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 substances—and 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

-------