United States
Environmental Protection

Office of the Adninistrator
Science Advisory Board
Washington, D. C. 20460

December, 1987

EPA Report of the Environmental
Effects, Transport and Fate

.Review of a Framework for
Improving Surface Water
Monitoring Support
for Decision-Making


December 1. 1987


The Honorable Lee M. Thomas

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M. Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20460

Dear Mr. Thomas:

The Surface Water Monitoring Subcommittee of the Science
Advisory Board's Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate
Committee has completed its review of a study prepared by the
Office of Water and the Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
entitled Improving Surface Water Monitoring Support for Decision-
Making: A Framework for Change. The review was requested by the
Office of Water, and was conducted on February 23 and 24, 1987 at
North Texas State University in Denton, Texas.

The Subcommittee believes that the study provides a strong
conceptual framework for a sound monitoring program, but
recommends certain refinements to further strengthen both the
study and the monitoring program. The study's strength is its
recognition of the need for change and the underlying concept to
create that change. In addition, the planning and development
approach used in the study solicits input from diverse sources
and assesses that input, identifying both obstacles and
challenges, to provide a useful framework for action. A major
weakness results from the study's relatively narrow base of

The Subcommittee identified several areas in this study that
need further consideration or additional emphasis including the
need for: precisely defining the purpose or objective for
monitoring before programs are designed or implemented;
considering the source of water quality problems when designing
monitoring strategies such as point source, non-point source, and
the more likely combination of both sources; and coordinating
monitoring efforts in different media, such as air, sediment, and
living organisms, to contribute towards an ecosystem level
understanding of changes due to pollution. The study should also

emphasize the importance of: incorporating new analytical
techniques and physical, chemical, and biological methods to
insure that the best scientific results are obtained from
existing resources; coordinating EPA's surface water monitoring
programs with those of other Federal and international agencies;
and developing technical guidance to promote data consistency and
comparability. Finally, the study should stress the importance
of data analysis, since proper analysis of collected data is
essential to decision-making. These and other issues are
discussed in the attached report.

The Subcommittee appreciates the opportunity to conduct this
scientific review. We request that the Agency formally respond
to the scientific advice transmitted in the attached report.


Norton Nelson, Chairman
Executive Committee
Science Advisory Board

Rolf Hartung, Chairman
Environmental Effects, Transport
and Fate Committee

Kenneth Dickson, Chairman
Surface Water Monitoring


cc: A. James Barnes
Jack Campbell
Lawrence Jensen
Rebecca Hanmer
Mary Blakeslee
Paul Campanella
Terry F. Yosie


Review of a Framework for Improving Surface
Water Monitoring Support for

Report of the Surface Water Monitoring Subcommittee
Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee

Science Advisory Board
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

December 1987


This report has been written as a part of the activities of
the Science Advisory Board, a public advisory group providing
extramural scientific information and advice to the Administrator
and other officials of the Environmental Protection Agency. The
Board is structured to provide a balanced expert assessment of
scientific matters related to problems facing the Agency. This
report has not been reviewed for approval by the Agency, and
hence, the contents of this report do not necessarily represent
the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency,
nor of other agencies in the Executive Branch of the Federal
government, nor does mention of the trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee


Dr. Rolf Hartung, Professor of Environmental Toxicology, School
of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan 48109


Dr. Martin Alexander, Professor, Department of Agronomy,

Cornell University, Ithaca, New York 14853

Dr. Yoram Cohen, Engineering Department, UCLA RM. 5531, Boelter
Hall, Los Angeles, California 90024

Dr. Kenneth Dickson, Institute of Applied Sciences, North Texas
State University, P.O. Box 13078, Denton, Texas 76202

Dr. Wilford R. Gardner, Office of the Dean, College of Natural

Resources, 101 Giannini Hall, University of California,
Berkeley, California 94720

Dr. Robert Huggett, Senior Marine Scientist, Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, College of William and Mary,

Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

Dr. Kenneth Jenkins, Director, Molecular Ecology Institute,

California State University, Long Beach,

California 90804

Dr. Richard Kimerle, Monsanto Corporation, 800 N. Lindbergh
Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63167-5842

Dr. John M. Neuhold, Department of Wildlife Sciences, College
of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan,

Utah 84322

Dr. Leonard H. Weinstein, Boyce Thompson Institute, Tower
Road, Ithaca, New York 14853

Dr. G. Bruce Wiersma, ILF 333, EG&G Idaho Inc., P.O. Box 1625,

Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415


Ms. Janis C. Kurtz, Executive Secretary, EPA, Science Advisory Board,
(A 101-F), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460

Mrs. Lutithia V. Barbee, Staff Secretary, EPA, Science Advisory Board,
(A 101-F), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Science Advisory Board
Environmental Effects, Transport and Fate Committee
Surface Water Monitoring Subcommittee


Dr. Kenneth Dickson, Institute of Applied Sciences, North Texas
State University, P.O. Box 13078, Denton, Texas 76202


Dr. Robert Huggett, Senior Marine Scientist, Virginia Institute
of Marine Science, College of William and Mary,

Gloucester Point, Virginia 23062

Dr. Ronald Jarman, Oklahoma Water Resources Board, 1000 NE 10th
Street, 12th Floor, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152

Dr. Kenneth Jenkins, Director, Molecular Ecology Institute,

California State University, Long Beach,

California 90804

Dr. Richard Kimerle, Monsanto Corporation, 800 N. Lindbergh
Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63167-5842

Dr. David Maschwitz, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, 52 0
Lafayette Road, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155

Dr. John M. Neuhold, Department of Wildlife Sciences, College
of Natural Resources, Utah State University, Logan,

Utah 84322

Dr. Mike Smolen, North Carolina State University, Water Quality
Group, 615 Oberlin Road, Suite 1000, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27605


Ms. Janis C. Kurtz, Executive Secretary, EPA, Science Advisory Board,
(A 101-F), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460

Mrs. Lutithia V. Barbee, Staff Secretary, EPA, Science Advisory Board,
(A 101-F), 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460


Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary 		1

2.0 Introduction 		3

2.1	Origin of the Revie.w		3

2.2	Purpose of the Review		3

2.3	Review Procedure 		3

2.4	Description of this Report	3

3.0 General Comments		4

3.1	Strengths	4

3.2	Weaknesses	4

4.0 Specific Issues 		5

4.1 Purposes of Monitoring	5

4.1.1	Functions of Monitoring 		5

4.1.2	Challenges	6

4.1.3	Obstacles	7

4.1.4	Characterization of Aquatic Systems ....	7

4.1.5	Trend Monitoring . . . .*			7

4.1.6	Differentiating between Point and Non-Point
Sources 		8

4.1.7	Multimedia Monitoring 		9

4.2	Data Needs 	9

4.2.1	Chemical Specific Monitoring	9

4.2.2	Biological Monitoring Techniques	9

4.2.3	Real-Time Monitoring	10

4.2.4	Watershed Monitoring	10

4.2.5	Responsibility for Monitoring 		10

4.2.6	Monitoring Based on Knowledge of Chemical
Fate	11

4.2.7	Monitoring and the Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control	11

4.2.8	Consistency in Monitoring 		12

4.2.9	Providing Monitoring Guidance 		12

4.3	Data Management and Assessment	12

4.3.1	Data Management Aggregation, Assessment and
Analysis	12

4.3.2	Data Assessment	13

4.4	Control Feedback 	 14



Appendix A: Executive Summary of the Study



The Surface Water Monitoring Subcommittee concludes that the
study prepared by the Office of Water entitled "Improving Surface
Water Monitoring Support for Decision-Making: A Framework for
Change" provides the conceptual framework for a sound monitoring
program. The Subcommittee encourages the Agency to refine the
study further in light of the ideas and suggestions offered in
this critique. Specific conclusions and recommendations include:

•	The study of surface water monitoring is a long needed
step toward integrating disparate activities within the Agency.
The questions and needs of the Agency that are related to surface
water monitoring are appropriately addressed by the study.

•	A sound concept is provided defining the necessary
elements for a successful monitoring program, such as assessing
the reasons for monitoring, organizing monitoring efforts to
address identified needs, and managing and analyzing data to
support decision-making.

•	The planning approach used to develop the study merits
recognition because it solicits input from a variety of sources
at Federal and State levels, assesses input, identifies obstacles
and challenges and produces a framework for action.

•	The study should place more emphasis on the importance of
precisely defining the purposes (objectives) of a monitoring
program before design and implementation begin. The basic
purpose of many monitoring programs is to characterize the
aquatic resource. This function of monitoring has many specific
applications, such as providing data for background
characterization, information on use attainability, ecoregion
analysis, and site specific criteria development. Before
monitoring programs are initiated, a clear understanding of the
purpose for the data collection must be acknowledged, and
possible applications should be considered to guide both
collection and analysis portions of the monitoring program.

•	The study should avoid the simplistic concept that water
quality problems are either point or non-point source in origin.
Most water quality problems have elements of both, and monitoring
should be conducted with this perspective.

•	Surface water monitoring programs should be coordinated
with the monitoring programs for other media (e.g., air,
sediment, fish tissue, and groundwater). This integration is
needed to fully understand the origins or sources, fate, and
consequences of pollutants in the environment. Coordinated,
multimedia approaches will be more effective than single medium

•	Monitoring programs need to incorporate state-of-the-art
physical, chemical, and biological methods. The study should


propose a procedure for identifying and incorporating emerging
methods, such as toxicity testing and real-time monitoring.

•	The study should emphasize the importance of coordinating
surface water monitoring programs at EPA with those of other
Federal and international agencies. This coordination will
facilitate the generation of a more uniform set of data with
broad applicability and will contribute to both cost
effectiveness and superior data quality. Plans for such
coordination should be -specified as part of the study.

•	The Subcommittee recommends that the "Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control" 1 be used as a
model to develop technical guidance on surface water monitoring
for use by the states. The study should point out the need for
technical guidance at the State level to promote consistency and
comparability between data.

• For monitoring data to be useful in decision-making, the
data must be analyzed. The study should recommend that analysts
be employed and charged with developing computerized data
management systems to aggregate, analyze and summarize monitoring
data for use by Agency decision-makers. This may require
modifying existing systems, such as STORET, or creating new
systems. Such analysis will also assist in identifying and
prioritizing environmental problems, and may give clues to
appropriate solutions.

^ USEPA, Office of Water Enforcement and Permits, and Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, September 1985. Technical
Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control. EPA-



2.1	Origin of the Review

EPA's Office of Water requested that the Science Advisory
Board (SAB) of the Environmental Protection Agency review the
Surface Water Monitoring study. SAB reviews are conducted under
the auspices of its Executive Committee, which agreed to conduct
the review and delegated responsibility to the Environmental
Effects, Transport and .Fate Committee. On January 14, 1987, this
Committee met and received a preliminary briefing on the Surface
Water Monitoring Study, given by Ms. Mary Blakeslee, Senior
Program Analyst, Office of Water. The Committee established the
Surface Water Monitoring Subcommittee to conduct the review and
appointed Dr. Kenneth L. Dickson as chairman of the Subcommittee.

2.2	Purpose of the Review

The Subcommittee received a document entitled, "Improving
Surface Water Monitoring Support for Decision-Making: A
Framework for Change," authored by EPA's Office of Water, and the
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (with assistance from
American Management Systems, Inc.). The study describes current
surface water monitoring efforts, identifies the inadequacies of
the current programs, and discusses changes that should be made
to improve future programs. The Executive Summary of this
document is included as Appendix A.

The purpose of the review is to provide an independent, peer
assessment of the scientific adequacy of the objectives,
conclusions and recommendations of the surface water monitoring
study, and to evaluating the concepts underlying the approach.

2.3	Review Procedure

The Subcommittee met in public session on February 23 and
24, 1987, at North Texas State University, in Denton, Texas. Ms.
Mary Blakeslee, Office of Water, and Mr. Paul Campanella, Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation presented a detailed briefing
on the study at that time. Following this briefing, the
Subcommittee discussed the underlying principles of the study,
its conduct, and the recommendations it provides. These
discussions formed the basis for recommendations, suggestions,
and comments on the study.

2.4	Description of This Report

The Subcommittee's report provides general conclusions with
regard to the study's fundamental concepts, documenting their
strengths and weaknesses. In addition, the report provides a
discussion of specific issues that were identified during the
review process, issues that have a significant impact on the
study itself and the field of surface water monitoring as a


whole. Finally, the report presents specific conclusions and
recommendations on current and future issues addressed in this


The Subcommittee lauds the Office of Water and the Office of
Policy Planning and Evaluation "for addressing the questions and
needs related to surface water monitoring as they concern the
Environmental Protection Agency. The study under review is a
long needed step toward integrating what currently appear to be
disparate activities in the Agency.

It is important for the Agency to assess its reasons for
monitoring, organize its monitoring efforts to address identified
needs, and implement a program of data management and analysis
which will facilitate informed decision-making. The report
reflects such an effort but, as in all such reports, it has both
strengths and weaknesses. Although this critique may highlight
weaknesses, the Subcommittee emphasizes that this review is
intended to "fine tune" a study that is sound in concept.

3.1	Strengths

The Agency recognizes the need for change. This study is
evidence of that recognition and will serve to initiate needed
changes. The Subcommittee sees this factor, the underlying
concept, as one of its greatest strengths. The planning approach
used in developing this study also merits recognition because it
elicits input from a variety of sources at Federal and State
levels, assesses that input, identifies obstacles and challenges,
and produces a framework for action. This document is a useful
synthesis of ideas that can assist in developing a strong
monitoring program.

3.2	Weaknesses

A major weakness of the study results from its relatively
narrow base of information. Although a variety of sources at
Federal and State levels were interviewed, they appear to be
primarily administrators and managers within EPA. These people
are often not familiar with the details of Federal or State
monitoring programs, and deficiencies range from a lack of
understanding of the reasons for monitoring to lack of knowledge
of the uses of data. More of the technical staff directly
responsible for monitoring programs and/or data management and
analysis should have been interviewed. This would have resulted
in interviews with several individuals in an agency because
different types of monitoring, such as routine, intensive, and
compliance monitoring, are the responsibilities of different
people. Specifically, the opinions of scientists within the EPA
Office of Research and Development, particularly at Environmental
Research Laboratories, should have been solicited. The


scientific community within EPA routinely collects and uses
monitoring data, and their opinions would have given more balance
to the study.

The States are also under represented in the study. State
monitoring programs vary widely. The reasons for this
variability include political climate, scope of environmental
problems, size, available resources, and expertise of staff.
Some State programs illustrate technical competence while others
do not. This diversity is not reflected in the study document.
Instead, the report simply concludes that State programs are
inadequate to meet emerging needs and that changes are needed.
The lack of monetary resources needs to be recognized as a major
factor limiting nearly all State monitoring programs.

The report consolidates Federal and State monitoring
programs throughout much of its discussion. This distorts the
fact that Federal and State monitoring programs often have very
different purposes and functions. The report should acknowledge
that EPA is better equipped to conduct some types of monitoring,
such as monitoring beyond State borders for acid deposition
effects, whereas States have different roles and capabilities,
such as compliance monitoring.

While it is understood that the source of information for
the study was personal interviews, many statements made in the
report are not supported and should be qualified. For example,
statements concerning statistically based conclusions about water
quality over wide areas need to be documented.

The study adequately explores the breadth of the monitoring
issue, but this breadth is not completely reflected in the
recommendations. The six main recommendations are: 1) issue
guidance on cost-effective approaches to problem identification
and trend assessment; 2) accelerate development and application
of promising biological monitoring techniques; 3) continue and
expand efforts to improve information on National Progress in
Water Pollution Control; 4) analyze the feasibility of requiring
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permittees to conduct ambient follow-up monitoring studies; 5)
improve EPA and State knowledge about sources and uses of
existing water-related data; and 6) establish central
coordination of EPA activities to integrate water-related data.
In general, these recommendations seem too narrowly focused. The
specific issues and suggestions to follow can be applied to
expand the recommendations presented in the study.


4.1	Purposes of Monitoring
4.1.1 Functions of Monitoring

The study places appropriate emphasis on the utility of
monitoring data in decision-making for water pollution control


programs. However, the organization of this section of the study
is confusing and detracts from more basic issues. The authors
introduce four reasons for using monitoring data in surface water
programs. These four reasons are to: 1) identify water quality
problems and trends; 2) develop water quality controls and
management actions; 3) determine compliance and effectiveness of
control; and 4) develop priorities and plans. Further
description of these reasons can be found in Appendix A page A-5.

This section can be improved by beginning with the
development of priorities and plans, then demonstrating how the
three remaining functions support the development aspect. The
information in the remaining three functions should be expanded
to better reflect the breadth of issues that can be addressed
with monitoring data.

4.1.2 Challenges

Another section of the study addresses the challenges facing
water quality managers. Some of the challenges identified focus
on the issues of assessing ecological effects as a means to
define problem areas, establish criteria, and evaluate the
effectiveness of current practice. As stated in the study
document, these are: 1) assessing the ecological effects of
toxic discharges and instituting controls; 2) increasing use of
intensive surveys to collect data used in setting water quality
based permit limits; and 3) demonstrating the environmental
results of pollution control investments.

Other challenges identified in the study address shifting
priorities at the Agency in terms of both point and non-point
sources and areas affected (e.g., rivers, lakes, and estuaries).
These are stated as follows in the study: 1) identifying and
characterizing non-point sources of toxic and conventional
pollutants, and 2) expanding efforts to identify and control
pollution problems in near-coastal and ocean waters. The
challenges described are presented in more detail in Appendix A,
page A-12.

The Subcommittee recommends restructuring this section to
reflect the issues pointed out above (assessing ecological
effects and shifting Agency priorities regarding point and non-
point sources), and to clarify the source of challenge, such as
problems for water quality managers or problems caused by
shifting Agency priorities. This restructuring will help to
define the challenges and develop options for meeting them. The
specific discussions under several of the challenges need
amplification. For example, challenge 1 represents a shift in
focus from a chemical by chemical approach to an integrated
monitoring program. This is a basic change in the philosophy of
monitoring and deserves more emphasis.


4.1.3 Obstacles

The discussion of obstacles (Appendix A, page A-13)
overlooks a major problem implicit in many monitoring programs -
the lack of clear definition of the question(s) addressed by
monitoring. Before a monitoring program is begun, both the broad
purpose (e.g., compliance with NPDES permits) and specific needs
should be carefully defined. A set of questions would aid in
developing the monitoring design, identifying the types and forms
of data to be collected, and interpreting the trends. The study
does list examples of key questions that water quality managers
will face in the next decade, such as what pollution problems
pose the greatest threat to human health, and what environmental
benefits are gained from specific control activities. However,
these questions are broadly stated and need an expanded
supporting rationale.

4.1.4	Characterization of Aquatic Systems

The study needs to recognize that an understanding of the
natural or expected characteristics of the resource to be managed
is basic to the needs of any water quality management program.
Water programs under the Clean Water Act have progressed
nationally in areas where adequate information on attainable uses
is available and where national criteria are accurate. However,
the geographical diversity of the Nation precludes the uniform
application of criteria and standards.

A valid purpose of the surface water monitoring program is
to provide data in support of ecoregion characterization or
development of baseline conditions for subsequent assessment of
aquatic alteration. The development of ecoregion characteriza-
tion - a concept that assesses regional variation in water
quality characteristics and aquatic communities due to climate,
surface geology, soils, vegetation, and land use patterns - has
shown promise as a tool for helping States and regional offices
define regional goals for attainable water quality.

The establishment of base-line conditions is important to
understanding system variability and resiliency and to assessing
alterations, either improvement or deterioration. Information
of this nature may be used to align the entire water quality
management system to achieve valid and accurate goals for
maintaining the integrity of the Nation's waters.

4.1.5	Trend Monitoring

The study does not place sufficient stress on the importance
of monitoring to identify water quality trends. Monitoring for
trends can help to answer questions when it is used in context
and with regard for the differences between systems. In
particular, trend monitoring can aid in evaluating:

• compliance or control in a permit-regulated system,


•	progress in water quality control efforts, and

•	background condition and changes induced by
nonanthropogenic activities.

Data needs for trend analysis should be distinguished
clearly from those of problem screening and identification. For
example, data from short-term, intensive studies are not
applicable for trend analysis unless certain elements of
uniformity, repetition,, and time sequencing are maintained.

If questions calling for trend analysis are stated
precisely, trend monitoring can be accomplished efficiently.
Such focus may be on indicators, such as frequency of violating
standards, or on changes in mean, seasonal, or annual
concentration of particular contaminants.

Section 305(B) of the Clean Water Act requires that EPA
submit a report to Congress assessing the condition of the
Nation's waters. This report is used to communicate information
to both Congress and the public, but also serves as a tool for
assessing problem areas and establishing priorities for control
programs. EPA currently requires that the States prepare reports
using a uniform format to facilitate the development of the
national report to Congress. States use the format differently.
Some supply more information than required to aid in developing
in-state assessments and programs, while others provide the
minimum information required by the format. EPA should continue
to evaluate this reporting form. It should serve as a tool for
developing the national report and for assessment and program
prioritization by the states. The form should promote
efficiency, consistency, and the capture of more relevant
information for assessing water quality conditions.

4.1.6 Differentiating Between Point and Non-point Sources

Non-point source monitoring introduces a specific set of
questions and concerns that differ from point source monitoring.
Combining the two in a nondescript "ambient" monitoring program
obscures the distinction and limits the usefulness of the data.
Clear formulation of the questions can help determine whether the
monitoring should seek to integrate the effects of all sources or
isolate certain sources or groups of sources. Generally,
monitoring non-point sources requires a commitment to fixed
stations, monitoring for long durations, and capturing related
data such as hydrologic, meteorologic, land use activities, and
demographic data. The commitment to fixed stations, in
particular, implies a demand that the Agency formulate its
questions precisely.

Evaluations of non-point source program effectiveness may
introduce further demands on a monitoring program such as
estimating mass loadings or quantifying spatial inputs. There is
a need for consistent, uniform sampling strategies that account
for influences from storm events and seasonal factors, and avoid


bias. Careful formulation of questions is very important because
a commitment to long-term monitoring can be substantial in both
manpower and monetary resources.

4.1.7 Multimedia Monitoring

The study implies that water quality decisions in the 1990s
will be made based on multimedia risk management (see Appendix A,
page A-10), yet the body of the study does not address this
issue. Multimedia assessments and their implications for
monitoring should be incorporated into both the objectives and
the recommendations. The importance of coordinating monitoring
programs for various media should be stressed to ensure
compatibility between station location, frequency of collection
and data types. It is also important to consider the interfaces
between functional subdivisions (e.g., air/water interface,
marine microlayer) of media.

4.2 Data Needs

4.2.1	Chemical Specific Monitoring

Considering the myriad of chemicals that can be present in
surface waters, it is not practical to rely solely on a chemical
specific monitoring approach. The Agency should continue to
develop monitoring techniques that integrate the effects of
chemicals. Use of ambient toxicity testing approaches that
assess the combined effects of all stressors should be an
integral part of monitoring programs.

4.2.2	Biological Monitoring Techniques

Biological monitoring techniques can provide valuable
information on water quality. Since organisms respond to their
total environment, they offer an integrated alternative to
chemical-by-chemical monitoring. The study identifies several
ambient toxicity testing techniques and advocates their use in
monitoring programs. The Subcommittee encourages the Agency to
keep abreast of new physiological, biochemical, and genetic
techniques that can indicate sublethal stress caused by
chemicals. It is important to develop and use screening tests
based on new techiques to improve the efficiency and sensitivity
of the ambient toxicity tests currently available. The Agency
should continue to foster the development of biological
monitoring techniques for use in both inland and marine systems.

Analyses of sediments and biota from many aquatic areas
around the country show hundreds of anthropogenic compounds. The
study acknowledges that estimation of biological impact is more
difficult than detection, since toxicity tests are usually
performed with individual chemicals in "solution" rather than
with the complex mixtures found in sediments.

The study recognizes that better indicators of biological
damage are available. However, more tests than those mentioned


are available for application. Recently published studies have
shown that tests derived from research on mammals are useful when
applied to aquatic systems. Investigation of the impacts of in-
place contaminants on aquatic biota with histopathological and
immunological techniques are now possible. The detection of
tumors in fish from Puget Sound, the finding of lesions and
depressed immune systems in fish from the Elizabeth River,
Virginia, and the determination of elevations in metallothionein
concentrations in fish from Prickley Pear Creek, Montana are
examples of the use of such technologies. The Subcommittee
recommends that EPA begin to implement such technologies into
programs for monitoring.

4.2.3	Real-Time Monitoring

A need exists for the development of real-time (i.e.,
continuous) chemical, physical, and biological monitoring
technologies. With the exception of temperature, discharge, and
conductivity, and the limited monitoring of dissolved oxygen and
pH, there are few examples of real-time monitoring of water
quality. Real-time monitoring would allow rapid detection of
emerging problems and should promote efficient corrective actions
to be implemented. The Agency should foster the development of
chemical, physical, and biological techniques for real-time
monitoring of water quality.

4.2.4	Watershed Monitoring

Comprehensive monitoring programs must be based on thorough
analysis of the source of waters and characteristics of the
watersheds. Ambient trend data are most appropriate if the
influence of upstream effects are considered. Intensive survey
data must include analysis of the entire watershed or drainage

4.2.5	Responsibility for Monitoring

The Subcommittee recognizes the importance of defining the
roles and responsibilities of various agencies for monitoring
ambient waters. The study recommends that NPDES permittees
conduct follow-up monitoring. This approach by itself may not
meet the need for knowing how well water quality is protected.
Current regulatory practices require individual dischargers to
meet effluent limitations following the chemical-by-chemical and
toxicological characterization approaches outlined in the
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control. This is intended to assure that no single discharger
adversely affects water quality. However, no mechanism exists to
monitor the effect of overlapping zones of impact or the additive
effect of chemicals on the ecosystem.

In developing its surface water monitoring program, the
Agency needs to coordinate with other Federal agencies. Several
agencies besides EPA collect surface water monitoring data for a
variety of reasons: the United States Geological Survey (USGS)


collects chemical, physical, and biological data; the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) monitors fish and
shellfish tissue residues; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) monitors marine systems through the status
and trends program; and the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) supports several water quality monitoring
programs. While these programs have purposes that differ from
the primary interests of the EPA, they may provide useful data
and, if effectively coordinated with the Agency's monitoring
activities, could result in more comprehensive data for analysis
of the quality of the nation's waters.

The study does not indicate consideration to harmonize the
Agency's surface water monitoring with related programs through-
out the world. Acid rain is but one example of the global
problem requiring coordinated monitoring between countries. How
does the proposed surface water monitoring program relate to
monitoring activities in Canada or Mexico? Can European exper-
iences in surface water monitoring be of value to the Agency in
developing its strategy? It is the opinion of the Subcommittee
that monitoring programs should be harmonized with international
monitoring activities to provide data that can be readily
compared and analyzed.

4.2.6 Monitoring Based on Knowledge of Chemical Fate

Many toxic substances remain in the water column for very
short periods of time. Generally, these substances have an
affinity for sediment particles that may be sampled and analyzed.
Ambient monitoring is ineffective for detecting the elevated
levels of these substances which result in fish tissue
contamination, even when undetected in the water column.
Intensive surveys are more effective, yet are extremely limited
in scope. Other environmental programs (Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
Toxic Substances Control Act, Safe Drinking Water Act) are also
developing toxics' detection elements to provide the specific
information required for decision-making. Coordinated efforts to
develop toxic substance budgets would be more effective than any
single approach. By evaluating the raw materials coining into an
industry, or other chemical user, and considering the processes
and the avenues of disposal, the fate of potential toxic elements
could be estimated. Each specific environmental program could
use this information to develop monitoring systems to evaluate
the availability to the ecosystem.

4.2.7 Monitoring and the Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-Based Toxics Control

A regulatory mechanism now exists for the NPDES in the form
of the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics
Control. Much energy and thought has gone into this approach
which is now being implemented throughout the U.S. It is
expected that this approach, which integrates chemical-by-
chemical analysis and toxicological data with waste load


allocation, will provide greater protection of water quality. It
was apparent to the Subcommittee that little integration exists
between the proposed monitoring program and this document. An
attempt should be made to coordinate these efforts.

4.2.8 Consistency in Monitoring

EPA's intent to strive for greater consistency among states
in their monitoring is admirable if the objective is to achieve
some acceptable minimal level. However, extreme caution should
be employed so that monitoring entities that use "better" designs
and techniques are not forced to operate at a less desirable
level in order to achieve "consistency." A thorough survey of
State monitoring programs is warranted.

4.2.9 Providing Monitoring Guidance

The study recognizes the need to develop technical guidance
on developing monitoring programs. The Subcommittee recommends
that the Agency develop technical support documents and
technology transfer teams to communicate the state-of-the-art in
monitoring program design. The Subcommittee further recommends
that the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based
Toxics Control be used as a model. A large body of literature
exists on the design of monitoring programs that should be
reviewed and integrated into the technical support document, and
the Agency should solicit the practical experiences of other
Federal and State agencies in their development.

4.3 Data Management and Assessment

4.3.1 Data Management Aggregation, Assessment and Analysis

The study appropriately addresses the problems of data
management and provides suggestions for linking data bases and
making data more accessible to promote their use by decision-
makers. However, the study does not recognize the need for data
aggregation and analysis by staff at a level between the
decision-makers and the data managers. Staff should prepare
frequent overviews and status reports as a basis for managerial
actions or to revise and clarify the questions which drive the
data gathering activities.

The study implies that automated computer equipment and
complex, sophisticated software are sufficient to give top level
administrators direct involvement in the data analysis process.
This approach would substitute artificial intelligence for
professional judgment, intuitive analysis, and report prepara-
tion. A better approach would be to view the hardware, the
software, and the data management system as tools for technical
analysts to use in preparing summaries and reports, which provide
the basis for managerial decision-making.

The Subcommittee commends the authors of the document for
recognizing that better labeling of data and better utilization


of STORET are important to optimizing data integration and
facilitating the dissemination of environmental data. It should
be recognized, however, that STORET was not designed to accept
nonspecific or qualitative data such as the mass-spectra of
unknown compounds in environmental samples. Therefore, while
STORET is important and needed, it will require modification or
other, parallel computerized information systems will be needed
to address these limitations.

Analyses of monitoring data are dependent on three
monitoring characteristics:

1)	Time - Analyses are often needed urgently and time

series data are needed to indicate changing

2)	Quantity - A sufficient sample set or number of data

points is needed to gain an estimate of
probability and to assess precision.

3)	Quality - An assessment of the accuracy or correctness

of the measurement including descriptive
identifiers, such as time, place, and sub-
stance(s) being monitored.

Data analysis should be considered in. developing a
monitoring strategy. Monitoring data are collected for a variety
of purposes. Variations in purpose may require different
monitoring characteristics, e.g., time span, .number of samples,
and degree of accuracy. Careful problem formulation will lead to
appropriately designed monitoring programs producing data that
can be analyzed to give insight to appropriate control

Data management systems must be designed to allow
flexibility, and formatted for accurate, comprehensive data entry
and accessible retrieval of data. In addition, the assessment
capability of the system, in terms of data quality and
statistical capability, must be sufficient with regard to
accuracy, pertinence, and clarity, to support decision-making.
With these constraints, it is possible to develop a modular
archiving system sensitive to both purpose and variability in
characteristics that will allow an analyst to integrate data to
assist decision-making.

STORET and BIOS are capable of such modularization and can
be adapted to the concepts listed above. AQUIRE is a data base
that exemplifies some of the characteristics mentioned above and
can be used as a model.

4.3.2 Data Assessment

Data assessment is not identified as a component of water
quality management. The Subcommittee believes this to be a
deficiency in the study. Assessment is the analysis and


interpretation of data from the monitoring program. Such
assessments provide answers to the questions that the monitoring
program was designed to address, such as whether water quality is
being adequately protected. The conceptual framework of
assessment is to compare the physical, chemical, and biological
data to established performance standards, such as water quality
criteria, water quality advisories, health standards, permit
compliance, and maintenance of intended uses. When performance
standards are not met, assessment serves as a trigger for
further controls.

An alternative situation can exist when the assessment
indicates that additional data would be useful in resolving a
particular problem. The types of additional information sought
could include improvements in exposure data (by collecting more
data, improving the quality of chemical data, or collecting
chemical data over time to reveal a trend), better quantification
of biological/ecological field data, and establishing new
performance standards, i.e., site-specific water quality
criteria. Collection and assessment of data can be an iterative
process until the assessment results in a scientifically
defensible decision to take a regulatory compliance or control
action, or do nothing. The assessment aspect of water quality
management is a valuable tool for setting priorities for wise use
of limited resources. It is also a means of evaluating the
effectiveness of control actions taken to reduce exposures.

The use of the assessment step in water quality management
forces the issue of -setting upper or lower limits on physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics that, if exceeded, can
justify an action. It will also foster a better understanding of
the cause of the problems.

A current deficiency in conducting effective assessments is
determining which, and how much, monitoring data are appropriate
to conduct the first level assessment. A second problem is
understanding what are acceptable performance standards for
specific bodies of water. However, this should not prevent the
use of the assessment step in water quality management to meet
the needs in the 1990's. Much progress has been made in
analytical chemistry, toxicological testing, chemical fate
modeling, computerized data bases, and standards setting to
facilitate assessments.

4.4 Control Feedback

The intent, and therefore the design, of most organic
chemical analyses employed by monitoring organizations is to
quantify a preselected set of compounds. There are advantages
and disadvantages to this approach. One advantage is that the
qualitative aspects of the analyses are simplified. Cleanup,
fractionation, and detection can be selected or developed for
specific compounds, decreasing the possibility of false
identifications. Another advantage is that the quantitative
outputs of the analyses are usually more accurate and precise


because the methodologies employed are optimized for the
preselected compounds. Both of these advantages are particularly
important if the intent of the monitoring is to determine
compliance with some regulatory program.

A disadvantage is that only the preselected compounds will
be qualified and quantified. This disadvantage is trivial if the
preselected list of compounds" is all-encompassing and contains
all the compounds likely to be encountered. However, this is
not likely to be the case. The study correctly points out that
the existing "lists" of compounds are incomplete.

Another disadvantage of most existing approaches is that,
even though compounds other than those sought are quantified, the
data pertaining to them are ignored. In other words, valuable
data are not being utilized because of the narrow focus of
chemical specific monitoring.

Another way of describing most existing monitoring systems
for toxic organic chemicals is to say that they are "feedback"
programs. Such feedback programs are keyed by error signals.
For example, if a NPDES permit allows a certain amount of a
specific compound in an effluent, a concentration that exceeds
the permitted level by an established margin constitutes an
error. Detection of this error may initiate regulatory action.
Compounds not specified in the permit, and therefore not
analytically sought, cannot become an "error signal" even though
they may be detrimental to the biological communities in the
receiving waters.

Technologies and expertise now exist to minimize such
oversight through better design of inorganic chemical monitoring
programs. The major tools used in the organic qualitative and
quantitative analyses are Gas Chromatography (GC) and Gas
Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS). These instruments
yield signals for all the compounds present that can be resolved
and detected by the various detectors utilized. Even though many
of these signals are not essential to a "feedback" system in the
strictest sense, they can be collected, stored, and analyzed with
the use of data systems. Utilizing retention markers in the
analyses and calculating relative retention indices for compounds
detected by both GC and GC-MS facilitates such investigations.

A further refinement to consider may be the sacrifice of
some quantitative aspects of the analyses to maximize the
qualitative outputs—in other words, to minimize the cleanup and
fractionation to which the extracts are subjected in order to
maximize the number of compounds left in the extract to be
analyzed. The results may be less useful for compliance or
feedback monitoring but more important for feed-forward
monitoring. Feed-forward monitoring, in this case, is defined as
monitoring designed to determine when new, unregulated or
unselected compounds enter a system, or to determine the
distribution of classes of compounds. Feed-forward monitoring has
the advantage of determining many more compounds, which in turn


provides a much more realistic estimate of the total toxic burden
to which organisms are subjected. EPA funded the development of
such a system in its Chesapeake Bay Program and the system is now
in use in the State of Virginia. The technology exists to
support this effort. Widespread implementation of such a program
will be costlv. however? the benefits mav outweiah the costs.




"Improving Surface Water Monitoring Support
for Decision-making: A Framework for Change"


EPA Surface Water Monitoring Study

Improving Surface Water Monitoring
Support for Decision-Making:
A Framework for Change

Executive Summary

Prepared by

the Office of Water,
the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation,
and American Management Systems, Inc.

The 12-Month Study Had
Objectives With Respect to a

Three Inter-Related
Broadly-Defined Scope

Determine where
EPA's surface water
monitoring program should be
going in the late 1980s to ensure that
it can meet the information needs
of water quality manage

in Ihe 1990s > - Identify where

Adjustments should be made
in the current program to
improve monitoring support for
1990s decision-making

The study's broad definition of "water monitoring:
all of the numerous ways of collecting data on the
physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of
the water column, wastewater effluents, or sediments
in inland, estuarine, and ocean waters.

The project scope also included the
management of water monitoring data —
the analysis, storage, retrieval, and use
of water-related information in making
water quality management decisions.

Determine the
specific actions EPA
and the States should take
to bring about the
necessary changes



The Study Team Solicited Many Points of View
From EPA, States, and Other Organizations



'^¦VX •:-v

Interviews with numerous Hey
State and Federal managers

f-,.	-.J

s •' >,	>. i w*' s. V ,



% series of working papers
discussed with the study's Policy
Committee and other advisors
J t f • inside and outside $PA

Surface Water
Monitoring is an
Important Source of
Information That Can
Be Useful

• ••

The individual activities listed
are the reasons for using
monitoring data in surface
water programs, whether
the data is obtained through
new monitoring or from
sources of existing data.

IIL Determine
Compliance and
Effectiveness of Controls

Determine compliance with permit conditions

Evaluate (he effectiveness of water quality
management actions (point and oonpoinl)^

I. Identify
Water Quality
Problems and Trends

Identify water quality problems and trends

on the National or Regional scale
Identify water quality problems and trends

on the State or arcawide scale
Characterize the nature, extent, and likely

causes of a problem or set of problems
Identify individual segments not
meeting water quality standards

IV. Develop
Priorities and Plans

Develop priorities and plans for
-- Control actions (e.g., permits, BMPs)
-- Corrective actions (e.g., enforcement)

-	Regulations (e.g., Effluent Guidelines)

-	Additional monitoring

... in Performing
Four Essential
Functions of Water
Quality Management

Monitoring conducted in
support of functions I, II,
and III provides information
useful in developing priorities
and plans for each of these
areas (IV).

II. Develop
Water Quality Controls
and Management Actions

Establish or revise water quality criteria and^

Develop permit conditions for industrial

Determine permit conditions for

municipal dischargers
Develop and implement BMPs for
nonpoint sources

EPA and the States Use a Variety of Monitoring
Approaches to Obtain Water Quality Information

Water quality monitoring approaches may be classified as either "ambient"

or "source" monitoring.

Principal Ambient Monitoring Approaches

JJj Networks of "fixed stations" where water samples are repeatedly collected over time to
provide an overview of water quality conditions and trends at each location and across
the entire area covered by the network

Intensive surveys of water column chemistry, sediments, or aquatic life at specific sites
or in relatively well-defined geographic areas such as river basins and estuaries

Zi Professional judgment by experienced staff who can visually recognize changes in a
wajerbody or its biota that may indicate a change m water quality

2 Statistically-designed special studies with a broad geographic coverage and often a
single-pollutant focus (e.g., the National Dioxin Study)

Principal Source Monitoring Approaches

3 Self-monitoring of effluent bv industrial and municipal dischargers to check for compliance
with permit conditions

n Compliance sampling inspections by States or EPA to movide a crosscheck on discharger

JJJ Effluent characterization studies bv EPA to determine the constituents of the wastestream

While States Vary Widely in Their Methods and Priorities,
the Current Approach to Surface Water Monitoring Nationwide

Has Some Common Characteristics




£ Heavy reliance on

(li.T''--;.sarwHhg at

p detect ^ter^uality

Regular self-monitoring

and reporting by
NPDES permittees to
determine compliance
with permit conditions

y purveys ^sped^td 1

Summarization of
State and national
conditions and trends

in the biennial
f.305(b) Report" and
other publications





Chemical DaU
Indicative of Waier

•	BOD and DO

•	Siapatdtdamd

Dutatvtd Solid*

•	Bocuna
% Nuirimnu

•	fH

Priority Pollutants

Effluent Guideline

Cham call

Control Strategy:

•	WaUr Quality

Baltd FtnmU

•	Hoafoua Soureo

Amu mtmii


•	Dcmttttc Iom|«



Rilk Management:

•	Aw

•	GieWMW

•	Dnmktaf Woitr
a Smi


is an
Complex and


Improved ¦
Chemical Analysis 1

inLvical	I


Intensive Surveys

Special Studies:

•	Toxicology

•	flioacm—Jminn

•	Add D*po*iuo»

•	Fishtriu Survey

Improvements in
Chemiral Analysis:

o Ntw Amatydcoi

•	Lower Deuctiom

Lew It

•	Etoiytum Survey*

Rapid Assessment

• Wkolt -tfflMC*!
lauciry wiM|

Integration of

Data from
Mukipk Sources

Use at Existing
Monitoring Data
in Program
Planning and
Priority Setting

The scope and complexity of water
quality management are expanding

rapidly. The task of pollution
control and abatement is moving
well beyond the focus on technology-
based control of conventional point
source pollutants that has been
dominant since the early 1970s.

Emerging Challenges in Water Quality Management
Are Creating New Information Needs
for the Late 1980s and Early 1990s

Five Key Challenges for Surface Water Quality Managers


Assessing the ecological effects of toxic
discharges, and instituting controls

Toxic contamination from point and n on point
sources is now recognized as a widespread and
serious threat; more than 600 hazardous or toxic
chemicals may require regulation.

Present analytic methods are not practical to
monitor for a wide range of individual toxic
contaminants, due to the high cost of analysis
and the inability to detect many chemicals.


Increasing use of intensive surveys to
collect data used in setting water
quality-based permit limits

Many dischargers must have "water quality-
based" permit limits because technology-based •
limits do not sufficiendy protect the quality
of the receiving waters.

This approach requires Stales to determine which
stream or near-coastal segments are "water
quality limited." based on monitoring
data and other factors.


Identifying and characterizing nonpoint
sources of toxic and conventional

In many of the Nation's waterways, urban and
agricultural nonpoint sources are the principal
cause of remaining water quality problems.

Nonpoint pollution of all kinds, from tributary
and shoreline sources, contributes heavily to
the degradation of estuaries and other
near-coastal waters.



Demonstrating the environmental
results of pollution control investments

EPA senior management has stressed the need
to strengthen the Agency's ability to
"manage for environmental results."

In Stale surface water programs, the importance
of follow-up information is growing with the
advent of water quality-based permitting, the
expanding focus on toxic pollution, and the
increased attention to nonpoint sources.


Expanding efforts to identify and control
pollution problems in near-coastal
and ocean waters

Bays, estuaries, and the open ocean are polluted
by a variety of inland and shoreline sources.

Monitoring needs in these waters are expanding
along with EPA and States efforts to assess
environmental quality, identify pollution
sources, and develop water quality management
plans and programs.


The Present Approach to Surface Water Monitoring Cannot
Fully Provide the Information That Managers Must Have
to Meet the Challenges of the 1990s


identification pdtreqdassessment in
iaii waters

The surface water monitoring program
must overcome 3 major obstacles to
providing the information that managers
must have to meet these challenges.

l^iM^to	of control and

The emerging challenges pose new
questions and decisions requiring
better use of existing environmental
data as well as data not currently
being collected.

totffSpt jise of easting water quality data to
1^]^ porop!emepfr or>void new monitoring

Obstacle 1

Inadequate methods and resources for problem identification and
trend assessment in inland, near-coastal, and marine waters

M^Wenapce of ambient monitoring networks is expensive,

mM): e^^ing ijetwprks arp not adequate for current
andfutur# heeds.


arc not sufficient to detect
(e.g^ic«cawnulation effects)

Existtpg^Utfipns are not weJHocated to assess effects an
Obstacle 2

Inability to assess the effectiveness of point source control and
nonpoint source management actions in terms of environmental results


A find State programs to i^e ^|>ient inonitoring
effectiveness is emerging and stiU no* well-understood.

» The sJnftfrQgi ^technology-based to awater qualityrbased

•	^>oot majcing new investments before

they ^^f^erstaiidijig pf the evolving prpgram impact

JQP* PPA andiiew methods & approaches.

#	to not re©iiari^|)cea used to determine

-PJPgnim effectiveness*

t |^j^%|f^Wess is usually	in

t Xn developing new metfiods and approaches. States will face issues
similar to&seinObstacle 1

Obstacle 3

Insufficient use of existing water quality data to
guide, complement, or avoid new monitoring

jq^» JUs^ge Iristorfcal data bases are not routinely used to took for
ptentM problems or to assess the magnitude of existing ones.

I	of data collected elsewjiefe for oUier purposes

~	Managers find EPA's water-related data bases difficult to use

•	Low level of awarepe$$	data resides

|9* PotenUa}|^|Bfttt available through pther Federal agencies
isnot beingexploifed.

'» USGS,HQAA,and numerous otber?

iKBl BP A aii
The Office of Water Must Provide Leadership
in Working With the States to Re-Orient Surface Water Monitoring

Toward Future Information Needs

EPA has been criticized for lacking a clear conception
of where the surface water monitoring program
should be going, why, and how it will get there.

Some States are making significant strides
in addressing growing water quality
problems, while others are falling behind -
creating a growing "capability gap"
among States.

The discrepancies will undermine EPA's efforts
to focus State programs on national objectives
and will hinder preparation of useful national
water quality summaries.

A national framework is needed which clarifies
EPA's monitoring objectives, defines a direction,
and provides a firm foundation for individual
State monitoring programs.

Action is Needed in Six Major Areas
to Establish a National Framework for Surface Water Monitoring


Enhance State and EPA
Capabilities for Cost-
Effective Problem
Identification and
Trend Assessment in
Inland, Estuarine,
and Marine Waters


ootf-tlTtdiw ippwdM to
probtcm kdettiftcauoa


Increase Ambient
Follow-Up Monitoring
for Use in Evaluating
the Effectiveness
of Water Quality
Management Actions


Aatlyze Ifao fcaiibility of
mjkiiiiag NPDES pwmiiwi

lo conduct ambtoal
follow-up aoailoriag MudiM


Promote the Use
of Available
Water-Related Data
in EPA and State



Improve EPA ud Stale
knowledge aboul louicc*
aad u«ei of etutiag
wUx irJuiil dl

The Study's Final Report Describes 21 Specific Actions
That the Office of Water Should Take by the End of FY 1989


law Ki4rt«nrr oa CaHEBiriht Approtbtt >o

Iieue guidance lo


Develop cm or an
¦ btwM^ifmqplHiDfwiMfalagf

' watch" popta.



Analyze tbe FcMifaUHy at RcqUrfag NFDES Ferafttat*
lo Ccadud Anfckat FoAow-Up Moattarfac Sbidk*

Specify d» type *od quantity of tatoimt tlbctt

' ¦HtMkrSM^aEFAMiioMvfan

duriy d»«crib> A* chnflwliri ot i >nrtwiir»lty-»OMaJ
approach. Of range ot «pp»o*chw, k) aafan	"

. Ideality alternative mertwU by which A* com at
•ofaial faflow-i^p aoailerait catld lw ban* by **

. Aucu the advaatagw and diudvuUgM of each
of Water *nnM powt


Improve EPA and Stalt Knowledge About Safu
«>dUe*arExtotfagW*a--totaled Data

•	Develop a n««ih«ri for lehillirig of Mnennring

•	luu# (uiducc oa wacae and UM of • lilting
water-veUted data.

•	Improve STORETs uaefutoeu u e decieina


Accelerate the Drvdopoal ud Application at
Promidng Bkfcckal MooJlarinf Tecfcnk)uca

e Thoroughly lurvay aod evakute Ae cuna ntiutinri
with devekcxaeni and ippticariaa of biological
•echaaquee B A* Uailed SMeaaad Canada.

•	PelCTMpa role to hinlngir«l MHlLiin

— tbould piey ia a ¦yilnnwr. coet-etWova
profcUai *rr»>a«gar«i—d fifceiag proyam

•	Q*aie a detailed action pla ipocifyin* *e tfepe OW
wiUufcanFY 19U-90 lo aooelnte k* dewHopaeol
and «pphc>tioncf binlngiral ¦e^ode.

•	Billy ¦ucpoct the imkiminniim, refinement. and nee
of the BIOS aubeydeaeof STORE!. EPA'i mmm
waler quality data *y*l«n.


Continue ud fapwd Effort! to Improve Information
ao Nillooal lYogrcae In Water Pollution Central

• iVowide rtroilnrf md ununbtguou guidance lo Sale*
oa otyective*. drfiririnni, pnacatation format*, iod

* IVacod npidy with development of a Watr Quality
hfonaelioa Tracking SyHam. •

« CMxtuSiy eiamine the lypee of water yililv mnrulnraqg
|mfniiMwn| oa theac iourcea,
whan appropriate, m the Miioiil """n—' proccM.




Etfafalfafa Central Coordination at EPA
ActMUea to Intepate Water-Related Data

•	Develop looti lo make beOeriue of DMR data,
nctudng titiii of PCS, STORET, and other
OW data file*.

•	Aiaeta lb* fcnitiliiy of developing an Xnmilnd
data baae of dintioi water lurveuUoca rendu.

•	Gum appropriate development aod uee of
"foopapiuc nformatiaa *y*t*m*."

•	hoaMe awnam and uae of data nlcpMioa looli.