforce,
etc.
Permitting
0 slows the process if permittees request hearings/appeals
Enforcement
cannot enforce permit based on ambient monitoring
0 would we enforce these monitoring requirements? impose penalties for
violations? etc.
5-26
-------
Data Quality and Use
data may be of poor and unknown quality
may be insufficient lab capacity
t data may be biased, inaccurate to favor the permittee
t are we prepared to handle and use the additional data?
What is the Feasibility of Requiring Permittees to Conduct Ambient
Monitoring?
EPA believes it has the authority under Section 308 of the Clean Water
Act to require permittees to conduct ambient monitoring although permittees
may challenge the requirement especially if monitoring appears unrelated to
their discharge and/or it imposes a large burden.
Recommendations:
1. It is appropriate for permittees to conduct ambient monitoring. The
focus of these activities should include:
t to develop a permit (waste load allocations, permit limits, etc.);
to assess the impact of the discharge on the receiving waters;
to determine whether the receiving water should be listed as
"impaired" under 304(1) including determining whether additional
toxic controls are needed; and
to verify 301(h) permits.
2. EPA should develop policy and guidance, with State participation, on
permittee conducted ambient monitoring, and to provide details on the
extent of application (i.e., in all cases, only for groups of
permittees or a case-by-case basis).
3. Permittees should generally be required to conduct simple, straight-
forward monitoring as many types of monitoring are very complex,
expensive and/or require great amounts of skill and judgment to design
and implement the monitoring. Complex monitoring may be required in
cases where the permittee has the technical ability to competently
conduct highly complex types of monitoring.
Related Discussion Issues
1. Should permittees be required to conduct ambient monitoring? Should it
be limited to certain applications? Are the uses listed above
appropriate reasons to require monitoring? Why are States currently
requiring this (where done)?
2. Is permittee monitoring for the purpose of assessing the impact of the
discharge on the receiving water inappropriate as we already certify
that all permits ensure water quality standards are met?
3 Should permittees be required to conduct ambient monitoring or should
permittees be encouraged outside of the permit to conduct it, especially
where the permittee has an incentive to do this?
5-27
-------
4. Will the resources saved through permittee monitoring outbalance the
resources required to impose and implement the conditions? Should they?
5. How can the quality of the monitoring data be ensured if conducted by
permittees?
6. What types of experiences have States had in requiring permittees to
conduct ambient monitoring?
7. If permittees should be required to conduct ambient monitoring, what
should EPA's role be? Should EPA require States and Regions to
incorporate this into permits? Should EPA leave implementation up to
individual Regions and States?
8. Should EPA focus implementation on certain types of permittees? e.g.,
those on "suspected" impaired water bodies according to 304(1)?
geographic areas? allow States and Regions to conduct on a case-by-case
basis?
9. Where should this ambient monitoring data be stored? in STORET? PCS?
left up to Regions and States? Do we need a link to enforcement systems
to track any nonreporting?
ISSUE 2: SHOULD PERMITTEES PAY FEES TO FUND AMBIENT MONITORING?
An EPA Task Force on Fees recently recommended that requiring fees for
delegated programs not be pursued until the many issues surrounding the
impact on state programs could be resolved.
According to EPA's Office of General Counsel, EPA has general authority
to impose fees, but would require statutory changes to retain the fees for
any purpose, including for ambient monitoring.
What role should EPA play in implementing permit fees to fund ambient
monitoring? Should EPA pursue federal legislation to allow imposition of
permit fees to fund monitoring? Should EPA encourage/not encourage/provide
technical assistance to States to obtain this authority, etc.?
Related Discussion Issues
t What impact would a federal fee program have on delegated States? What
are the equity issues if state and federal fees are different?
To what extent are States already using fees to fund ambient monitoring?
What has been the result?
t To what extent are States using penalties collected in enforcement
actions to fund ambient monitoring? Should EPA encourage States to
develop this type of authority?
t If fees were used, how would fees be calculated? take national costs
and divide by number of permittees participating? based on type of
permit? based on monitoring needs by State?
5-28
-------
Should fees be imposed for all permittees, a subset based on type of
permit, geographic location, etc.?
How can fees be used to ensure that staff to conduct work are available?
(Collection of fees does not mean that FTE are available or that skilled
staff are available to conduct the monitoring.)
What would an agency do if fees were not paid? refuse the permit,
enforce?
* * *
Workgroup Report
* * *
ISSUE 1:
Is it feasible for permittees to conduct ambient monitoring?
CONSENSUS: Yes, for all direct discharge permittees.
t Primarily for the purpose of:
developing permits including wasteload allocation, etc.
assessing whether water quality standards are met
assessing general effectiveness of program or permit.
t The focus should be to require permittees to do ambient
monitoring when data are needed, i.e., where there is a
potential impact on water quality after consideration of:
dilution of discharge
types of contaminants
public concern
location
change in conditions
lack of data to verify wasteload allocation, etc.
When permittee monitoring is required, it may be through a
variety of vehicles including the permit, consent
agreement, state vehicle, etc.
The permittee should submit a monitoring plan for review
which details how data quality will be ensured.
RECOMMENDATION: Workgroup recommends EPA conduct a comparison of State
data to permittee generated data. The purpose of the
comparison is to assess the overall quality of permittee
generated data.
ISSUE 2: Is it feasible to require permit fees to fund ambient
CONSENSUS:
monitoring?
Fees are feasible and can be useful but will not supply
all the funds necessary to do ambient monitoring.
5-29
-------
Fees can be used in combination with permittee conducted
discharger monitoring.
Use of permittee monitoring and fees must be State's
decision.
RECOMMENDATION: Workgroup suggested that surveys of State use of permittee
conducted monitoring and the extent States impose permit
fees would be useful. On fees, the group was interested
in the size of the fees and whether the State agency
retained the funds or whether they went into the State's
general treasury.
5-30
-------
6. EVALUATION OF SYMPOSIUM
-------
6. EVALUATION OF SYMPOSIUM
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY PARTICIPANTS
A total of 83 evaluations were received.
Question 1: Do vou feel that the meeting objectives were clear?
Answer:
Yes:
Mostly:
Somewhat:
No:
49
12
5
3
Do vou feel that the meeting objectives Mere fulfilled?
Answer: Most participants felt the meeting objectives were fulfilled
but some qualified their answers by saying the follow up to the
symposium would determine the fulfillment of the objectives.
Question 2: What aspects of the meeting did vou like best?
(Ranked in order of most frequent responses)
Answer:
t
Workgroups;
Interaction with federal/state/local representatives
State representatives liked hearing what is being done in
other states;
Poster sessions;
Long breaks and after-hour opportunities to meet
informally and exchange ideas;
Panel presentations; specifically panel discussions on
non-point source monitoring;
State presentations on monitoring and assessment
techniques;
Concurrent sessions on volunteer monitoring and sediment
criteria; and
Meeting accommodations.
Question 3: What aspects of the meeting did vou like least?
Answer:
(Ranked in order of most frequent responses)
Concurrent sessions (conflicting sessions limited ability
to attend all sessions of interest);
Absence of key EPA headquarter personnel in workgroups;
Concurrent sessions not well prepared;
Workgroups were too large;
Panel presentations on day 1 were redundant. Too much.
time spent on theory and definition;
t
0
6-1
-------
Too many EPA headquarter presentations, EPA headquarters
overwhelmed the meeting with presence as well as opinions;
and
Visual aids (overheads and slides were not of good
quality).
Question 4: Hem do YOU rate the aeetlna overall?
Answer: Excellent:
Good to Excellent:
Good:
Average to Good:
Average:
Poor:
20
10
46
2
3
0
Questions
5 and 6:
Please provide suggestions for follow-up meetings and Identify
Issues that vou feel were not adequately covered during the
meeting.
Answer: General Suggestions
0 Repeat this meeting on an annual basis;
Future meetings should address more specific topics;
More time should have been allowed for workgroup
discussions;
t States should be involved in the planning phase for future
meetings;
Follow up with a newsletter or some form of communication
on issues raised at the meeting and future courses of
action;
0 Regional/state workshops should first be conducted and
recommendations can then be brought to a national meeting;
0 Encourage open communication in the use of data between
states, regions, and other agencies to avoid reinventing
the wheel; and
0 Include additional presentations from States on
"successful programs".
Recommendations for Which Participants Expressed Support or
Recoanended Specifically That EPA Intolerant (Recommendations
made more than once are listed with an asterisk!:
On Monitoring/Assessment Methods
* Provide technical assistance and training on biomonitoring
(update Cornie Weber's methods manual); provide assistance
specifically on conducting biological assessments in lakes
and estuaries;
* Develop guidance on nonpoint source design (including
before/after studies, cause/effect studies);
6-2
-------
* Develop standardized protocols for fish tissue monitoring;
* Develop guidance on assessing nonchemical (habitat)
impacts;
t Develop guidance outlining considerations specific to
monitoring in each waterbody type: marine, estuarine,
riverine, lacustrine, wetlands; and
0 Prepare a bibliography of field monitoring methods manuals
developed by States.
On Assessment Criteria
* Develop guidance on proper statistical methods for
handling, analyzing, and interpreting data;
Develop guidance on using satellite images to determine
turbidity or other parameters in surface waters;
» Provide assistance on assessing use-attainment in lakes;
Provide guidance on how to define exceedences of criteria;
and
Provide guidance on classifying waters as threatened
(especially lakes).
On Monitoring Programs/Assessment
* Develop guidance on monitoring program design; define a
model program (update Basic Water Monitoring Program
document); set requirements and spell out resources
required for a minimum acceptable monitoring program;
decide on importance of fixed station/trend monitoring;
encourage monitoring with a geographic focus;
* Develop policy on role of biomonitoring; maintain balance
between chemical/physical/toxicity/biological survey
methods;
t Provide guidance on how to use assessments not just to
report status but to plan, set priorities, and for public
communication; and to determine how monitoring staff in
State water quality agencies relate to other water quality
program elements;
Profile State programs; identify range of methods/
protocols used by States;
Integrate groundwater and/or coastal waters with surface
water program;
6-3
-------
Provide guidance and policy on coordinating water quality
monitoring programs with fisheries management programs;
Provide guidance on tribal water quality and fisheries
monitoring issues;
Take more active role in interagency and interstate
communication (e.g., continue newsletter);
Offer more flexibility on SPMS commitments through SCWS
process;
Shift monitoring responsibilities to "users"; and
t Place more emphasis on monitoring to evaluate controls.
On 305(b) Reporting
Review findings of 1988 Sections 304(1), 319, and 305(b)
reports; identify areas that need improvement for 1990 and
1992;
Increase uniformity in use-support decisions;
Provide more assistance in assessing health risk;
t Resolve inconsistencies in total waters definitions; and
0 Make use of other agencies' data to increase coverage.
On Funding
Identify innovative funding mechanisms to support baseline
monitoring (e.g., Superfund, fees);
Determine whether States need regulations to secure
funding;
§ Determine level of resources necessary for adequate
monitoring programs;
Promote the development of cooperative monitoring networks
(e.g., New Jersey's cooperative coastal monitoring program
explained during poster session).
6-4
-------
APPENDICES
-------
APPENDIX A
List of Registrants
-------
List of Registrants
Dennis Ades
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Eugene Akazawa
Hawaii Department of Health
John Anagnost
U.S. EPA, Region V
Terry P. Anderson
Kentucky Division of Water
Charles Ariss
Idaho National Engineering Laboratory
Tom Armitage
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Loren L. Bahls
Montana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences
Joseph Ball
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Lee A. Barclay
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
John Barile
PP&E
Michael Bastian
U.S. EPA, Region VI
John Bemhardt
Washington Department of Ecology
Sheila Besse
DC Government - Environmental Control Division
Michael D. Bilger
U.S. EPA. Region I/ESD
Mark Blosser
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
Tim Bondelid
Horizon Systems Corporation
Stephen Boswell
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
Leo R. Briand
NY State Department of Environmental Conservation
Jerry Brooks
Florida Department of Regulations
F. Scott Bush
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Dave Buzan
Texas Water Commission
Paul Campanella
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
John Cannell
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
David Chestnut
SC Department of Health and Environmental Control
William Clark
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
John Clausen
University of Vermont
George Collins
U.S. EPA, Region IV
Mike Conlon
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Ken Cooke
Kentucky Division of Water
Robert W.Cooner
Alabama DepL of Environmental Management
Jim Cooper
NV Division of Environmental Protection
David Courtemanch
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Joel Cross
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Pat Cunningham
Research Triangle Institute
Susan Davies
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
John Davis
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
Wayne Davis
U.S. EPA, Region V
Chris Deacutis
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Roger Dean
U.S. EPA. Region VIII
Greg Denton
Tenn. Department of Health and Environment
JeffDeshon
Ohio EPA
Robert Donaghy
U.S. EPA - ESD (WV)
Steve Dressing
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Dan Dudley
Ohio EPA
A-l
-------
Judith A. Duncan
Oklahoma Department of Health
Ken Eagleson
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Steven Edmondson
DC Government - Environmental Control Division
Michael Ell
North Dakota Health Department
Donald L. Elmore
MD Department of the Environment
David Eng
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Frank Estabrooks
N YS Department of Environmental Conservation
Ben Eusebio
U.S. EPA Region X
Dan Farrow
Strategic Assessment Branch, NOAA
Richard Flanders
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
Frances Flanigan
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
Rod Frederick
VS. EPA, Headquarters
Charles Fredette
CT Department of Water Complianc
Toby Frevert
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Frey
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Management
Mary Jo Garreis
MD Department of the Environment
Sherman Garrison
MD Department of the Environment
James Giattina
U^. EPA, Region V
Jeanne Goodman
SD Dept of Water and Natural Resources
Frank GostomsJti
VS. EPA. Headquarters
Richard Greene
Delaware Department of Natural Resources
Ron Gregory
VA Water Control Board
Geoffrey Grubbs
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Lavoy Haage
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Michael Haire
Maryland Department of the Environment
Joseph Hand
FL Department of Environmental Regulations
Rececca Hanmer
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Robert P. Hannah
LA Dept of Environmental Quality
George Hansen
N YS Department of Environmental Conservation
James Harrison
U.S. EPA. Region IV
George Harman
MD Department of the Environment
Elaine M. Hartman
Mass. Division of Water Pollution Control
Carlton Haywood
ICPRB
Margarete Ann Heber
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
John Helvig
U.S. EPA, Region VII
Roland Hemmett
U.S. EPA, Region 0
Morms Hennessy
Annapolis, MD
John Higgins
U.S. EPA, Region 0
Paul M. Hogan
Mass. Division of Water Pollution Control
Thomas Holloway
U.S. EPA, Region VH
Henry M. Holman
U.S. EPA, Region VI
Evan Hornig
U.S. EPA, Region X
Linda Hubbard
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Warren R. Huff
Delaware River Basin Commission
A-2
-------
Robert Hughes
Northrop Services, Inc.
Kimberly A. Hummel
U.S. EPA, Region III
Betsy Johnson
DC Government - Environmental Control Division
Louis R.C. Johnson
LA Dept. of Environmental Quality
Carol Hudson Jones
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Charles A. Kanetsky
U.S. EPA. Region III
Hamid Karimi
DC Government - Environmental Control Division
Bill Kennedy
GA Environmental Protection Division
Meg Ken-
US. EPA, Headquarters
Rodney Kime
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Management
Karen S. KJima
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Sally C. Knowles
SC Department of Health and Environmental Control
Catherine Kuhlman
U.S. EPA, Region LX
Barbara Lamborne
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Philip Larsen
U.S. EPA. Region VII
Denise Lank
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
James Luey
U.S. EPA, Region V
Harvey Mack
U.S. EPA, Region III
Peter Mack
NYS Department of Environmental Conservation
Robert E. Magnien
MD Department of the Environment
Robert J. Maietta
Mass. Division of Water Pollution Control
Renaldo Malfos
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Fred Mangum
U.S. Forest Service Inter-Mountain Region
Avrum W. Marks
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Donald M. Martin
U.S. EPA, Region X, Idaho Operations
John Maxted
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Alice Mayio
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Michael McCarthy
Research Triangle Institute
Eli McCoy
W V Department of Natural Resources
Larry E. McCulIough
SC Department of Health and Environmental Control
Jay. J. Messer
U.S. EPA , Research Triangle Park
John Minnett
U.S. EPA, Region III
David Moon
U.S. EPA, Office of Water
Eric Morales
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
Donald Mount
U.S. EPA - ERL Duluth
Kent Mountford
U.S. EPA - Chesapeake Bay Program
Deirdre L. Murphy
MD Department of the Environment
Carl Myers
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
David Neleigh
U.S. EPA, Region VI
William G. Nelson
U.S. EPA, ERL Narragansett
Avis D. Newell
Northrop Services, Inc.
Bruce Newton
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Robert Nichols
Research Triangle Institute
Robert M. Nuzzo
Mass. Division of Water Pollution Control
A-3
-------
MaryA.Ott
U.S. EPA, Region VIII
JimOverton
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
James Pagenkopf
TetraTech
William Painter
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Peter V.Patterson
U.S. Department of Agriculture - SCS
Ray Peterson
U.S. EPA, Region X
Donald K. Phelps
UJ5. EPA, Narragansett Lab
Ernest Pizzuto, Jr.
CT Department of Water Compliance
James Plafkin
UJS. EPA, Headquarters
Wayne Praskins
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Martha Prothro
U S. EPA, Headquarters
EdRankin
Ohio EPA
EdRashin
Washington State Department of Ecology
Gerald J.Rausa
U.S. EPA - ORD
Walter L. Redmon
U.S. EPA, Region V
David Rickert
U.S. Geological Survey
Joseph Rinella
U.S. Geological Survey
Peter Robertson
MD Department of the Environment
Stanley Rogers
Mississippi Bureau of Pollution Laboratory
Robert Runyon
NJDEP/Water Resources
Carol Russell
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Jay Sauber
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Walter Schoepf
U.S. EPA, Region II
Louis D. Seivard
VA Water Control Board
Russell W.Sherer
SC Department of Health and Environmental Control
Richard Shertzer
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Managemeu
Paul Slunt, Jr.
MD Department of the Environment
Richard Smith
U.S. Geological Survey
Ray Solomon
USDA Forest Service
Robert J. Steiert
U.S. EPA, Region VII
Jerry Stober
U.S. EPA. Region IV
Rick Stowell
USDA Forest Service, Nez Perce National Forest
Tim Stuart
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Karen Summers
TetraTech, Inc.
Kathy Svanda
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
Phillip Taylor
U.S. EPA, Headquarters
Steve W. Tedder
N.C. Division of Environmental Management
Peter Tennant
ORSANCO
Nelson Thomas
U.S. EPA - ERL Duluth
Ray Thompson
U.S. EPA, Region I
John Paul Tolson
Strategic Assessment Branch, NOAA
Pauline Vaas
MD Department of the Environment
Robert Ward
Colorado State University
Cornelius Weber
U.S. EPA-EMSL Cincinnati
A-4
-------
Llewellyn R. Williams
EMSL-Las Vegas
Chris Yoder
Ohio EPA
Carl Young
U.S. EPA, Region VI
Edward Younginer
SC Department of Health and Environmental Control
A-5
-------
APPENDIX B
Symposium Agenda
-------
National Symposium on
Water Quality Assessment
lune 1,2,3 1988 at Annapolis, MD
yednesdav. June 1: Objectives and Major Issues
in Monitoring
8:30 Welcome/Introduction: Geoffrey Grubbs, U.S. EPA
Headquarters, and Michael Haire, Maryland Department
of the Environment
8:40 Keynote Address: Rebecca Hanmer, U.S. EPA
Headquarters Acting Assistant Administrator for Water
9*0 Panel #1: Objectives and Approaches to
Monitoring
Monitoring as an Information System: Robert Ward, Colorado
State University
State Perspective: Steven Tedder, North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
EPA Perspective: Catherine Kuhlman, U.S. EPA Region IX
Public Interest Group Perspective: Frances Flanigan,
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
10:30 Break
10:50 Panel #2: Reevalnating Program Design:
State Presentations
* Loren Bahls, Montana Dept, of Health and Environmental Science
Peter Mack, NY Department of Environmental Conservation
Jerry Brooks, Florida Department of Environmental Regulations
12:20 Lunch
1:20 Presentation: Monitoring for Non-point
Source Effects
Jack Clausen, University of Vermont
Fred Mangum, U.S. Forest Service
220 Panel #3: Ecological/Biological Considerations in
Monitoring
* Ecological/Biological Survey Methods: James Plafkin, UJS. EPA
Headquarters
Ecoregion Concept Robert Hughes, U.S. EPA Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvallis
Biological Criteria: Chris Yoder, Ohio EPA, and David
Courtemanch, Maine Department of Environmental Protection
320 Break
3:35 Panel #3 continued
4:35 Adjourn
&30 Dinner with guest speaker Abel Wolman, Professor
Emeritus, The Johns Hopkins University
Thursday. June 2: Concurrent Technical Sessions
Session A
8:30 Fish Tissue Residue Monitoring: PeteRedmon,
U.S. EPA, Region V
9:10 Volunteer Monitoring: Meg Kerr, U.S. EPA Head-
quarters, and Ken Cooke, Kentucky Division of
Water
9:50 Ambient Toxicity Testing: What is its Role?:
Donald Mount, U.S. EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory, Duluth
10:30 Break
10:50 Sediment Criteria: Frank Gostomski, U.S. EPA
Headquarters
11:30 Integrating Multidisciplinary Monitoring Data:
Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Program: Robert
Magnien, Maryland Department of the Environment
12:10 Lunch
Sesssion B
8:30 U.S. EPA Data System Support (and what's new
with BIOS?): Rod Frederick and Karen Klima, U.S.
EPA Headquarters
9:10 Getting the Most from Existing Data: Joseph
Rinella, Yakima River Basin National Ambient
Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) pilot project,
U.S. Geological Survey
9:50 The Waterbody System: Bruce Newton, U.S. EPA
Headquarters, and Ed Rashin, Washington Depart-
ment of Ecology
10:30 Break
10:50 Integrated Data Management and Analysis: Geo-
graphic Information Systems (GIS): Carol Russell,
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, and
George Collins, U.S. EPA, Region IV
11:30 U.S. Forest Service: Evaluating Habitat Impacts:
Rick Stowell, Nez Perce National Forest, U.S.
Forest Service
12:10 Lunch
-------
National Symposium on
Water Quality Assessment
June 1,2,3 1988 at Annapolis, MD
2 Chntinued:
1:10-4:30 Conoment Workgroup Sessions
[1] Workgroup on Biomonitoring: Chaired by
Susan Davies, Maine Department of Environmental
Protection
[2] Workgroop on Trend Monitoring: Chatted by
Robert Magnien, Maryland Department of die
Environment
PJ Workgroop on Assessment Approaches/
Assessment Criteria: ChairedbyBenEusebio,U.S.
EPA, Region X
[4] Workgroup on Improving Access and Use of
Existing Data: Chaired by Thomas Holloway, U.S.
EPA, Region VII
[5] Workgroup on Future Assessments/ National
Reporting: Chaired by Brace Newton, UJS. EPA
Headquarters
[61 Workgroup on Ambknt Discharger Monitoring:
Chaired by Carol Hudson Jones, U.S. EPA
Headquarters
4:30-6:00: Poster Session
Topics to include:
* New Jersey's cooperative coastal monitoring program
Use of CIS1! in environmental decision making
* Maine's biomonitoring program
* User friendly system for screening permittees for
biomonitoring toncity tests
Using assessment information for priority setting: A
spreadsheet model
Ocean Date Evaluation System Demonstration
Application of Ecoregions to aquatic resources assessment
and management
Big Picture assessment of POTWs- A case study
Chesapeake Bay water quality monitoring program and
USGS project to develop memods for estimating
state-wide staostics on "use support" based on land-use data
EPA's long-term monitoring project studies of surface
water acidification
ConaMrisonofchemk^specific,toxiciry,aodbiosurvey
based evaluations of water quality
Fish toxics monitoring in Massachusetts
Section 305{b)waterbody system
The River Reach system
Fridav. In
Workgroup Presentations and Concluding Discussion
8:30 Workgroup reports
Each workgroup chair will present conclusions
and recommendations. General discussion to
follow (30 minutes per workgroup)
10:00 Break
10:20 Workgroup reports and discussion (continued)
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Concluding Discussion: Where do we go from
here? Geoffrey Grubbs, U.S. EPA Headquarters,
and Michael Haire, Maryland Department of the
Environment
2:00 Adjourn
LODGING:
Historic Inns of Annapolis
16 Church Circle
Annapolis, Maryland 21401
(800 847-8882)
LIMOUSINE SERVICE:
Tlie airport limousine leaves from the Baltimore
Airport every hour on the hour until 11:00 PM.
Purchase your tickets at the Lower Level Pier C,
ground transportation counter.
MARYLAND
DEPARTMENT OF
THE ENVIRONMENT
o
-------
APPENDIX C
Contacts for Poster Session Topics
-------
CONTACTS FOR POSTER SESSION TOPICS
Topic
Contact/Orqani zati on
Resource Maps for Gulf Coast
Use of GIS's in Arizona
Dan Farrow
NOAA
Carol Russell
Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality
Maine's Biomonitoring Program
User Friendly System for Screening
Permittees for Biomonitoring Toxicity
Tests
Ocean Data Evaluation System
Demonstration
Application of Ecoregions to Aquatic
Resources Assessment and Management
USGS Project to Develop Methods for
Estimating State-wide Statistics
on "Use Support" Based on Land-use
Data
EPA's Long-term Monitoring Project:
Studies of Surface Water Acidification
Comparison of Chemical-specific, Toxicity,
and Biosurvey Based Evaluations of Water
Quality
Section 305(b) Waterbody System
The River Reach System
Water Watch Program
Enhanced STORET Demonstration
Susan Davies
Maine Dept. of Environmental
Protection
David Eng
U.S. EPA
Robert King
U.S. EPA
Fred Mangum
U.S. Forest Service
Richard Smith
USGS
Avis Newell
U.S. EPA - Corvallis
Ed Rankin
Ohio EPA
Karen Klima
U.S. EPA
Robert Horn
U.S. EPA
Ken Cooke
Kentucky Division of Water
Phil Taylor, Paul Evanhouse
U.S. EPA
C-l
-------
APPENDIX D
Informal EPA Survey of State Monitoring Activities:
Summary of Results
-------
INFORMAL EPA SURVEY OF STATE MONITORING ACTIVITIES:
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
In April and May 1988 EPA Regional staff were asked to complete a short
questionnaire to provide rough estimates of the scope and nature of State
monitoring activities. EPA Regional staff provided some estimates through
their working knowledge of State programs; in other cases States provided
estimates.
Fifty two questionnaires were distributed. Responses were received for
forty three States, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. Respondents
were asked to choose one of several possible answers for each question.
The original questionnaire included eleven questions. Responses to
those questions that appeared to have been interpreted ambiguously are not
included in this summary of results. The results for seven questions are
presented below in the form of bar charts alongside a restatement of the
question. The possible answers are given on the horizontal axis of each
chart. The height of each bar is proportional to the number of States which
chose each answer.
For more information, contact Wayne Praskins of the U.S EPA's
Monitoring and Data Support Division at (202) 382-7074.
I. STATE MONITORING PROGRAM STAFF (Questions Nos. 1 - 3)
SUMMARY: The first three questions address State monitoring program staff.
Survey respondents were first asked to estimate the total number of staff in
each State's surface water monitoring program. The most common response was
6 to 10 "full time equivalents" (FTEs). One person working full time on
monitoring would count as one FTE. Survey respondents estimated that in
most States the number of staff available for monitoring activities stayed
the same during the past five years, though more States were thought to have
increased, rather than decreased, the number of staff. When asked to
estimate the number of staff who could be described as biologists, the most
common response was 3 to 5 FTEs. See questions nos. 1 - 3 below for a full
statement of each question and response.
1. Estimate the total effort (FTEs)
devoted to surface water monitoring
activities. [Monitoring activities
were defined to include: design of
monitoring networks and surveys;
collection of physical, chemical,
and biological samples instream or
in effluent; data analysis (e.g.,
modeling, 305(b) report
preparation); data management.
Monitoring activities were defined
to exclude: monitoring for
discharger compliance inspections;
laboratory analysis; clerical
support.]
STATE MONITORING PROGRAM STAFF
61010 111020 211030 311050
D-l
TOTAL STAFF (FTEs)
-------
How has the number of FTEs changed
since 1983?
STATE MONITORING PROGRAM STAFF
lncr«uc >50%
MAGNITUDE OF CHANGE (1983-88)
For those best described as
professional staff, how many, based
on their duties, could be described
as biologists?
STATE MONITORING PROGRAM STAFF
CO
UJ
i
2 -
1 -
I
Y77/
1102 3MS «B10
NUMBER OF BIOLOGISTS (FTEs)
11to20 maraminZO
D-2
-------
II. MONITORING PROGRAM DESIGN (Questions Nos. 4 - 6)
SUMMARY: Survey respondents estimated that in the past five years a
majority of States put greater effort (measured in FTEs) into conducting
surveys than on maintaining networks of fixed stations.
When asked how much effort (in FTEs) States devote to biological
assessments in relation to chemical specific monitoring, most respondents
indicated either a 90%/10% or 75%/25% mix between resources devoted toward
chemical and biological monitoring, respectively. See questions nos. 4-6
below for a full statement of each question and response.
*
*
Has the relative effort (in FTEs)
devoted to surveys vs. fixed station
monitoring changed since 1983?
[choose best answer]
surveys have
relative to
surveys have
relative to
no change
surveys have
relative to
surveys have
relative to
increased greatly
fixed stations
increased slightly
fixed stations
decreased slightly
fixed stations
decreased greatly
fixed stations
MONITORING PROGRAM DESIGN
her. Sightly No Clung* Oaa.
SURVEYS VS. FIELD STATIONS
Otct. duly
*
*
*
*
For the State's fixed station
network, estimate the percentage of
resources (FTEs) devoted to
chemical-specific monitoring
(whether in the water-column,
sediments, or fish tissue), and to
biological assessments (qualitative
or quantitative surveys of aquatic
populations), [choose best answer]
100% chemical/0% biological
90% chemical/10% biological
75% chemical/25% biological
50% chemical/50% biological
MONITORING PROGRAM DESIGN:
FIXED STATION MONITORING
CHEMICAL VS. BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
D-3
-------
*
*
*
For surveys conducted in the past
year, on the average, what
percentage of resources (FTEs) has
been directed toward chemical -
specific monitoring vs. biological
monitoring? [choose best answer]
100% chemical/0% biological
90% chemical/10% biological
75% chemical/25% biological
50% chemical/50% biological
MONITORING PROGRAM DESIGN:
SURVEYS
en
LU
I!'
100WO* «%MO% 7S«O5% 50%/50%
CHEMICAL VS. BIOLOGICAL MONITORING
III. USE OF FIXED STATION DATA (Question No.7)
SUMMARY: When asked what use they made of fixed station ambient monitoring
data, survey respondents estimated that most States used ambient fixed
station data primarily to prepare section 305(b) reports or on a case-by-
case basis. Only a few respondents indicated that States make extensive use
of ambient data to set program priorities. See question no. 7 below for a
full statement of the question and response.
7. Which statement best describes how
the State uses fixed station
monitoring data? [choose one
statement]
* Data entered into STORET but seldom
used
* Data used primarily for 305(b)
reports
* Data used on case-by-case basis
(e.g., to assist in reviewing
permits)
* Data used extensively to set program
priorities
FIXED-STATION DATA
TO WHAT EXTENT DO STATES USE (T?
14.
13 .
12.
11.
10.
9-
a-
7-
Etiv&Mly
DATA IS USED...
D-4
------- |