United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
Washington, D.C.
January 1990
EPA
Second National Symposium on
Water Quality Assessment
Meeting Summary
October 16-19, 1989
Fort Collins, Colorado
-------
MEETING SUMMARY
NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON
WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
FORT COLLINS, COLORADO
OCTOBER 16-19, 1989
Prepared by
Tetra Tech, Inc.
Lafayette, California
EPA Contract No. 68-C9-0013
for
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
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. TECHNICAL SESSION ABSTRACTS 3-1
4. BIOASSESSMENT AND NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION: AN OVERVIEW 4-1
5. WORKGROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5-i
WORKGROUP 1: NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT
AND ANTIDEGRADATION 5-1
WORKGROUP 2: TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS
FOR NONPOINT SOURCES 5-3
WORKGROUP 3: DESIGNING THE APPROPRIATE MIX
FOR NPS ASSESSMENTS 5-6
WORKGROUP 4: MONITORING PROGRAM GUIDANCE
AND FRAMEWORK 5-9
WORKGROUP 5: BIOACCUMULATION/SEDIMENT
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT 5-11
WORKGROUP 6: ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS 5-14
WORKGROUP 7: MARINE AND ESTUARINE MONITORING 5-18
6. WATER USE: THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION 6-1
7. POSTER SESSION ABSTRACTS 7-1
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Symposium Agenda A-i
APPENDIX B: Workgroup Discussion Papers B-i
APPENDIX C: Evaluation of Symposium C-i
APPENDIX D: Attendance List 0-i
-------
1. Overview and 2. Keynote Address
-------
1. SYMPOSIUM OVERVIEW
The second National Symposium on Water Quality Assessment was held on
October 16-19, 1989, in Fort Collins, Colorado. The overall objective of
the meeting was to bring together water quality professionals to exchange
information and ideas about the collection, analysis, management, and use of
water quality information, particularly to assess nonpoint source (NPS)
problems in the Western U.S.
Geoffrey Grubbs, Director of EPAs Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division (AWPD), opened the first day’s plenary session, and Carol Jolly,
Water Quality Program Manager of the Washington Department of Ecology,
delivered the keynote address. Three speakers followed, each considering a
different aspect of the symposium’s central theme - NPS monitoring and
assessment. Attendees then broke out into seven discussion groups and spent
the remainder of the day in working session.
The second day was largely dedicated to technical presentations (some
27 in all) and conclusion of the workgroup discussions. After the evening
banquet, Larry McDonnell of the University of Colorado Natural Resources Law
Center spoke on the issue of providing sufficient water quantity while
ensuring good water quality, a frequently contentious issue in the West.
The third day opened with an Overview of NPS Bioassessment by Professor
James Karr of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University followed
by 12 technical sessions on lab and field biological monitoring methods. At
the noon luncheon, John Armstrong of EPA Region X spoke on some of the
lesser-known impacts of the Valdez oil spill on the local Alaskan populace.
The afternoon was dedicated to 9 additional technical presentations and a
concurrent poster session (15 posters). The day ended with an evening
reception in the poster gallery.
On Thursday morning, the final technical sessions were conducted (10
presentations), followed by the workgroup summaries and recommendations.
Tim Stuart of AWPD provided closing remarks and the symposium was adjourned.
Many attendees remained, however, to join one of the three field trips
conducted that afternoon.
This meeting summary contains Carol Jolly’s keynote address, Professor
Karr’s presentation on bioassessnient, a transcript of Larry McDonnell’s
dinner speech, abstracts of all the oral and poster presentations, and the
summaries/recommendations of the seven workgroups. The appendices include
the original agenda, a summary of symposium evaluations submitted by
attendees, and a complete list of attendees with addresses and phone
numbers.
1—1
-------
2. KEYNOTE ADDRESS
MAKING MONITORING MORE EFFECTIVE
Carol Jolly
Assistant Director
Water and Shorelands
Washington State Department of Ecology
Thank you for inviting me to open your National Symposium on Water
Quality Assessment. The 3 days of this symposium will focus on design,
collection and analysis of water quality monitoring data; all highly technical
subjects. As Assistant Director for water and shorelands programs at the
Washington Department of Ecology, I deal most often with more subjective
issues related to water quality protection such as intergovernmental
coordination and communicating both the need for assessment and the results of
monitoring studies to decision-makers and citizens.
Today I want to discuss improved coordination in water quality
assessments and why we need to improve the transfer of water quality
information from scientists to decision-makers and citizens and some ways we
can do this.
We can never do enough monitoring. More and better data is always being
sought by local, state and federal agencies; decision-makers in congress,
state legislatures and local governments; environmental activists; regulated
industries; and citizens who are asked to pay for cleanup programs and
prevention.
With increasing demands for water quality information and limited
resources to meet these demands, coordination makes good sense. However,
there are reasons we don’t work more across agencies when we design studies.
First of all, we all want monitoring programs to address our specific
needs. Each agency has its specific mission and targets its programs to meet
these. Also, with insufficient resources, priorities get addressed first and
one agency’s top priority may be another’s low priority effort. Finally,
coordination is time consuming and drains our already limited resources.
We can surmount the problems associated with coordination. And several
of the programs you’ll be hearing about at the symposium reflect this. Our
timber, fish, and wildlife approach is one example. Another example occurred
in 1987 when Washington joined the Environmental Protection Agency and the
states of Idaho and Montana in a coordinated water quality assessment of the
Pend Oreille and Clark Fork river basins. This study was specifically funded
in the 1987 reauthorization of the Clean Water Act. Each state received some
federal funds to participate and each state was able to design its part of the
study to meet its specific needs. EPA regions 8 and 10 are providing
2-1
-------
coordinators who are responsible for information-sharing and organizational
details, and each state contributed some of its federal seed money to hire a
technical writer so the studies’ results could be shared among the
participants and with the public.
Ideally, our assessments of water quality are used by decision-makers
when they set priorities, allocate funds, and develop pollution controls and
are understood by citizens. However, in reality, decisions at all levels of
government are too often made with no water quality data or at best,
inadequate data, and citizens decide whether to support or oppose water
quality programs based more on their perceptions than on our studies.
Most of this conference focuses on nonpoint sources of pollution, and it
is generally acknowledged that controlling this pollution will require
different approaches than the regulatory systems used to control point
sources. Milt Russell, former Assistant Administrator of EPA, in a 1987
article on “Environmental Protection for the 1990s” captured this reality when
he wrote that:
“In this new phase of environmental progress, action
comes only when the polluters choose to impose change
on themselves and their fellows. Those who are part
of the problem are also those who must agree upon and
carry out the solution. This is not a situation
amenable to command and control; It is one that
demands coalition and consensus.”
[ Environment , v.29, No.7, Sept. 1987, P.35]
To increase the use of water quality assessments by decision-makers and
the general public, we can do several things:
Design studies to answer questions that people are asking.
- People look to us to describe trends. Are our waters
getting worse or better or are we simply holding the line?
- Help them understand how different management alternatives
will affect water quality: for example, a coordinated study
of Puget Sound wetlands and storinwater management is now
underway in Washington. This is a long-term study designed
by local, state and federal agencies and the University of
Washington which was designed to answer questions about
consequences of various approaches to managing wetlands and
how they will affect the quality of stormwaters reaching
waterways.
• We need to increase our efforts to translate technical data into
information people can use.
- Don’t expect users to dig the information out.
2-2
-------
- Issue a “popular” version for every technical report. For
example, several years ago we did a popular summary of our
305(b) report in an effort to inform more people about the
trends and status of water quality In Washington. It was
very well received.
- Identify segments of the public who need your information
and interpret your results to address each group’s concerns.
- Use a variety of methods to disseminate information about
your studies, such as personal contacts, radio public
service announcements, and legislative testimony. Get
assistance from your in-house information staff.
Report the results of our studies back to the public.
- In the 1970s, we found extensive dissolved oxygen problems
in a reservoir on the Spokane River. We funded a study by
Eastern Washington University, which found that the Spokane
wastewater treatment plant was the source. Ecology helped
the plant upgrade treatment to remove 85 percent or more of
the phosphorus loading. Continued monitoring showed that
water quality was improving. Because this is a major river
in a populated area, the work got a good deal of media
coverage. We need to make sure that when monitoring turns
up a problem and then we take corrective action and end up
improving water quality, that Deoole know the imDortant role
of monitoring and know that the water body is now better off
as a result of that work.
- When we lack all the data we feel we need as scientists, we
often must rely more on our professional judgement.
I just recently received the EPA-Soil Conservation Service’s May 1989
publication “The Rural Clean Water Program: A Report.” If you haven’t seen it
yet, I would recommend it to you. It was written by Charles Little, who is an
experienced writer, knowledgeable about land use and environmental issues. It
describes, in easily understood language, the 9-year old program to
demonstrate the effectiveness of various BMP’s in tackling agricultural
problems from irrigated and dry lands and from animal wastes.
It’s effective because it’s well written. It candidly describes what
worked and what didn’t and it explains problems and solutions in ways a reader
can identify with. Let me read to you what Chuck says about monitoring,
because it’s so relevant to our symposium:
“On the monitoring front, in a small but significant fraction of
the projects, the evaluative effort has been frustrating at best,
hopeless at worst. In more than a few areas, no baseline data
were collected at all. In others, a shift in project objectives
caused scientists to give up in despair. In a few, the
organizations charged with monitoring responsibility simply failed
to do their part. In some cases, monitoring personnel have
followed their own star, which has often proved Irrelevant to the
2-3
-------
actual needs of the project. The upshot is that in many projects
the effectiveness of the management practices installed may never
be known.”
But he contrasts this with a description of the circumstances in the
successful projects.
“As for monitoring, when the project evaluative system was well
coordinated with field work, as it was in a good many projects,
variations in results could be accounted for and tactical
decisions on practices made, even strategic ones that could lead
to adjustments in overall project design. Indeed, it would seem
that, as a practical matter, usable monitoring results had as much
to do with the integration of monitoring techniques with fie1d
operations as with the sophistication of the research approach.”
Coordination and communication are not the reasons most of you were
drawn to the research profession. But they are crucial to obtain the
financial support we need to conduct monitoring; make sure our results are
used by decision-makers; and build a citizenry that is well enough informed
about water quality that they will support appropriate and needed water
quality programs.
Thomas Jefferson said, about 170 years ago:
“I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the
society but the people themselves; and if we think them not
enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome
discretion, the remedy is not to take from them, but to inform
their discretion.”
[ Letter to WM. Charles Jarvis , 28 Sept. 1920J
It’s up to us to take the needed extra step in providing that
information.
Thank you again for the opportunity to be here. I look forward to
learning a lot while I’m here.
2-4
-------
3. Technical Session Abstracts
-------
3. TECHNICAL SESSION ABSTRACTS
INTRODUCTION
INTEGRATED NPS MONITORING PLANS AND AGENCY COORDINATION
Donald M. Martin
Idaho Operations Office, Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Clean Water Act has mandated for almost twenty years that the states
should be the focal point for water pollution control. Section 313 indicated
long ago, that federal agencies should cooperate and comply with state’s water
quality standards, such as the nonpoint source “feedback loop” and
antidegradation. More recently, Section 319 has reiterated that message in
the form of federal consistency. Federal agencies have again been directed to
actively participate in the development and implementation of the states’
nonpoint source management programs. Federal agencies need direction and
encouragement from the states in order to be active and effective partners in
the abatement of nonpoint source pollution.
An integrated framework is needed to produce and implement effective NPS
monitoring programs. The components of this framework include land based
field audits of BMP implementation, water quality monitoring focused on
beneficial uses and shared databases. A coordinated monitoring program
requires the technical expertise of various disciplines: hydrologist,
fisheries biologists, foresters, agricultural engineers, soil scientists, etc.
The success of such an effort requires interagency cooperation and
coordination, which is the basis of an effective nonpoint source monitoring
program.
MONITORING AQUATIC RESOURCES IN WASHINGTON
Dave Somers
Tulalip Tribal Fisheries
Abstract Not Available
3-1
-------
SESSION 1: NPS MANAGEMENT AND ANTIDEGRADATION
IMPLEMENTING IDAHO’S ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY AND
DRAFT SEDIMENT CRITERIA INTO A MONITORING STRATEGY
William H. Clark
Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
In August 1988 an Antidegradation Agreement for Idaho was finalized.
This landmark agreement was reached after months of negotiations between
timber, mining and agricultural interests, Indian tribes, and the conservation
community. The key provisions of the agreement include: Basin area meetings
held biennially across the state to discuss water quality and to allow
citizens to nominate stream segments of concern, and development of a
coordinated monitoring program to maximize water quality data collection
efforts in Idaho. The program will address trends in major river basins,
beneficial uses, and best management practice effectiveness monitoring in the
state.
Draft sediment criteria have been produced to facilitate instream
monitoring of BMP effectiveness for protection of beneficial uses. The
criteria include turbidity, inter-gravel dissolved oxygen, and cobble
ernbeddedness.
The approach to antidegradation could apply elsewhere. Our sediment
criteria nay apply best to states with salmonid streams but the rationale may
have wide application.
NEGOTIATING ANTIDEGRADATION POLICIES
Frank Gaffney
Northwest Renewable Resources Center
Mediated negotiations are becoming much more commonplace, especially in
the West, to resolve complex natural resource policy issues. After years of
trying to adopt an antidegradation implementation policy, Idaho ultimately
succeeded by using a consensus process with the assistance of a mediator. The
final agreement is a combination of regulation and process and was actively
promoted through the 1989 session of the Idaho Legislature by a coalition of
industry and environmental interests.
This presentation will discuss the negotiation process utilized in Idaho
as described by one of the mediators involved. It will also describe other
successful natural resource negotiations in Alaska and Washington.
Information will be presented on how policy makers can assess the opportunity
for successful negotiations to resolve policy conflicts.
3-2
-------
IDENTIFYING OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS
Jim Overton
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
The antidegradation policy of North Carolina’s Environmental Management
Commission states the intention to “maintain, protect, and enhance water
quality within the State...”. All waters are classified according to existing
use and standards to protect for those uses incorporated within the
regulations. Furthermore, the commission considers the present and
anticipated uses of waters with quality higher than the standards, and “will
not allow degradation of the quality of waters with quality higher than the
standards below the water quality necessary to maintain existing and
anticipated uses of those waters”.
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) and High Quality Waters (HQW) are two
supplemental classifications developed to support the intent of the
antidegradation policy. Waters and watersheds with these classifications are
provided additional protection from point and nonpoint source pollution
through management strategies.
Prior to addition of supplemental classifications (HQW, ORW), use
attainability analyses are conducted to verify excellent water quality. A
determination of the existence of one or more outstanding resource values is
also required for ORW. Existing impacts including land use and permitted
discharges within the watershed are also reviewed. The scope of information
gathering varies according to the existing database, type and size of
waterbody. This report outlines case examples incorporating variables that
are inherent in the process of determining appropriate waters receiving these
supplemental classifications.
WHEN DEGRADATION IS INEVITABLE: WIN WIN IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE
James D. Jensen
Montana Environmental Information Center
Nonpoint source water pollution management needs considerably more than
monitoring data, methods for information transfer and good intentions. It
must have the critical tools necessary for change: The authority for
enforcement and the will to enforce.
Section 319 of the Federal Clean Water Act of 1987 provides the legal
basis for implementing nonpoint source programs and sets forth certain
requirements that the states must meet to qualify for assistance under the
Act. Beyond the requirements, the Act provides flexibility for the states to
adopt either a regulatory or non-regulatory approach as their vehicle to
accomplish pollution management goals. Montana has (predictably) adopted a
non-regulatory approach and the EPA has signed off on it.
This is a fatal flaw. The EPA should have reviewed previous non-
regulatory programs in Montana for their efficacy prior to signing off on the
non-regulatory approach. If the state could not prove this method will work,
then the EPA should have required a regulatory scheme. The timber,
agriculture and mining interests have the political Influence necessary to
3-3
-------
keep regulation and thereby enforcement to a minimum. Only the EPA can
provide the counter balance necessary to place these tools in the hands of
Montana’s water quality professionals.
IDAHO’S ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY: AN EXAMPLE FOR OTHER STATES?
Jim Weber
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
Idaho’s attempts to adopt and implement an Antidegradation Policy have
had a long and fractious history often characterized by animosity between
industry groups and state and federal water quality regulatory agencies. In
Idaho, this hostility increased to the point that no state or federal agencies
were allowed to participate in the negotiations leading to the Antidegradation
Agreement. Thus, Idaho’s Antidegradation Agreement is an example of what can
happen when interest groups are turned loose to agree on an implementation
plan for a policy they did not develop.
A significant benefit of the agreement is that it provides relatively
clear guidance to the state as to what is considered “politically feasible.”
Thus, the agreement defines a process for identifying priority waters, public
participation, and monitoring. On the other hand, the reliance on a consensus
process leaves significant issues unaddressed. For example, there are no
definitions of “high quality waters” or “full protection of beneficial uses.”
The determinations of “political feasibility” might have been significantly
different if the relevant state and federal agencies had participated
throughout the process. The EPA has a key role in giving the states the
guidance and support they need to develop plans that will implement all
aspects of the EPA’s Antidegradation Policy.
3-4
-------
SESSION 2: ASSESSING SEDIMENT AND TISSUE CONTAMINATION
NATIONAL BIOACCUMULATION STUDY
R. A. Yender
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Analysis of fish tissue can reveal the presence of bioaccumulative
pollutants that otherwise escape detection through routine monitoring of water
alone. Contaminants detected in fish not only indicate toxic pollutant insult
to aquatic life, but also can pose a significant risk to human health from
exposure through fish consumption. The National Bioaccumulation Study,
initiated by EPA in 1986 as an outgrowth of the National Dioxin Study, is a
one-time screening effort to determine the prevalence of bioconcentratable
pollutants in fish and to identify correlations with sources of these
pollutants. Composite fish samples collected from approximately 400 sites
nationwide were analyzed for concentrations of sixty-three contaminants,
including dioxins and furans, PCBs, p,p’ DDE, and Chiordane. Locations
sampled included sites near significant industrial, urban, or agricultural
activity; background sites in relatively unpolluted areas; and sites selected
statistically from the U.S.G.S. NASQAN network. Special attention was given
to locations with pulp and paper mills using chlorine for bleaching. A whole
composite sample of a representative bottom-feeding species and a fillet
composite sample of a representative sport fish species were collected from
each site and analyzed using methods specially developed by EPA’s
Environmental Research Laboratory in Duluth. Preliminary results and
interpretation of the data will be presented. Results of this study will
reveal bloaccuniulative pollutants, sources, and some specific locations
warranting further study.
CALIFORNIA STATE MUSSEL WATCH (SMW) PROGRAM
Timothy Stevens
Division of Water Quality
California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board)
State Mussel Watch (SMW), a bioaccumulation monitoring program, was
begun in 1977 in response to the inability to detect many chemical pollutants
suspected to be present in ambient waters. The original goal of SMW was to
provide a means to assess coastal marine water quality. Later, SMW served to
help Regional Water Quality Control Boards in California locate and
characterize specific areas of contamination, and to provide monitoring
information for NPDES dischargers. Transplanted (60% of samples) and resident
(25%) mussels and transplanted clams (10%) are sampled at approximately 130
sites each year in bays, harbors, estuaries, and on the open coast. Seven
permanent resident mussel or clam sites are utilized for reference and to
collect animals for transplantation. Substances analyzed for include 13 trace
elements and approximately 70 synthetic organic compounds (pesticides,
tributyltin, PCBs, and PAHs). Results are made available annually to the
Regional Boards and to the public. The SMW Program is currently undergoing a
period of internal and external critical review. Important planning
3-5
-------
considerations include: changes to program methodologies, improving validity
of observed trends, maximizing usefulness of the analyzed substance list, the
need for applicable tissue criteria, development of means to link tissue to
ambient concentrations, increasing scientific input into the program, and the
need to bolster long-term trend monitoring procedures.
SEDIMENT CLASSIFICATION METHODS COMPENDIUM, AND GENERAL
ACTIVITIES OF EPA’S SEDIMENT OVERSIGHT COMMITTEES
Michael Kravitz
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA’s Office of Water Regulations and Standards formed two Agency-wide
oversight committees (steering and technical) in the summer of 1988 to
identify, coordinate and provide guidance on activities relating to the
assessment and management of sediments contaminated with toxic chemicals. A
recent product of the Technical Sediment Oversight Committee - Sediment
Classification Methods Compendium - is an “encyclopedia” which describes
various methods used to evaluate sediment contamination, their associated
advantages and limitations, and existing applications. It is intended to
serve as a common frame of reference to answer the “how clean is clean”
question for particular sediments. The document is presently under review by
EPA’s Science Advisory Board and Regional Water Management Division and
Environmental Services Division Directors. Assessment methods may be
classified as numeric or descriptive. Numeric methods are chemical-specific
and can be used to generate numerical sediment quality criteria, while
descriptive methods cannot be used alone to generate numerical sediment
quality criteria for particular chemicals. Some approaches comprise at least
two methods; e.g. the Sediment Quality Triad approach employs bulk sediment
toxicity testing, benthic conimunity structure analysis, and concentrations of
sediment contaminants. This presentation will summarize current sediment
quality assessment methods and their potential applications to decisions
regarding the assessment and remediation of contaminated sediment. Other
ongoing activities of EPA’s sediment oversight committees will also be briefly
discussed.
SEDIMENT AND FISH TISSUE CONTAMINATION IN THE PIGEON RIVER
Q. J. Stober
Region 4
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The bioaccumulation of dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) In fish presents a risk to
human health and can serve to evaluate NPDES permit limitations. A synoptic
study was conducted to assess dioxin contamination in the Pigeon River, an
interstate water, receiving bleached Kraft pulp and paper mill effluent.
Water, sediment and fish were sampled in the river from above the mill outfall
to 100 miles downstream including Waterville (500 acres) and Douglas (30,600
acres) reservoirs. Dioxin was not detected in water but found at 13 ppt in
sediment from Waterville Reservoir located 25 miles downstream of the mill.
Concentrations were less than 1 ppt or undetected in sediment at subsequent
downstream river and reservoir stations.
3-6
-------
Nineteen species of fish were categorized as sportfish (predators) or
bottom feeders and analyzed as composite and single fillets and composite and
single wholebody samples. Dioxin was not detected above the mill outfall
except for an estimated concentration of 0.8 ppt in a composite wholebody
white sucker. Average composite fillet concentrations ranged from 7.7 to 11.3
ppt in Waterville Reservoir. Dioxin concentration in single fillets from
sport species in Waterville Reservoir ranged from 10 to 80 ppt. Further
downstream, composite fillet samples ranged from 0.2 to 6.2 ppt while
concentrations dropped to 0.1 ppt In Douglas Reservoir (60 to 100 miles
downstream). Wholebody samples declined from a maximum of 92.1 ppt 5 miles
below the mill to about 1.6 ppt in Douglas Reservoir.
A human health risk assessment was conducted which indicated that very
low concentrations of dioxin contamination in fish were unacceptable even at
consumption rates of 6.5 g/d. The information was presented in the format of
meals per unit time over a range of upper bound risks estimated from i0 3 to
i0 6 . Each state then arrived at risk management actions which advised the
public against the consumption of fish from the Pigeon River. This study has
provided a better understanding of sampling strategies necessary to adequately
assess dioxin contamination of fish in aquatic environments.
DREDGED MATERIAL DISPOSAL SITE MONITORING IN NEW ENGLAND
Thomas J. Fredette
DAMOS Program Manager
New England Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The Disposal Area Monitoring System (DAMOS) is a large multidisciplinary
environmental monitoring program instituted in 1977 by the New England
Division of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to assess and minimize the
environmental impact of dredged material disposal at over ten sites in New
England waters. DAMOS is but one of the inter-related components of dredged
material management which includes project evaluation, site designation,
monitoring, and site management. DAMOS studies are used to technically
support and verify decisions made in each of these other components. In order
to carry out this task the DAMOS Program has been designed using a tiered
model, addressing specific questions that are needed to effectively manage the
sites and assure environmental compliance. The program described here is
adapted to the particular requirements of the New England region, but the
approach can be applied to other regions and monitoring needs.
3-7
-------
CONTAMINATED DREDGED MATERIAL: TESTING AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Craig Vogt
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
For the past 12 years, dredged material disposal In the ocean has been
carefully managed at EPA through implementation of the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act. The MPRSA gives EPA responsibility for setting
criteria to protect human health and the marine environment from disposal of
waste materials in the ocean. The Clean Water Act also regulates the disposal
of dredged material in fresh and estuarine waters, with a similar goal of
environmental protection. Coordination and consistency between these two
programs has been a recently identified goal of EPA.
EPA has long recognized that dredged material should not be managed
solely on a permit-by-permit basis and that broader and more comprehensive
measures are needed. To meet the rising challenges of in-place sediment
toxics and to arrange for the best placement of those dredged materials that
may not meet stringent criteria for open water disposal, EPA began developing
a series of manuals and procedures for responsible management of dredged
material. This development work spans program offices, statutory
responsibilities, and existing regulatory activities in order to establish a
comprehensive planning process for dredged material.
In this process, EPA is developing a series of guidance manuals
associated with dredged material consistent with the MPRSA and CWA. These are
the Dredged Material Testing Manual to determine a specific material’s
suitability for open-water disposal, a Management/Decision Making Strategy
that provides a structure to evaluate alternatives and factors to be
considered for each alternative, and a Site Designation, Management, and
Monitoring Manual for the MPRSA and CWA.
In addition to these guidance documents, an intra-agency Technical
Committee and a Steering Committee have been formed to facilitate management
decision making in the arena of in-place toxics.
3-8
-------
EVALUATION OF BMP EFFECTIVENESS
CLASSIFICATION OF RIVERINE-RIPARIAN COMPLEXES FOR MONITORING BMP EFFECTIVENESS
William S. Platts
Don Chapman Associates
Classification of riverine-riparian habitats when placed in context with
their surroundings will provide an effective basis for BMP selection,
application, and monitoring. If managers are to fulfill their
responsibilities as BMP stewards, they must first know the capability of the
land and waters they manage in order to select the compatible BMP. Second,
they must know how to apply the BMP, and especially how to monitor the BMP for
effectiveness. To finalize the process they must know how to mitigate the
adverse impacts because most often a non-point source prevention BMP does not
work.
Even though monitoring is an after-the-fact approach, a prognostic
approach is necessary to set the evaluation process for a successful
monitoring solution. For a monitoring approach to be successful it must
inventory, assess capability, predict outcomes, and communicate needed actions
to decision makers.
The classification system described nestles land units, both natural and
artificial, for cumulative monitoring and integrates climate, geology,
hydrology, geomorphology, and biotic control all at one time. The
classification system is discussed as to how it can improve monitoring by
identifying the existing state, the natural state, the cultural state, the
potential state, and time periods between states. The system also identifies
the family of variables that have the most power of analysis, depending on the
type of nonpoint activity being monitored.
CLASSIFICATION OF RIVERINE/RIPARIAN HABITAT AND
ASSESSMENT OF NONPOINT SOURCE IMPACTS:
NORTH FORK HUMBOLDT RIVER, NEVADA
Sherman E. Jensen
Whitehorse Associates
An approach to classification of riverine/riparian habitat (RRH) and
assessment of nonpoint source (NPS) impacts was developed and applied in a
study of the North Fork Humboldt River in northeastern Nevada. Geographical
variables influencing the inherent form and functions of RRH were identified.
Maps of Ecoregions, geologic districts, landtype associations, landtypes and
valley-bottom types were used to identify RRH of similar potential.
Inventories on land forms and vegetation types were used to identify areas of
similar existing state (I.e. condition). Measurements of stream and channel
attributes were used to assess the condition of RRH relative to a continuum of
states ranging from nearly natural to severely impacted. The approach is
expected to be useful for identifying RRH that will respond similarly to
management and for evaluating the condition of RRH relative to its ecological
potential in other areas of the West.
3-9
-------
RECOGNITION OF CRITICAL RIVERINE/RIPARIAN HABITATS
Jeff Cederhoim
Washington Department of Natural Resources
Lack of recognition of critical riverine and riparian habitats has
resulted in extensive salmonid habitat degradation in Pacific Northwest rivers
and streams. Only relatively recently has woody debris, originating in
riparian zones, been recognized as providing important salmonid habitat
characteristics in riverine areas. The input of trees and other woody debris
is multifunctional, In that it provides a stable spawning gravel environment,
structure for pools, and a source of cover. It wasn’t long ago that most logs
and other woody debris was systematically cleared from water courses.
Another aspect of habitat recognition has to do with the importance of
small floodplain tributaries with swamps and ponds at their headwaters, known
as “wall-base channels”. These wetlands provide significant winter refuge for
juvenile coho salmon, which benefit by gaining improved winter growth and
survival over non-immigrants. Even today these habitats are not commonly
recognized for their importance, and they are often filled in with waste
spoils, or blocked by improperly designed culvert installations. Some wall-
base channel enhancement techniques will be discussed, and a training video is
available.
MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS OF BMPs: THE IDAHO EXPERIENCE
Tim Burton
U.S. Forest Service, on detail to:
Environmental Protection Agency & Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Nonpoint source monitoring in the State of Idaho is designed to answer
two basic questions: Are BMPs implemented as designed? and do BMPs effectively
protect beneficial uses? Water quality audits are used to derive simple,
qualitative answers to these questions. BMPs are audited on a state-wide
basis for implementation, design, and effectiveness from a random sample of
projects every 4 years. In addition, supporting agencies audit at least 10%
of projects on an annual basis.
Sediment is the most prevalent nonpoint source pollutant, impacting
mostly spawning and rearing of resident and anadramous salmonids. The State
is now working to develop water quality criteria and monitoring protocols to
protect these instream beneficial uses.
An extensive literature search, and tests of monitoring protocols, have
led to the application of several physical habitat parameters including;
substrate embeddedness, inter-gravel dissolved oxygen/inter-gravel fine
sediment/bioassays of embryo incubation and survival to emergence, and
residual depth as measured by thaiweg profiles.
The water quality criteria and monitoring techniques apply to all
salmonid habitats where fine sediment is a known limiting factor causing
reductions in rearing space by filling pools and inter-gravel cover or
aggravating reproduction by reducing the flow of oxygen to incubating eggs,
and/or entombing alevins and preventing successful emergence.
3-10
-------
SESSION 3: INLAND WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ISSUES
ASSESSMENT OF WETLAND IMPACTED BY MINE WASTES,
INLAND WETLANDS AND RIPARIAN ISSUES
David J. Cooper
Dept. of Environmental Sciences and Engineering Ecology
Colorado School of Mines
Heavy metals are usually present at some concentration in waters of the
Rocky Mountain West. The heaviest concentrations occur in waters impacted by
metal mining activities, but moderate concentrations may also be found in
water from drainages where no mining has occurred. Because outcropping
bedrock in many portions of the Rocky Mountains is heavily mineralized the
background metal concentrations of water in many drainages may have been high
in pre-mining times. Mining activities have been most intense in these
heavily mineralized areas, thus adding to the problem. Presently, it is
unknown whether existing water quality criteria for heavy metals in the Rocky
Mountains are realistic or not, because we do not know what background metal
concentrations would have been.
Preliminary surveys of wetlands in the Peru Creek and Snake River
drainages in Colorado have been done. We studied wetlands fed by water from
mine adits, water with naturally high concentrations of heavy metals, and
water that was relatively clean. The results indicate that plants actively
accumulate certain metals, and the health of plant species and the composition
of plant communities is controlled by the concentration of metals in the water
supply. The relationships however, are not simple or linear, and many
questions remain to be answered.
TEN YEARS OF CHANGES IN WATER QUALITY OF A PRAIRIE
WETLAND COMPLEX IN THE MISSOURI COTEAU, NORTH DAKOTA
Jim LeBaugh
U.S. Geological Survey
Abstract Not Available
VERTEBRATES AS INDICATORS OF LAND-USE CHANGES IN THE WETLAND,
STREAM AND RIPARIAN PORTIONS OF WATERSHEDS
Robert P. Brooks
School of Forest Resources
Pennsylvania State University
Are disturbance factors reflected in a measurable way within biotic
communities that inhabit wetland, stream and riparian systems? If faunal
communities do reflect the accumulation of incremental changes occurring in
watersheds, then perhaps regional assessment models can be developed to detect
and predict the “environmental health” of watersheds. Recent studies in
Pennsylvania showed that the composition of vertebrate communities differed
when reference and disturbed watersheds were compared. These differences were
3-11
-------
associated with increasing human impacts as one proceeded downstream in a
disturbed watershed rather than with changes associated with hierarchical
differences from headwaters to mainstreams in a reference watershed. The
detection of a particular indicator species with a sampling regime that is
limited by time and funds is highly questionable. Thus, it was hypothesized
that examining the structure of functional groupings of organisms, such as
response guilds would be more useful. Analyses are underway to determine
which groups and guilds are most affected by anthropogenic alterations to
aquatic landscapes. The development of a reliable, inexpensive method for
determining how a watershed is perturbed is necessary before such a tool will
be widely and effectively applied by regulatory agencies. Based on our
preliminary findings, biological monitoring, in conjunction with analyses of
landscape patterns, hydrology, and water quality can be a useful tool for
developing protection and restoration strategies for these important
environments.
RIPARIAN EVALUATIONS
William S. Platts
Don Chapman Associates
The evaluation and monitoring of riparian systems is much larger than
just looking at the stream channel, the stream bank, or the adjacent riparian
system. These three habitats must be monitored, but not by themselves. For
long term management the universe of concern includes the complete valley and
its basin. With a quarter million dams now in place, heavy livestock grazing
occurring over the west, along with other land uses such as urbanization and
irrigation storage and withdrawal, there has been and will be large changes in
how streams and lakes function. This function cannot be tracked and managed
by looking at narrow slices of the habitat, as most of the presently used
inventories and monitoring methods do.
Almost all valleys and their channels reflect their historic flow
patterns. The future condition of these valleys and their riverine-riparian
systems depends on the applied flow regimes. Therefore, maintenance flows
(both natural and artificial) are going to determine the present and
especially the future productivity of the resulting habitat. Without proper
management of maintenance flows, flood plains can disappear, riparian
temperatures can increase or decrease, colluvial processes can dominate
fluvial ones causing decrease in valley width and size.
The factors controlling form and condition of the valley and its
riparian habitat are discussed with changes that occur in riparian systems
when this form and condition are not maintained. Methods for evaluating and
monitoring these changes are presented by identifying the flow regimes and
floodplain storage patterns needed to maintain valley form and condition.
3-12
-------
USE OF RIPARIAN DATA TO MAKE MANAGEMENT DECISIONS
Wayne Nelson
SA IC
Abstract Not Available
WATERS IGNORED BY AMBIENT MONITORING PROGRAMS:
A NATIONAL REVIEW OF BIOMONITORING OF WETLANDS
Paul R. Adamus
NSI Technology Services Corporation
An EPA synsthesis report on biomonitoring of inland wetlands will be
released next summer. The report will describe, in general terms, the options
for sampling approaches. Appropriate techniques will be referenced by wetland
type, region, contaminant type, and taxa which are the object of sampling.
Advantages and disadvantages of use of various taxonomic groups will be noted
and promising indicator taxa and community metrics for wetlands will be noted.
Preliminary findings of the review suggest that vegetation, non-insect
invertebrates, and birds may be the most suitable indicators of the ecological
condition of regional wetland resources, but additional testing is needed.
Despite the extraordinary biotic value of wetlands and their extensive acreage
in many regions, our review indicates that, compared with rivers and lakes,
few inland wetlands have been the object of regular, sustained biomonitoring.
3-13
-------
SESSION 4: MARINE AND ESTUARINE MONITORING
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING IN THE NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM
Thomas M. Armitage
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
In 1985, the U.S. Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to undertake environmental programs in estuaries of national
significance. Assessment and planning activities are being undertaken in all
of these estuaries as part of the EPA’s National Estuary Program. The primary
goal of the Nationa1 Estuary Program is to restore the physical, chemical and
biological integrity of the nation’s estuaries. A major objective of the
National Estuary Program is to develop within five years, for each estuary in
the program, a Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP).
Environmental monitoring has become an integral part of CCMP development and
implementation, and it is expected that all estuaries in the national program
will be extensively monitored.
As estuary programs are developing CCMPs, monitoring activities are
initially focused on: filling critical data gaps; providing a baseline for
status and trends analyses and management actions; and providing estimates of
the degree of variability in physical, chemical, and biological parameters
that will continue to be monitored after the CCMP is completed. After the
CCMP for each estuary is in place, a major monitoring effort will be focused
on assessing management actions implemented as part of the plan, and
documenting trends of change in the estuary. The states in which the NEP
estuaries lie have the primary responsibility for implementing the estuary
monitoring programs. However, they have begun to enlist the help of EPA.
Efforts are also being made to involve citizen groups in the estuary
monitoring programs.
Designing a monitoring program for an estuary presents problems that are
not encountered in many fresh water systems. The number and diversity of
estuarine ecosystem components to be monitored is often much greater than
those in fresh waters, and varying salinity and hydrodynamic conditions
require the development of unique methods and sampling designs. A conceptual
framework for the design of estuarine monitoring programs is being developed
by the Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection. This conceptual framework
will require planners to identify valued ecosystem components and sources of
perturbation in their estuaries, and to specify the direct and indirect
mechanisms by which the components are affected.
Estuary monitoring programs have already been initiated as part of five
estuary programs in the National Estuary Program. In each case, a major
objective of these monitoring programs is to correlate environmental
perturbations with effects on valued ecosystem components.
3-14
-------
DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF A
REGIONAL ESTUARINE MONITORING PROGRAM
Andrea E. Copping
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
The Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) was developed to be a
comprehensive and coordinated monitoring program that would characterize and
document conditions and trends in environmental variables in Puget Sound and
the surrounding watershed.
PSAMP will assess conditions over time of the water, sediments, fi h,
shellfish, benthos, birds, marine mammals, and nearshore habitat. These data
are stored in a microcomputer-based data management system and linked to a
Geographic Information System.
PSAMP was designed by a committee of water quality professionals
representing affected and interested parties from the public and private
sector. The program is implemented with state funds, by five state agencies,
with a sixth acting as the coordinating body. Management of PSAMP is by the
state agencies, EPA, tribes and local government, with technical input from a
range of other public and private concerns.
An active citizens’ monitoring program is an integral part of PSAMP.
The process for the development and implementation of PSAMP, as well as
the program itself will be discussed.
FLEXIBLE AND REGIONAL MONITORING: A DISCHARGER’S PLEA
John Dorsey
Environmental Services Division
City of Los Angeles
Marine monitoring programs associated with NPDES permits need to have a
degree of flexibility to adjust to changing environmental conditions and
management concerns. If a program is too rigid, resources are wasted in
acquiring information not useful to regulatory and management personnel. When
problems are found and solutions developed, or when new questions arise, then
programs need to be adjusted to incorporate these situations.
As monitoring practitioners assess results of local programs, they must
have available to them regional information. Such data would help explain
variation caused by regional-wide trends verses site-specific anthropogenic
sources.
Examples of the need for flexibility and regional comparisons are
presented using the City of Los Angeles’ monitoring program associated with
the Hyperion Treatment Plant. This facility discharges 360 MGD of mixed
primary and secondary effluent (avg. suspended solids 35 mg/i) into Santa
Monica Bay five miles offshore at a depth of 60 m. The monitoring program was
significantly changed in 1987 with promulgation of a new NPDES permit.
Changes were made based on problems with the previous program, and a degree of
flexibility was written Into the permit. The new program was extensive in
3-15
-------
scope, costing around 1.5 million dollars annually. Since inception of the
program, we have realized that other changes should be made due to changing
environmental conditions, better analytic capabilities, and better information
on the usefulness of various measurements. These changes are discussed for
the water quality, sediment chemistry, infaunal and trawling programs.
Examples also are provided on how regional information would greatly enhance
assessment of these data.
It is essential that regulatory and discharger technical staffs closely
work together on development of monitoring programs, and analyses and
assessment of resultant data. such cooperation should result in more cost-
effective programs having sharper focuses on important questions.
A WATER QUALITY MONITORING PROGRAM FOR HAWAII’S SURFACE WATERS
Eugene 1. Akazawa
State of Hawaii Department of Health
The Department of Health is developing a water quality monitoring
program for the State of Hawaii. Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act
requires that states report biennially on the quality of their surface waters.
Monitoring programs are required as conditions of the Section 106 grants
program. Moreover, there are important public concerns about the quality of
Hawaii’s surface and recreational waters: 1) is the water safe to swim in? 2)
are fish and other organisms safe to eat? 3) what is the quality of Hawaii’s
waters, and is it degrading over time? The State of Hawaii water quality
monitoring program is specifically designed to address those pubUc concerns.
The base of the monitoring program is a network of approximately 200 shoreline
and ocean stations that will be sampled at least once a year for bacteria
(coliforms and enterococci) and for water quality parameters. Many of the
stations will be sampled weekly for bacteria and monthly for water quality. A
number of other monitoring components will be layered over the baseline
network. Toxics monitoring, including water quality based biotoxicity
testing, hot spot monitoring, water quality limited segments monitoring,
quality assurance, laboratory development, research, and public
participation/education are all part of the state monitoring program. In
particular, the monitoring program will coordinate and supplement the
monitoring programs of NPDES ocean dischargers to assess and report on the
impacts of those activities on health risk and on natural communities in the
marine environment.
REGIONAL APPROACHES TO MONITORING: A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA CASE STUDY
Ed Liu
Region 9
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
A large portion of the ocean monitoring in southern California is
conducted to evaluate the impacts of various NPDES permitted discharges on the
ocean environment. It Is estimated that the annual budget for ocean
monitoring by NPDES permittees who discharge into the Southern California
bight from Point Conception to the Mexican border exceeds $14.5 million
dollars. The monitoring programs of the various dischargers are concentrated
3-16
-------
around their own discharge outfalls, and there are generally only a few far-
field or reference stations. However, many of the public concerns about ocean
discharge impacts on the environment have spatial and temporal scales that
extend beyond the scope of a single discharge monitoring program. For
example, questions such as: Is the water safe for swimming and other
recreational activities? Are fish and shellfish safe to eat? and Are ocean
discharges degrading the marine environment over time?, are difficult for
regulators to respond to because they are regional questions that have large
spatial and long temporal scales. Regional monitoring approaches that link
and coordinate the various discharge monitoring programs by synchronizing
sample collection times and by adding reference stations, may be one way to
use existing monitoring activities to address public concerns.
MONITORING THE 106 MILE SITE
Susan Hitch
Office of Marine and Estuarine Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The 106 Mile Deepwater Municipal Sludge Site (106 Mile Site) receives
sewage sludge from nine municipalities in New York and New Jersey. The EPA
under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act and the Ocean
Dumping Ban Act is responsible for permit issuance, compliance, site
management, site monitoring as well as enforcement of permit violations.
The existing monitoring plan for the site is designed to generate data
for EPA’s decision makers to determine if permit conditions are being met, and
to ensure the protection of the marine environment through site management.
Permits may be continued, modified, revoked or terminated on the basis of
monitoring data.
The 106 Mile Site is located beyond the edge of the Continental Shelf
making it the most distant ocean dumping site manage by EPA. Because of its
location, the site has received little attention from State agencies and the
majority of the baseline and monitoring activities have been Federally-funded
and implemented. In addition to its remoteness, the site is very deep and
occupies approximately 100 square nautical miles. These factors necessitate
“blue water” capability in sampling equipment used for monitoring purposes.
EPA is diligently implementing the Ocean Dumping Ban Act in coordination
with NOA.A and the Coast Guard. This coordination has resulted in sharing of
research vessel equipment and survey time and an enhanced working
relationship. In addition, the three agencies responsible for site
monitoring, research, and surveillance have developed a joint monitoring,
research, and surveillance strategy to oversee the last of the sewage sludge
dumping and will sign a Memorandum of Understanding on these agreements this
Fall.
3-17
-------
SESSION 5: INTEGRATED FIELD ASSESSMENTS
EPA’S RAPID BIOASSESSMENT APPROACH -- AN ASSESSMENT OF BIOLOGICAL
IMPAIRMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF HABITAT QUALITY
Michael T. Barbour
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology
James Plafkin
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
EPA’s Rapid Bioassessnient Protocols recommend the use of both community
structure and habitat measures to assess impairment of designated aquatic life
uses. Fish and benthic community assessments are based on integrated analyses
of several parameters or metrics, each of which reflects a somewhat different
aspect of community integrity. An assessment of habitat quality is also
critical for assessment of biological impairment. An understanding of habitat
conditions allows interpretation of both the current status and the biological
potential of stream communities. Reference conditions are used as the basis
for determining biological impairment adjusting “expectations” for a given
locality or particular ecosystem, and characterizing temporal variability.
This discussion focuses on EPA’s benthic protocols and habitat assessment
approach for interpretation of biological impairment. An overview of the
approach and particulars of the assessment strategy are given.
OREGON’S BIOASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Rick Hafele
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Oregon’s bioassessment program has been expanding in recent years. It
has grown from general observations of macroinvertebrates near point sources
to a comprehensive approach utilizing habitat assessments along with
qualitative and/or quantitative macroinvertebrate sampling. Methods similar
to EPA’s protocols for Rapid Bioassessments have been used. The techniques
have recently been used to assess both point source and nonpoint source
pollution problems in 3rd to 5th order streams.
The methods used for bjoassessments in Oregon will be described. Also,
results from several studies will be presented, and the problems and benefits
of the Oregon bioassessrnent program discussed.
3-18
-------
MODIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT OF AN INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
TO QUANTIFY STREAM QUALITY IN SOUTHERN ONTARIO
R. J. Steedman
Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Canada
A niultivariate measure of stream quality, the Index of Biotic Integrity
(IBI), was adapted to southern Ontario and calibrated to watershed land-use on
a variety of spatial scales. The fish fauna at 209 stream locations on 10
watersheds near Toronto, Ontario, was sampled to provide biological
information for the IBI. Watershed urbanization, forest cover, and riparian
forest were measured from topographic maps, and related to 181 estimates by
linear regression. Of the biological measures tested, species richness, local
indicator species (brook trout and Rhinichthys spp.), abundance of large
piscivores, fish abundance and incidence of blackspot disease were found to
contribute significantly to information provided by IBI estimates. Linear
models based on measures of watershed urbanization and forest cover accounted
for 11-78% of the variation in IBI scores, depending on the spatial scale of
the analysis. Significant 181/land-use relationships were found with whole-
basin IBI estimates from individual steam reaches. Land use immediately
upstream of sample stations was most strongly associated with stream quality
as measured by the IBI.
The IBI seems able to provide quantitative, mappable information about
ecosystem states at a variety of spatial scales, ranging from the reach to the
basin. Because the IBI responds to structural degradation relevant to
regional fish faunas, it is frequently able to satisfy an information need
that is presently not met by conventional water quality monitoring, nor by
microcontaminant assessment. In this sense, the 181 helps to bridge time and
space scales represented by water chemistry at one extreme, and landscape
ecology at the other.
ASSESSING IMPACTS OF SEDIMENT ON TARGET BENEFICIAL USES
Steve Bauer
Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
The state of Idaho has adopted a control strategy, the feedback loop, to
address the impact of nonpoint sources of pollution. The feedback loop refers
to a process of applying best management practices (BMPs), monitoring their
effectiveness in protecting beneficial uses, and subsequently modifying the
BMPs as needed. The central key to this process has been missing. What is
the appropriate criteria for sediment and how do we measure its impact on
beneficial uses as the basis for the feedback loop?
The most sensitive uses in the Intermountain West are trout and salmon
fisheries and domestic water supplies. Based on a review of the literature we
propose several potential criteria. Criteria based on turbidity, cobble
embeddedness, and inter-gravel dissolved oxygen is suggested for protection of
fisheries. A more restrictive turbidity criteria is recommended for small
communities which depend on surface water supplies. Protocols for measuring
these parameters will be presented.
3-19
-------
INTEGRATED BASIN ASSESSMENT: UPPER ILLINOIS RIVER BASIN PILOT
PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Stephen F. Blanchard
U.S. Geological Survey
The U.S. Geological Survey began a National Water-Quality Assessment
pilot program in 1986. The goals of the program are to: 1) provide a
nationally consistent description of current water-quality conditions; 2)
define long-term trends in water quality, and 3) identify, describe and
explain, to the extent possible, the major factors that affect observed
conditions and trends. The Upper Illinois River basin in Illinois, Indiana,
and Wisconsin is one of seven pilot projects selected to test and refine
assessment concepts and procedures. In addition to an analysis of available
data, surface-water field activities include 1) periodic and event sampling at
8 fixed-stations; 2) synoptic surveys at 20 to 500 sites for selected water-
quality characteristics in water, bottom sediment, and biota, and 3) studies
of selected stream reaches. Information resulting from the major work
elements will be synthesized to describe the current water-quality conditions
and trends. Ancillary data, such as land use and pesticide application rates,
will be used to identify causative factors.
SUPERFUND ECOASSESSMENTS
M. D. Sprenger
D. W. Charters
Environmental Response Team
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
R. Preston
Region 3
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The proposed revisions to the National Contingency Plan calls for
identification and mitigation of environmental impacts at hazardous waste
sites and the selection of removal and remedial actions that are “protective
of environmental organisms and ecosystems”. In order to meet this objective
it is necessary to carefully evaluate the specific site characteristics,
including the ecosystem potentially impacted and the contaminants of concern;
the appropriate and available methods for evaluating the potential impacts,
and how the data generated is to be used. Several examples of integrated
environmental assessments, at Superfund sites, will be presented to illustrate
the utility of properly planned and implemented ecological assessments. In
addition, the implications of the results, of these studies, on the remedial
actions proposed for the sites will be discussed.
3-20
-------
SESSION 6: LAB BIONONITORING
AMBIENT TOXICITY ASSESSMENTS IN A REGIONAL WATERSHED
John W. Arthur
Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency laboratory at Duluth, MN has
been participating in a regional water quality study conducted by the U.S.
Geological Survey in the upper Illinois River Basin. The role of the Duluth
laboratory was to conduct ambient toxicity assessments in this watershed.
Sediment and surface water samples were collected over two and eight time
periods, respectively, in seven waterways within the basin. Five kinds of
toxicity tests were conducted with organism responses ranging from total
mortality to a stimulatory growth effect. Repeated sampling over time has
shown the sediment pore water samples to be much more toxic than the surface
water samples. Greatest toxicity occurred in two of the seven waterways. The
ambient toxicity findings corroborate biosurvey findings and state use
designations for these waterways.
SEDIMENT TOXICITY TESTING
Peter M. Chapman
E.V.S. Consultants
Sediment toxicity tests (bioassays) are conducted, generally in the
laboratory, by exposing biological systems to field collected sediments by one
of three principal exposure routes (whole sediments, elutriates, extracts).
Although such tests can be affected by a number of variables (e.g., sediment
storage and handling) and modifying factors (e.g., sediment characteristics,
route of exposure, organisms used), they presently provide the only relatively
simple and inexpensive effects-based measure of sediment contaminant
bioavailability. There importance in environmental assessment and management
is expected to increase over time, as will their usefulness in prioritizing
environmental problems and determining environmental relevance in terms
understandable not just to scientists, but to the public, and which are also
usable by managers and regulators.
MULTITROPHIC LEVEL ASSESSMENTS OF SEDIMENT AND WATER QUALITY
G. Allen Burton, Jr.
Wright State University
There are several approaches which are widely used in assessments of
water and/or sediment quality. Degradation in aquatic systems is frequently
defined by elevated contaminant concentrations, altered community indices, or
toxicity to single surrogate species. The strengths and weaknesses of these
and other approaches can best be examined by conducting intensive surveys
whereby the various assessment approaches are compared with each other and
validated by comparisons to J situ conditions. Our studies have examined
3-21
-------
several, geographically diverse, freshwater systems which receive a variety of
point and nonpoint source pollutants. In-stream chemical concentrations and
biological indices have been compared with laboratory and jjj situ toxicity
assay responses. The multitrophic level test battery has consisted of various
surrogate and indigenous species: Pirnephales promelas, Ceriodaphnia dubia,
Daphnia magna, Hyalella azteca, Selenastrum capricornutuni, Len na minor, and
indigenous microbial enzyme activities (several key oxido-reductases and
hydrolases).
Each test system has been the most sensitive to water or sediment
toxicity on at least one occasion. The test battery responses effectively
define zones of contamination. The test assays respond similarly only in
samples which are acutely toxic. Samples containing less contamination have
provided responses ranging from acute lethality to chronic reproduction or
growth effects, and/or no effects, depending on the test species and the test
site. Responses also varied between fl situ and laboratory assays, indicating
the significance of collection and exposure conditions on quality assessments.
These studies have further established the need for multitrophic level
assessments and validation of currently used approaches.
PREDICTIVE ABILITIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBCHRONIC TOXICITY TEST ENDPOINTS FOR COMPLEX EFFLUENTS
Thomas P. Simon
Central Regional Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seven endpoints from three EPA subchronic toxicity tests were evaluated
for their abilities to predict impacts from various complex effluents.
Compared were the subchronic fathead minnow embryo-larval survival and
teratogenicity test, fathead minnow larval growth and survival, and
Ceriodaphnia reproduction and survival tests for Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes from 75 Region V point source dischargers.
Statistical methods were used to compare coefficients of correlations for
endpoints within and between tests, determine trends among process types, and
establish predictions of endpoints suitable for each of the major process
types.
THE USE OF CULTURED HEPATOCYTES IN SCREENING WASTEWATERS FOR GENOTOXIC EFFECTS
Randy L. Jirtle
Duke University Medical Center
There exists the need for short-term biological assays to test
wastewaters and leachates for potential human health impact. These assays
must be able to detect both carcinogenic and procarcinogenic agents, and must
have sufficient sensitivity so as not to require sample extraction and
concentration of such agents. We have recently defined cell isolation and
culture conditions which enable us to use primary cultures of both rat and
human hepatocytes for genotoxicity testing. The test assays include
unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS), micronuclei formation and sister chromatic
exchange (SCE). Of these hepatocyte assays, SCE has proven to be the most
sensitive. For example, elevated levels of SCE are observed after a 3 hr
3-22
-------
exposure to 10-12 M aflatoxin B 1 . This is I to 2 orders of magnitude more
sensitive than other indicator cell systems which use the metabolizing
activity of liver microsomes. In view of the high sensitivity of the
hepatocyte SCE assay, we tested the utility of this system to screen the
genotoxic potential of treated domestic and industrial wastewaters. The SCE
chromosome was found to be related to wastewater concentration in a dose
response manner, and concentrations as low as 0.1% were shown to cause a
significant increase in SCE above background. In conclusion, SCE in cultured
hepatocytes can be used to screen the genotoxic potential of wastewaters, and
may hold a number of advantages over other short-term assays presently
employed for human health risk assessment.
ALGAL BIOASSAYS TO DEVELOP PHOSPHORUS WASTELOAD ALLOCATIONS
Thomas Stockton
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
The Algal Growth Potential Test (AGPT) was developed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to provide a standard method for
determining the potential of natural waters and wastewater to support or
inhibit algal growth. The test can provide useful information regarding 1)
the growth-limiting nutrients; 2) the biological availability of growth
limiting nutrients; and 3) the growth response to changes in concentrations of
growth-limiting nutrients. The North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM) has employed, with the assistance of EPA, the AGPT to
evaluate the impact of placing phosphorus limitations on several large NPDES
municipal wastewater discharges into poorly flushed lake headwater and cove
areas. Whole lake empirical eutrophication models previously employed by
NCDEM cannot fully address the problems associated with these localized impact
areas. This report outlines a case example of NCDEM’s approach to developing
effluent nutrient limitations using intensive AGPT and nutrient sampling.
3-23
-------
TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS: POINT SOURCES AND NPS
PHOSPHORUS LOADING TO THE TUALLATIN RIVER, OREGON
Bruce Cleland
Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Tualatin River, located in northwest Oregon near Portland, is used
by area residents for many purposes. The Tualatin drainage is over 700 square
miles and includes most of Washington County. Over the last 30 years,
Washington County has grown from 50,000 to over 250,000 people. The growing
population overwhelmed existing sewage treatment plants in the late 1960’s.
In the 1970’s, inadequate sewage treatment plants were closed and replaced
with two regional advanced wastewater treatment facilities. However, even
current high levels of wastewater treatment have not been enough. River flow
and nonpoint source pollution are two other major factors which affect water
quality in the Tualatin.
The uses of the Tualatin are currently threatened by deteriorating water
quality. Heavy algal growth in the slow-moving river is fed by nutrients from
sewage treatment plants, residential and agricultural fertilizers, and urban
stormwater runoff. A law suit filed against EPA in 1986 highlighted the need
for further action beyond the current advanced wastewater treatment.
Between 1986 and 1988, the State of Oregon conducted an intensive study
of the Tualatin River. The results of this work led to the adoption of
phosphorus and ammonia limits for the Tualatin River. Based on these limits,
which inc1uded a compliance date, TMDLs and implementation plans are currently
being developed by several state and local agencies. These plans will address
treated sewage, urban stormwater runoff, and agricultural runoff. Procedures
developed for the Tualatin are also being used to address problems on other
water quality limited segments in Oregon.
TMDL FOR DILLON RESERVOIR: PARTITIONING POINT SOURCES AND NONPOINT SOURCES
William N. Lewis, Jr.
University of Colorado
Lake Dillon is a large water supply reservoir located at an elevation of
9,000 ft. in the resort area of Sumit County, Colorado. Prior to 1980,
watershed development approximately doubled total phosphorus loading of the
reservoir, despite the use of tertiary treatment for phosphorus removal at all
major point sources. An intensive study of nonpoint sources for phosphorus
was initiated in 1980-81 and has continued to the present. The studies have
emphasized a mass balance approach for the analysis of specific land uses and
have been integrated by the use of a land use-phosphorus loading model. Use
of the model has facilitated prioritization of investments in recovery of
nonpoint source phosphorus.
3-24
-------
DIFFERENTIATING NATURAL AND FOREST MANAGEMENT-RELATED
SEDIMENT AT A BASIN SCALE IN THE DESCHUTES RIVER, WASHINGTON
Kathleen Sullivan, Ph.D.
Weyerhaeuser Company
The Deschutes River located in the Cascades Range of western Washington
has been a focus of attention for sedimentation, and fisheries issues
associated with forest management in its headwaters. In the decades after
1950, an extensive gravel road network has been constructed and over 50% of
the basin has been logged and regenerated, with much of that activity
occurring since 1970. Although no comprehensive basin sediment study has been
conducted, a large volume of Information on erosion and water quality has been
gathered at long-term monitoring sites, project evaluations, and research
studies in the basin by a number of agencies. Synthesis of this information
reveals the importance of natural and management-related sources of sediment
and helps to provide water quality protection by identifying best management
practices. This paper discusses the utility of various types of monitoring in
evaluating natural and management-related sedimentation effects in a
relatively large basin (150 mi 2 ) managed as commercial forestlands.
3-25
-------
REGIONAL ASSESSMENTS
OHIO’S USE OF GEOGRAPHICALLY-BASED BIOCRITERIA
Chris 0. Yoder
Division of Water Quality Planning & Assessment
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Ohio EPA recently proposed inclusion of biological criteria
(“biocriteria”) in its water quality standards regulations. Biocriteria are
based on the measurable characteristics of aquatic communities and focus on
structural and functional attributes. Ohio EPA uses fish and
macroinvertebrates to assess biological integrity in Ohio’s surface waters.
This represents a significant progression in Ohio’s WQS regulations, which
singularly relied on a chemical approach in assessing surface water quality in
the past. While chemical and emerging bioassay techniques remain essential
elements of the program, inclusion of biocriteria has significantly broadened
the scope of surface water assessment and protection in Ohio.
Biological criteria were derived by utilizing the results of sampling
conducted at least impacted regional reference sites. This design reflects
the practical definition of biological integrity as the biological performance
of the natural habitats of a region. Further organization was accomplished
using Omernik’s ecoregions of which Ohio contains five. Ecoregions in Ohio
were particularly useful because the base component maps are detailed and
well-supported by past research. Fish and macroinvertebrate data from more
than 300 Ohio reference sites were used to establish attainable, baseline
expectations within the framework of a tiered system of aquatic life use
designations.
Biocriteria provide the impetus and opportunity to recognize and account
for natural, ecological variability in the environment. One result is having
quantitative biological criteria that portray differences between ecoregions,
river and stream sizes, and aquatic life use designations. This represents a
shift from the traditional chemical approach in which a single criterion was
often applied unilaterally to these different situations.
Biocriteria are applied primarily as an ambient assessment tool and are
the principal arbiter of aquatic life use attainment or non-attainment in
Ohio.
Program uses include water quality based permitting, water quality
standards, basic monitoring and reporting, nonpoint source assessment, natural
resource damage assessment, and general problem discovery. An area of recent
investigation is to define “impact signatures” which may lead to the general
definition of impairment types by examining the response of the aquatic
community to various environmental perturbations.
3-26
-------
REGIONS FOR EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
James M. Omernik
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Laboratory
Alisa L. Gallant and Robert M. Hughes
NSI Technology Services Corporation
The need for regional frameworks for making assessments of environmental-
resources has been recognized for many years. In the absence of suitable
available schemes for resource assessment, particularly aquatic resources, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Corvallis, Oregon laboratory developed,
tested, and applied approaches for defining regional frameworks to meet both
multi- and single-purpose needs. Ecoregions have been developed to facilitate
the assessment of existing patterns and trends in the extent and quality of
environmental resources and their relationships with natural and human-related
characteristics. Aggregations of ecoregions have been defined and subregions
are being developed to allow more meaningful assessments to be made at
national and local scales. Approaches have also been developed for
delineating regions for the inventory, management, and monitoring of specific
problems or environmental characteristics, such as acidification of surface
waters and lake eutrophication. Ecoregions as well as special purpose regions
have distinct advantages and limitations. To avoid their misuse and insure
the best design of new special purpose regions requires development of a
clearer understanding of the nature of regions and boundaries and closer
working relations between regional geographers and resource managers at all
levels of government.
REFERENCE REACH APPROACH IN METRO-DENVER TO CHARACTERIZE EFFLUENT
IMPACTS ON BIOTA IN S. PLATTE RIVER
William M. Lewis, Jr.
University of Colorado
A reference reach approach was used in establishing site-specific
standards for oxygen, unionized ammonia, and chlorine in the South Platte
River below Denver. Quantitative estimates were made of the fish species
composition in the South Platte and, for comparison, in tributaries of the
South Platte and in the Arkansas River. Relationships were established
between physical habitat characteristics and fish comunity composition. An
expected fish community composition was then estimated for standardized
habitat conditions in the absence of water-quality impairment. The expected
community composition was compared statistically to the observed composition
of fish communities, corrected for physical habitat characteristics, on the
South Platte River at various distances from the major effluent outfall at
Denver. The use of this approach allowed site-specific identification of the
zone of effluent influence on fish communities. Matching of the zone of
influence to water chemistry data for the South Platte served as a basis for
the proposed site-specific water-quality standards.
3-27
-------
INTEGRATING ECOREGION CONCEPTS INTO STATE LAKE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS
Bruce Wilson
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
The aquatic ecoregion approach as developed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s Environmental Research Laboratory at Corvallis has been
used by a number of states to improve the management of their streams. In
addition to this application, Minnesota has elected to use the ecoregion
framework in developing lake management strategies. This paper focuses on
integrating the ecoregion concept into state lake management programs.
Potential applications will be addressed, and appropriate examples from
Minnesota’s experience provided. The following will be discussed: (a) use of
the ecoregion framework as a basis for analyzing existing data as required in
the context of Section 305(b) or 319 reports; (b) developing monitoring
programs for “representative/minimally impacted” lakes to characterize the
range in trophic status to be expected among different types of lakes in each
region; (c) determining the range of uses of lakes and defining “most
sensitive uses,” and (d) determining the expectations of lake users in terms
of recreation and aesthetics and evaluating citizen complaints regarding lake
water quality. As expectations may vary across a state it becomes important
to identify regional patterns.
REGIONAL APPLICATIONS OF BIOCRITERIA IN XERIC ENVIRONMENTS
John G. Wegrzyn
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality
Arizona faces critical water quality problems that are typical of states
with xeric climates. Development of regional biocriteria for aquatic
resources evolved in areas of the United States that characteristically have
more abundant surface water resources than most western states, especially the
arid states of the desert southwest. The Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) proposed to develop a regionalized approach to surface water
quality standards. This strategy will lead to: 1) regional biocriteria and 2)
regional numeric standards for specific constituent and contaminant
parameters. ADEQ proposes a three year study that will divide the state into
distinct ecological regions and will use biological indices that may include
the Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) as a basis for establishing both
biocriteria and numeric standards. This approach will allow Arizona to: 1)
develop adequate water quality standards to protect its designated uses, 2)
serve as the basis of a monitoring strategy to ensure that standards continue
to support the designated uses over time, and 3) also serve as a basis for
other pubic and private agencies and organizations to better manage natural
resources associated with Arizona surface waters.
3-28
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
THE SURFACE WATER PROJECT
Steven G. Paulsen
Environmental Research Center
University of Nevada
The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) is being
designed by the EPA’s Office of Research and Development to provide an
integrated assessment of the status and trends in the Nation’s ecological
resources on a regional and national scale. A fully implemented program will
identify: 1) the extent and condition of ecological resources (e.g.,
estuaries, lakes, streams, forests, deserts, wetlands, grasslands); 2) the
percentages of these resources which are adversely affected by pollutants or
other man-induced environmental stresses; 3) which resources are degrading,
where, and at what rate; 4) the relative magnitudes of the most likely causes
of adverse effects; and 5) whether control or mitigation programs are having
their desired effect. The program is designed around a national statistical
sampling network based on a systematic grid of sampling points which enables
resources to be sampled in proportion to their occurrence and provides, with
known confidence, statistical estimates of condition and the proportion of the
resource with various conditions. Three categories of indicators of
ecological condition are being used: 1) response indicators which are
primarily biological measures of overall condition; 2) exposure indicators
which represent a combination of physical, chemical and biological measures
which can be related to pollutant exposure, habitat degradation, or other
causes of poor condition; and 3) stressor indicators which are economic,
social and engineering data that can be used to confirm diagnoses of probable
cause of poor condition. Specific aspects of the lakes and streams component
of EMAP will be presented.
3-29
-------
SESSION 7: GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATERS
NPS CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER DISCHARGE TO SURFACE WATER
Chuck Job
Office of Groundwater Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Nonpoint source (NPS) derived contamination of groundwater that is
discharging to surface water can lead to exceedances of water quality
standards. Best management practices for controlling NPS pollution may be
ineffective unless this groundwater component is understood. As part of its
technical assistance efforts to the states, EPA’s Office of Groundwater
Protection, with technical support from ICF, Inc. and Geraghty and Miller, is
investigating the methods used for estimating NPS contaminated groundwater
discharge to surface water. To date, the project has reviewed the literature
to identify the major methods, contaminants, hydrogeologic settings and land
uses. The major methods include seepage meter measurements, geophysical
techniques, hydrograph analysis, and various modelling applications. Future
activities leading to the development of methods to estimate NPS-contaminated
groundwater discharge to surface water include:
1) Evaluation of each method for its use in different
hydrogeologic settings in the United States. Case studies will
examine differences in contaminant type, hydrogeologic setting,
geologic conditions and type of affected surface water.
Additional information from case studies will include land use,
duration of contamination, climatic regime and seasonal flucations
of groundwater elevations.
2) Evaluation of the technical and programmatic development
necessary for potential use of these methods in incorporating
groundwater contributions into the EPA/State wasteload allocation
process.
AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS IN GROUNDWATER: LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE
SOUTH DAKOTA RURAL CLEAN WATER PROJECT
C. Gregg Carl son
Plant Science Department
South Dakota State University
John Bischoff and Alan Bender
Water Resources Institute
South Dakota State University
Scientific and social lessons learned from South Dakota RCWP are
discussed. The following are conclusions that will be presented in detail.
The time of sampling relative to time of application is more important than
was originally thought. Macropore flow negates the use of traditional
modeling methods to predict solute transport. Vulnerability of a specific
water resource is determined by the soil and geology of the area of concern.
3-30
-------
The timing of fertilizer and pesticide application relative to the time of
precipitation is critical in determining impact upon ground water. The
fertilizer and pest management capabilities of local farmers continues to lag
far behind the knowledge of agronomic science. Many farmers feel a need to
include ground and surface water protection into their management schemes but
are not certain that they can make a difference. A prescriptive process that
is designed to be included in farmer management plans and that was developed
to address non int agronomic pollution problems is presented.
IOWA’S BIG SPRING BASIN DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
John Littke
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
The Big Spring Basin, a 267 square km groundwater basin in northeastern
Iowa, has been defined by studying the potentiometric surface in the Galena
aquifer, dye-trace studies, and assessment of gaining and losing stream
reaches. These data, combined with spring and stream gaging, show that 85 to
90 percent of the groundwater from the Basin is discharged at a single
location; Big Spring. The Basin is entirely agricultural with minimal point-
source impact, thus allowing for detailed study of an agricultural ecosystem.
The project, begun in 1981, was initially designed to investigate the
relationship between agricultural activities and groundwater quality. In 1986
a farm demonstration project was developed and included an intense,
interactive public education program. Through various scales of monitoring,
the environmental and economic impacts of changing farm practices are being
evaluated. This data will be used to evaluate farm management practices that
would improve farming efficiency and profitability while reducing the impacts
on the environment from soil erosion, chemical and nutrient contamination of
water supplies, and consumption of non-renewable energy resources.
INDICATORS OF SURFACE WATER SOURCES
IN PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS
Roy F. Spalding
Associate Director, Water Center
University of Nebraska
Methods need to be developed for assessing the proportion of surface
water in alluvial high yield well fields. Regulations proposed under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) require that ground water sources influenced by
surface water be evaluated for the need to install filtration and disinfection
systems. Such systems would have the same requisites as those pumping from
surface waters. The proposed regulations discussed in the Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR) of SOWA include water sources that are directly
influenced by surface water.
The purpose of this proposal is multi-fold: 1) to develop a method to
identify surface water induced by pumping ground water; 2) to determine the
impact of surface water pesticide contamination during spring runoff events in
a mixed surface and groundwater source; 3) to test associations of
microbiologic, particulate and chemical parameters to the validated method
(H/D); and 4) to predict the H/D methods applicability to other areas.
3-31
-------
Validation of the proposed method using stable isotopes of hydrogen will
necessitate extensive groundwater monitoring using specially installed
multilevel samplers.
DESIGN, SAMPLING, AND DATA ANALYSIS FROM A MAJOR NPS NETWORK
Jeanne Goodman
South Dakota Department of Water and Natural Resources
The Oakwood Lakes-Poinsett Rural Clean Water Program/Comprehensive
Monitoring and Evaluation project area is located in east central South
Dakota. The objective of the Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation Project
is to determine if the implementation of selected agricultural best management
practices (BMPs) such as conservation tillage, and fertilizer and pesticide
management can reduce nitrogen and pesticide levels in the groundwater system.
Monitoring is conducted at seven field sites which are 10 to 80 acres in
size. Groundwater is sampled from 114 wells constructed in glacial tills and
outwash. Samples are taken from all monitoring wells bimonthly and analyzed
for nitrates and other indicator parameters. Samples are collected from
selected wells biweekly during the growing season and monthly for the
remainder of the year and are analyzed for pesticides. The land use, climate,
vadose zone, and surface water runoff are also monitored.
“Geozones”, a unique classification method, uses several parameters to
characterize each well, which attempts to reduce variability of the data from
the diversity of hydrogeologic environments being monitored. Groundwater data
are statistically compared for farmed versus unfarmed sites, glacial till
versus glacial sand and gravel, various geozones, for each site and for
various wells.
3-32
-------
SESSION 8: LAKE AND LARGE RESERVOIR ASSESSMENT
LAKE MONITORING: DEVELOPING STATE PROGRAMS AND
MEETING FEDERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Donna F. Sefton
Region 7
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Several sections of the Clean Water Act (CWA) amendments of 1987 (e.g.
305(b), 314, 319) contain requirements for assessment of lakes and reservoirs.
States are expected to increase the number of waters assessed by: tapping new
data sources, adopting new monitoring techniques as they become available, and
including “evaluated” waters in their assessments. A combination of agency
and citizen-collected lake/watershed data can be used to document water
quality status and trends, diagnose causes/sources of problems, guide
implementation of watershed protection and lake restoration measures, and
evaluate their effectiveness. Such lake monitoring activities not only help
satisfy CWA reporting requirements, but serve to advance State natural
resource programs as well. Lake assessment activities provide the framework
for information/education and technical assistance programs to facilitate lake
protection and management statewide. They also foster cooperation and local
“grass roots” support for environmental programs. Examples of statewide lake
assessment programs designed to meet Federal reporting requirements and state
environmental objectives are provided.
CASCADE RESERVOIR WATERSHED PROJECT
Dale E. Anderson, Steven C. Chapra,
Patricia Klahr, and Tony Bennett’
The Cascade Reservoir Watershed Project is a multi-agency effort devoted
to reversing the trend of increasing algae blooms and poor water clarity in
Cascade Reservoir, Valley County, Idaho. The project is focusing on pollutant
control practices which will reduce reservoir phosphorus loading throughout
the 383,000-acre Cascade Reservoir watershed. The project is jointly
administered by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality and the Idaho Soil
Conservation Commission, with technical assistance from the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service and other state and federal agencies. Cascade Reservoir
is a 26,488-acre impoundment of the North Fork Payette River located in west
central Idaho. It is rated as the number one fishery in Idaho, based on user
days.
The presentation provides a project overview, discussing the watershed
plan development process. The focus will be on the water quality monitoring;
how it is being approached and how it is being integrated with the watershed
planning and reservoir modeling. Some key topics include: the watershed
inventory, use of ambient and synoptic water quality surveys, estimating
phosphorus load reduction, reservoir model development to provide information
for water quality management decisions, and implementation monitoring.
3-33
-------
Project implementation is targeted towards a voluntary program of
agricultural pollution abatement and conservation of soil and water resources.
Best management practices that are being evaluated for use in the watershed
include improvements to on-farm water delivery system such as land leveling,
conversion from flood irrigation to sprinkler irrigation, installation of
pipelines, pasture renovation, improved irrigation water management, and
riparian corridor restoration.
‘Respectively; Manager, Environmental Services, Entranco Engineers; Professor,
University of Colorado; Senior Water Quality Specialist, Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality; Water Quality Planner, Valley Soil Conservation
District.
FLAMING GORGE: U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
Jerry B. Miller
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Reservoirs have been classified as riverine, transitional, and
lacustrine. Flaming Gorge Reservoir is a large lacustrine reservoir with
distinct riverine and transitional sections. Satellite images of chlorophyll
and suspended sediment clearly distinguish each section in Flaming Gorge
Reservoir. Seasonal variations in dissolved solids and inflow temperature
results in geochemically identifiable density currents in Flaming Gorge.
Drawdown in Flaming Gorge Reservoir causes significant headcutting with a
large release of phosphorus from the resuspended sediments. A recent change
of operation in Flaming Gorge, decreasing drawdown in August and September,
has significantly reduced this nutrient source and associated blue-green algal
blooms. Understanding drawdown is a very important, but often overlooked
mechanism, in determining internal nutrient recycling in reservoirs. The
importance of this mechanism is related to other reservoirs, including Deer
Creek in Utah. Deer Creek Reservoir has experienced much greater impact than
empirical models predicted by a 25-35% reduction in inflow phosphorus. Blue-
green algal blooms have been significantly reduced in Deer Creek Reservoir.
LONGTERM ASSESSMENT OF EUTROPHICATION IN LAKE TAHOE, CALIFORNIA-NEVADA
Charles R. Goldman
University of California, Davis
Abstract Not Available
WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN TVA RESERVOIRS
Ronald Pasch
Water Resources
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Tennessee Valley Authority (IVA) is attempting to develop and
maintain an information base sufficient to provide a broad perspective on
water resource conditions and issues throughout the Valley. Portions of the
surface water monitoring strategy designed to accomplish this goal have been
3-34
-------
in operation for a few years. These include: 1) Issues Analyses - compiling
available information and identifying important water resource issues for
specific watersheds; 2) Ambient Monitoring - physical, chemical, and
biological monitoring in Valley streams and reservoirs; 3) Data Management -
processing, analyzing, and reporting the results of ambient monitoring; and 4)
Water Resource User Relationships - conducting educational activities to
improve public awareness of, and participation in, water resource management.
Ambient monitoring is divided into two categories, fixed station
watershed monitoring and reservoir monitoring. The fixed station network
(implemented in 1986) is designed to evaluate conditions in tributary streams
feeding the reservoir system. The program relies on physical and chemical
measurements, toxicity testing of water and sediment, fish flesh analyses, and
description of benthic and fish communities using appropriate indices.
Monitoring within reservoirs (to be implemented in 1990) consists of
essentially the same elements. Description of plankton communities is
included in reservoir monitoring because of their importance in that habitat.
Also, the new Health Condition Profile has been included in reservoir
monitoring to evaluate the extent of environmental stress experienced by key
fish species. The program is envisioned to use a reservoir Index of Biotic
Integrity when development is completed (anticipated in 3-5 years).
3-35
-------
4: Bioassessment and Non-point
Source Pollution: An Overview
-------
4. BIOASSESSMENT AND NON-POINT SOURCE POLLUTION: AN OVERVIEW
JAMES R. KARR
HAROLD H. BAILEY PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY
VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC AND STATE UNIVERSITY
BLACKSBURG, VA 24061-0406
Two problems, non-point source pollution and continuing declines in the
biological integrity of water resources, have been especially intractable in
the water resource arena despite massive expenditures of public funds.
Ironically, the perception of biological degradation in water resource systems
stimulated current state and federal legislation on the quality of water
resources, but that biological focus was lost in the search for easily
measured physical and chemical surrogates.
Today, I begin with evidence of continuing degradation in the biological
components of our water resource systems. I then turn to non-point sources
including a summary of non-point effects on water resources in North America,
including comments on why efforts to control non-point sources in the last two
decades have not been very successful. Three additional subjects will be
discussed in some detail: the strengths and weaknesses of several biological
assessment approaches, selected challenges for the future, and my thoughts on
important components of a successful non-point source program.
Where are we now?
Several lines of evidence lead to the conclusion that water resources
have not improved as much as we would like. The National Wildlife
Federation’s review of trends in water resource quality from 1969 to 1979
showed a 17% decline. Although most would agree that this is not very robust
analysis, the trend is clear. Several years ago we (Karr et al. 1985)
analyzed the fish faunas of two midwestern rivers: Illinois River and Maurnee
River. Since 1850, two-thirds (67%) of the species have shown massive
population declines (or been extirpated) in the Illinois River watershed and
43% were affected in the Maumee. A more detailed look at this data set shows
that both watersheds experienced major degradation in their headwaters while
large river segments were more influenced In the Illinois than Maumee (Karr et
al. 1985). The primary factors responsible for degradation were agriculture,
navigation, impoundments and levees, toxics, consumption of water, and
introduction of exotics. I simply want to emphasize the point that
degradation in the biological resources associated with our water systems in
North America has been substantial and that degradation continues today.
Legislative History and the Non-point Prob1e
Public Law 92-500 charged us with the responsibility of restoring and
maintaining the physical, chemical and biological Integrity of the nation’s
waters. Most federal and state efforts to improve the quality of water
resources concentrated on chemical and physical surrogates,.with little effort
to deal with the biological Integrity of those resources. The situation
continues despite recognition that the ability to sustain a balanced
biological community is one of the best indicators of potential for beneficial
4-1
-------
use of a water resource. That fundamental principle will be a central theme
of my presentation. Ignoring that principle resulted in early legislation and
regulations that limited our ability to deal effectively with non-point
sources, the particular subject of this conference. Fortunately, recognition
of the weakness of the chemical and physical surrogate approach has increased
in recent years as have interests in uses of direct biological monitoring to
evaluate water resource quality.
Water quality problems during the last century and early in this century
derived from disease organisms and organic pollutants (Karr in press).
Funding for construction, technology development, and enforcement focused on
point sources or, for domestic effluent, we made it a point source problem by
collecting the effluent and using treatment systems before discharging the
wastewater into a water body. Eventually the focus on disease and oxygen
demanding waste expanded to include a growing list of toxic chemicals. As the
scale and complexity of water resources problems increases, the focus for
solutions should change from detailed concern with individual chemicals and
species to environmental processes and patterns that control the dynamics of
the entire water resource system. Thus, the approach to monitoring must
evolve over time. The metrics and approaches must be modified to contend with
the scale and complexity of the problems to be assessed.
Efforts to control non-point source pollution began in the early 1970’s
and continued through several generations of programs- -Section 208, Model
Implementation Program (MIP), and the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP). These
dealt primarily with agricultural non-point pollution. Additional efforts
focussed on urban, construction, and forestry sources. Despite these efforts,
the magnitude of the non-point source problem remains large (Thompson 1989,
Karr in press). A recent USEPA report noted that 65% of impaired stream miles
were limited by non-point sources and 76% of impaired lakes were impacted by
non-point source problems. Eighty percent of water resource impairment is
connected to non-point source problems according to a study by TVA.
Finally, the Association of Water Pollution Control Administrators
assessed many U. S. lakes and found that 53% of those lakes were impaired by
non-point sources.
Earlier efforts to resolve non-point source (NPS) problems were largely
unsuccessful. First, they used a point source approach (chemical-specific
toxicological criteria and water quality standards) to solve problems that
often were not amenable to solution by that approach. Development of the more
complicated total maximum daily load (TMDI) approach was generally a failure
as well. Under TMDL, society apportions the treatment capacity of a water
body to point and non-point sources. Unless this approach is modified to
include ecological factors, it probably will not be effective at protecting
the quality of water resources even if implemented carefully. Of course, even
TMDL approaches will not be adequate when factors other than PS and NPS
pollution limit water resource quality. Second, the implementation of best
management practices (BliP’s) was, and continues to be a principal approach to
NPS control. The BliP approach Is flawed for two reasons.
First, early lists of BliP’s were based on complex mixes of goals relating
to soil erosion control, production enhancement, and ‘channel stabilization,”
under the assumption that improved water resources would follow. I first saw
4-2
-------
this during my participation in the Black Creek study in Allen County, Indiana
from 1973 to 1981 (Morrison 1981). While reduced soil erosion is an admirable
goal it cannot be translated directly and inevitably into improvements in
water resources. Stated simply, water resource protection must be based on
rates of delivery of sediment to stream channels, not on erosion rates
estimated by the Universal Soil Loss Equation. Further, the dogma built up
about the value of those best management practices even for soil erosion, can
be successfully challenged.
Second, application of individual BliP’s does not yield the most effective
best management system . What we should be doing is creating best management
systems; that is, integrated sets of best management practices that work
effectively together (Karr and Schiosser 1978).
Let me give you a couple of examples from my experience. In the Black
Creek watershed In Indiana, a desilting basin was installed to trap sediments
carried by the stream. We measured suspended solids In this desilting basin
over a period of years (Table 1). Based on 20 paired samples, using a
Wilcoxon test, total residue, turbidity, and total P all increased
significantly (P0.05) in transit through the desilting basin. When I first
reported this to the project research group, they accused me of manufacturing
data, suggesting that this was physically Impossible. Two explanations may
account for this pattern. Perhaps this basin was serving as a stagnant pond,
with water column algal populations. The more likely alternative was that a
carp population colonized this desilting basin and they continually
resuspended material and kept the turbidity levels high through their feeding
activity. The point is that a desilting basin as a way of managing sediment
has secondary effects due to biological dynamics that cannot be predicted from
simple, physical principles of channel hydraulics. An additional problem
created by this desilting basin is that, within a couple years, a meandering
channel begins to form as the basin fills with sediment. The basin must then
be dredged, if it Is to remain effective as a desilting basin. The
instability that is created sends slugs of sediment downstream on a regular
basis. In my opinion, this is not an effective BlIP, although it was billed as
a BMP.
As another example, we (Schlosser and Karr 1981) looked at watersheds in
Illinois to evaluate the erosion potential of each region of the watersheds
based on slope and other parameters from the universal soil loss equation. We
then evaluated the water quality characteristics along stream channels to
determine if the erosion potential and land use activity in each of these
segments impacted water quality as the water flowed down that channel. The
answer was ‘absolutely!” In the places that had very high erosion potential,
water quality was lower. It was best In the areas that had very low erosion
potential, as long as good stream channels were Dresent . With degraded stream
channels, watershed erosion potential was not a good predictor of the quality
of water within that channel. So the treatment of the land, and ignoring or
doing things (which often happened within that project) that destabilize
channels in that area, may have been a positive for water quality followed by
a negative. The negative was In the channel so the result was greater
degradation, yielding net degradation rather than an Improvement as a result
of best management practices.
4-3
-------
Table 1. Effects of desilting basin on water quality in Black Creek, Allen
County, Indiana.
Parameter UDDer Lower Sign.*
Total Residue 545.2 591.2 0.05
(MG/L)
Turbidity 76.8 108.1 <0.005
(Jackson)
Total P 0.33 0.52 <0.005
(MG/ L)
* Based on Wilcoxon paired-sample test using 20 paired samples
4-4
-------
Several people analyzed costs for implementation of best management
practices in the Black Creek watershed. From 1972-1977, 23% of treatment cost
was for land treatment (crop residue management, grass waterways, terraces,
minimum tillage) while 45% was spent on channel activities (channel
“maintenance,” removal of nearstream vegetation, grade stabilization) with a
total cost of $519,000 (Karr and Schiosser 1978). Extrapolation of those
costs often produced comments that land management programs designed to
protect water resources were simply too expensive. On the contrary, I argued,
we must be more careful to attribute costs to water quality if, and only if,
they are effective at accomplishing that goal. BMP’s that enhance production
or even degrade water resources should not be included in cost of protecting
water resources.
These examples Illustrate the point that using the point-source approach
to solve non-point source problems is like trying to fit the proverbial square
peg in a round hole; It has not worked. We must seek new ways, new ideas, new
methodologies to bring non-point source problems under control.
Another major point that I would like to make is that water quality is
important but it is not identical to biological integrity or ecological
integrity. What we should be focusing on is the more broadly conceived
quality of the water resource. I think this can be illustrated by looking
back to the dinner speech last night, where the speaker discussed water
quality and water quantity and asked the question, “how do we combine the
two?” It is difficult to combine them if we carry the historical baggage of
solely trying to improve water quality. What we are trying to improve is the
Quality of water resources . I think when we begin to focus on improvement in
the quality of water resources, we will escape the narrow focus imposed by a
dominantly point source approach.
Two concepts are important in the development of this broader
perspective:
biological integrity - “the capability of supporting and
maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive, community of organisms
having a species composition and functional organization comparable
to that of natural habitat of the region” (Karr and Dudley 1981).
ecologica1 health - “...a biological system--whether it is a
human system or a stream ecosystem--can be considered healthy when
its inherent potential is realized, its condition is stable, its
capacity for self-repair when perturbed Is preserved, and minimal
external support for management Is needed” (Karr et al. 1986).
By now it should be clear that many problems associated with water
resources have not been adequately addressed. These include a growing list of
toxics, non-point sources of pollution, and a variety of non-toxic effects
like habitat degradation and altered stream flows. In my view, the limited
use of biological factors in evaluating the quality of water resources
perpetuates these problems and results in continuing declines in the health,
the biological integrity, of water resource systems.
4-5
-------
Biological Monitoring and Control of Non-point Sources
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act provides a clear mandate to manage
non-point sources of pollution. We are, thus, on the threshold of new
opportunities if we can be sufficiently emphatic and innovative about the
needs for strong, effective NPS control programs. Most importantly we need to
use our biological knowledge to guide those programs, but this requires us to
overcome some bad habits.
The limited use of biology comes from several historical factors. First,
water pollution engineers with construction and technology approaches have
dominated water resource programs, a legacy from the Water Pollution Control
Administration. We also were limited by the lack of a defensible definition
of biological integrity, and I blame our inability to deal with that issue on
biologists. Biologists have simply not been effective at articulating what we
are trying to protect when we talk about protection of water resources. We
lacked a standardized set of field methods, we lacked indexes that were
successful, intuitively reasonable, and easily coninunicated to lawyers,
engineers, planners and to the public at large. Biologists could talk to each
other but we were not effective at talking to other people and providing ways
of comunicating the biology of water resource protection, and the extent to
which human activities were responsible for degrading those resources.
Finally, I think there have been some profound misconceptions about cost.
Ohio EPA recently compiled costs for completed water resource evaluations
(Table 2). This tabulation puts to rest the old saw that biological
monitoring is too expensive. Two other aspects of cost need to be dealt with
as well. First, we must go beyond the cost of data collection and analysis,
to think about the costs of sampling relative to the cost of building and
operating treatment plants that may be unnecessary or poorly designed relative
to local needs. There is no point in building and operating a treatment plant
if that treatment plant is not going to solve the problem. Karr et al. (1985)
provide an example of implementation of tertiary denitrification that probably
had little benefit to the water resource.
We can develop more efficient and cost-effective programs through use of
quality monitoring efforts, to replace expensive and generalized construction.
Recent calls to phase out construction in the Clean Water Act of 1987 suggest
more widespread recognition of this issue. Finally, the cost of a little bit
of monitoring is cheap relative to the cost of bad management decisions. We
made many bad management decisions concerning treatment plant construction.
Many examples could be cited and most in this audience must be familiar with
one or more.
Approaches to Biological Monitoring
I turn now to biological assessments. Many attempts to use biology in
evaluation of the quality of a water resource have been made. The most
extensively used involves toxicity testing, an approach that has been
incorporated Into both legislative and regulatory contexts. Simple, single-
species toxicity tests have been supplemented by multispecies, microcosm, and
model ecosystem approaches as well. Ambient biological monitoring has been
used with some success for many years as have some uses of mathematical and
conceptual models of the effects of pollutants and other factors on the
4-6
-------
Table 2. Comparative cost analysis for sample collection, processing and analysis for
evaluation of the quality of a water resource. Data from Ohio EPA, 1989
provided by C. 0. Yoder.
Per SamDled Per Evaluationb
Chemical/Physical Water Quality
4 samples/site $1,436 $ 8,616
6 samples/site $2,154 $12,924
B i o assay
Screening (Acute-48 hour exposure) $1,191 $ 3,573
Definitive (LC5OC and EC5Od - 48 & 96 hour) $ 1,848 $ 5,544
Seven Day (acute and chronic effects - 7 day
exposure single sample) $ 3,052 $ 9,156
Seven Day (as above but with composite
sample collected daily) $ 6,106 $18,318
Macroinvertebrate Community $ 824 $ 4,120
Fish Community $ 740 $ 3,700
Fish and Macroinvertebrates (combined) $1,564 $ 7,820
- the cost to sample one location or one effluent; standard evaluation protocols specify
multiple samples per location.
b - the cost to evaluate the impact of an entity; this example assumes sampling 5 stream
sites and one effluent discharge.
c dose of toxicant that is lethal (fatal) to 50% of the organisms in the test conditions
at a specified time.
d - Concentration at which a specified effect is observed in 50% of organisms tested;
e. g., hemorrhaging, dilation of pupils, stop swiming
4-7
-------
degradation of water resources. Not surprisingly, the principal users of each
of those methods have been involved in territorial conflicts that result in
defense of turf as a way of protecting jobs and resources. In the long run
both the water resources and the use of biology in evaluation of water
resources suffers by the perpetuation of those battles. Here, I attempt a
brief review of the different biological approaches, including the strengths
and weaknesses of each.
Single-species toxicity testing . Toxicity tests have long been the central
foundation in water quality programs. Their strengths are well known and are
central to their long-term use.
STRENGTHS: 1. Tests are rapid, easy to conduct, and not too
expensive
2. Standardized procedures
3. Replication relatively easy
4. Convenient in regulatory context
5. Valuable screening tool
6. “Decisive” (but see below)
WEAKNESSES: 1. Low on realism
a. different dynamics in natural environment
b. organism adaptability not accounted for
c. do not simulate species interactions and
environmental influences
d. ignore cumulative impacts
2. Cannot predict direction of errors
3. Choice of species awkward or inappropriate for certain
habi tats
4. Ignores transformation of compounds
5. Ignores higher level effects
I take issue with only one of the strengths listed here: “decisive.”
These tests can be very decisive but in many circumstances they are not useful
in detecting many forms of degradation. I am reminded of the news a few days
ago when Nancy Reagan comented on how she helped President Reagan make
decisions about when he should fly or hold press conferences. The help of her
astrologer certainly made her decisive. I do not mean to suggest that
toxicity testing is not useful, only that decisiveness is not sufficient,
especially if the decisions made have nothing to do with the resolution of a
specific problem, i. e., if the primary problem is not even detected by that
procedure. Single species toxicity testing Is useful and decisive where it is
appropriate, but where it is not sensitive to the kind of degradation being
evaluated, its decisiveness is at best misleading and at worst dangerous for
the resource.
Multiple-species toxicity tests . Multi-species testing can reduce the errors
generated by dependence on single-species tests.
STRENGTHS: 1. Includes species interactions
2. More directly related to ecosystem consequences
3. With adequate controls, can be replicated
4. Bridge between single-species and field studies
4-8
-------
WEAKNESSES: 1. Oversimplification of natural system
2. Components of natural system (biotic and environmental)
missing
3. Inadequate consideration of cumulative impacts
4. Relevance of test species often not clear
Both single- and multi-species test systems have contributed materially
to the reduction in water quality impacts of human activities. But for the
reasons just noted, their use is not adequate for the protection of water
resources. However, it is important to keep in mind that toxicology deals
with effects at the level of the individual (Levin et al. 1989) while
chemicals (and other human impacts) directly affect many biological functions
(species interactions, population dynamics, nutrient processing, species
richness).
Ambient biological monitoring . A variety of biological monitoring tools have
been used for many years. Most simplistically, screening for microorganisms
(fecal coliforms, etc.) has long been used to detect contamination of water
resources. Similarly, benthic invertebrate communities have been studied,
especially to detect degradation due to enrichment by oxygen-demanding wastes.
As the complexity of water resource problems have increased the need for
more sophisticated approaches has grown. The target of protecting the quality
of water resources, as opposed to just making water clean, requires society to
identify the many different ways that humans Impact those resources. I do not
mean a list of chemicals or societal actions (e.g., channel alteration).
Rather, I intend to concentrate on defining the primary classes of variables
that humans impact that result in the degradation of the biological components
of water resources. Five such classes of variables exist (Fig. 1):
1. Water quality - temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen,
organic and inorganic chemicals, heavy metals, toxic,
substances, etc.
2. Habitat structure - substrate type, water depth and current
velocity, spatial and temporal complexity of physical habitat
3. Flow regime - water volume, temporal distribution of flows
4. Energy source - type, amount, and particle size of organic
material entering stream, seasonal pattern of energy
availability
5. Biotic interactions - competition, predation, disease,
parasitism
Karr et al. (1986) provides a more detailed analysis of these factors and
how human actions impact the quality of water resources through alterations of
these aspects of natural systems. The water quality issue has been the
primary subject of efforts from USEPA and equivalent state agencies. The Fish
and Wildlife Service and the state fish and game agencies have treated habitat
degradation and in recent years those same agencies evaluated altered flow
regimes with the Instream-flow methodology. Few have dealt with alteration of
energy sources that drive stream biology, and most Impacts of interspecific
interactions have come from efforts to introduce exotics and/or through
effects of harvest of top predators.
4-9
-------
Figure 1.
Five major classes of environmental factors that affect the
integrity of an aquatic biota.
4-10
-------
Overall, the determinants of water resource quality from a biological
perspective are complex, and the simplistic EPA approach of making water
cleaner is inadequate. To illustrate this, I often say, “We can make crystal
clear, distilled water and run it down concrete channels and we will still not
have quality water resources.” We must evaluate all water resource
degradation to identify the factors responsible for degradation and then treat
the problem in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. Ambient
biological monitoring offers unique opportunities to accomplish that goal.
STRENGTHS: 1. Integrates cumulative impacts from point source, non-
point source, flow alteration, and other diverse
impacts of human society
2. Integrates and evaluates the full range of classes of
impacts (water quality, habitat structure, etc.) on
biotic systems
3. Direct evaluation of resource condition
4. Easy to relate to general public
5. Overcomes many weaknesses of individual parameter by
parameter approaches
6. Can assess incremental degrees and types of degradation,
not just above or below some threshold
7. Can be used to assess resource trends in space or time
WEAKNESSES: 1. Considerable natural variation
2. Difficult to replicate
3. Need for more experimental and background work
4. Need to develop and test more comprehensive list of
specific criteria
Biological monitoring is at a threshold in the ways that it can be used
and in the potential for development of methodologies and indexes that can
provide useful answers to water resource problems. One of the most important
contributions of the recent growth in interest in biological monitoring has
been recognition of the need to set standards as a function of local and
regional expectations. Indeed, that should have been done for chemical and
physical criteria as well. For example, total phosphorus standards should
vary regionally and according to primary use among Minnesota lakes with values
ranging from less than 15 to 90 ugh (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
1988).
Many examples of use of ambient biological monitoring have been
documented in the past decade (Karr et al. 1986, Ohio EPA 1988, Steedman
1988). In the Scioto River near Columbus, Ohio a complex of water resource
problems representative of many areas In the U. S. can be seen. Monitoring
of the biota of the river over the last decade has shown substantial
improvement in biological Integrity in association with improvements in
wastewater treatment plants (Fig. 2). However, because of the widespread
degradation due to untreated factors (habitat degradation, non-point source
pollution, Input from combined sewer overflow), the biotic con unities of the
Scioto River adjacent to Columbus remain well below what might be expected in
that region.
In my experience the most successful efforts to protect water resources
using biological monitoring have incorporated the following characteristics of
4-11
-------
SCIOTO
RIVER, OHIO
Figure 2. Longitudinal trend in IBI for the Scioto River, Ohio in and
downstream from Columbus Ohio, 1979 and 1987. CSO = Combined
sewer overflow; WWTP = Wastewater treatment plant inflow; WWH =
Warmwater habitat; EWH Excellent warmwater habitat. Stream flow
is from left to right. (From Yoder 1989.)
H
H
River Mile
4-12
-------
biological systems: 1) their dynamics at a variety of relevant spatial and
temporal scales and 2) appropriate metrics at three levels: a) ecosystem
(productivity, decomposition, nutrient cycling, atmosphere/biosphere/geosphere
interactions); b) population/comunity (coninunity structure, species richness,
species interactions, functional groupings, population structure); and C)
health of individual organisms.
We must be innovative in incorporating these into water resource
evaluations. Some can be incorporated directly and easily (e.g., population
size, species richness) while others are more difficult or expensive to
measure directly. For example, the total productivity of an ecosystem is very
difficult to measure. We might seek ways to measure productivity, or a
surrogate of productivity that is indirect but reliable. Alternatively, we
might develop more cost effective ways to measure productivity by Improvements
in technology.
No one said 35 years ago that physical and chemical parameters do not
work perfectly, therefore we will not use them. Similarly, ambient
biomonitoring should not be rejected today because It Is not a perfect
replacement of physical and chemical monitoring or toxicity testing. Rather,
biological studies at all levels complement existing approaches in ways that
can be more cost effective and more accurate In detecting water resource
degradation and correcting the factors responsible for that degradation.
Ohio EPA (Yoder in press) recently compared chemical criteria and biological
criteria with respect to their ability to identify aquatic use impairment at
431 sites in Ohio. Chemical and biological criteria agreed 54% of the time.
Biocriteria identified Impairment where chemical criteria did not identify
impairment in 40% of cases. While many of the latter were impaired by
nonchemical conditions, Yoder noted that inadequacy in the design of chemical
monitoring programs also contributed to the underassessment of degradation
when chemical criteria were used.
Mathematical and conceotual models . Models guide all aspects of our decisions
about the regulation of water resource quality. Early conceptual models
viewed the problem as one of controlling effluents from human society. As the
kinds of human activities have increased, the need to broaden our conceptual
approaches has increased as well. Unfortunately, that need has not been
widely recognized and water resources continue to suffer, although the use of
a broader conceptual framework is beginning to spread within the water
resource coninunity. Like conceptual models, mathematical models are limited
in their success by the extent to which they mimic the actual dynamics of the
system being modeled.
Empirical relationships have long been used in water quality analysis to
generate mathematical models. These include both dilution models and models
to predict dissolved oxygen levels or nitrogen, phosphorous, and suspended
solids concentrations. Of course, all models, whether conceptual or
mathematical, are only as good as the foundations from which they are
developed. For example, as I noted above, water quality models based on USLE
but not utilizing knowledge of delivery rates to stream channels will be
flawed. Similarly, models based on understanding of physical processes but
ignoring relevant biological dynamics will be flawed to the extent that
biology impacts the conditions In the stream or lake. Finally, wetland
systems, like streams, are variable in their ability to process pollutants.
4-13
-------
Biological changes stimulated by those pollutants are not Incorporated in
models, primarily because of limitation on current knowledge (Bedford and
Preston 1988). The strengths and weaknesses of models can be summarized as
follows.
STRENGTHS: 1. Improves theoretical foundations and guides further
research
2. Strengthens theoretical basis of extrapolation
WEAKNESSES: 1. Generally on understanding of system dynamics
2. Modelled processes must be general
3. Difficult to model dynamic, non-equilibrium system with
heterogeneity (spatial and temporal) at various scales
Anyone familiar with the history of water resource programs will know of
specific problems and solutions created by these approaches. My purpose here
is not to cast aspersions on any of these. Rather, I hope to instill a
healthy level of skepticism about any program or Individuals that suggest that
all problems can be resolved by any one of these approaches. Just like best
management systems are essential for the protection of local water resources,
a carefully formulated program of management of water resources must include
all these monitoring approaches to be effective over the long term.
Challenges for the Future
The use of this knowledge requires both ecological research to strengthen
the scientific background necessary to guide management programs and planning
and policy decisions that allow use of that knowledge. Specifically, we need:
1. Increased research on ecological dynamics (e.g., to document
ranges of natural and man-induced variation)
2. Development and testing of improved Indexes of biotic integrity,
3. Use of a wider range of taxa in biotic assessments,
4. Expanded use of biotic integrity concepts to other ecosystem
types (e.g., lakes, wetlands, estuaries, etc.),
5. Development of standardized sampling, and
6. Development of metrics that are sensitive to degradation
This last point brings to mind a major problem In many discussions on the
use of biological monitoring. Often, people advocating biological monitoring
speak in generalities about ‘Indicators’ such as fish or birds or benthic
invertebrates. The selection of taxa to be used as indicators is perhaps the
easiest task. I believe that, for the most part, any taxon could be selected
and produce a reasonable level of insight about the water resources. The more
difficult problem is development of a set of metrics that convert knowledge of
the taxon into useful information. Too little attention has been given to the
development of specific metrics, how they will be formulated and used to make
strong inferences about ecosystem health and to support robust management
decisions. For years many have argued that nothing could be done with fish or
benthic invertebrates because field data based on these taxa were too variable
to be useful. Recent advances with the development of IBI and similar
approaches using invertebrates use the same data from fish coninunity or
benthic invertebrate samples that has been available for decades. The
advances came because these new approaches provide Innovative synthesis using
4-14
-------
metrics that allow us to express pattern in clear ways and overcome the
problems of data variability.
I am dismayed to see the frequency with which biologists argue with each
other about whether fish or diatoms or invertebrates are better for
assessment. This hollow argument puts us in the position of fiddling while
Rome burns. We need to have a wide diversity of metrics from as a wide a
range of taxa and conceptual approaches within ecology as possible so that we
can pick the best approach for each special circumstance.
At the policy and planning level we must avoid rejecting approaches that
show promise but may not yet be perfected, we must avoid narrow taxonomic or
conceptual dogma that might constrain exploration of approaches to protect
water resources, and finally, we must insure that broad natural-resource goals
are always at the forefront of programs and policies.
We can use several general principles to accomplish societal goals:
1. Be aware of the uncertainty inherent in all approaches,
2. Be aware of approaches driven by factors other than resource
protection (e.g., the “decisive” criterion mentioned already), and
3. avoid the trap of too much sterile theory or unorganized data.
Many examples of bad theory guiding decisions could be cited. Further,
biologists are perhaps most guilty of collecting unorganized data. One of the
major advances in the past decade in protection of water resources is the
progress made by biologists in documenting natural pattern, in finding ways to
measure attributes of biological systems, and in the development of metrics
that are both sound and effective at comunicating the situation in streams to
planners and decision makers.
Several times during this conference (e.g., workgroup sessions)
individuals have asked - “What Is the appropriate balance of monitoring
approaches?” Hughes (in press) likened the situation to a stool, where the
legs supporting the stool are the monitoring approaches (e.g.,
physical/chemical parameters, toxicity testing, ambient biomonitoring). In my
view that analogy is inadequate. It is more appropriate to compare the
situation to a tripod supporting a spotting scope. To see a distant bird (or
focus on a water resource problem), one must adjust the lengths of the three
legs to accommodate the terrain (or the nature of the water resource problem).
Co nponents of a Successful Non-point Source Program
Much has been written in the past two decades about the needs of programs
to control non-point source pollutants. As I have argued above, the common
approach of using the conceptual foundations of point-source control efforts
have not been adequate. Because of the complexity of the problem, I have
neither the time nor the knowledge to produce a complete new program that will
be both successful and acceptable. I can, however, outline a few of the most
critical elements of such a program. These should include the following:
1. Knowledge of the dynamics of soil, water, and biotic systems,
2. Knowledge of the effects of human activities on these systems,
4-15
-------
3. Technical assistance programs funded at a level that will insure
their widespread availability and use,
4. Incentive programs to Insure selective application of that
assistance,
5. Regulatory and enforcement mechanisms to provide backup to
vol untary programs.
Among the specific programs that should be included within these general
guidelines are regulations, technical assistance, cost-sharing programs, low
interest loans, tax incentives, cross compliance, selective application,
classified streams, performance taxes, performance standards, design
standards, and pricing mechanisms. For more details on these programs, two
recent documents discuss these in greater detail (Karr et al. 1983, Thompson
1989).
Suninary
In review, I would like to make five points:
1. Quality water resources, not water quality, should be the
primary goal.
2. Past efforts to resolve NPS failed, not because of lack of
commitment, but because the kind of technological approach and
regulatory perspective that dominated PS control programs is
simply not enough to control NPS, or to protect against water
resource degradation in a larger context.
3. Protection of water quality demands a full tool box of
approaches, each applied as appropriate to the specific
situation.
4. Ambient biological monitoring, toxicity testing, conceptual and
mathematical models and physical/chemical monitoring must be
major components of that tool box.
5. Non-point programs should balance voluntary incentive-based
programs with mandatory backup enforcement programs to insure
that the water resources upon which society depends will not be
abused by a few individuals.
4-16
-------
Literature Cited
Bedford, B. L. and E. N. Preston. 1988. Developing the scientific basis for
assessing cumulative effects of wetland loss and degradation on landscape
functions: Status, perspectives and prospects. Environmental Management
12:751-771.
Hughes, R. N. 1989. What can biomonitoring tell us about the environmental
health of aquatic ecosystems? Proc. mt.. Symp. Design of Water Quality
Information Systems, Ft. Collins, CO. In Press.
Karr, J. R. In press. Biological integrity: A long-neglected aspect of
water resource management. Ecological Applications.
Karr, J. R. and D. R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspective on water quality
goals. Environmental Management 5:55-68.
Karr, J. R., L. A. Toth, and D. R. Dudley. 1985. Fish corrgnunities of
midwestern rivers: A history of degradation. BioScience 35:90-95.
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angerneier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schiosser.
1986. Assessment of Biological Integrity in Running Water: A Method and
its Rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication No.
5. Champaign, IL. 28 pp.
Karr, J. R., R. C. Heidinger, and E. H. Helmer. 1985. Sensitivity of the
index of biotic integrity to changes in chlorine and ammonia levels from
wastewater treatment facilities. Journal Water Pollution Control
Federation 57:912-915.
Karr, J. R. and I. J. Schlosser. 1978. Water resources and the land-water
interface.Science 201:229-234.
Karr, J. R., L. A. Toth, and G. D. Garman. 1983. Habitat preservation for
midwest stream fishes: principles and guidelines. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. EPA-600/3-38-006. 120 pp.
Levin, S. A., N. A. Harwell, J. R. Kelly, and K. D. Kimball (eds.). 1989.
Ecotoxicology: problems and approaches. Springer-Verlag, NY.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 1988. Minnesota Lake Water Quality
Assessment Report. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN.
Morrison, J. B. 1981. Final Report - Black Creek II. Pp. 1-10 in
Environmental impact of land use on water quality: Final report on the
Black Creek Project - Phase II. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Chicago, IL. EPA 905/9-81-03.
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1988. Users manual for biological
field assessment of Ohio Surface waters. 3 Volumes. Ohio EPA, Division
of Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water Section,
Columbus, OH.
4-17
-------
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1989. The Cost of Biological Field
Monitoring. Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water
Section. Columbus, Ohio. 5pp.
Schiosser, I. J. and J. R. Karr. 1981. Riparian vegetation and channel
morphology impact on spatial patterns of water quality in agricultural
watersheds. Environmental Management 5:233-243.
Steedman, R. J. 1988. Modification and assessment of an index of biotic
integrity to quantify stream quality in Southern Ontario. Can. Journal
Fish. Aquat. Sd. 45:492-501
Thompson, P. 1989. Poison Runoff: A Guide to State and Local Control of
Nonpoint Source Water Pollution. Natural Resources Defense Council,
Washington, DC. 484 pp.
Yoder, C. 0. 1989. The development and use of biological criteria in Ohio
surface waters. Pp. 139-146 in Water Quality Standards for the 21 st
Century. U.S.E.P.A., Washington, DC.
Yoder, C. 0. In press. Using biocriteria to monitor and assess nonpoint
source impacts. U.S.E.P.A.
4-18
-------
5. Workgroup Discussion Summaries
and Recommendations
-------
5. WORKGROUP DISCUSSION SUMMARIES
WORKGROUP 1: NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ANTIDEGR.AOATION
I. BACKGROUND
EPA’s requirements for State adoption of an antidegradation policy is
contained in the Code of Federal Regulations at 40 CFR 131.12. These
regulatory requirements have been in place since November 8, 1983, but the
policy was first established by the Department of the Interior in 1968. The
1987 Clean Water Act Amendments noted the Federal antidegradation policy in
Section 303(d)(4).
EPA believes that State antidegradation implementation plans should
include provisions for mandatory application In a State’s nonpoint source
control program. However, no State has yet fully Incorporated antidegradation
implementation into its nonpoint source management program, although several
are making significant progress.
II. KEY ISSUES
The first issue discussed was the availability of institutional
arrangements to regulate nonpoint sources of pollution.
1. To stress the role of CWA Section 319, EPA pointed out that Section
319 consists of a 3-tiered approach: assessment, management plan
and field implementation. Moreover, the process is iterative to
continually refine efforts to control nonpoint source pollution.
2. Principal comments encouraged EPA to facilitate and motivate other
Federal agencies to participate in maintaining water quality
standards which includes antidegradation implementation.
The second issue discussed was antidegradation implementation plan
development by the States and the necessity for guidance and other technical
support. There were several significant coments:
1. EPA was encouraged to produce guidance describing implementation
approaches In a technical transfer mode with examples. This
approach was deemed superior to more general guidance.
2. Additional EPA guidance should clarify what EPA expects from its
antidegradation policy concerning nonpoint sources; it should clear
up definitions that have been ‘fuzzy” in previous guidance; and
provide the specific elements that are sought.
3. EPA should take care to maintain internal consistency with its
coninents within its programs - for example, State water quality
standards reviews and EIS coninents.
5-1
-------
The third issue was field implementation of antidegradation. This topic
addresses how to measure and define the existing resource and the insults of
nonpoint source pollution. Comments included:
1. The measurement of degradation - what to measure, when to measure it
and for how long - are all issues needing guidance.
2. EPA’s recomended approaches should encourage more consistency in
the approaches used to implement antidegradation.
The fourth issue was monitoring for the purpose of implementing
antidegradation. Comments included the following:
1. Rapid bioassessment methods when compared with physical-chemical
methods may stretch resources and provide more information for less
money.
2. Federal land management agencies could be a big help in collecting
needed information; States, to the extent authorized, should work
with and help to direct Federal agency monitoring.
3. Municipal and industrial ambient water monitoring data may help to
define NPS effects.
4. EPA should modify the STORET Data System to more easily handle all
of the different kinds of data being collected.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
I. The discussions demonstrated that the conceptual basis for EPA’s
antidegradation policy has not been effectively communicated,
especially for nonpoint sources.
2. Since antidegradation was not included specifically in EPA’s section
319 guidance (only generic WQS), the section 319 management plans
being submitted will not address it specifically.
3. EPA has a large educational effort ahead for antidegradation as well
as WQS in general and must produce guidance and other information to
convey that message.
4. All of those who work for regulatory agencies, both Federal and
State, are urged to make an effort to learn about antidegradation.
The increase in lawsuits about antidegradation since the 1987 CWA
Amendments indicates that these efforts may have benefits.
5-2
-------
WORKGROUP 2: TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR P4ONPOIP4T SOURCES
I. BACKGROUND
Total maximum daily loads (TMDL5) are required by Section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act and EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 130, 1/1/85). TMDLs are
defined by these regulations as the sum of wasteload allocations for point
sources and natural background. There is additional interest in NPS
assessments and load allocation (LAs) due to 1) Section 319 of the CWA, 2) the
recent GAO report on the need for additional emphasis on TMDLs, 3) current
court action related to development and application of TMDLs, 4) and interest
in considering the combined water quality effects of point and nonpoint
sources.
The assessment and setting of LAs for NPSs can be complex due to the
intermittent nature of the loadings from these sources and the fact that this
loading often occurs at other than the low flows used for point source
controls. Conventional Pollutants : techniques (e.g. mathematical models) and
technical guidance documents are generally available for assessing and setting
NPS LAs for conventional pollutants such as nutrients and biological oxygen
demand in lakes, fresh water streams and coastal waters, although these
techniques often require extensive amounts of data and generally do not
address NPS loadings from individual sources. Technical guidance for
estuaries is not yet final but is available in draft. Other Pollutants :
specific techniques have generally not yet been provided for assessing and
setting LAs for clean sediment and toxics from NPSs.
II. KEY ISSUES
1. Is a waterbody-based assessment and allocation process the best
approach for integrating point and NPS loadings? Are other
approaches available for determining needed loading reductions by
point and NPSs?
2. Are non-steady state modeling approaches needed for LAs for toxics
from NPSs? The new type of Water Quality Criteria which includes
duration and frequency recomendations are apparently suitable for
all receiving water flows (with the criteria concentration,
duration, and frequency provisions still being subject to site-
specific modification). Since these criteria consider the duration
and frequency of criteria exceedances, do the models also need to
consider these factors?
3. Must a LA always be quantified as a number, or should EPA allow a
TMDL approach that allows setting the NPS LA as site-specific BMPs,
when setting a specific number through modeling, etc., Is not
feasible? Under this approach, the NPS LA could be specified, in
some cases, as site-specific BMPs, with follow-up monitoring of the
water quality results of the BMPs and additional adjustments to the
BMPS as needed over time. The TMDL would thus be developed using
BliPs for LAs in cases where doing quantitative estimates using
modeling is not yet feasible.
5-3
-------
4. What types of changes are needed for existing models and technical
tools to make the TMDL process more doable for NPS LAs? What type
of technical training is needed?
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
Issue #1: A waterbodv assessment-based orocess should be used to define
and implement NPS TMDLs. There should be allowance for different levels of
technical rigor supporting TMDLs. On one hand, there may be a clear
quantification of maximum allowable loads and a clear pathway to controls.
Yet, other TMDLs may be interim goals that are used to prompt “first level”
controls where feedback monitoring may result in modification of the TMDL and
controls. Lack of assessment data, lack of ability to clearly define loads,
lack of ability, to discern sources (all of these being component of the
waterbody assessment process) should not be used as excuses to implement a
“technology-based” approach where general performance requirements are applied
without the benefit of a TMDL (e.g. county-wide erosion control ordinances).
All approaches to NPS control should have some level of “compliance
monitoring” to provide feedback.
Issue #2: Further guidance and additional tools are needed to perform
NPS modeling that considers the dynamic nature of NPSs. These tools need to
consider the timing and cumulative impact of NPSs and PSs alike and need to
acknowledge the duration and frequency components of water quality criteria.
Issue #3: There should be flexibility In defining LAs (and the current
EPA regulation on TMDLs provides for that flexibility). BMPs in themselves
cannot constitute a “TMDL”, but some measurement (e.g. pounds per day, level
of toxicity, % reduction goals) tied to an in-stream water quality standard
should be considered mandatory components of NPS LAs. Again, monitoring
feedback is also an important component in implementing NPS LAs.
Issue #4: Further model development and training is needed to make the
NPS TMDL process more doable. In particular, methods to discern sources (PS
v. NPS v. natural background), define acceptable loads, and ways to allocate
loads need to be explored further. In doing this, we should acknowledge the
different needs with respect to 1) pollutant tvoes (nutrients, pathogens,
metals, other toxics, DO/BUD, temperature) and 2) water quality standards
(e.g. physical, chemical, biological) since the methods for establishing NPS
TMDLs are at different levels of development depending on the type of
pollutant. Further development of certain water quality criteria (e.g.
sediment criteria for both clean and contaminated sediment) are needed before
proceeding with NPS TMDLs.
In addition to the reconinendations given above, the following points were made
in the workgroup:
The roles of EPA and the States in establishing and implementing
NPS/TMDLs needs to be re-evaluated.
5-4
-------
• The minimum requirements for NPS/TMDLs need to be defined, keeping
in mind the flexibility afforded through the current regulations.
What does an approvable TMDL look like?
• The applicability of NPS/TMDLs at different scale levels (e.g. basin
- subbasin - stream reach) needs to be investigated.
5-5
-------
WORKGROUP 3: DESIGNING THE APPROPRIATE MIX FOR NPS ASSESSMENTS
I. BACKGROUND
The need to assess the extent of nonpolnt source (NPS) pollution is not
new. States have been required to report on NPS under sections 305(b) and
208, and most currently under section 319. Since the states have supposedly
reported on the extent of the NPS problem, one might question the need for a
discussion of NPS assessment. However, a large proportion of the NPS
assessments were based upon far less than rigorous scientific analysis; that
is, best professional judgement was used extensively and labeled as evaluated
data. Furthermore, many of the waters assessed for section 319 have never
been monitored routinely, suggesting that meaningful water quality and
beneficial use information does not exist.
Now that NPS monitoring and assessment are becoming highly visible
components of state monitoring programs, it Is important for EPA to be
responsive to state needs in this area. This workgroup is intended to provide
a forum for the states to share their successes and concerns with EPA and
other states. Also, this workgroup will discuss the various aspects of a
viable NPS monitoring and assessment program as part of the overall state
monitoring program.
I I. KEY ISSUES
A. What strategy of monitoring techniques (biological, chemical and
physical) are appropriate for NPS problem screening, trend
monitoring, and evaluation of NPS controls?
B. What are the key limitations states face in adding a strong
monitoring component to their overall monitoring program? What
should EPA’s role be?
C. What technical materials/assistance should EPA deliver in support of
the states to develop the appropriate mix of monitoring techniques
(e.g., biological, chemical and physical)?
III. RECOMMENDATION
A. ISSUE - Development of a Monitoring Strategy
• Recommendation - EPA should develop a Monitoring Strategy that
includes:
• A tiered assessment approach involving: 1) inventory,
2) beneficial use attainment analysis, and 3)
evaluation of NPS controls.
5-6
-------
• An inventory should have a preliminary screening of
instreani conditions, as well as an in-depth analysis
which includes a mix of chemical, physical and
biological parameters.
• Analysis of beneficial use attainment should adequately
describe the health of the aquatic ecosystem in
relation to some reference condition. This analysis
would define the quality of the particular water
resource against a previously described benchmark.
• An evaluation of the NPS controls is needed to
determine if: 1) they were implemented, 2) they were
effective, and 3) was the iterative NPS process
(feedback loop) followed? The feedback loop provides
for adaptive management. That is, NPS controls can be
modified when monitoring has shown that beneficial uses
are not being adequately protected.
• Sequential focusing can be utilized to evaluate the
most sensitive beneficial uses. This allows for a
strategy that defines the limiting factor for that
particular beneficial use in a priority watershed with
site-specific identification of the NPS problem.
B. ISSUE - Define the Key Limitations
• Recommendation - EPA should provide the guidance and research needed
to accurately define the following:
• Beneficial use designations; their implications are
poorly understood.
• What is meant by full protection TM in the
antidegradation portion of the water quality standards
regulations?
• A system for determining what constitutes
implementation of BMP’s.
• Ecological references at the regional and state
specific level.
• Appropriate training on the use of biological
monitoring.
• Acceptable approaches for developing and adopting
biocriteria in state water quality standards to
adequately protect designated beneficial uses.
• The relationships between stressors and beneficial
uses.
5-7
-------
C. ISSUE - What Solutions are Available
Recommendation - EPA should provide leadership in assisting the
states to develop the following:
• A comprehensive biological database system nationwide.
• A NPS network - bulletin board system is needed to
enhance interstate/EPA communication.
• Integrate point source and NPS monitoring activities at
all jurisdictional levels.
• Identify EPA Regional ecological experts to assist the
states.
• Develop aquatic habitat measures that can be
incorporated as criteria in states’ water quality
standards.
• Develop state-specific ecological references.
• Publicize the Ohio case history as an example of an
integrated assessment strategy.
5-8
-------
WORKGROUP 4: MONITORING PROGRM GUIDANCE AND FRAMEWORK
I. BACKGROUND
EPA’s Office of Water Regulations and Standards, with assistance from a
Federal/State workgroup, is preparing two documents of interest to managers
and staff with monitoring responsibilities:
1. A guidance document for State surface water monitoring programs; and
2. A “Monitoring Implementation Framework. Draft versions of the
guidance and Framework are expected to be available in early 1990.
II. ISSUES
Monitoring Proaram Guidance
1. Is our strategy sound of directing the program guidance not just to
the producers of monitoring data, but also to its users?
2. Do workgroup members have monitoring design recommendations that
they want to see included in the guidance document?
Monitoring Framework
3. Is there support for preparing a “Monitoring Implementation
Framework” that will serve as a five year plan listing specific
monitoring-related projects that EPA needs to complete (e.g.,
research, guidance, and training) and specific implementation
activities that could be taken to improve State monitoring programs?
4. What measures can EPA use to satisfy its §106(e) oversight
responsibilities and ensure the adequacy of State monitoring
programs?
5. What is the best mechanism for ensuring communication between EPA
and States over monitoring programs?
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Yes, It is vitally important to encourage communication between
technical and field staff who supply monitoring information, and
decision makers and other information users who can (and should)
demand monitoring information. We should be sure to talk to
information users in preparing the document.
2. Workgroup participants were generally satisfied with the “toolbox”
approach being taken in the guidance document. The guidance will
provide:
• Discussion of the benefits of using monitoring data In a variety
of program areas (e.g., in developing water quality standards,
5-9
-------
targeting waters in need of additional controls, determining
permit limits, evaluation project or program effectiveness);
• General monitoring design recomendation emphasizing practical
approaches requiring minimal resources (without automatically
specifying “acceptable” methods), supplemented with case studies
documenting specific monitoring approaches;
• Estimates of manpower, cost, skill, and hardware requirements;
• Annotated bibliographies listing more detailed technical
references on various monitoring approaches.
One or more workgroup participants offered the following suggestions
for specific topics they wanted addressed in the guidance:
• Discuss monitoring in all types of surface waters, and address
hydrologic connections between surface and groundwaters;
• Provide details on how monitoring point source impacts differs
from monitoring nonpoint source impacts;
• Discuss the value of developing and using regional goals or
standards;
• Provide recomendations on cooperative monitoring;
• Be sure to address data management and presentation;
• Discuss the role of trend assessment in State programs.
3. There is support for preparing a “Monitoring Implementation
Framework.” Several workgroup participants would like EPA to
clarify national assessment needs and set priorities that would help
States justify monitoring activities that are vulnerable to budget
cuts. There was some support for EPA making “evaluations of project
or program effectiveness” a national monitoring priority.
4-5. There was widespread agreement that EPA needs to define a minimally
acceptable program, but should not rely on “bean-counting” measures
(e.g., minimum number of analyses or surveys, minimum number of
biologists or other staff with specified skills) to satisfy Its
§106(e) oversIght responsibilities. Several participants thought
that workable “performance standards” could be developed (e.g., the
program should deliver x kind of information). Participants also
expressed a preference for general program “audits,” but warned that
they must be conducted by knowledcieable auditors.
5-10
-------
WORKGROUP 5: BIOACCUMULATION/SEDIKENT MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
I. BACKGROUND
Public concern about the impact of chemical contamination on water
quality was heightened recently by the release of reports by the National
Wildlife Federation (NWF) and the Greenpeace organization. The NWF concluded
that the levels of PCB’s and three organochlorines in Lake Michigan salmonids
represented a significant health risk. While no one debated that there was a
problem, most of the Lake Michigan states did not agree with NWF’s assessment
of the available fish tissue data for Lake Michigan. A major source of the
contamination was identified by NWF as ongoing permitted discharges by
industry. NWF’s report is an example of how fish tissue monitoring data could
be used to evaluate the validity of permitted discharge levels. It also
illustrates the need for standardization of assessment techniques.
Greenpeace released a report linking the excess deaths found in a number
of the counties along the Mississippi River to toxic substances in the water
and air. This conclusion was reached even though Greenpeace Identified the
lack of valid environmental monitoring data as a major barrier to performing
an evaluation. Because of this lack of data, It is impossible to dispute or
confirm Greenpeace’s evaluation. The report by Greenpeace illustrates the
need for more and better data on chemical contaminants in aquatic systems
(i.e., surface water, biota, and sediments).
In monitoring water quality, data on chemicals in sediment and their
bioaccuniulation in the tissues of fish and other aquatic organisms represent a
vital information source. These data reflect the long-term impact on the
environment and provide a potential inventory of chemicals entering the
environment. Data on contaminant levels In sediments and fish tissue can
provide guidance on where to target monitoring of both point and non-point
sources. They also may provide a way to validate the appropriateness of
permit discharge levels. Evaluation of chemicals in water provides only a
snap-shot view of contamination unless monitoring is done on a regular basis.
While there are strong advantages to using bioaccumulation/sediment
data, there are also problems. Procedures for collection, laboratory
analysis, and assessment of sediment and fish tissue samples vary widely. As
with the NWF example above, this has led to widely varying conclusions on
essentially the same data. Another disadvantage to these data is the monies
and expertise needed to do the laboratory analyses.
II. KEY ISSUES
A. Collection of Biota/Sediment Samples
1) Questions/issues on sample collection included collection
technique, number of collection sites, samples per site, and
which species and which tissues should be collected.
5-11
-------
2) Would it be beneficial for EPA and other federal agencies to
develop a cooperative program with the states to monitor biota
and sediment in the major river systems?
B. Laboratory Analysis
1) What standard analytical procedures still need to be developed?
2) Which chemicals should be analyzed?
C. Assessment of Results
1) How should health concern levels for contaminants In fish tissue
be established?
2) To what extent is biota contamination due to sediment
contamination?
I II. RECOMMENDATIONS
ISSUE - Collection of Biota/Sediment Samples
Reconmiendat lon - That a guidance document for collection of blota samples be
developed that:
• is cooperative effort of EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, regional
groups like Great Lakes Task Force and Mid America Fish
Contaminants, environmental groups such as National Wildlife
Federation, and state agencies.
• outlines tiered/phased approach to monitoring including use of fish
health condition index.
• suggests which sampling scheme is appropriate for a specific purpose
such as compliance, surveillance, etc. and which type of sample
should be taken (i.e., fillets, whole fish, specific tissues, etc.)
• gives specific guidance on handling samples including how to prepare
(i.e., filleting, skinning, trinining fat, etc.), wrap, preserve, and
ship sample. This includes collection of liver and other body
parts.
• identifies known databases on biota monitoring.
Recomendation - That EPA and the Fish and Wildlife Service increase the
amount of biota monitoring being done and also improve the coordination of
monitoring efforts by EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, and state agencies.
Recomendatlon - That the Sediment Classification Methods Compendium be
quickly finalized.
ISSUE - Laboratory Analysis
5-12
-------
Recommendation - That a process be established for the Standardization and,
when necessary, development of analytical methods for chemicals in biota and
sediment samples. There should be wide distribution of these methods.
Recommendation - That a proficiency round-robin be established for
laboratories doing analysis of chemicals in biota and sediment samples.
ISSUE - Assessment of Results
Recommendation - That EPA work with FDA, regional fish contaminant groups,
environmental and state agencies to develop consensus guidance on the issuing
of health advisories on chemicals in fish and shellfish. This should include
the convening of a National Workshop on Fish Health Advisories.
Recommendation - That EPA coordinate research on what extent fish tissue
contamination is due to sediment contamination. This research should address:
• other exposure routes
• habitat types
• species
• sediment type
• bioaccumulation factors
• bioconcentratlon factors
5-13
-------
WORKGROUP 6: ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
I. BACKGROUND
In the lead article of the May 1989 issue of the EPA Journal, EPA
Administrator William Reilly wrote that the good news is, “...the Agency does
an exemplary job of protecting the nation’s public health and the quality of
the environment.”. The bad news is that he “...can’t prove it.”.
Reilly’s comments highlight a major problem for many environmental
managers. Although the programs they oversee are supposed to protect and
improve.the environment, and extensive data collection efforts are mounted in
support of these programs, it is often difficult to show that things are
getting better (or worse). When asked to supply evidence of the effectiveness
of their programs, many managers have to rely on administrative measures
rather than system responses to demonstrate progress. Environmental
indicators are measures that can be used to assess environmental results.
The development of national level indicators is a challenging problem.
The workgroup on environmental indicators explored a range of topics related
to indicator development, discussed the use and value of several candidate
indicators, including fish tissue contamination, biological community
measures, physical and chemical water quality indices, and loading estimates,
as national indicators, and reviewed the status of EPA’s surface water
indicators project. Although the group did not arrive at any formal
recommendations or conclusions, there was consensus on six issues related to
national indicator development. The group also identified several constraints
to indicator development, and discussed the information and guidance needed to
implement national indicators. Finally, the group suggested several new
approaches for furthering the development of indicators.
II. KEY ISSUES
The workgroup considered six concerns presented in the issue paper on
indicator development. These were:
1. What are the most important institutional and scientific constraints
limiting the development and use of Indicators? How can these be
overcome?
2. Are program managers hesitant to comit to using environmental
indicators because of the fear of accountability? What can be done
to mitigate this concern?
3. Is the development of national indicators of surface water quality
realistic?
4. Assuming general agreement that indices of biological community
structure are a valuable component of a comprehensive assessment of
water quality, how should these be reported?
5-14
-------
5. To what extent can existing environmental information and data
collection programs be used in developing environmental indicators?
Are new data collection programs needed? Are resources available to
fund new collection programs?
6. Are loading estimates useful indicators?
POINTS OF CONSENSUS
1. There was general support for the idea of national environmental
indicators that show the.public and Congress where the quality of
the water resource is good and where it falls below water quality
standards and demonstrate if and where water quality is getting
better or worse.
2. There was a clear preference for using measures of biological
integrity over other indicators suggested. Group members emphasized
that an environmental indicator, whether developed for local,
regional, or national use, has to reflect the health of the aquatic
resource as opposed to reporting on water quality in a strict
physical/chemical sense.
3. There was a general feeling that physical and chemical measures of
water quality used alone were inadequate as a national indicator
because they can, in some cases, provide a misleading picture of the
overall health of the water body. They should only be used in
combination with biological measures. Single chemical measurements
do not reflect overall water quality.
4. There was general agreement that loadings estimates, although on the
input or source side of the continuum of environmental indicators,
are useful measures of the pollutant stress being placed on the
system and provide an indication of the effectiveness of regulatory
programs. However, there are problems with the availability of data
with which to make these loading estimates, particularly for
nonpoint sources.
5. The workgroup felt that the development of national environmental
indicators can take place within existing program frameworks,
although there has to be better coordination of indicator
development within these programs and possibly modification in the
data collection and reporting requirements. A new program directing
a new set of monitoring activities is not necessary.
6. The workgroup felt that an effort should be made to develop an
integrated approach in reporting and using indicators. This
approach would synthesize information drawn from a variety of
physical/chemical and biotlc indicators.
5-15
-------
CON STRA I NTS
1. Data availability . The workgroup noted that there is a lot of data
available to develop indicators, but it is often difficult to
access, compile, and synthesize.
2. Comparability . The group pointed out that different monitoring
parameters and methods are used in different states. This makes it
difficult to compare and interpret information collected for a
national indicator.
3. Consistency . Although EPA requires consistent reporting formats
under 305(b), there is no requirement by EPA that states use
consistent monitoring methods that can be converted into national
indicators (it was noted that the CWA does not give EPA a mandate to
require such monitoring).
4. Who is going to pay . The general feeling was that resources are not
available at the state level to fund new data collection if
additional monitoring is required by EPA.
INFORMATION NEEDS
The group identified the following information needs:
1. There is a need for a clear guidance from EPA regarding the suite of
measurements that should be made to develop national indicators.
Specifically mentioned were:
• technical guidance - more information is needed on what type of
biological community indices are appropriate; what type of
physical/chemical water quality indices should be used;
• guidance on interpretation of data;
• guidance on how to define spatial and temporal
representativeness; and
• guidance on what is a minimum data set acceptable to support
community structure measures;
It was noted that the recently released RaDid Bioassessment Protocols
for Streams and Rivers contains guidance in some of those areas.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
Several approaches were suggested by the group to further indicate
devel opment:
As an interim step, it was suggested that appropriate environmental
indicators be developed for existing national environmental data
sets maintained by EPA programs and other Federal Agencies (e.g.
Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the National
5-16
-------
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). For example, a simple
chemical index could be developed and applied to all USGS NASQAN
stations, as a way to indicate water quality for the chemicals
monitored at these sites. These indicators could be compiled to
show the state of information on the current state of the
environment. The limitations of these Indicators might then serve
as an incentive to EPA and Congress to allocate additional resources
to improve the nation’s ability to assess the quality of its surface
water resource.
It was also suggested that it might be useful to prepare a mock
report showing the types of information or statements that one might
make about the quality of the water resource if information were
available. The exercise would highlight the current deficiencies in
our data collection systems and ability to generate national
environmental Indicators.
• Finally, it was suggested that it might be useful to develop an
index of indexes, similar to the Index of Leading Economic
Indicators, that could sun narize the status of the health of the
aquatic resource. It was recognized that this would be an imperfect
tool, but one that might be very useful for public information and
education.
5-17
-------
WORKGROUP 7: MARINE AND ESTUARINE MONITORING
I. BACKGROUND
Water quality problems in estuarine and marine waters have received
increasing public attention. Legislation currently before Congress would
require the development of comprehensive new monitoring programs for these
waters. However, implementing monitoring programs for estuaries and near
coastal waters presents many problems that are not encountered in fresh water
systems. The number and diversity of estuarine ecosystem components to be
monitored is often much greater than those in fresh waters, and varying
salinity and hydrodynamic conditions require the development of unique methods
and sampling designs.
Moreover, monitoring programs for estuarine and near coastal waters must
provide ambient data supporting a wide range of water program needs. Guidance
recently issued by EPA directs states to include near coastal water body
segments in the 305(b) reporting process. Marine criteria and standards under
development will require the collection of ambient data. Establishing total
maximum daily loads, wasteload allocations, and load allocations for estuarine
areas will require additional monitoring data. The state 304(1) lists may not
adequately represent near coastal water bodies impaired by toxic discharges,
and development of the 319 lists and plans for addressing nonpoint source
problems must be supported by marine and estuarine monitoring programs.
The objective of this workgroup is to consider how state monitoring
programs can provide data for trend analysis, reporting, and decision making
in estuarine and near coastal waters.
II. KEY ISSUES
• Coastal waterbody segmentation, relation to 305(b) reporting.
• Indicators, types, regional vs. national focus.
• Marine and estuarine monitoring methodologies.
• Design of coastal vs. fresh monitoring systems.
• Validity of 304(1) listing process, understanding toxic impacts.
• National/regional coordination of monitoring systems.
• Public involvement.
• Citizen’s Monitoring.
5-18
-------
Segmentation
1. What is the purpose?
• Reporting
• Segmentation
2. Segmentation should be connected to the waterbody system.
3. 305(b) may not be the appropriate mechanism for reporting.
4. Need to connect with EMAP (Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program).
5. Methodologies must be flexible according to unique physical
characteristics. Some systems cannot be compared. Other factors
must be taken into account Including, population and salinity.
Existing systems should be used as models.
6. Other opportunities for reporting include the proposed coastal
legislation, the National Estuary Program, and other state
activities (e.g., N.J. tourism data).
7. The next steps are to work with states to develop segmentation
schemes. Use the State/EPA Agreements to accomplish this. Do pilot
projects with interested states.
Indicators
1. New indicators are being used which provide information on toxics,
oil spills, and ecological health (Puget Sound).
2. Existing data bases should be used such as the National Wetlands
Inventory.
3. Some regions are using a regional focus - Region 9 for
bioconcentrati on.
4. There should be interagency coordination, with agencies such as
National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, etc.
5. Data problems and gaps should be addressed. When you look for
problems you often find them.
6. The next steps are to conduct technology transfer for different
programs, support new research, and provide for state/EPA
discussions.
Methodologies
1. MethodologIes should focus on organics, looking at both tissue and
sediments.
5-19
-------
2. Protocols should be developed at both, inter and intra agency levels.
3. Draft bioconcentration guidance should be developed.
4. Field sampling protocols should be developed and/or transferred.
5. EPA labs need to be better coordinated. In addition, a lab
certification program is greatly needed to ensure consistent
protocols and techniques.
6. Method comparison should be done around the country.
7. The next steps are to compile chapters to the OMEP Methods
Compendium on organics and field sampling protocols, and begin to
address the laboratory certification issue.
Design of Coastal vs. Freshwater Monitoring Systems
1. EMAP needs to be better understood as a tool. It may not be site
specific enough.
2. Regions and States need more information on the status and findings
of the National Academy of Sciences monitoring studies.
3. Time and space parameters need to be included in any monitoring
guidance.
4. GIS systems should be further explored as tools to assist in coastal
monitoring. What role do coordinates play?
Extent of Toxics: Validity of 304(1) Listing Process
1. Politics play a major role in designating water bodies.
2. Better information is needed on the impairment of beneficial uses,
for example a summary of fish consumption advisories.
3. More information is needed on understanding Impacts on the
microlayer. A microlayer workshop was scheduled for Puget Sound in
November 1989. Southern California is also doing some work on
micro] ayer.
4. There is a need for further discussions to understand the validity
of ranking waters. There was a discussion on the pros and cons of
ranking certain waters, for example through the 304(1) process.
National/Regional Coordination of Monitoring Systems
1. A compendium with standardized QA/QC procedures is needed to support
better national and regional coordination.
2. Regional agreement among states and dischargers is required to
promote better regional coordination.
5-20
-------
3. Permits can be used to reallocate and rearrange monitoring
requirements. However, this requires cooperation between the
discharger and the regulator.
4. Program coordination is resource intensive for regional staff.
5. EMAP should look at existing data to promote a strong national
monitoring system.
6. Compliance monitoring should also be used to promote regional
coordination.
Public Involvement
1. Everyone agreed that public Involvement and understanding of
monitoring Information was essential to promote a better
understanding of water quality Issues. It was recommended that
success stories and recovery stories be used to convey an ability to
provide for successes. It is also critical to be sensitive to
public perception.
2. The key issue here is the right people must develop materials.
Sometimes press offices cannot transfer technical information
accurately.
3. It is very important for monitoring managers to develop a good
working relationship with the media to help promote positive
coninun i cation networks.
Citizen’s Monitoring
1. Puget Sound has had a successful citizen’s monitoring program. One
of its main accomplishments is putting people and agencies together.
Certain parameters are more conducive to citizen’s monitoring, for
example nutrients. Information has not been used for enforcement
purposes. Resource commitments are necessary to support citizen’s
monitoring.
2. The educational component is a strong outcome of citizen’s
monitoring.
3. Citizen’s monitoring programs have to be aware of the safety and
contamination issue.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Do pilot segmentation schemes with interested coastal states. This
was the most contentious discussion in the workgroup. Opinions from
the workgroup members echoed some of the same discussions we have
had at the headquarters and regional levels since we first started
talking about segmentation. The topic kept going back to 305(b).
Most workgroup participants felt that 305(b) is not all it could be,
5-21
-------
politics play a heavy role in states admitting where their problems
are located. We should make 305(b) a more valid reporting
mechanism. Most important in segmenting coastal areas is to work in
a consultative process with the states.
2. Add sections on organics and field testing to our Methods
Compend i urn.
3. Disseminate Information on new indicators.
4. The next stages of the methods compendium should focus on organics,
and field sampling protocols.
5. We should try to explore the use of EMAP in coastal systems and make
it meet our needs.
6. We should continue to disseminate Information on toxics monitoring.
Puget Sound is hosting a microlayer workshop In November.
7. We should use the permit process to try and promote national and
regional coordination of monitoring. The USGS Coordinating
Comittee should be made more useful.
8. Information on existing citizen’s monitoring programs should be
comunicated to the regions and states (Puget Sound, Chesapeake
Bay).
9. It is essential that monitoring information be transferred from
monitoring programs to the public. A strong working relationship
with the media is important. Success stories should be promoted.
5-22
-------
6. Water Use: The Unfinished Business
of Water Quality Protection
-------
6. WATER USE: THE UNFINISHED BUSINESS OF WATER QUALITY PROTECTION
LARRY MACOONNELL
NATURAL RESOURCES LAW CENTER
UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO
It is a real honor to be invited here to speak to this National
Symposium on Water Quality Assessment. The work you are doing to implement
effective water quality programs is absolutely essential. The exchange of
ideas and approaches here at this meeting has been impressive.
I am especially pleased to be able to speak to this group of water
quality professionals. Normally I find myself at meetings primarily with
lawyers. Now I have noticed that lawyers have become one of the favorite
targets of jokes at these meetings. That did not bother me too much until one
day not long ago my fourteen year-old daughter came home and asked me what is
black and brown and looks good on a lawyer (Answer: A doberman pincher).
I know that some people think that lawyers are not as ethical as they
should be. As someone who teaches law students, the ethics of the legal
profession concern me a great deal. But I want you to know that lawyers are
much more sensitive to this concern than ever before. For example, not long
ago a lawyer of my acquaintance told me this story: A client came to him
needing a will to be drawn-up. She was an elderly woman and there were some
special matters concerning her estate that needed to be considered. My
acquaintance drafted the will for his client. She was very pleased and took a
$500 bill out of her purse and put it on the lawyer’s desk as she was leaving.
After the client left, the lawyer picked up the cash and discovered that there
were actually two $500 bills stuck together. Imediately my acquaintance
realized that he was faced with a major ethical dilemma: should he tell his
partner about the extra $500 or not?
The topic I have been asked to address this evening is the water
quality/water quantity relationship. This is a topic that people in the west,
and especially here in Colorado, debate quite fiercely. Much has been written
on the subject and we at the Natural Resources Law Center have just completed
a draft report containing the findings from research we have done on this
issue. I would like, tonight, to give you a summary of our findings and
conclusions and ask for your comments .
We started with the self-evident proposition that all uses of water
affect the quality of that water. Equally important, uses of water are
dependent on the quality of the water. Given this direct and immediate
relationship, we asked why water quality regulation does not address water
use. We also asked why water allocation decisions so infrequently consider
water quality. It seemed clear to us that both these things should be
happening.
The geographic area of our analysis was the 19 western States partly or
wholly west of the 100th meridian -- that magical dividing line west of which
rainfall cannot be relied on to supply most of the water needed for
agriculture.
6-1
-------
We found that there has been very little systematic thinking about the
ways that water use affects water quality. Based on our preliminary analysis,
we characterized four kinds of effects:
1st - DEPLETION DEGRADATION: Where depletion of streamfiows associated
with water use increases the concentration of existing pollutants to the
impairment of other uses and values of water.
Unsurprisingly, this appears to be the major water quality impact of
water use in the arid west where streamfiows already are low and there has
been intensive development and use of the available flows.
An important example of water quality problems arising from streamfiow
depletions is the Bay-Delta situation in northern California. The flows from
the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins come together in a 738,000 acre
area known as the delta and then empty into the San Francisco Bay. These
rivers drain about 40% of the State of California. Annual average flows would
be about 20 million acre-feet under undeveloped conditions. However, because
of consumptive uses, in-basin and out-of-basin diversion of water, annual
average flows are less than half this amount. One consequence of this drastic
decline in normal flows is that salt from the Bay has moved up into the Delta
adversely affecting agricultural and industrial activity in the area, harming
drinking water supplies, and interfering with the migration and survival of
certain fish species.
Another well-known example of large cumulative depletions of streamflows
causing water quality problems is the Colorado River. In this basin,
evaporation from reservoirs alone causes a loss of 2 million acre-feet of
water each year. Total depletions in the basin now take roughly 9 million of
the 15 million acre-feet available, on average, each year. Nearly half of the
salinity in the Colorado River results from natural sources. The depletion of
streamflows greatly concentrates the amount of salts in the River. Monetary
damages from this salinity have been estimated at millions of dollars each
year.
Depletion-related problems also are arising on a more site-specific
basis. Let me give you an example from Colorado. Several years ago, the City
of Pueblo filed an application with the water court for approval of an
exchange it wanted to make. Pueblo proposed to exchange treated effluent from
water it had imported Into the Arkansas River basin from the west slope of
Colorado. The transmountain-derived effluent would be exchanged for native
Arkansas River water. One effect of this exchange would be to reduce flows in
the Arkansas above Pueblo where the cities of Florence and Canyon City are
located. These two cities objected to the exchange because the depletion
caused by the exchange would increase pre-existing concentrations of
contaminants such as salinity, adversely affecting drinking water supplies.
They also were concerned that increased depletions would cause the water
quality standards to have to be tightened, which in turn would mean that they
would have to install additional treatment for their wastewater. The water
court granted Pueblo’s exchange but required that it not be operated if it
would reduce the streamfiows in this reach of the Arkansas below a specified
minimum (essentially the 7Q10 flows).
6-2
-------
This depletion issue is especially sensitive because most water uses in
the west are consumptive. Some people seem to feel that because depletion is
a consequence of water use, the water quality implications of depletion should
not be considered. Indeed, it has even been suggested that a water right is
nothing more than a right to deplete, and that therefore the depletive effects
of a water right may not be addressed. I’ll return to this point later.
A second type of water use - water quality effect - we described as
physical alteration : where uses of water alter the physical characteristics of
the water, causing impairment of other uses and values.
Impoundment of water for various uses can cause physical alteration of
the water. Oxygen levels may be depleted; mineralization may be increased;
temperature may be changed; sediment levels may be changed; supersaturation
may occur.
For example, releases from Shasta Dam on the Trinity River in California
in the summer are higher in temperature than desired for maintenance of salmon
spawning in that area. California agencies have been battling with the Bureau
of Reclamation to obtain releases of lower temperature water.
A third type of water use - water quality effect - we characterized as
pollution migration : where uses of water cause pre-existing pollution to
contaminate additional water.
A good example of this kind of problem is found in the Salt Lake Valley
where very active pumping from a lower aquifer has created a reverse gradient
causing contaminated water from the upper, more shallow aquifer to migrate to
the lower aquifer. Continued uncontrolled pumping will result in
contamination of this source which presently supplies about 40 percent of the
drinking water for the Salt Lake City area.
Saltwater intrusion in coastal areas is another comon example of water
quality problems arising from the pumping of groundwater.
A fourth type of water use - water quality effect - we characterized as
incidental pollution : where uses of water incidentally load pollutants but are
not regulated.
The major example in the west is the addition of pollutants to both
surface and groundwater in return flows and percolation of water used in
irrigated agriculture. In many settings, the soils being irrigated contain
high concentrations of contaminants which are picked up by the water and then
moved to the stream or aquifer. Chemical contaminants from fertilizers and
pesticides may also be carried to streams and aquifers as a result of
irrigation. A dramatic example of this problem is provided by the selenium
poisoning of fish and birds in the Kesterson Wildlife Refuge. High levels of
selenium exist in the soils in this area of the central valley of California.
Irrigation return flows caused the selenium to be washed out of the soils.
These return flows ended up at Kesterson where they concentrated to lethal
levels.
6-3
-------
The Federal Clean Water Act does very little to help with these
problems. Although its stated purpose is to restore and maintain the
physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters, the Clean
Water Act focuses almost exclusively on controlling discharges of pollutants
from point sources. It is evident that congress in 1972 saw the water quality
problem as caused by the discharge of pollutants from industries and cities.
The remedy was a technological fix: require the clean up of industrial
discharges and provide major grants to construct municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. Now 17 years after the institution of this approach, it
is clear that we were only looking at half the problem.
The problems of incidental pollution associated with irrigation were put
aside by Congress in 1977 when it exempted irrigation from regulation as a
point source. In two decisions by federal courts of appeal, other aspects of
water use were determined not to be governed by the Clean Water Act. In
National Wildlife Federation v. Gorsuch (1982), the circuit court upheld the
EPA determination that dams are nonpoint sources; thus the physical alteration
effects associated with dams are not subject to point source regulation. In
National Wildlife Federation v. Consumer Power Company (1988), the court ruled
that a hydro-electric facility was not subject to the point source
requirements of the Clean Water Act. The essential rationale in these
decisions is that these facilities do not by themselves add pollutants to
water and thus do not fall within the activities that Congress sought to
regulate under the Clean Water Act.
Moreover, in 1977 Congress adopted the so-called Wallop amendment
declaring the policy of Congress that the authority of the States to allocate
quantities of water within their jurisdiction is not superseded or impaired by
the Clean Water Act. This amendment manifests Congress’ intention to minimize
involvement in water allocation decisions but does not preclude legitimate and
necessary water quality regulation affecting water allocations.
Because of these limitations in federal law we turned our attention to
approaches at the state level and identified four general ways in which the
states may address the relationship between water quality and water quantity.
1st - The states can use the water allocation system itself to address
the water quality effects of water use.
Thus water quality can be made an explicit consideration in water
allocation decisions. In areas where streams are already water quality
limited, additional depletions of water may not be acceptable. Depletion may
be an inevitable consequence of most water uses but it seems to me that we may
have reached the point in the west where we need to assure that any additional
depletions are absolutely necessary. This may mean that new appropriations
will have to demonstrate that the associated water use will satisfy some
required level of efficiency. We may also want to consider some kind of a
depletion tax on all new appropriations with the funds used to improve
instream flow water values such as water quality and habitat for fish and
wildlife.
6-4
-------
Certainly where existing water rights may be impaired, most states would
prevent new appropriations. New Mexico has done this in the case of requested
changes in groundwater withdrawals where there was evidence that the change
would harm other groundwater users.
States may impose conditions on new water uses requiring water quality
protection. California now includes a condition in new appropriative permits
stating that the quantity of water allocated may subsequently be modified if
found to be necessary to meet water quality objectives in water quality plans.
Existing water uses that are wasteful of the resource could be declared
nonbeneficial. Thus, a polluting water use could be restricted or even
precluded for failure to satisfy the beneficial use requirement of western
water law.
In several states the public trust doctrine is emerging as a means by
which the water quality-impairing effects of water use may be controlled.
California courts have explicitly tied the public trust doctrine in that State
to the water quality problems in the Bay-Delta.
In recent years, western states have established programs to protect
instream flows. Generally, minimum flows may be protected where necessary to
support a fishery. Only a few states recognize water quality as a basis for
protecting streamfiows. Some argue that instream flows may not be protected
for water quality purposes because “dilution is not the solution to
pollution.” In fact, maintenance of the assimilative capacity of streams is
essential to maintaining the water quality of those streams. Unregulated,
uncontrolled pollutants enter into our streams from a large number of sources.
These include natural sources such as salt springs and human-induced sources
such as abandoned mines and, of course, irrigation return flows.
Moreover, as discussed in the example of exchanges in the Arkansas
River, the ability of dischargers to meet their permit requirements depends on
the quantity of water in the stream. Total elimination of all contaminants is
not technically or economically feasible at this time. In many locations,
treated effluent represents an important water supply for downstream users.
There is a need to assure that there will be enough assimilative capacity in
the stream so that the water is adequate both in quantity and in quality.
2nd - The states can address the effects of water uses within their
existing water quality programs.
As discussed today, nonpoint source programs are now being developed by
many States in response to the 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act. These
programs should address the problems of incidental pollution associated with
irrigation and physical alteration associated with hydrologic modifications.
At this point, the process is proceeding largely on the basis of consensus and
cooperation. Progress Is being made in states like Idaho but in other states
program development is. not yet as far along.
The antidegradation policy now required in all state water quality
programs offers an opportunity to review proposed water development plans in
relation to their effect on weed quality. Any project needing a federal
6-5
-------
permit must receive a certification from the state that it will comply with
state water quality requirements. This so-called 401 certification provides
states with an excellent opportunity to protect water quality since almost all
water development involves some kind of federal permit, such as a section 404
permit.
3rd - The states can integrate and coordinate water quality and water
allocation responsibilities.
In most states, these responsibilities are in totally separate agencies.
There is often little or no communication between personnel in these offices
and typically very little effort to coordinate related activities.
Kansas is an example of a state that has developed coordination through
its water planning process and through a Memorandum of Understanding between
the Environment Division and the Water Resources Division by which the
Environment Division identifies areas where water quality is a special concern
and also provides recommended water quality conditions for water permit
applications.
California has merged water quality responsibilities with water
allocation responsibilities in a single agency - the State Water Resources
Control Board. Permits for new appropriations require the water user to
comply with water quality plans formulated by the Board and by nine regional
boards.
4th - The states can make use of special water management areas for the
purpose of protecting water quality.
It is important to remember that, for the most part, the quality of our
waters meets the uses from which the water has been designated. Water quality
problems often exist in relatively discrete and identifiable areas.
Many western states already have statutes authorizing the creation of a
special water management area. In most of these states, water quality problems
can be a basis for creating such an area. Once these areas are established,
special management authority can be exercised. Typically, this includes the
possibility of limiting new development of water. Generally it also allows
some regulation of existing uses. One important limitation, however, is that
in most states such areas can be established only for groundwater.
The Alaska Department of Natural Resources used this approach to
establish a “Critical Water Management Area’ just north of Juneau so that it
could control pumping of groundwater causing saltwater intrusion. Kansas
established an intensive groundwater use control area” for the Equus Beds
aquifer near Wichita as a means of controlling pumping that was causing the
spread of a plume of saline contamination.
Nebraska is attempting to have local natural resource districts create
and implement water plans to deal with problems of groundwater contamination
in state-identified “special protection areas”. Groundwater quality problems
related to fertilizer use have been identified in areas of that state.
6-6
-------
We heard today about the process in Idaho for establishing streams of
special concern. I find this approach of creating special management areas
attractive for several reasons. First, it targets areas where problems exist
or where special protection is desired. Second, it encourages a more
comprehensive consideration of the problem. The sources of the problem can be
identified. Approaches tailored to meet the problem can be devised. Finally,
there seems to be more general acceptance of the need to control water use
where necessary in such management areas.
Water quality control is incomplete. So long as we exclude water use
from consideration for its water quality effects we will never have an
effective program of water quality protection. Water use depletes streamfiows
essential for maintaining assimilative capacity and sustaining water quality.
Water use can physically alter characteristics of water critical to certain
uses. Water use can cause migration of pollutants, contaminating previously
good quality water. Water use such as irrigation can add pollutants to
streams and aquifers through return flows.
There are a variety of ways in which states can address these problems.
In many cases there are existing laws and programs that could be utilized.
First, it seems to me, we must begin to explicitly recognize the nature
and scope of the problem. We have focused too exclusively on controlling the
discharge of pollutants from point sources.
As we begin to shift our thinking toward the protection of water quality
as our objective, we will necessarily see the need to address all sources of
water quality degradation, whatever their cause.
Inevitably we will recognize the multiple effects of water use on water
quality. Gradually we are broadening our ideas about the values of water. We
see it, even here in the west, not only in terms of the consumptive uses it
enables, but also for the many nonconsumptive values it supports.
Second, water quality should be incorporated into state water planning
processes.
Third, water quality considerations should be directly integrated into
water allocation decisions. The water quality effects of new appropriations
should be addressed as should the effects of changes and exchanges.
Fourth, minimum strearnflows should be protected for water quality
purposes.
Fifth, elements of water quality programs, such as the 401 certification
process, should be used to insure full protection of state water quality
requirements.
Sixth, special management areas should be used to protect high quality
areas and to improve water quality in problem areas.
6-7
-------
In these ways we can achieve the water quality objectives toward which
we have been moving.
6-8
-------
7. Poster Session Abstracts
-------
7. POSTER SESSION ABSTRACTS
SECTION 305(B) WATERBODY SYSTEM
Chris Faulker
U.S. EPA Headquarters
The Waterbody System (WBS) is a software package designed to track
water quality assessments and related information useful for managing water
quality programs. It is not intended to store or analyze raw monitoring
data. The WBS also facilitates State preparation of the biennial report on
water quality status required by §305(b) of the Clean Water Act. Version
2.0 of the WBS software was released to State personnel in August of 1989.
Presently, EPA is supplying training in the use of the system to interested
water quality program managers, and contractor assistance to help States
enter their water quality assessment data into the WBS.
SILVICULTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - -
A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT
Barry Gay
Florida Department of Environmental Regulations
Silvicultural Best Management Practices (BMPs) have been the primary
tool to prevent nonpoint pollution associated with forestry operations.
These practices are viewed as voluntary in Florida if satisfactory
compliance continues. The State’s water quality agency designated the
Florida Division of Forestry (DOF) as the lead agency responsible for
assessing compliance. To address this charge, the DOF has conducted
biennial compliance surveys since 1981. The survey consists of aerial site
identification followed by on-the-ground inspections. A comprehensive
questionnaire addresses each aspect of the timber operation with emphasis on
access systems, site preparation techniques, and harvesting procedures.
These inspections are conducted with the land manager and provide a valuable
educational opportunity. To date, results from past surveys reflect a
favorable level of compliance. In addition, these results provide useful
information for targeting geographic areas in need of assistance and
identifying specific practice needs. The survey technique has proved
successful and will be valuable to address concerns pertaining to other
specific watersheds, to other areas in which management guidelines are used,
and to support land use options available to landowners.
EVALUATION OF NON-POINT SOURCES OF POLLUTION
AT THE FORT DARLING UNIT OF RICHMOND NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARK, VIRGINIA,
USING A RISK ASSESSMENT APPROACH
Terry Craig
National Park Service
In 1975, 25 acres adjoining the Ft. Darling Unit of Richmond National
Battlefield Park were donated to the National Park Service (NPS) by
Chesterfield County, VA. The county operated a landfill on the acreage from
7-1
-------
1963 to 1972, but it has subsequently been covered and revegetated. The
Water Resources Division, NPS, is currently involved in a study to determine
potential environmental risks from the landfill material and leachate that
is seeping into a creek flowing through the park. The property around a
nearby petroleum storage facility and an asphalt plant are also possible
sources of contaminants.
Because the complexity of non-point pollution sources requires a
thorough and systematic approach, a risk assessment method has been adopted
for this study. An evaluation to determine whether existing use of this
historic site can be preserved will involve the following: 1) a technical
description of sources of the present or potential impact, including an
estimate of the composition and quantity of any contaminants; 2) a
description of the environment including geologic, meteorological and
hydrologic characteristics and the biota exposed to any contaminants;
3) determination of the nature and distribution of any contaminants using
information from past site investigations as well as water chemistry tests
and toxicity and hydrologic studies; and 4) determination of the effect of
any contaminants on the organisms or humans who may come in contact with
them. Preliminary investigations of the landfill leachate using bloassays
have revealed that no acute hazard exists at this time. However, initial
priority pollutant analyses indicate the need for further study.
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION’S
WATER QUALITY RESEARCH PROGRAM
Byron Lord
Federal Highway Administration
This past year, 1989, marks the completion of a major segment of the
Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) environmental research program.
Since the early 1970’s, FHWA has conducted a four-phased research program in
non-point source pollution from highway runoff. Phase 1 identified the
constituents of highway runoff and developed a database of highway runoff
quality and quantity. Phase 2 identified the sources and migration patterns
of highway runoff constituents and further developed the Phase 1 database.
Phase 3 results indicated that highway facilities with low to medium average
daily traffic (ADT) (less than 30,000 vehicles per day) exhibited minimal
impact on receiving waters. Phase 4 has developed a new predictive
procedure for estimating the pollutant loadings from highway sources, and
has identified practical, effective, and implementable mitigation measures
to reduce or eliminate the impacts from highway runoff.
Demonstrated during the poster session will be a probabilistic model
which provides a procedure for estimating the pollutant loadings from
highway stormwater runoff. The model estimates loadings for the major
pollutants found in highway runoff. The model is based upon the analysis of
993 individual storm events from 31 highway sites.
7-2
-------
USE OF SHORT-TERM-EXPOSURE BASKET SAMPLES
FOR ECOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF METAL IMPACTS
ON MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITIES
James E. Pollard
Lockheed-ESC, Las Vegas, Nevada
and
Wesley L. Kinney
tJSEPA, EMSL-LV, Las Vegas, Nevada
The effectiveness of short exposure time using rock filled basket
samplers was tested in a Montana stream with a clearly defined point source
of metals. Baskets were exposed for 16 hours at four sites along the stream
representing various levels of metal impact. Box samples and drift samples
were collected from the same sites for comparison. All samplers collected a
sufficient number of animals per sample unit at all sites along the metal
impact gradient to demonstrate the deleterious effect of metals on the
benthic community. The taxonomic composition of the various sampling
methods, however, was quite different. Baskets were dominated by simuliids,
while box and drift samples were dominated by mayflies. Most taxonomic
groups were significantly reduced by the metal input to the stream with the
exception of the Brachycentridae and Tipulidae. The effect on the
chironomid community was not clearly demonstrated by basket samples due to
the low numbers of animals collected, while box and drift samples collected
sufficient specimens to demonstrate a sharp reduction of numbers for this
group. These data indicate that short term exposure basket samples may be
as effective as other macroinvertebrate monitoring methodologies in
assessment of the ecological impact of pollutants on stream ecosystems.
Notice: Although the research described in this article has been
supported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract Number 68-03-3249 to Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company, it
has not been subjected to Agency review and therefore does not necessarily
reflect the views of the Agency and no official endorsement should be
inferred. The mention of trade names or commercial products does not
constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
DEVELOPMENT OF MAXIMUM SPECIES RICHNESS LINES:
A COMPARISON OF METHODS
Nancy J. Hoefs,’ 2
Terence P. Boyle,’
and
Kurt 0. Fausch 2
The relationship between species richness and stream size has been well
documented in fish comunities. Criteria used to assess the expected
species richness needs to reflect this relationship. By plotting species
richness as a function of stream size, a maximum species richness (MSR) line
that includes 95 percent of the sites, can be used to define the upper
boundary of the data. The MSR line describes the expected maximum number of
species, or the potential number of species present at a nondegraded site of
a given size. MSR lines are usually fitted by eye and, as such, are open to
bias. The subjectivity associated with these lines makes comparison between
7-3
-------
different MSR lines difficult. To avoid the subjectivity of this method,
two statistical methods of estimating MSR lines were investigated. In the
first, a modification of the least squares procedure, a MSR line is obtained
by the addition of a constant, and refitting of a least squared line
incorporating 95 percent of the original data. The second method, a
nonparametric maximum likelihood approach, defines the parameters of a line
describing the upper boundaries of the data using an unknown mixing
distribution which accounts for the vertical spread of the points.
‘Water Resources Division 2 Dept. of Fishery and Wildlife Biology
National Park Service Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins, CO
THE EFFECT OF TRIBUTARIES ON THE STRUCTURE AND FUNCTIONAL GROUPS
COMPOSITION OF THE BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE COMMUNITY
IN THE SAINT CROIX RIVER, MN AND WI
Terence P. Boyle
and David R. Beeson,
Water Resources Division,
National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO
In order to monitor the potential effects of land use affecting natural
resources in the Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway the mouths of five
tributaries were selected for study. The study examined the premise that
differences in the sub-basins and non-point source effects on water quality
could be monitored at the mouths of tributaries in a point source fashion.
Total phosphorous, total nitrogen, and coarse particulate organic matter
were generally higher in the main stem of the river below the tributaries.
The macroinvertebrate community was affected in the main river below the
mouths of the tributaries by reduced diversity and increased numbers of
shredders. The development of strategies to use macroinvertebrates upstream
and downstream from major tributaries as indicators of sub-basin effects on
water quality are discussed in the context of the River Continuum Concept.
A REGIONAL APPROACH TO WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
Andrew Kinney
NSI Technology Services Corporation
A regional approach for water quality management was developed in
cooperation with the Environmental Protection Agency’s Environmental
Research Laboratory - Corvallis. This approach was developed to assist
managers of aquatic and terrestrial resources to better understand the
realistically attainable quality of their resources. The approach examines
the spatial patterns of environmental resources and their associations with
landscape characteristics or anthropogenic impacts to assess their extent,
status, or trends. The regional approach increases the efficiency of
research through the determination of homogenous regions by recognizing
similarities among terrestrial factors including land use, land surface
form, potential natural vegetation, and soils and their associations with
impacts or stressors. A stratification that recognizes similarity among
ecosystems and their causal factors, reduces variation present when
7-4
-------
different ecosystems types are combined, as in political or hydrologic
stratifications. The regional approach serves the same purpose as sample
stratifications in experimental design; it increases precision of estimates
for the same research effort. This approach has been employed by the EPA in
their National Surface Water Survey, Ecoregions work, Clean Lakes Project,
and Wetlands Research Program.
THE USE OF BIOCRITERIA IN THE OHIO EPA BIOLOGICAL
MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Chris 0. Yoder
Ohio EPA
Ohio EPA has operated a program of biological surveys since the late
1970s. Their initial purpose was to provide an integrated set of biological
and chemical data for use in monitoring/reporting activities and the water
quality standards (WQS) program. An outgrowth of this initial effort was
the development of biological criteria (“biocriteria”) as an ambient aquatic
life use goal assessment tool. Biocriteria are currently being proposed as
a part of the Ohio WQS regulations.
Concepts important to this approach include a practical definition of
biological integrity, recognizing the characteristics inherent to chemical
assessment (“bottom up” approach) and biocriteria (“top down” orientation),
the role of ecoregions, and the regional reference site approach. These are
important concepts in the development and application of biocriteria.
Current program uses of biocriteria include water quality standards,
NPOES permitting, basic monitoring/reporting, nonpoint source assessment,
enforcement/litigation, dredge and fill issues, and CSO/stormwater
management. One new area of use is with Natural Resource Damage
Assessments. Examples of biocriteria application are illustrated and
include stream specific assessment, trend reporting and assessment, and
providing information about rare and endangered species.
Fish and macroinvertebrate sampling procedures are also summarized with
cost and resource requirements. The Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI),
modified for application in Ohio, and the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI)
are two of the principal evaluation tools used by Ohio EPA. Possible
application of these methods to the Ohio River illustrates the potential of
this approach for assessing large water bodies in the midwest.
7-5
-------
LIMITATIONS OF THE INDEX OF BIOTIC INTEGRITY
FOR ASSESSING DEGRADATION
IN A WESTERN GREAT PLAINS WATERSHED
Kurt 0. Fausch and Robert G. Bramblett
Dept. of Fishery and Wildlife Biology,
Colorado State University
We applied the index of biotic integrity (IBI) to the portion of the
Arkansas River basin in the Southwestern Tablelands ecoregion, located in
southeastern Colorado. The lotic systems in the basin are characterized by
harsh flow regimes and low habitat diversity. As a result, the fish fauna
is depauperate, consisting only of 26 native species in 8 families.
Cyprinids make up half the fauna, while other families contribute three or
fewer species. Most of the species have generalized habitat, trophic, and
reproductive requirements, and the only two intolerant species are
sporadically distributed. We found only nine IBI metrics that could be
modified for the basin, due largely to the depauperate and tolerant
ichthyofauna. We attempted to apply the index to the Purgatoire River in
Pinon Canyon, a remote and relatively undisturbed canyon reach on a seventh-
order Arkansas River tributary. However, fish community data collected over
a six-year period indicate that natural fluctuations in abundance of red
shiner, a tolerant omnivorous species, caused wide fluctuations in IBI
scores despite lack of obvious changes in environmental quality. We
therefore suggest that the IBI might be modified to include other taxa such
as macroinvertebrates, while still retaining the underlying ecological
framework, to increase its usefulness for monitoring water resource quality
in the Arkansas River basin.
ILLINOIS VOLUNTEER LAKE MONITORING PROGRAM
Gregg Good,
Lakes Program Manager,
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
In 1981, the Illinois Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program (VLMP) began.
One hundred forty-one volunteers and 87 lakes became the building blocks for
a program that now has over 225 volunteers monitoring more than 150 lakes
each year. From 1981-1988, volunteers have logged in over 24,000 hours of
data collection services on over 400 Illinois lakes. The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency administers this program that is designed to
create a public awareness of lake management, restoration, and preservation.
In 1988, over 170 lakes were registered to be monitored for Secchi
transparency, water color, suspended algae/sediment, and amount of
macrophytes present, at least twice a month from May through October.
Forty-nine lakes are also being sampled for water quality parameters
including total and volatile suspended solids, ammonia-nitrogen, nitrate,
nitrite-nitrogen, and total phosphorous once a month from May through
October.
This exhibit is an overview of the Illinois VLMP, particularly the 1988
monitoring season. Awards received by the volunteers for exceptional
service and examples of what/how data is collected are provided.
7-6
-------
CITIZENS’ STREAMWALK CHECKLIST
AND DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM
Sally Marquis
U.S. EPA Region 10
Citizens throughout the Pacific Northwest Region are sampling rivers
and streams in ever-increasing numbers. This is exciting and positive, but
it has also created some problems. Quality assurance and quality control,
water quality comparisons and trend monitoring are all virtually impossible,
because they are utilizing a multitude of inconsistent sampling techniques.
The objectives of this project are to help educate citizens about stream and
riparian quality, to help them document and monitor the overall condition of
sampled watercourses, and to provide the gathered information in a form
which can be stored, evaluated, and made available to other users. The
checklist is currently being used and modified by citizen’s groups in the
Puget Sound area. The data management system consists of a PC compatible
dBase 3+ program for input and display.
ASSESSING NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION
WITH REMOTE SENSING AND BLOMONITORING
Frank J. Sagona
Tennessee Valley Authority
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) utilizes low altitude remote
sensing and stream biomonitoring techniques to identify and locate
individual nonpoint pollution sources (NPS) and to assess the cumulative
impact on water resources. Assessment of this information provides a means
to identify subwatershed areas that have a high potential for UPS impacts
and to target technical and financial assistance to specific problem sites
for treatment.
BIOLOGICAL CRITERIA
Robert M. Hughes and Jane Ely
NSI Technology Services Corporation
This poster outlines an alternative approach to current water quality
monitoring and assessment. Several frequently mentioned concerns with
current methods are listed, along with the advantages of biological
criteria. Techniques for minimizing the influence of temporal and spatial
variability are presented. Illustrations are given of biornonitoring cost
efficiency, functional and structural measures of integrity, ecoregional
patterns in fish assemblages, temporal and spatial evaluations of stream
health, and the coordination of blocriteria with other criteria.
7-7
-------
WATER QUALITY MONITORING FOR NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGERS
Steven Coffey and Michael Smolen
North Carolina State University
The purpose of a nonpoint source (NPS) land treatment project is to
restore or protect the beneficial use or ecological integrity of a water
resource. Watershed and water quality monitoring may be required to
document the sources and impacts of NPS pollutants and track the
effectiveness of their control. Eficient monitoring documents those changes
in water quality parameters and land management directly related to project
objectives and activities. Monitoring to support the manager’s information
needs is a step by step process that requires analysiss of project
objectives, investigation of the problem, determination of approach aand
development of a design before monitoring begins. Monitoring approaches
include the measurement of pollutant flux and the assessment of the state of
the resource such as habitat, chemical and biological features. The level
of monitoring detail is determined from monitoring objectives and system
variability. Use of historical data, experiemental design and statistical
analyses are essential to formulating an effective monitoring program
design.
7-8
-------
Appendices
-------
APPENDIX A
Symposium Agenda
A-i
-------
Monday, October 16
AGENDA
National Symposium on Water Quality Assessment
October 16-19, 1989
Fort Collins, Colorado
10.00-100 Registration
1 00-3.30 Introduction
1 00-1:10 Welcome. Max Dodson, Director, Water
Division, U S EPA Region 8
1 10-1:30 Opening Remarks - Geoff Grubbs, Director,
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division,
U S EPA
1 30- 1:50 Keynote Address - Carol Jolly, Water Quahty
Program Manager, Washington Department of
Ecology
1:50-2:00 Agenda, Logistics
2 00-2.20 NPS Monitoring. Overview - Debra Caldon,
U S EPA Region 9
2:20-2:40 Integrated NPS Monitoring Plans and Agency
Coordination - Don Marlin, U.S. EPA-Idaho
Operations Office
2:40-3 00 Monitoring Aquatic Resources in Washington
Forest Lands - Dave Somers, Tulalip Tnbal
Fisheries
3.00-3:20 Questions and Answers
3 20-3:50 Overview of Workgroup Topics - Geofi Grubbs,
Director, Assessment and Watershed Protection
Division, U S EPA
330-3:50 Break
3 50-5.30 Workgroup Sessions (All Workgroups)
3 50-4:00 Breakout for Workgroups
4 00-5 30 Workgroup Discussions
7 30-9 30 Caucus wrth the EPA Steenng Committee for
Water Quality Data Systems (All Symposium
Participants Welcome)
Tuesday, October 17
Concurrent Sessions
8 00-10:30 Session 1: NPS Management and
Antidegradation - Chair,JimWeber,
Columbia River lntertribal Fish Commission
8.00-810 Session Overview, Chair
8:10-8:30 Implementing Idaho’s Antidegradation
Policy and Draft Sediment Criteria into a
Monitoring Strategy - Bill Clark, Idaho Depart-
ment of Health and We ara
8 30-8:50 Negotiating Antidegradation Policies - Frank
Gaff ney, Northwest Renewable Resources Council
8 50-9:10 Identifying Outstanding Resource Waters -
Jim Overton, North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management
9:10-9:30 When Degradation is lnevitabIe Win Win
is Not Always Possible - Jim Jensen,
Montana Environmental Information Center
9:30-9:50 idaho’s Antidegradation Policy An Example
for Other States? -Jim Weber, Columbia River
Inter-Tnbal Fish Commission
9:50-10:10 Questions and Answers
10:10-10:30 Break
8:00-10:30 SessIon 2: Assessing Sediment and
Tissue Contamination - Chair, Mike Kravitz,
U S. EPA Headquarters
8:00-8:10 Session Overview, Chair
8:10-8:25 National Bioaccumulation Study - Ruth
Vender, U.S. EPA Headquarters
8:25-8:45 California State Mussel Watch Program - Tim
Stevens, California State Water Resources
Control Board
8:45-9:00 Sediment Classification Methods
Compendium - Mike Kravflz. U S. EPA
Headquarters
9.00-920 Sediment and Fish Tissue Contamination in
the Pigeon River, Jerry Stober, U S EPA
Region 4
9.20-9:40 Dredged Material Disposal Site Monitoring in
New England - Tom Fredette, US COE,
New England Division
9:40-9:55 Contaminated Dredged Material Testing
and Management Strategies, Craig Vogt,
U S EPA Headquarters
9:55-10:10 Questions and Answers
10:10-10:30 Break
10:30-12:00 EvaluatIon of BMP Effectiveness- Chair,
Phil Larsen, U.S. EPA-Corvallis
10:30-10:50 Classification of Riverine/Riparian
Complexes for BMP Effectiveness - Bill
Platts, Don Chapman Associates
10:50-11:10 Classification of Riverine/Riparian Habitat
and Assessment of NPS Impact The North
Fork Humbott River, Nevada - Sherman
Jensen, White Horse Associates
11:10-11:30 Recognition of Critical Riverine/Riparian
Habitats -Jeff Cederholm, Washington
Department of Natural Resources
11:30-1 1:50 Mon oring Effectiveness of BMPs The
Idaho Experience, Tim Burton, Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare
11:50-12:00 Questions and Answers
12:00-1:00 Lunch
A-2
-------
Tuesday, October 17 (Conunued)
Wednesday, October 18
Concurrent Sessions
1’00-3:50 SessIon 3: Inland Wetlands and Riparian
Issues - Chairs, John Maxted, U.S EPA
Headquarters and Paul Adamus, NSI Technical
Services Corporation
1 00-1:10 Session Overview, Chair
1 10-1:30 Assessment of Wetlands Impacled by Mine
Wastes, Inland Wetlands and Riparian Issues-
David Cooper, Colorado School of Mines
130-1:50 Ten Years of Changes in Water Quality of a
Prairie Wetland Complex in the Missouri
Coteau, North Dakota - Jim Le Baugh, U.S.
Geological Survey
1 50-2:10 Vertebrates as Indicators of Land-Use
Changes in the Wetland, Stream, and Ri-
parian Portions of Watersheds - Robert
Brooks. Pennsylvania State University
2 10-2.30 Riparian Evaluations - William Plaits, Don
Chapman Associates
2.30-2:50 Break
2.50-3.10 Use of Riparian Data to Make Management
Decisions - Wayne Nelson, SAIC
3.10-3.30 Waters Ignored by Ambient Monitoring
Programs A National Review of
Biomonitoring of Wetlands- Paul Adamus, NSI
Technical Services Corporation
3 30-3 50 Questions and Answers
1 00-3.50 Session 4: Marine and Estuarine
Monitoring - Chair, Ed Liu, U.S. EPA Region 9
1 00-1.10 Session Overview, Chair
1 10-1 30 Environmental Monitoring in the National
Estuary Program, Tom Armrtage, U S EPA
Headquarters
130-1:50 Development and Implementation of a
Regional Estuarine Monitoring Program -
Andrea Copping, Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority
1:50-210 Flexible and Regional Monitoring. A
Discharger’s Plea - John Dorsey, Hypenon
Treatment Plant, City of Los Angeles
2 10-2.30 A Water Quality Monitoring Program for
Hawaii’s Surface Waters - Eugene Akazawa.
Hawaii Department of Health
2.30-2’SO Break
2 50-3:10 Southern CA Bight Marine Ocean Monitoring -
Ed Liu, U S EPA Region 9
3:10-3:30 Monitoring the 106-Mile Sludge Disposal
Site - Susan Hitch, U.S. EPA Headquarters
Afternoon Poster Session with an Evening Reception
8:00-8:40 Overview of Bloassessment - James Karr,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
8 40-8:50 Questions and Answers
8:50-9:00 Breakout for Concurrent Sessions
Concurrent Sessions
9:00-11:50 Session 5: Integrated Field Assessments-
Chair, Jim Plaf kin, U S. EPA Headquarters
9 00-9:10 Session Overview, Chair
9:10-9:30, EPA’s Rapid Bioassessment Appproach-An
Assessment of Biological Impairment in the
Context of Habitat Quality - Mike Barbour, EA
Engineering Science and Technology
9.30-9 50 Oregon’s Bioassessment Program - Rick
Hafele, Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality
9:50-10:10 Modification and Assessment of an Index of
Biotic Integrity to Quantify Stream Quality in
Southern Ontario - Robert Sleedman, Ministry
of the Environment, Ontario. Canada
10:10-10:30 Break
10:30-10:50 Assessing Impacts of Sediment on Target
Beneficial Uses - Steve Bauer, Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare
10 50-11:10 Integrated Basin Assessment, Upper Illinois
River Basin Pilot Project of the National
Water Quality Assessment Program -
Steve Blanchard, U S Geological Survey
11:10-11:30 Superfund Ecoassessments - Ron Preston,
U.S. EPA Region 3 - ESD
11:30-11:50 Questions and Answers
9 00-11.50 Session 6: Lab Biomonltoring - Chair, Tom
Simon, EPA Region 5
9:00-9:10 Session Overview, Chair
9:10-9:30 Ambient Toxicity Assessments in a Regional
Watershed - Jack Arthur, U.S. EPA-Duluth
9:30-9:50 Sediment Toxicity Testing - Peter Chapman,
EVS Consultants
9:50-10.10 Discnmination of Sediment Toxicity in
Freshwater Harbors Using a Multitrophic
Level Test Battery -Allen Burton, Wright
State University
10:10-10-.30 Break
10:30-10:50 Predictive Abilities of EPA Subchronic
Toxicity Test Endpoints for Complex
Effluents - Tom Simon, U.S EPA Region 5
10:50-11:10 The Use of Cuftured Hepatocytes in Screen-
ing Wastewaters for Genotoxic Effects -
Randy Jirtle, Duke University Medical Center
11:10-11:30 Algal Bioassays to Develop Phosphorus
WLA’s - Tom Stockton, North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management
11:30-11:50 Questions and Answers
3:50-5:30
3:50-4:00
4.00-5:30
Workgroup Sessions (All Workgroups)
Breakout for Workgroups
Workgroup Discussions
7:00PM Banquet with Guest Speaker
A- 3
-------
Wednesday, October 18 (continued)
12 00-1:30 Luncheon with a Speaker on The Valdez
oil SPill
130-6:30 Poster Session
1 30-2 40 Total Maximum Daily Loads: Point
Sources and Nonpoint Sources - Chair.
Bruce Zarider, U.S EPA Region 8
1 30-1:50 Phosphorus Loading to the Tuallatin River,
Oregon, Bruce Cleland, U S. EPA Region 10
1.50-2: 10 TMDL for Dillon Reservoir Partitioning Point
Sources and Nonpoint Sources - Bill Lewis,
University of Colorado
2 10-2:30 Differentiating Natural and Forest
Management-Related Sediment at a Basin
Scale in the Deschutes River, Washington -
Kathleen Sullivan, Timber, Fish and Wildlife
2 30-2.40 Questions and Answers
2 40-3:00 Break
3.00-5:15 Regional Assessments - Chair, Kathleen
Sullivan, Timber, Fish, and Wildlife
3 00-3:20 Ohio’s Use of Geographically-based
Biocriteria - Chns Yoder, Ohio EPA
3.20-3 40 Regions for Evaluating Environmental
Resources - Jim Omernik, U.S. EPA-Corvallis
3 40-4:00 Reference Reach Approach in Metro-Denver
to Characterize Effluent Impacts on Biota in S.
Platte River, Bill Lewis, University of Colorado
4 00-4 20 Regional Lake Assessments - Bruce Wilson,
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
4 20-440 Regional Applications of Biocriteria in Xeric
Environments - John Wegrzyn, Anzona
Department of Environmental Quality
4 40-5.05 Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program: The Surface Water Project - Steve
Paulson,University of Nevada
5:05-5:15 Questions and Answers
5 30-6:30 Poster Session Reception
Thursday, October 19
Concurrent Sessions
8.00-10:10 Session 7: Groundwater Discharge to
Surface Waters - Chair, Jim Dunn, U.S. EPA
Region 8
800-8:10 Session Overview, Chair
8:10-8:30 NPS Contamination of Groundwater
Discharge to Surface Water - Chuck Job, U.S.
EPA Headquarters
8.30-8:50 Agricultural Chemicals in Groundwater:
Lessons from the South Dakota Rural Clean
Water Project- Gregg Carison, South Dakota
State University
8:50-910 Iowa’s Big Spring Basin Demonstration
ProEect - John Littke, Iowa Geological
Survey
9:10-9:30 Indicators of Surface Water Sources in
Public Supply Wells - Roy Spalding,
University of Nebraska
9:30-9:50 Design, Sampling, and Data Analysis from a
Major NPS Network -Jean Goodman, South
Dakota Department of Water and Natural
Resources
9:50-10:10 Questions and Answers
10:10-10:30 Break
8.00-10:10 Session 8: Lake and Large Reservoir
Assessment - Chair, Steve Chapra, University
of Colorado
8.00-8:10 Session Overview, Chair
8.10-8.30 Lake Monitoring: Developing State
Programs and Meeting Federal Reporting
Requirements - Donna Sefton, U S EPA
Region 7
8:30-8:50 Lake Restoration: Cascade Lake, Idaho -
Dale Anderson, Entranco Engineers, Kiiidarid,
Washington
8.50-9:10 Longterm Assessment of Eutrophication in
Lake Tahoe, CA-NV - Cha es P
Goldman,University of California, Davis
9 10-9:30 Flaming Gorge U.S Bureau of
Reclamation - Jerry Miller, U S Bureau of
Reclamation
9:30-9:50 Water Quality Monitoring in WA
Reservoirs - Ron Pasch, Tennessee Valley
Authority
9:50-10:10 Questions and Answers
10:10-10:30 Break
10:30-12:10 Workgroup Reports
12:10-1:00 wrap-up
1:00-&00 Field Trips
NoteS Because of the limited space available, there may
be a need to restrict participation on the field trips. There
will be a sign-up for field trips at registration to confirm
your interest. The final selection br field trip participants
will be made on Tuesday, October 17.
1. Observations of Impacts From Different Types of Land Use
2. Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) Hands on demon-
stration of EPA’S RBP for n,acroinvertebrates and fish
3. Ripanan Evaluation. A demonstration of recently devel-
oped guidance on npanan evaluation.
4. Hands on Demonstration of U S Forest Service’s Programs
for Monitonng lrr acts from Forest Practices.
A-4
-------
Workgroup Topics Poster Session - Wednesday Afternoon
Evaluation of Nonpoint Sources of Pollution at the Fort Darling
Unit of Richmond National Battlefield Park, Virginia, Using a
Risk Assessment Approach.
1) NPS Management and Antidegradation:
Workarouo Chairs : Kent Ballentine, EPA HO, and Bill • Water Quality Monitonrig for Nonpornt Source Managers.
Clark, Idaho DHW.
Development of Maximum Species Richness Lines: A
Corn panson of Methods.
This workgroup will focus on the monitonng information
needed to assess various antidegradation situations, • The Effect of Tributaries on the Structure arid Functional Groups
partIcularly those involving nonpoint sources Composition of the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Community
in the Saint Croix River, MN and WI
2) TMDLs/LAs for NPS: - ‘ The Use of Biocritena in the Ohio EPA Biological
Workarouo Chair Bruce Zander, EPA Region 8. Monitonng and Assessment Program
Limita or of the Index of Biotic Integrity for Assessing
This workgroup will discuss the technical aspects of Degradation in a Western Great Plains Watershed
considering both point and nonpoint sources in the TMDL
process ‘ Illinois Volunteer Lake Monitoring Program.
Citizens Streamwaik Checklist and Data Management
3) MonitorIng and Program Design for NPS System.
Assessments: WorkarouD Chatrs Don Martin, EPA
Idaho Operations Office, and Steve Bauer, Idaho DHW Assessing Nonpoint Source Pollution with Remote
Sensing and Biomonitonng.
This workgroup will discuss those aspects of an overall • Use of Short-term Exposure Basket Samples for Ecological
State monitoring program that are particularly important for Assessment of Metai Impacts on the Macroinvertebrate
NPS assessments Community.
Biological Criteria.
4) MonitorIng Program Framework/Guidance:
Workarouo Chair Bruce Cleland, EPA Region 10 ‘ Storn,water Runoff Research and Technology
This workgroup will review and discuss key issues and • Best Management Practices A Compliance Survey
implementation options regarding guidance on monitoring • Water Quality Analysis System Demonstration On-Screen,
program objectives and design. lriteractve Retrieval of Information From Multiple Water Quality
Data Systems
5) BioaccumulationlSedjment Monitoring and
Assessment: Workgroup Chair John Crellin, Missoun ‘ Steering Committee on Water Quality Data Systems Actions
and Accomplishments.
Department of Heaffh
Section 305(b) Waterbody System A State and National
This workgroup will review the need for technical guidance Database for Water Quality Assessment.
on assessing bioaccumulation and sediment
contamination. _____________________________________________________
6) Environmental Indicators: Workorouo Chair : Kim Reminder
Devonald, EPA HO
This workgroup will review the progress of EPA ’s indicators Symposium Location
project and will develop recommendations on their
appropriate selection, use, and value. The symposium will take place at the University Park
Holiday Inn in Fort Collins, Colorado To make reser-
7) Marine and Estuarine Monitoring: Workcrouo Chair vations call (303) 482-2626
Mary Lou Soscia, EPA HO
Transportation
This workgroup will consider how State mon oring
programs can provide/obtain the data needed to assess An airport shuttle runs from Denver Stapleton Airport
near coastal waters. to the Unrversity Park Holiday Inn every hour from
8:00 AM to 9:30 PM. The fare is $13 each way. For
information and reservations call (303) 482-0505.
A-5
-------
Appendix B
Workgroup Discussion Papers
B-i
-------
DISCUSSION PAPERS FOR THE SECOND NATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
ON WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT
WORKGROUP 1: NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ANTIDEGRADATION
WHITE PAPER FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Workgroup Chairs
R. Kent Ballentine
Office of Water Regulations and Standards
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Bill Clark
Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Background
State adoption of an antidegradation policy has been a Federal
requirement in the WQS program since the basic policy was
established by the Department of the Interior on February 8, 1968.
EPA’s current requirements for State adoption of antidegradation
policy is 40 CFR 131.12 which was promulgated on November 8, 1983.
EPA’s requirements are now supported by statutory language (see
CWA 303(d)). The regulation requires that “the state shall
develop and adopt a statewide antidegradation policy and identify
the methods for implementing such policy..” (40 CFR 131.12(a)).
Last year EPA (Office of Water Regulations and Standards) audited
State adopted requirements:
• While all States have at least rudimentary policies,
many need amendments to fully comply with Federal
requirements, and current triennial reviews are
improving State compliance statistics.
• While only a few states have antidegradation
implementation plans, several are now in the process
of developing such plans.
EPA believes that State antidegradation implementation plans
should include provisions for mandatory application in a State’s
nonpoint source program. However, no State has yet fully
incorporated antidegradation implementation into its nonpoint
source management program, although several are making significant
progress (e.g., Idaho).
B- 2
-------
II Discussion Points
1. Institutional Arrangements
Federal requirements for State antidegradation policies (40 CFR
131.12) require that the State “shall assure that there shall be
achieved . . . all cost-effective and reasonable best management
practices for nonpoint source control.” Antidegradation
implementation should now be incorporated into the State NPS
management program required by Section 319 of the CWA and be
incorporated into the work plans of the implementing agencies
(i.e., forestry, agriculture, construction, highways, etc.). In
its recent audit of State antidegradation policies, OWRS noted
deficiencies in the application of antidegradation to nonpoint
source control programs, frequently because authority had not been
conferred by State legislatures. EPA’s Section 319 guidance
encourages States to seek the necessary authority from their
respective legislatures.
• How are State antidegradation requirements in WQS
implemented by agencies other than the one adopting
the requirements? By grant agreements, MOUs,
governor’s commissions?
• What kinds of coordination mechanisms exist? How can
the process be improved? What is optimum?
2. Antidegradation Implementation Plan Development
40 CFR 131.12 calls on States to identify the methods for
implementing antidegradation. EPA is strongly encouraging States
without implementation plans to develop such plans for both point
and nonpoint sources. EPA is developing National guidance on
antidegradation implementation. Several EPA Regions have
developed guidance (Regions I, V, IX). Consideration of
antidegradation and other methods of attaining and maintaining
water quality standards (e.g., BMPs) should now be incorporated
into the State’s Section 319 NPS management program. (See EPA’s
NPS guidance, p. 11 et seq.)
• What kinds of additional guidance is needed to develop
effective antidegradation implementation plans for NPS
generating activities? Can coordination among
Federal, State and local agencies be effective?
3. Field Implementation
Antidegradation implementation, or antidegradation analysis, is a
public process where decisions that may result in reduced water
quality are analyzed to see if ... “allowing lower water quality
is necessary to accommodate important economic or social
B- 3
-------
development in the area in which the waters are located.” Simply
stated, project alternatives are examined to see if changes can
reasonably be made to reduce or eliminate reductions in water
quality and if not, whether the project is deemed sufficiently
important to accept the water quality degradations.
Antidegradation implementation depends on having sufficient data
so as to be able to define “existing uses” and to identify and
designate high quality waters including outstanding natural
resource waters. Without the benefit of requirements contained in
permits for monitoring water quality, monitoring relies on
Government agencies and cooperative land owners/lessees to perform
the necessary observations and testing.
• Is the baseline information available to effectively
ascertain current water quality and to predict future
water quality assuming various land use activities?
What kinds of data need to be considered in an
antidegradation analysis?
• How can such information be accumulated cost
effectively in areas where it is not currently
available?
• Is the antidegradation analysis process sufficiently
described by EPA’s guidance to focus information
collection efforts?
4. Monitoring
An antidegradation analysis is predicted on predictions of the
water quality/habitat condition resulting from various land use
and BMP applications. Monitoring data are analyzed subsequently
to see if actual water quality standards are attained, and if not,
to determine what changes in BMPs are necessary. Because there is
more incentive to document the costs of the controls rather than
to document maintenance and enhancement of environmental quality,
additional incentives are needed to induce environmental
monitoring.
• Are incentives available to induce land owners/lessees
to fairly evaluate both costs and environmental
quality in the control of NPS? Ar e there incentives
other than cost sharing, e.g., gathering information
for a use attainability analysis or developing
information justifying new and possibly less expensive
controls for future applications?
B-4
-------
COMMENT FORM
WORKGROUP 1: NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT AND ANTIDEGRADATION
Key Questions
1. Institutional Arrangements
• How are antidegradation requirements in State WQS
implemented by agencies other than the one adopting the
requi rements?
• What coordination mechanisms exist and how can they be
improved?
2. Antidegradation Irnplenientation Plan Development
• What quidance is needed to develop effective antidegradation
implementation plans for NPS generating activities?
3. Field Implementation
• What kinds of data need to be considered in an
antidegradation analysis? Is the necessary baseline
information typically available?
• How can needed information be gathered cost effectively?
• Is EPA’s current guidance sufficient to focus information
collection efforts?
4 Monitoring
• What are useful incentives to land owners, lessees, etc. to
monitor the “environmental results” of NPS controls?
B-5
-------
WORKGROUP 2: TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR UPS
WHITE PAPER FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Workgroup Chair
Bruce Lander
Water Management Division
Region 8
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Background
Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) are required by Section303(d)
of the Clean Water Act and EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 130,
1/1/85). TMDLs are defined by these regulations as the sum of
wasteload allocations for point sources and load allocations (LA)
for nonpoint sources and natural background. There is additional
interest in NPS assessments and LAs due to section 319 of the CWA,
the recent GAO report on the need for additional emphasis on
TMDLs, and interest in considering the combined water quality
effects of point and nonpoint sources.
The assessment and setting of LAs for NPS can be complex due to
the intermittent nature of the loadings from these sources and the
fact that this loading often occurs at other than the low flows
used for point source controls. Conventional Pollutants:
Techniques, e.g., mathematical models, and technical guidance
documents are generally available for assessing and setting NPS
LAs for conventional pollutants such as nutrients and biological
oxygen demand in lakes, fresh water streams and coastal waters,
although these techniques often require extensive amounts of data
and generally do not address UPS loadings from individual sources.
Technical guidance for estuaries is not yet final but is available
in draft. Other Pollutants: Specific techniques have generally
not yet been provided for assessing and setting LAs for clean
sediment and toxics from UPS.
II Discussion Points
1. Is a waterbody based assessment and allocation process the best
approach for integrating point and UPS loadings? Are other
approaches available for determining needed loading reductions by
point and NPS?
2. Are non-steady state modeling approaches needed for LAs for toxics
from NPS? The new type of Water Quality criteria with duration
and frequency recommendations are apparently suitable for all
receiving water flows (with the criteria concentration, duration
and frequency provisions still being subject to site-specific
modification). Since these criteria consider the duration and
frequency of criteria exceedances, do the models also need to
consider these factors?
B-6
-------
3. Must a LA always be quantified as a number, or should EPA allow a
TMOL approach that allows setting the NPS LA as site-specific
BMPs, when setting a specific number through modeling, etc., is
not feasible? Under this approach, the NPS LA could be
specified, in some cases, as site-specific BMPs, with follow-up
monitoring of the water quality results of the BMPs and additional
adjustments to the BMPs as needed over time. The TMDL would thus
be developed using BMPs for LAs in cases where doing quantitative
estimates using model’ing is not yet feasible.
4. What types of changes are needed for existing models and technical
tools to make the TMDL process more doable for NPS LAs? What type
of technical training is needed?
B-7
-------
COMMENT FORM
WORKGROUP 2: TOTAL MAXIMUM DAILY LOADS FOR NPS
Key Questions
1. Is a waterbody based assessment and allocation process the best approach
for integrating point and NPS loadings?
2. Since the new type of WQ criteria consider the duration and frequency of
criteria exceedances, do the models also need to consider these
3. Must a LA always be quantified as a number, or should EPA allow a TMDL
approach that allows setting the NPS LA as site-specific BMPs, when
setting a specific number through modeling, etc., is not feasible?
4. Under this approach, the NPS LA could be specified, in some cases, as
site-specific BMPs, with follow-up monitoring of the water quality
results of the BMPs and additional adjustments to the BMPs as needed
over time?
5. What types of changes are needed for existing models and technical tools
to make the TMDL process more doable for NPS LAs? What type of
technical training is needed?
8-8
-------
WORKGROUP 3: MONITORING AND PROGRAM DESIGN FOR NPS ASSESSMENTS
WHITE PAPER FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
WorkgrouD Chairs
Don Martin
Water Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Steve Bauer
Division of Environmental Quality
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare
Background
The 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act (CWA) served as a
strong reminder of the need to include nonpoint source (NPS)
monitoring as an integral part of state monitoring programs.
States were required under section 319 to “identify those
navigable waters within the State which, without additional action
to control nonpoint sources of pollution, cannot reasonably be
expected to attain or maintain applicable water quality standards
or the goals and requirements’ of the CWA. The need to assess
the extent of NPS problems is not new; it can also be found under
section 208 and section 305(b).
Back in the days of burning and foaming rivers the need to assess
the extent of NPS problems may not have been evident, particularly
in the industrialized areas of the United States. Now, however,
point source dischargers have been controlled to a large extent,
creating a new perspective from which we determine our assessment
needs. The states have reported in their 1988 section 305(b)
reports that NPS pollution is the major cause of the remaining
surface water quality problems in the Nation.
Since the states have already reported the extent of the NPS
problem, one might question the need for a workgroup discussion on
NPS assessments. A large proportion of the NPS assessments was
based upon far less than rigorous scientific analysis; best
professional judgment was used extensively. Many of the waters
assessed for section 319 had never been monitored routinely;
meaningful water quality data do not exist. In addition, problem-
screening efforts may not generate adequate informati -on from which
to base a clean-up program.
Now that NPS monitoring and assessment are highly visible
components of state monitoring programs it is important for EPA to
be responsive to state needs in this area. It is also important
for states to share their concerns and successes with other
states. EPA asks that this workgroup discuss various aspects of
including a viable NPS monitoring and assessment program as part
of the overall state monitoring program.
B-9
-------
II Discussion Points
The discussion should focus on the following series of questions:
1. What biornonitoring techniques are appropriate for NPS problem
screening, trend monitoring, and evaluation of NPS controls?
• Is physical/chemical monitoring still needed? For
what?
• How can the recommended problem screening approaches
lead to the development of watershed pollution control
strategies?
• What are some of the “do’s” and “don’ts” regarding the
use of biomonitoring techniques for screening, trend
monitoring, and control evaluations?
• Can biomonitoring techniques be used for on-site
evaluation of NPS control measures (e.g., on-farm)?
How?
2. What is the proper mix of biomonitoring and chemical/physical
monitoring for problem screening, trend assessments, and control
evaluations?
3. What are the most cost effective ways to assess waters for NPS
impacts in remote areas? What are the requirements to perform
these assessments?
4. What are the key limitations states face in adding a strong NPS
monitoring component to there overall monitoring program? How do
states propose to address these limitations? What should EPA’s
role be?
5. What technical materials/assistance should EPA deliver in support
of those monitoring techniques listed under #1 above?
6. What roles can other federal agencies (e.g., USGS, BOR, USFS, BLM)
perform?
7. Which agency or group should take the lead in coordinating NPS
monitoring data bases? How do the states achieve this
coordination?
B- 10
-------
COMMENT FORM
WORKGROUP 3: MONITORING AND PROGRAM DESIGN FOR NPS ASSESSMENTS
Key Questions
1. What biomonitoring techniques are appropriate for NPS problem screening,
trend monitoring, and evaluation of NPS controls? Is physical/chemical
monitoring still needed? For what?
2. What is the proper mix of biomonitoring and chemical/physical
moni tori ng?
3. What are the most cost effective ways to assess waters for NPS impacts
in remote areas?
4. What are the key limitations states face in adding a strong NPS
monitoring component to there overall monitoring program? How do states
propose to address these limitations? What should EPA’s role be?
5. What technical materials/assistance should EPA deliver in support of
those monitoring techniques listed under #1 above?
6. What roles can other federal agencies (e.g., USGS, BOR, USFS, BLM)
perform?
7. Which agency or group should take the lead in coordinating NPS
monitoring data bases?
B-il
-------
WORKGROUP 4: MONITORING PROGRAM FRAMEWORK/GUIDANCE
WHITE PAPER FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
WorkgrouD Chair
Bruce Cleland,
Environmental Services Division
Region 10
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Background
There has been much discussion of the need to improve EPA and
State monitoring programs - in the 1987 EPA report Surface Water
Monitoring: A Framework for Change , in discussions at last year’s
National Symposium on Water Quality Assessment, and elsewhere.
EPA’s Office of Water Regulations and Standards, with assistance
from a Federal/State workgroup, is preparing two documents of
interest to managers and staff with monitoring responsibilities:
(1) a guidance document for State surface water monitoring
programs; and (ii) a “Monitoring Implementation Framework.” Draft
versions of the guidance and Framework are expected to be
available in early 1990.
The program guidance is being written for State water quality
personnel with responsibility for data collection and analysis,
and for those who could benefit from using monitoring information
in their programs (e.g., in developing water quality standards,
targeting waters in need of additional controls, determining
permit limits). The guidance document will discuss the benefits
of considering monitoring information in ten or so water quality
program areas, discuss monitoring design considerations in each
area, and where possible,recommend specific monitoring approaches
The document will make extensive use of case examples to
illustrate successful uses of monitoring information in various
water quality program areas.
The “Monitoring Implementation Framework” will serve as a five
year plan listing specific monitoring-related projects that EPA
needs to complete (e.g., research, guidance, and training) and
specific implementation activities that could be taken to improve
State monitoring programs. EPA hopes that the process of
developing this Implementation Framework will result in consensus
on future directions for the monitoring program.
At the October workgroup meeting, we will:
• give a brief presentation on the two documents;
• be looking for input on the approach being taken and
the contents of the program guidance;
B- 12
-------
discuss elements of the Monitoring Implementation
Framework.
II Discussion Points
Monitoring Program Guidance
1. Is our strategy sound of directing the program guidance not just
to the producers of monitoring data but to its users? (e.g.,
managers of permits, nonpoint source, standards and other water
quality programs)
2. Do workgroup members have monitoring design recommendations that
they want to see included in the guidance document? (e.g.,
sources of information, how to decide what constitutes an adequate
amount or quality of data, recommended spatial/temporal designs,
choice of indicators, need for ancillary data to interpret water
quality data, useful data analysis or presentation techniques)
Monitoring Framework
3. In what areas does EPA need to develop research, guidance, or
training? Can the workgroup suggest priorities? (e.g., sample
collection and analysis, survey/network design and data analysis)
4. What measures can EPA use to satisfy its 106(e) oversight
responsibilities and ensure the adequacy of State monitoring
programs? (e.g., minimum number of analyses or surveys, minimum
sampling or analytical capabilities, minimum number of biologists
or other staff with specified skills, minimum effort devoted
toward priority objectives)
5. What is the best mechanism for ensuring communication between EPA
and States over monitoring programs? (e.g., the current EPA/State
mid year review process, less frequent monitoring program reviews,
monitoring regulations)
B- 13
-------
COMMENT FORM
WORKGROUP 4: MONITORING PROGRAM FRAMEWORK/GUIDANCE
Key Questions
1. Should the Monitoring Program Guidance be directed as much to data users
as to data producers?
2. What important program design considerations should be included in the
guidance?
3. What are the most important research, guidance, and training needs for
the monitoring program for the next 5 years?
4. What measures can EPA use to satisfy its 106(e) oversight
responsibilities and ensure the adequacy of State monitoring programs?
5. What is the best mechanism for ensuring communication between EPA and
States over monitoring programs?
B- 14
-------
WORKGROUP 5: BIOACCIJMULATION/SEDIMENT. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
WHITE PAPER FOR DISCUSSION PUPOSES ONLY
WorkgrouD Chair
John Crellin
Missouri Department of Health
Background
Public concern about the impact of chemical contamination on water
quality was heightened recently by the release of reports by the
National Wildlife Federation (NWF) and the Greenpeace
organization. The NWF concluded that the levels of PCB’s and
three organochiorines in Lake Michigan salmonids represented a
significant health risk. While no one debated that there was a
problem, most of the Lake Michigan states did not agree with NWF’s
assessment of the available fish tissue data for Lake Michigan. A
major source of the Contamination was identified by NWF as ongoing
permitted discharges by industry. NWF’s report is an example of
how fish tissue monitoring data could be used to evaluate the
validity of permitted discharge levels. It also illustrates the
need for standardization of assessment techniques.
Greenpeace released a report linking the excess deaths found in a
number of the counties along the Mississippi River to toxic
substances in the water and air. This conclusion was reached even
though Greenpeace identified the lack of valid environmental
monitoring data as a major barrier to performing an evaluation.
Because of this lack of data it is impossible to dispute or
confirm Greenpeace’s evaluation. The report by Greenpeace
illustrates the need for more and better data on chemical
contaminants in aquatic systems (i.e., surface water, biota, and
sediments).
In monitoring water quality, data on chemicals in sediment and
their bioaccumulation in the tissues of fish and other aquatic
organisms represent a vital information source. These data
reflect the long-term impact on the environment and provide a
potential inventory of chemicals entering the environment. Data
on contaminant levels in sediments and fish tissue can provide
guidance on where to target monitoring of both point and non-point
sources. They also may provide a way to validate the
appropriateness of permit discharge levels. Evaluation of
chemicals in water provides only a snap-shot view of contamination
unless monitoring is done on a regular basis.
B- 15
-------
While there are strong advantages to using bioaccumulation/
sediment data, there are also problems. Procedures for
collection, laboratory analysis, and assessment of sediment and
fish tissue samples vary widely. As with the NWF example above,
this has led to widely varying conclusions on essentially the same
data. Another disadvantage to these data is the monies and
expertise needed to do the laboratory analyses.
As the presentations at this National Symposium on Monitoring will
demonstrate, bioaccurnulation and sediment monitoring data can be a
significant contribution to addressing water quality problems.
This workshop will provide the opportunity for states to share
concerns and successes. It will also be possible to propose,
discuss, and recommend ways to maximize the usefulness of
bioaccumulation and sediment data.
II Discussion Points
Workshop discussions will focus on the following issues/problems:
1. Collection of Fish/Sediment Samples
• I -low many collection sites and how many samples per
site are adequate?
• Is there a need for a standard collection protocol?
• When should whole fish and when should edible portions
be collected?
• Which species and size of fish should be targeted?
• Would it be beneficial for EPA and other federal
agencies to develop a cooperative program with the
states to monitor fish tissue and sediment in the
major river systems?
2. Laboratory Analysis
• What Standard analytical procedures still need to be
devel oped?
• Which chemicals should be analyzed?
• Should some of the resources now spent on analysis of
samples be spent on developing and standardizing
techniques for identifying new chemicals?
8-16
-------
3. ssessment of Results
• How should health concern levels for contaminants in
fish tissue be established?
• To what extent is fish tissue contamination due to
sediment contamination?
• How may Accumulation Factors or other techniques be
used to develop sediment criteria” that protect
against fish tissue contamination? Will the approach
work for different contaminants/species/regions?
• How may sites be prioritized as to level of concern?
B-il
-------
COMMENT FORM
WORKGROUP 5: BIOACCUMULATION/SEDIMENT MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Key Questions
1. Sample Collection
• How should samples be collected?
• How many samples and how many sites need to be
• What species and what tissues should be collected?
• Are cooperative sample collection programs needed? feasible
2. Lab Analysis
• What standard analyses still need to be developed?
• Which chemicals need to be analyzed?
3. Assessment of Results
• How should tissue levels of concern be set?
• To what extent is tissue contaminatioti due to sediment
contamination?
• How should Accumulation Factors be used to develop sediment
“criteria”?
• How can sites be prioritized as to levels of concern?
B- 18
-------
WORKGROUP 6: ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
WHITE PAPER FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Workgroup Chair
Kim Devonald
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Background
In the lead article of the May issue of the EPA Journal, EPA
Administrator William Reilly writes that the good news is,
the Agency does an exemplary job of protecting the nation’s public
health and the quality of the environment”. The bad news is that
he “.. can’t prove it.”.
Reilly highlights a major problem for many environmental managers
Although the programs they oversee are supposed to protect and
improve the environment, and extensive data collection efforts are
mounted in support of these programs, it is often difficult to
show that things are getting better (or worse), i.e., that the
program is working. When asked, by their superiors, or by state
or Federal lawmakers, or by the public, to supply evidence of the
effectiveness of their programs, many managers have to rely on
administrative measures (such as the number of permits issued)
rather than system responses to demonstrate progress.
Reilly’s article also sends a signal to EPA and state program
managers that there is increasing interest at the top level of ERA
to find ways to measure environmental results. Environmental
indicators are one of the tools that can be used to do this.
However, there are many issues related t identifying and using
environmental indicators that have to be resolved. Five of these
issues are listed below:
II Discussion Points
1. What are the most important constraints limiting the development
and use of indicators? Are they institutional or scientific? How
can these be overcome?
The use of environmental indicators to measure environmental
change is not a new idea. discussion of the need for indicators
to link public policy with environmental reality can be found in
articles and reports dating from the early 1970s, yet little can
be quantitatively said about whether surface water quality is
improving on a national basis. Factors cited as obstacles to
indicator development include 1) limited resources; 2) lack of
institutional requirements; 3) fear of accountability; 4) lack of
understanding of how indicators would be used; and 5) the
difficulty of measuring change in complex natural systems with
only a few metrics. Are these the most important roadblocks
8-19
-------
preventing the development of indicators, and if so, how can they
be removed?
la. Are program managers hesitant to commit to using environmental
indicators because of the fear of accountability? What can be
done to mitigate this concern?
This question explores in more detail an issue raised in Question
1. One frequently described use for environmental indicators is
to evaluate the success or effectiveness of a particular
regulatory program. However, many indicators are affected by
environmental factors beyond the control of the manager. The
manager may be concerned (justifiably) about supporting the use of
an indicator over which he or she has little control but which
could reflect negatively on his or her effectiveness as a manager
It has been suggested that program managers should not be held
accountable for the magnitude of environmental change. Rather,
they should be held responsible for knowing and being able to
demonstrate that changes are occurring, and for being able to
explain why it is believed improvements are or are not occurring.
For example, eutrophication has diminished because NPS phosphorus
loads were decreased: or eutrophication has not diminished even
thought phosphorus loads have decreased, because this was a year
of unusually low precipitation and stream flow. Is this a
realistic expectation?
2. Is the development of national indicators of surface water quality
realistic? What will be the major problems in implementing
national indicators?
There are several examples of individual state and regional
programs that are successfully using indicators to measure the
status and trends in surface water quality, evaluate program
effectiveness, target problem areas, and communicate progress to
the public. The use of indicators in EPA Region 10 and the
development of a set of environmental indicator indices by the
Maryland Department of the Environment are two examples. Can
these and other programs’ successful use of indicators be used as
models to develop national indicators, or are indicators developed
for individual programs too site-specific.
3. Assuming general agreement that indices of biological community
structure are a valuable component of a comprehensive assessment
of water quality, how should these be reported?
Measures of biological community structure such as the techniques
used for the rapid bioassessrnents of streams, the index of Biotic
Integrity and the Invertebrate Community Index are used in many
state programs to measure the health of surface waters. Should
measures such as this be added as a required element in 305(b)
reports (e.g., a community structure score for some subset of
water body segments)? Should states incorporate measures of
“biological integrity” (community structure and function) into
their definition of use support?
B-20
-------
4. To what extent can existing environmental information and data
collection programs be used in developing environmental
indicators? Are new data collection programs needed? Are
resources available to fund new collection programs?
Few of the existing surface water data collection programs were
designed with the explicit objective of providing information to
be used to evaluate status and trends in water quality. Managers
trying to adapt these existing data for use as environmental
indicators frequently encounter problems (poor documentation,
changes in analytic procedures, lack of spatial and temporal
representativeness, and constraints on data access and
manipulation) inherent in using data collected for one purpose to
support a different objective. However, initiating new monitoring
programs specifically for collecting environmental indicator data
is exBpensive. What balance can be struck to collect the
information needed to develop useful indicators?
5. Are loading estimates useful indicators?
Ideally, an indicator measures some type of environmental endpoint
or impact. However, data on this type of indicator is often
expensive to collect and difficult to interpret because of the
influence of many confounding factors. As an indicator, pollutant
discharge estimates are at least two steps removed (transport and
fate, and actual impact) from providing a true picture of
environmental impacts. However, they are directly related to the
objectives of many existing regulatory programs, i.e., controlling
the discharge of pollutants, and, at least for point sources,
there is an extensive data collection program in place. Should
loading estimates be used as environmental indicators, and what
are the advantages and limitations of their use?
8-21
-------
COMMENT FORM
WORKGROUP 6: ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS
Key Questions
1. What are the most important constraints limiting the development and use
of indicators? Are they institutional or scientific? Now can these be
overcome?
2. Are program managers hesitant to commit to using environmental
indicators because of the fear of accountability? What can be done to
mitigate this concern?
3 Is the development of national indicators of surface water quality
realistic’ What will be the major problems in implementing national
indicators?
4. Assuming general agreement that indices of biological community
structure are a valuable component of a comprehensive assessment of
water quality, how should these be reported?
5 To what extent can existing environmental information and data
collection programs be used in developing environmental Are
new data collection programs needed? Are resources available to fund
new collection programs?
6. Are loading estimates useful indicators?
B- 22
-------
WORKGROUP 7: MARINE AND ESTUARINE MONITORING
WHITE PAPER FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Workgroup Chair
Mary Lou Soscia
Office of Marine and Estuaririe Protection
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Background
Water quality problems in estuarine and marine waters have
received increasing public attention. Legislation currently
before Congress would require the development of comprehensive new
monitoring programs for these waters. However, implementing
monitoring programs for estuaries and near coastal waters presents
many problems that are not encountered in freshwater systems. The
number and diversity of estuarine ecosystem components to be
monitored is often much greater than those in fresh waters, and
varying salinity and hydrodynaniic conditions require the
development of unique methods and sampling designs.
Moreover, monitoring programs for estuarine and near coastal
waters must provide ambient data supporting a wide range of water
program needs. Guidance recently issued by EPA directs states to
include near coastal water body segments in the 305(b) reporting
process. Marine criteria and standards under development will
require the collection of ambient data, and establishing total
maximum daily loads, wasteload allocations, and load allocations
for estuarine areas will require additional monitoring data. The
state 304(1) lists may not adequately represent near coastal water
bodies impaired by toxic discharges, and development of the 319
lists and plans for addressing nonpoint source problems must be
supported by marine and estuarine monitoring programs.
The objective of this workgroup is to consider how state
monitoring programs can provide data for trend analysis,
reporting, and decision making in estuarine and near coastal
waters.
II Discussion Points
1. What indicators of coastal water body impairment should be
measured for effective status and trend reporting? Can we
effectively include measures such as shellfish bed closures, miles
of closed beaches and debris collected in the 305(b) reporting
process? What are the other measures to be considered for
effective reporting?
B -23
-------
2. How can near coastal waters be segmented for status and trend
reporting and inclusion in EPA’s water body system?
How important is a uniform segmentation scheme? What
criteria can be used to develop segmentation?
In order to include near coastal waters in EPA’s water body
system, it will be necessary to segment them. It is, however,
more difficult to develop a segmentation scheme for coastal and
near coastal waters than for rivers and streams. Biological and
physical oceanographic factors may be used to segment coastal
waters. Salinity and temperature regimes, the effect of
freshwater inflow relative to tidal influence have been proposed
as segmentation criteria. Jurisdictional boundaries have also
been proposed for segmentation.
3. What are the main technological constraints in designing and
implementing monitoring programs for near coastal waters?
Have acceptable methodologies been developed for
analysis of conventional and nonconventional
pollutants? What can EPA do to assist in making
standard methods available for use in near coastal
waters? EPA is currently developing a compendium of
methods for estuarine and marine environmental
studies. Methods for nutrient evaluation have been
selected for inclusion in the compendium. What other
methods might be selected?
• How must the design of monitoring programs for near
coastal waters be different from the design of
monitoring programs for fresh water systems?
4. Although we continue to hear that the problem of toxic discharges
to near coastal waters is a severe problem, existing 304(1) lists
indicate that only 20 percent of the water bodies impaired by
toxic contamination are near coastal water bodies. New York-New
Jersey Harbor was not included on the 304(1) list despite
suspected toxic contamination of this water body. What must be
done to develop better lists? Can more data be collected to
support model development for assessing the extent of toxic
contamination in near coastal waters?
5. Is there a need for increased regional or national coordination of
state monitoring programs in estuarine and near coastal waters to
describe status and trends in these waters? How might this be
accornpl i shed?
In the Chesapeake Bay Region, the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program
Liaison Office has effectively coordinated the monitoring
activities of three states to support a bay-wide assessment
program. In the Puget Sound region, existing state agency
monitoring programs have been expended, and are being coordinated
by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority.
B- 24
-------
COMMENT FORM
WORKGROUP 7: MARINE AND ESTUARINE MONITORING
Key Questions
1. What indicators df coastal water body impairment should be measured for
effective status and trend reporting? Can we effectively include
measures such as shellfish bed closures, miles of closed beaches and
debris collected in the 305(b) reporting process? What are the other
measures to be considered for effective reporting?
2. How can near coastal waters be segmented for status and trend reporting
and inclusion in EPA’s water body system?
3. How important is a uniform segmentation scheme?
4. What are the main technological constraints in designing and
implementing monitoring programs for near coastal waters?
5. Have acceptable methodologies been developed for analysis of
conventional and nonconventional pollutants?
6. How must the design of monitoring programs for near coastal waters be
different from the design of monitoring programs for fresh water
systems?
7. Kow can better data be collected to support model development for
assessing the extent of toxic contamination in near coastal waters?
8. There is a need for increased regional or national coordination of state
monitoring programs in estuarine and near coastal waters to describe
status and trends in these waters. How might this be accomplished?
B-25
-------
APPENDIX C
Evaluation of Symposium
c-i
-------
EVALUATION OF SYMPOSIUM
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY PARTICIPANTS
A total of 69 evaluations were received.
Question 1: The meeting’s primary objective was to bring together water
quality professiona1s to exchange information and ideas about the
collection, analysis, management, and use of surface water quality
information. Do you feel this objective was met?
Answer: The participants felt overwhelmingly that these objectives were
satisfied. Some commented that there was an absence of
management-level personnel from EPA Headquarters. Others wanted
more time (i.e., at the breaks or extra work groups) to discuss
ideas and exchange information.
Question 2: What were your objectives for attending this meeting? Do you feel
your objectives were met?
Answer: The participants’ objectives fell mainly into two categories: 1)
to generally find out what programs are being conducted at the
Federal and State level, and 2) to learn specific methods of data
collection and analysis for NPS assessments. The majority of the
respondents felt category 1 was met but some felt the
presentations were too general to meet their specific objectives
in category 2.
Question 3: What aspects of the meeting did you like best?
(Ranked in order of most frequent responses)
Answer: • Workgroups
• Poster sessions (specifically the computer demonstrations)
• Variety of topics presented
• Opportunity to network with people in other agencies on an
informal basis
• Field trips
• Technical sessions on bioassessment, field asssessment,
evaluation of BMP effectiveness
• Diversity of attendees
• Facilities
• Concurrent sessions
• Luncheon and dinner speakers
c-2
-------
Question 4:
Answer:
Question 5:
Answer:
C,
cn
C
0
0 .
(I ,
C,
Question 6:
Answer:
What aspects of the meeting did you like least?
(Ranked in order of most frequent responses)
• Long hours (too much information presented; not enough time
allotted for networking)
• Some workgroup leaders did not seem open to ideas/suggestions
from the audience
• Not enough time allotted for workgroups to develop their
recommendations
• Absence of EPA managers
• Opening session
• Conflicting concurrent sessions (particularly 5 and 6)
• Some presentations were unfocused with poor visual aids
• Audio visual problems (i.e., lights)
How do you rate the meeting overall? (Excellent, Good to
Excellent, Good, Average to Good, Average, Poor)
Over 55% of the respondents rated the symposium good to excellent.
The scores are shown below.
Rating
Please provide suggestions for follow-up meetings and identify
issues that you feel were not adequately covered during the
meeting.
General Suggestions
• Provide handouts of slides and overheads from the speakers’
presentations
Poor Average AverageGood Good - Good-Excellent Excellent
C-3
-------
• Have fewer presentations and longer breaks
• Schedule field trips earlier in the Symposium
• Invite more speakers from industry
• Have a copy machine available to participants
• Provide questions and answers after each presentation
• Screen the quality of oral presentations (i.e., visual aids and
presentation qua) ity)
• Provide training for workgroup leaders in facilitating
discussions
• Separate technical and policy issues (have one day reserved for
a technical workshop)
Training
• Provide training workshops on:
STORET
Writing 404/401 permits
Rapid Bioassessrnent
Assembling 305(b) reports
WBS
Issues to be included
• Include talk on how states are coping with the decline of
Federal dollars
• Additional discussions on monitoring strategies ( i.e.,
examples of multi-media or ecological level monitoring)
• Integrated lab and field assessments
• Session on establishing guidelines and procedures for lab and
field methodologies
• More emphasis on sampling design issues
• Runoff from industrial sources
• Development of QA/QC procedures for NPS monitoring and data
analysis
• Tech transfer - How do we improve information transfer from the
scientist to the manager/regulator?
C-4
-------
APPENDIX 0
Attendance List
D- 1
-------
Paul Adamus
Corvallis ERL, Wetlands Program
200 Sw 35th Street
Corvallis, OR
503/757-4666
97333
Nadine Adkins
Agricultural Engineering Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
80523
Mark Albee
EDF
5655 College Avenue
Oakland, CA
415/658-8008
94618
Lynn Almer
U S Bureau of Reclamation
P 0 Box 25007
Denver, CO
303/236-9336
80 5-0007
John Armstrong
U S. EPA Region 10
1200 6th Avenue
Seatile, WA
206/442-1368
98101
Jack Arthur
US EPA-ERL
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN
218/720-5565
55804
Eugene Akazawa
Hawaii Department ot Health
645 Halekauwila St , 2nd Floor
Honolulu, HI
808/548-6355
96813
Dale Anderson
Entranco Engineer, Inc.
5808 Lake Washington Blvd,NE Suite
200
Kirkland, WA
Kevin Anderson
WA Dept. of Ecology
(MS V-il)
Olympia, WA
206/438-7062
98504
206/827-1300
Larry Antosch
Ohio EPA
1800 Watermark Dnve
Columbus, OH
614/644-3075
43266-1049
Andrew Archuleta
US FWS - Wagar Bldg Rm 202
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
303/491-6412
80523
Thomas Armitage
U S EPA (WH-556F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/475-7378
20460
Joni Armstrong
US FWS
2617 East Lincoln Way - A
Cheyenne, WY
307/772-2374
82001
Gary Arnold
Oregon of Environmental Quality
1712 SW 11th
Portland, OR
503/229-5983
97201
R Kent Ballentine
U S EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/475-7323
20460
Roger Bannerman
WI Dept of Natural Resources
P 0 Box 7921
Madison, WI
608/266-9278
53707
Mark Barath
U.S. EPA3
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA
215/597-7817
19106
Mike Barbour
EA Engineering, Science and
Technology, Inc.
15 Loveton Circle
Sparks, MD
21152
301/771-4950
Dale Bales
US EPA Region 7
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS
66115
Steve Bauer
Idaho Dept. of Health and Weflare
450 W State Street
Boise, ID
83720
Robert Baumgartner
Oregon of Environmental Quality
1712 Sw 11th
Portland, OR
97201
913/236-3881
208/334-5867
503/229-5877
-------
John Bender
NE Dept. of Environmental Control
P.O Box 98922
Lincoln, NE
402/471 -4201
68509-8922
Susan Benzie
Ml Dept of Nat Resources
P.O. Box 30028
Lansing, Ml
517/335-4193
48909
Dan Beyers
Larval Fish Laboratory
Colorado State University
Ft. Collins, CO
303/491-5295
80523
Steve Blanchard
USGS
102 E Main Street, 4th Floor
Urbana, IL
217/356-8812
61801
Mark Blosser
DE Sept of Nat. Res. and Env Ctrl
89 Kings Hwy
Dover, DE
302/736-4590
19903
Eve Boss
U.S. EPA Region 6
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX
214/767-7145
75202
Terry Boyle
Natonal Park Service
332 Aylesworth HaII-CSU
Ft Collins, CO
303/491-1452
80523
Steve Brady
USDA SCS and Forest Service
3825 E. Mulberry
Ft. Collins, CO
303/498-1744
80524-8597
Randy Braun
U.S. EPA Region 2
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ
201/321-6692
08817
Stephen Brinkman
Colorado Division of Wildlife
317W Prospect
Ft Collins, CO
303/484-2836
80526
Robert Brooks
Forest Resources Lab
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA
814/863-1596
16802
Bob Bukantis
MT Water Quality Bureau
A 206 Cogswell Bldg.
Helena, MT
406/444-2406
59620
Allen Burton
Wright State University
3640 Colonel Glen Road
Dayton, OH
513/873-2201
45435
Tim Burton
Idaho Dept. of Health and Welfare
450 W State Street
Boise, ID
208/334-6504
83720
Dan Butler
OK Conservation Commission
2800 N Lincoln, Suite 160
Oklahoma City, OK
73105
405/521-2384
Dave Buzan
TX Water Commission
P0 Box 13087
Austin, TX
512/463-8471
78736
Debra Caldon
US EPA Region IX (W-3-2)
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA
94105
415/974-0894
Gregg Cailson
Plant Sciences Dept.
SD State University
Brookings, SD
605/688-5 1 21
57006
Jeff Cederholm
Washington Dept. Natural Resources
Forest Land Management
Division,MQ-1 1
Olympia, WA
David E. Chak
Soil Conservation Service
511 NWBroadway-Rm248
Portland, OR
97209 -3489
Peter Chapman
EVS Consultants
195 Pemberton Avenue
Vancouver, BC
Canada V7P2R4
98504
503-326-2826
604/986-4331
-------
Steve Chapra
CADWES, Suite B
2945 Center Green CT South
Boulder, CO
303/492-3972
80301
Stephen Chick
USDA-SCS
655 Parlet Street, Rm E200C
Lakewood, CO
303/236-2886
80215-5517
Rick Claggelt
US EPA Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, CO
303/293-1572
80202-2405
William Clark
Idaho Dept of Health and Welfare
450 W Slate Street
Boise, 1D
208/334-5860
83720
Bruce Cleland
US EPA 10 ES-097
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, WA
206/442-2600
98101
Steve Coffey
North Carolina State University
615 Oberlin Road Suite 100
Raleigh, NC
919/737-3723
27605
Robert W Cooner
AL Dept of Environmental
Management
1751 Cong W L Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, AL
36109
David Cooper
Colorado School of Mines
3805 Silver Plume
Boulder, CO
303/499-6441
80303
Andrea Copping
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
217 Pine St, Suite 1100
Seattle, WA
206/464-7934
98010
205/271 -7935
Emelise Cormier
LA Dept of Environmental Quality
P 0 Box 44091
Baton Rouge, LA
504/342-6363
70804
Terry Craig
National Park Service
332 Ayfesworth Hatl-CSU
Fort Collins, CO
80523
Bill Creal
Ml Dept of Nat Resources
P 0 Box 30028
Lansing, Ml
517/335-4181
48909
John Crellin
Missouri Department of Health
1730 E Elm Street
Jefferson City, MO’
65102
314/751-6079
Pat Davies
Colorado Division of Wildlife
317W Prospect
Ft. Collins, CO
3031484-2536
80526
Wayne Davis
U S. EPA 5
536 S Clark Street 10th Floor
Chicago, IL
312/886-6233
60181
Chris Deacutis
RI Dept of Environmental
Management
291 Promenade Street
Providence, RI
0 08
Roger Dean
U.S EPA Reg on VIII
199 18th Street
Denver, CO
303/293-1571
80202-2405
Kim Devonald
U.S. EPA (PM-222A)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/382-4900
20460
401/277-6519
Dave Dillon
)K Water Resources Board
00 NE 10th Street
.)kIahoma City, OK
73152
Bill DiRienzo
WY DEQ
Herschler Bldg., 4th Floor W
Cheyene, WY
Randy Dodd
R u
P.O. Box 12194
Research Tnangle Park, NC
27709
05/271 -2541
307/777-7081
919/541-6491
-------
Max Dodson
U S EPA Region VIII
199 18th Street
Denver, CO
303/293-1542
80202-2405
John H Dorsey
Hyperion Treatment Plant
12000 Vista Del Mar
Playa Del Rey, CA
213/648-5272
90293
Nancy Driver
National Park Service
332 Aylesworth Hall-CS U
Fort Collins, CO
80523
Don Duff
U S Forest Service
324 25th Street
Ogden,UT
801/625-5662
84401
Bob Duffy
Dept of Ecology
(MS PV-ll)
Olympia, WA
206/438-7093
98504-8711
Judith A. Duncan
Oklahoma Dept. of Health
P 0 Box 53551
Oklahoma City, OK
73152
405/271 -5240
Jim Dunn
U S. EPA Region VIII (WM-GW)
199 18th Street
Denver, CO
303/293-1796
80202-2405
Lawrence Edmison
OK Dept. of Pollution Control
P.O. Box 53504
Oklahoma City, OK
405/271-4468
73152
lhsan Eler
U.S EPA Region V (5-SMQA)
536 Clark Street
Chicago, IL
312/886-6249
60605
R C Erickson
U S EPA Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, CO
80202-2405
Ben Eusebio
U S EPA Region X (ES-097)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA
206/442-0422
98101
EJ Fanning
WYDEQ
Herschler Bldg
Cheyene, WY
307/777-7074
4th Floor W
82002
Dan Farrow
US EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/382-4906
20460
Kurt Fausch
Dept of Fish and Wildlife
Colorado State University
Ft Collins, CO
303/491-6457
80523
Dennis Fewless
ND Dept of Health
1200 Missouri Avenue #203
Bismarck, ND
58502-5520
Sarah Fowler
U S. EPA Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, CO
303/293.1575
80202-2405
Tom Fredette
New England Division, Corps of
Engineers
424 Trapelo Road
Waltham, MA
02254-9149
Ronald French
Metro Denver Sewage Disposal Dist.
6450 York Street
Denver, CO
303/289-5941
80229
617/647-8563
Rod Frederick
U.S EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
20460
Toby Frevert
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL
Frank Gaff ney
NW Renewable Resources Center
710 2nd Avenue
Seattle, WA
98704
202/382-7051
62794-9276
206/623-7361
-------
Erv Gasser
National Park Service
3215 E. Broad St.
Richmond, VA
804/226-1981
232
Mary Gessner
US FWS
Arlington Square, Room 330
Washington, DC
703/358-2148
20240
Robert George
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
P 0. Box 25007
Denver, CO
303/236-3777
80225
James Giattina
U S EPA Region V (5WQS-TUB8)
536 Clark Street
Chicago, IL
312/353-2154
60604
Charles R. Goldman
Environmental Studies
University of Cal omia
Davis, CA
916/752-1557
95616
Gregg Good
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, IL
62794-9276
217/282-3362
Jeanne Goodman
SD Dept of Water arid Natural
Resources
523 E Capital Avenue
Pierre, SD
57501
Daniel Greenlee
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
P.O Box 1038
Zephyr Cove, NV
702/588-4547
89448
Geoffrey Grubbs
U.S EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/382-7040
20460
605/773-3296
Robert Gumlow
WY DEQ
Herschler Bldg 4th Floor W
Cheyene, WY
307/777-7098
82002
Roy Gunnell
Utah Bureau of Water Pollution Control
P0 Box 16690
Saft Lake City, UT
801/538-6146
84116-0690
Rick Hafele
OR Dept of Environmental Quality
1712 SW 11th Street
Portland, OR
503/229-5983
97201
Karen Hamilton
US EPA Region VIII (8WM-SP)
999 18th Street
Denver, CO
303/293-1576
80202-2405
Jon Harcum
Tetra Tech
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA
703/385-6000
Bill Hamed
Utah Bureau of Water Pollution Contrc
P0 Box 16690
Salt Lake City, UT
801/538-6146
Warren Harper
USDA Forest Service
9364 Robnel Place
Vienna, VA
703/759-6793
22182
Jim Harrison
US EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA
404/347-5242
30365
Jim Harvey
CO Dept. of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, CO
303/331 -4558
80220
Vern Helbig
U..S EPA Region 8
999 18th St Suite 500
Denver, CO
80202
Roland Hemmett
U.S EPA Region 2
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ
837
Susan Hitch
U.S. EPA (WH-556F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
20460
22030
84116-0690
303/293-1585
201/321-6687
202/475-7178
-------
Nancy Hoets
335 Aylesworth Hall NW
Colorado State University
Ft, Collins, CO
3031491-1513
80523
Paul Hogan
Mass. Division of Water Pollution
Control
Lyman School, Route 9
Westborough, MA
01581
Terry Hollingsworth
U.S. EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/382-7111
20460
508/366-9181
Thomas Holloway
U S EPA Region VII
25 Funston Road
Kansas City, KS
913/236-3884
66115
Mac Holman
US EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX
214/655-2289
75202
John Houlihan
US EPA Region 7
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS
66101
Dallas Hughes
US Forest Service
P 0 Box 3623
Portland, OR
503/326-3307
97208-3623
Robert Hughes
U S EPA- Corvallis
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR
503/757-4666
97333
Ron Huntsinger
Bureau of Land Management
18th and C St. NW
Washington, DC
20240
Roy Irwin
US Fish and Wildl e Service
819 Taylor Street, Room 9A33
Fort Worth, TX
817/334-2961
76102
Thomas Jackson
US FWS
134 Union Blvd , Rm 525
Lakewood, CO
303/236-8180
80 5
Eric Janes
Bureau of Land Management
33478 Ma Vista Drive
Evergreen, CO
303/236-0170
80439
David Jennings
OK Dept of Pollution Control
P 0 Box 53504
Oklahoma City, OK
405/27 1 -4468
73152
Jim Jensen
MEIC
P0 Box 1184
Helena, MT
406/443-2520
59624
Sherm Jensen
Whitehorse Associates
Box 123
Smithfield, UT
801/563-6100
84335
Thomas Jewett
USDA-SCS
100 East B Street - Room 3124
Casper, WY
307/261 -5224
82601
Randy Jirtle
Duke University Medical Center
Room 139
Durham, NC
919/684-2770
27710
Chuck Job
US EPA
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/382-7771
20460
Clarence Johnson
US Fish and Wildlife Service
18th and C St. NW
Washington, DC
20240
Carol Jolly
Dept. of Ecology
St. Martins College (MS PV-ll)
Olympia, WA
Charles Kanetsky
U.S. EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Bldg.
Philadelphia, PA
19107
703/358-1710
206/438-7494
215/597-8176
-------
James Karr
Department of Biology
VA Polytechnic Institute and State
University
Blacksburg, VA
24061-0406
William Kepner
US Fish and Wildl e Service
10613 N. 33rd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ
602/261 -4720
85
Connie King
Eastman Kodak
Kodak Colorado Division
Windsor, CO
303/686-0537
80551
703/23 1 -4139
Wesley Kinney
US EPA Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, CO
303/236-5072
80202
Donald Klemm
U.S. EPA
3411 Church Street
Cincinnati, OH
513/533-8114
45244
Robert Kramer
EPA Region 3
841 Chestnut Bldg
Philadelphia, PA
215/597-8330
19107
Todd Kratzer
DE River Basin Commission
P 0 Box 7360
West Trenton, NJ
609/883-9500
08628
M e Kravitz
U S EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/475-8085
20460
Jim Kurteribach
U.S EPA Region 2
Woodbridge Avenue
Edison, NJ
201/321 -6695
08837
Willie Lane
US EPA Region 6 (6 ESA)
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX
214/655-2289
75202-2733
Phil Larsen
U.S. EPA - Corvallis
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR
503/757-4666
97333
Jim LeBaugh
U S. Geological Survey
Denver Federal Center, Bldg 53
Lakewood, CO
303/236-4989
80225
Wayne Leininger
Range Science Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
303/49 1 -7852
80523
Paul Leonard
EA Engineering Science
15 Loveton Circle
Sparks, MD
301/771-4950
21152
William Lewis
EPO-Biology, Box 334
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO
303/492-6378
80309
Ed Liu
EPA Region IX (W-3-2)
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA
94105
415/974-8351
Lee Liebenstein
WI DNR
P 0. Box 7921
Madison, WI
53707
John Littke
Iowa Dept of Natural Resources
123 N Capitol
Iowa City, IA
319/335-1578
52242
Byron Lord
Pavements Division - FHA, HNR-20
6300 Georgetown Pike
McLean, VA
22101-2296
James Luey
U.S. EPA Region V (5WQS-TUB-8)
230 S. Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL
60604
Larry MacDonnell
Natural Resources Law Center
University of Colorado
Boulder, CO
80302
703/285-2345
312/886-0132
303/492-1287
-------
Charlie MacPherson
Tetra Tech, Inc.
3746 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 300
Lafayette, CA
415/283-3771
94549
Fred Mangum
U.S Forest Service
324 25th Street
Ogden,UT
801/378-4928
84401
Diana Marsh
AZ Dept Environmental Quality
2655 E Magnolia
Phoenix, AZ
602/392-4020
85034
Dan Martin
U S. Fish and Wildlife Service
222 South Houston, Suite A
Tulsa, OK
918/581-7458
74127
Don Martin
U.S. EPA - Idaho Operations Office
422 W. Washington Street
Boise, ID
208/334-9498
83702
John Maxted
U.S. EPA (A-104F)
401 M Street, SW•
Washington, DC
202/382-5907
20460
Bruce McCammon
US Forest Service - Mt. Hood Nat
Forest
315520 SE Woodard Road
Troutdale, OR
97060
Ellen McCarron
Fl Dept of Environmental Regulations
2600 Blaristone Rd
Tallahassee, FL
904/488-0782
32301
Robert McConnell
Colorado Dept of Health
4210 E. 11th Avenue
Denver, CO
303/331-4578
80220
503/695-2276
Glenn McDonald
US Forest Service
WA Dept of Ecology (PV-11)
Olympia, WA
206/438-7057
98504-8711
Dennis McMullen
Tech Applications
3411 Church Street
Cincinnati, OH
513/533-8114
45244
Daniel Merkel
U.S EPA Region VIII
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO
303/293-1584
80202
Maureen Merkler
Kentucky Division of Water
18 Reilly Road
Frankfort, KY
502/564-3410
40601
David Meyer
City of Fort Collins
3036 E Drake Road
Fort Collins, CO
303/493-8367
80525
James Miller
USGAO-Rm 1992
915 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA
206/442-5604
98174
Jerry Miller
USBR
P0 Box 11568
Sa Lake City, UT
801/524-5454
84147
Gerald Montgomery
US EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA
206/442-2596
96101
Robert Morehouse
U.S EPA Region 1
JFK Bldg. (WQP-2109)
Boston, MA
617/565-3513
02203
Gil Murray
Timber Assn of America
1311 lStreet
Sacramento, CA
95814
Wayne Nelson
SAIC
14062 Denver W. Parkway #52
Golden, CO
80401
Tom Nesler
Colorado Division of Wildlile
317W Prospect
Ft. Collins, CO
80626
916/444-6592
303/484-2836
-------
Bruce Newton
U S EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/382-7074
20460
Peter Nolan
US EPA ESD
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA
02173
Leonard Nowak
US EPA Region 4
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA
404/347-5242
30365
Corky Ohlander
U S Forest Service
P0 Box 25127
Lakewood, CO
303/236-9606
80225
Jim Omemik
U S. EPA - Corvallis
200 SW 35th Street
Corvallis, OR
503/757-4666
97333
Cecilia Omellas
HI Dept of Health
645 Halekauwila Street - 3rd Floor
Honolulu, HI
808/548-6767
96813
Toney Ott
U.S. EPA Region VIII (8WM-SP)
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO
303/293-1573
80202
Jim Overtori
NC Division of Environmental
Management
P 0 Box 27687
Raleigh, NC
919/733-5083
27611
Loys Parnsh
U.S EPA Region 8
P 0 Box 25366 Denver Federal
Center
Denver, CO
303/236-5064
80225
Harry Parrot
USFS
310 W Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI
414/291-3652
Greg Parsons
Colorado Dept. of Health
4210 E 11th Avenue
Denver, CO
303/33 1 -4756
80220
Ron Pasch
TVA
270 Haney Building
Chattanooga, TN
615/751-7309
Steve Paulson
University ol Nevada - Las Vegas
4505 S Maryland Pañway
Las Vegas, NV
702/739-0838
89154
Kevin Perry
Tetra Tech
10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340
Fairfax, VA
703/385-6000
22030
Tom P tts
Tom Pitts and Associates
1124 N. Harrison
Loveland, CO
303/667-8650
James Plafktn
U S EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/382-7005
20460
Bill Platts
Chapman Associates
3180 Airport Way
Boise, ID
208/383-3401
83705
Robert Plotnikofi
Dept. of Ecology
(LH-1 4)
Olympia, WA
206/753-2830
98504
James Pollard
Lockheed Engineering
1050 E Flamingo Rd., Suite 209
Las Vegas, NV
89119
Wayne Praskins
U.S. EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
20460
Beth Pratt
Dept. of Environmental Quality
Herschler BIdg, 4th Floor W
Cheyenne, WY
82002
53203
37402
702/734-3367
202/382-7010
307/777-7079
-------
Ronald Preston
U S EPA Region IIl-ESD
303 Methodist Bldg
Wheeling, WV
304/233-2315
26003
Pedro Ramirez
US FWS
2617 E Lincolnway --A
Cheyenne, WY
307/772-2374
82001
Jonathan Rea
CA Dept of Forestry
P 0 Box 944246
Sacramento, CA
916/323-5158
94244-2460
John Rector
U.S Forest Service
630 Sansome Street
San Francisco, CA
94111
415/556-1564
Will Roach
U S. FWS
17629 El Camino Real, #211
Houston, TX
713/750-1700
77058
Glenn Rodriguez
U S. EPA Region 8
P.O. Box 25366 Denver Federal
Center
Denver, CO
802
303/236-5064
Richard Ruelle
US Fish and WiIdl e Service
P 0 Box 986
Pierre, SD
605/224-8693
57051
Frank Sagona
TVA
311 Broad Street, Room 2705
Chattanooga, TN
615/751-7334
37401
William Samuels
SAIC
1710 Goodridge Drive
McLean, VA
22102
Steve Saunders
Dept of Ecology
(MS- PV11)
Olympia, WA
206/438-7086
98504
Tim Savisky
EPA Region 4
108 College Station Rd Apt H-i ii
Athens, GA
404/369-8240
30605
Duane Schuettpelz
Wi DNA
P 0 Box 7921
Madison, WI
53707
Elizabeth Scott
RI DEM
83 Park Street
Providence, RI
401/277-3434
02903
Donna Sefton
US EPA Region VII
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS
913/236-2817
66101
Louis 0 Seivard
VA Water Control Board
2111 N Hamilton Street
Richmond, VA
804/367-6308
23230
Lawrence Shepard
US EPA Region 5 (5WQS TUB8)
230 Dearborn Street
Chicago, IL
312/886-0135
60604
Thomas Simon
Central Regional Laboratory
536 S Clark Street
Chicago, IL
312/353-5524
60605
Alan Smart
U.S. EPA Region 10 (WD.139)
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA
206/442-2579
98101
James Smith
Agricultural Engineering Department
Univers y of Wyoming
Laramie, WY
82071
Stephen Smith
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
900 Clay Street
Vicksburg, MS
39180
Dave Somers
Tulalip Tnbal Fishenes
3901 Totem Beach Road
Marysville, WA
98270
601/638-1891
206/653-0220
-------
Mary Lou Soscia
U S. EPA (WH-556F)
401 M Street, SW
Washinglon, DC
202/475-7109
20460
Roy Spalding
Institute of Agriculture and Natural
Resources
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, NE
6858 0844
Kendra Stailcup
OK Conservation Commission
2800 N. Lincoln, Suite 160
Oklahoma City, OK
73105
405/521-2384
402/472-7558
Robert Steedman
Ontario Ministry for the Environment
435 James Street
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Can a P7C5G6
807/475-1215
Don Steffeck
Environmental Contamination
Division-USFWS
330 Arlington Square Building
Washington, DC
20240
lvars Steinblums
Siskiyou Nat. Forest
P 0 Box 440
Grants Pass, OR
503/479-5301
97526
703/358-2148
Peter Stender
US Forest Service
324 25th Street
Odgen, UT
801/625-5368
84401
Tim Stevens
SWRCB
901 P Street
Sacramento, CA
916/322-0216
95814
Daniel Stewart
ND Dept. of Health
1200 Missouri Avenue #203
Bismarck, ND
701/224-2354
58502-5520
Jerry Stober
U.S. EPA Region IV
College Station Road
Athens, GA
404/546-2489
30613
Tom Stockton
NC Dept. of Natural Resources and
Community 0ev.
P 0 Box 27687
Raleigh, NC
27611-7687
Rob Striegel
USGS 413
Box 25046
Denver, CO
303/236-4993
80226
919/733-7015
Richard Stroud
US Fish and WiIdl e Service
1002 NE Holladay
Portland, OR
503/23 1 -6223
97323
Tim Stuart
U.S EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/382-7074
20460
Kate Sullivan
WTC 2H4
Weyerhauser Company
Tacoma, WA
206/924-6191
98477
Nancy Sullivan
U.S. EPA Region 1
JFK Bldg. Room 2103
Boston, MA
02203
Kathy Svanda
Minn Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St. Paul, MN
612/296-8856
55155
Larry Svoboda
US EPA
P.O. Box 25366
Lakewood, CO
303/236-5102
80225
Diane Switzer
U.S EPA
60 Westview Street
Lexington, MA
02173
Phill Taylor
U.S. EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
20460
Peter Tennant
ORSANCO
49 E. 4th Street
Cincinnati, OH
45202
617/860-4377
202/382-7046
513/421-1151
-------
Howard Thomas
USDASCS
511 NW Broadway - Room 248
Portland, OR
503/326-2841
97209
Nelson Thomas
U.S EPA-ERL Duluth
6201 Congdon Blvd.
Duluth, MN
218/720-5702
55804
Steve Tralles
MT Water Quality Bureau
A-206 Cogswell Bldg.
Helena, MT
406/444-2406
59620
MJ Tr ca
Range Science Department
Colorado State University
Fort Collins, CO
303/49 1 -5655
805
Dave Vana-Miller
US EPA Region VIII
P.O. Box 25366
Lakewood, CO
303/236-7372
Dale Vodehnal
US EPA Region 8
999 18th Street
Denver, CO
303/293-1565
80202-2405
Craig yogi
U S. EPA (WH-556F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/475-7130
20460
Ernie Watkins
U.S. EPA
401 MSt.,SW
Washington, DC
202/382-5667
20460
James Weber
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commiss ion
975 SE Sandy Blvd Suite 202
Portland, OR
503/238-0667
97214
John Wegrzyn
AZ Dept of Environmental Quality
2655 W Magnolia,#200
Phoenix, AZ
602/392-4040
85034
Bruce Wilson
MN Pollution Control Agency
520 Lafayette Road
St Paul, MN
612/296-9210
55155
Hal Wise
U.S. EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/382-7109
204.60
John Wolfe
US FWS
1002 NE Holladay
Portland, OR
503/23 1 -6223
97Z32-41 81
Lane Wyatt
NW Colorado Council of Gov.
P.O. Box 739
Fnsco, CO
303/668-5445
80443
Ruth Yender
U.S EPA (WH-553)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC
202/382-7062
20460
Chns Yoder
Ohio EPA
1030 King Avenue
Columbus, OH
614/466-1488
43212
Carl Young
U.S. EPA Region VI
1445 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX
214/655-2289
75202
Bruce Zander
US EPA Region VIII (8WM-SP)
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO
303/293-1580
80802-2405
John Zogorski
South Dakota School of Mines
Rapid City, SD
57701
605/394-2437
------- |