EPA/600/R-08/073
May 2008
Summary Report of the
NSF/EPA WATERS
Network Workshop
April 30 • May 1, 2008
-------
FOREWORD
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress
with protecting the nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to
a compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to
support and nurture life. To meet this mandate, EPAs research program is providing
data and technical support for solving environmental problems today and building
a science knowledge base necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely,
understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks
in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center
for investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and
reducing risks from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The
focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness
for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources;
protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated
sites, sediments and groundwater; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and
restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector
partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and anticipate
emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment;
advancing scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy
decisions; and providing the technical support and information transfer to ensure
implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the national, state, and
community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term
research plan. It is published and made available by EPAs Office of Research and
Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NOTICE
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development,
collaborated in the research described here. It has been subjected to the Agency's review and has been
approved for publication as an EPA document.
-------
Summary Report of the
NSF/EPA
WATERS Network Workshop
May 2008
-------
Executive Summary
The National Science Foundation (NSF) and The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
organized a workshop to support The WATer and Environmental Research Systems (WATERS) Network
project. The WATERS Network is a new joint initiative of the environmental engineering and hydrologic
sciences research communities with the support of NSF. The goal of the WATERS Network is to
understand and predict the processes that couple water with earth and human systems through networked
sensors, assimilation of high-frequency data, and interdisciplinary experimentation. Through real-time
monitoring and modeling, water quality and quantity could be assessed at all times and at all places on a
regional level. The WATERS Network would be a continental-scale research facility, possibly
incorporating 10 to 12 tightly networked sites across the country. Eleven WATERS Test Bed projects are
currently in operation. The EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) has a
number of laboratory and field facilities that could potentially be integrated into the WATERS Network
project. EPA/NRMRL and NSF are exploring the possibility of a partnership to produce projects that
may serve as new WATERS Network Test Beds.
The NSF/EPA WATERS Network Workshop was held April 30 through May 1, 2008 in Cincinnati,
Ohio. Technical experts from across the country specializing in areas of water quality and quantity
participated in the workshop. The objectives of the workshop were to make the EPA/NRMRL facilities
and staff capabilities known to academic community participants of this workshop, and to receive
feedback from workshop participants on the potential for academic community collaboration through the
envisioned NSF/EPA partnership.
On the first day of the workshop, the participants received an overview of the WATERS Network project
and potential partnership between EPA and NSF, and descriptions of four EPA/NRMRL facilities. The
group then visited two of these facilities, The Test & Evaluation Facility in Cincinnati, Ohio, and the
Experimental Stream Facility in Clermont County, Ohio. On the second day of the workshop, the
participants divided themselves among five breakout session categories charged to discuss the following:
(1) the value of the proposed partnership to academic research, (2) potential research areas, and (3) issues
of concern that may arise relative to academic community participation. Each group then presented a
summary of their discussions and results, and these results were discussed further with the entire group.
The five groups explored the following topic areas as they related to the WATERS Network and EPA
partnership:
• Field Studies, Ecosystem Restoration, and Enhancement of Eco Services
• Technical Evaluation Facility
• Streams and Watersheds
• Modeling and Synthesis
• Institutions and Decision Making
The following sections summarize the major points and outcomes presented by each breakout group as
they relate to their three charges.
Value of Partnership
All groups saw merit to the proposed WATERS Network and EPA collaboration, as there are important
benefits to be gained, such as leveraging of resources, the unique expertise of each other's programs, and
-------
the ability to test concepts in the real world. Specifically, the following key points were made regarding
the partnership:
• Partnership will provide concrete steps in developing cross-agency collaborations to address
national issues.
• The WATERS Network focuses on water quantity issues, while EPA focuses on water quality,
making collaboration complementary.
• EPA is developing its social science information and modeling capability; therefore, the proposed
program could be a good way to focus on integrated research.
Potential Research Areas
The groups presented specific ideas to include EPA facilities in the Phase 2 WATERS Network funding
proposal. The following key ideas were discussed regarding projects:
• Integration of information must be achieved across a wide range of disciplines, including
engineering, hydrology, geomorphology, biology, data collection and systems, human processes
and behavior, climate change, and social forces that respond to the water environment.
• Both engineering and hydrological aspects related to water quality and quantity must be balanced.
• The WATERS Network needs to incorporate a stronger urban/engineered process orientation,
while EPA needs stronger science and engineering support for its infrastructure program.
• Existing watershed models need to be refined significantly and an appropriate suite of models are
needed to interact with hydrogeologic and ecologic models.
• Models are needed that predict how land use today will affect watersheds for future generations.
• Cyberinfrastructure tools developed at NSF can benefit both EPA and NSF researchers.
• Social science is an important component that contributes to the evaluation of water.
Issues of Concern
Some concerns were expressed regarding the partnership and how it may affect the academic
community's involvement. The main issues are presented below:
• Based on changing EPA priorities, concern was expressed about EPA's long term commitment to
funding the project, and the availability of sufficient funds to conduct the project.
• Efficient financial and administrative procedures need to be in place to facilitate accomplishing
project goals and objectives. This includes ownership and intellectual property rights.
• Reports and publication review needs to be streamlined and a mechanism developed for writing
proposals collaboratively.
A series of follow-up steps to solidify the WATERS Network partnership were considered upon
completion of the workshop. The first is to prepare and distribute the Workshop Report to the
participants. NSF and EPA will develop a Memorandum of Understanding and determine the details of
the financial partnership. Finally, NSF and EPA will begin planning to draft a Solicitation and
Management Plan.
-------
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Hosted by The National Science Foundation and
EPAs National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Get to know the unique NRMRL research facilities and staff capabilities
used to develop methods and create technologies that protect and sustain
our water resources. EPA and NSF representatives will speak on the
proposed EPA/NSF partnership and give informative presentations on the:
Test and Evaluation (T&E) Facility, Cincinnati, Ohio
Technologies for water and hazardous waste
Experimental Stream Facility (ESF), Clermont County, Ohio
Stream ecosystems
Urban Watershed Research Facility, Edison, New Jersey
Urban watershed engineering and best management practices
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center, Ada, Oklahoma
Riparian and wetland restoration
-------
April 30, 2008
Dear Invited Workshop Experts:
On behalf of the National Science Foundation and the U.S. EPA National Risk
Management Research Laboratory, we want to enthusiastically welcome you to this joint
NSF/EPA WATERS Network Project Workshop. It is our desire for this workshop to bring
together an unrivaled group of academic and government experts to explore potential research
topics; where NSF-funded researchers will partner with EPA staff, at EPA research facilities,
for projects related to the objectives of the WATERS Network.
It is envisioned that, subsequent to this Workshop, NSF/EPA will issue an open call to the
academic community for proposals to be submitted to the WATERS Network-related NSF
programs for joint collaborative research proposals in the 2009/2010 time frame. Successful
proposals will share EPA facilities, staff, and data with ongoing research efforts.
As our honored experts, we ask that you:
•Provide feedback on the value of the proposed NSF/EPA partnership to
academic research and education
•Outline example hypothetical partnership projects
•Identify potential issues, relative to academic community participation that
could arise from this partnership
It is with many thanks and excitement that we welcome you to this joint NSF/EPA
WATERS Network Project Workshop. We look forward to a stimulating and rewarding
exchange of information and ideas!
Sincerely,
Dr. Bruce Hamilton
Program Director
National Science Foundation
Sally C. Gutierrez
Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
dEPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Agenda
Oasis Conference Center
April 29, 2008
3:00 p.m. Arrive and check in at Hilton Garden Inn
4:00 p.m. Early conference registration at Hilton Garden Inn (Eva Tankersley)
6:00 p.m. Reception at Hilton Garden Inn (Sally Gutierrez, Bruce Hamilton)
April 30, 2008
7:00 a.m. Breakfast
8:00 a.m. Open registration at Oasis Conference Center (Eva Tankersley, Diana Ruffini)
9:00 a.m. Welcome by EPA (Sally Gutierrez)
Welcome by NSF (Bruce Hamilton)
9:30 a.m. Overview of WATERS Network Project (Barbara Minsker, Paul Bishop)
10:15 a.m. Break
10:30 a.m. Overview of EPA/NRMRL facility resources
Test and Evaluation (T&E) Facility, Cincinnati, OH
Technologies for water and hazardous waste (Roy Haught)
Green Infrastructure Facility, Edison, NJ
Urban watershed engineering and best management practices (Mike Borst)
Experimental Stream Facility (ESF), Clermont County, OH
Stream ecosystems (Christopher Nietch)
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center, Ada, OK
Riparian and wetland restoration (Bob Puls)
12:00 p.m. Working lunch with food for attendees
1:00 p.m. Coach arrives; available for boarding (Eva Tankersley)
1:15 p.m. Coach departs for Experimental Stream Facility (Jim Goodrich)
1:45 p.m. Tour Experimental Stream Facility (Christopher Nietch)
3:45 p.m. Travel to Test and Evaluation Facility (Roy Haught)
4:30 p.m. Tour Test and Evaluation Facility (Roy Haught)
6:15 p.m. Travel to Montgomery Inn Boathouse via coach (Eva Tankersley)
6:30 p.m. Dinner at Montgomery Inn Boathouse
8:00 p.m. Return to Oasis Conference Center via coach (Eva Tankersley, Diana Ruffini)
-------
dEPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Agenda
Oasis Conference Center
May 1, 2008
7:00 a.m. Breakfast
8:30 a.m. Overview of proposed EPA/NSF partnership (Jim Goodrich, Bruce Hamilton)
9:00 a.m. Charge to the breakout groups (Subhas Sikdar)
9:15 a.m. Breakout group sessions
Field Operations—Field-Based Studies on Ecosystem Restoration
and Enhancement of Ecosystem Services (Alan Vicory, Bob Puls)
T&E Facility Systems and Processes for Water, Wastewater,
and Storm Water (Nick Clesceri, Chuck Haas)
Streams and Watersheds (Patrick Brezonik, Christopher Nietch)
Synthesis and Modeling (Barbara Minsker, Dave Tarboton)
Institutions and Decision Making (Daniel Woltering, John Braden)
12:00 p.m. Working lunch with food for attendees
1:30 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Reports from breakout groups, wrap-up, and adjourn
-------
NSF/EPA
WATERS Network Workshop
April 30 - May 1
Cincinnati
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Workshop Background
•The WATERS Network (WN) is in the conceptual planning phase at
NSF—officially designated "Horizon MREFC Project" stage
• WN would be a continental scale research facility, with perhaps 10-12
tightly networked sites across the country
• Ballpark capital cost of WN might be $250-300 million
• Currently, WN has 11 "Test Beds" operating across the country, plus
several "Cl Prototype" and other sites
• WN PI Barbara Minsker (UIUC) will describe WN in more detail later
this morning
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Workshop Background (cont'd)
• EPA/NRMRL has a number of laboratory and
field facilities across the country that could
potentially relate to the WN project
• These EPA/NRMRL facilities will be described
later this morning, and two will be toured this
afternoon
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Workshop Background (cont'd)
•EPA/NRMRL and NSF are exploring the possibility
of a partnership related to WN
•In principle, NSF/EPA partnership projects might
serve as new WN Test Beds
-For WN, this would have the benefit of building on EPA's existing facilities
and capabilities
-For EPA, the benefit might be enhancement of already existing facilities
and capabilities
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Workshop Objectives
•Make the EPA/NRMRL facilities and staff capabilities
known to academic community participants of this
workshop
•Receive feedback from workshop participants on the
potential for academic community collaboration through
the envisioned NSF/EPA partnership
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Potential guidelines for research projects funded through
the NSF/EPA partnership
•Research would be performed at EPA sites
•Research teams would be composed of university researchers and students
teamed with EPA researchers at EPA sites
•University researchers and students would be supported by NSF grants (up to
$300K per grant)
•To request grant funding, university Pis would submit a proposal to NSF in
response to a solicitation that might be posted by NSF (after concurrence by
EPA), perhaps in 2009
•Each proposal from a university PI should include a letter from an EPA partner
stating the intention to collaborate
-------
Workshop Agenda
•Day 1 Morning
-Welcome (by EPA, NSF)
-WN Overview (WN PI Barbara Minsker [UIUC])
-Break
-Presentations on EPA/NRMRL facility resources
•Lunch
•Tour of Two Local EPA Facilities
-Experimental Stream Facility (ESF)
-Test and Evaluation Facility (T&E Facility)
•Dinner
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Workshop Agenda (cont'd)
•Day 2 Morning
-Overview of proposed EPA/NSF partnership
-Charge to the breakout groups
-Breakout group sessions (five in parallel)
• Field operations—Field-Based Studies on Ecosystem Restoration and Enhancement of
Ecosystem Services
• T&E Facility Systems and Processes for Water, Wastewater, and Storm Water
• Streams and Watersheds
• Synthesis and Modeling
• Institutions and Decision Making
•Lunch
•Reports from the breakout groups
•Discussion and wrap-up
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Anticipated Breakout Group Outputs
•Feedback from the academic community on the value of
the proposed NSF/EPA partnership to academic research
and education
•Outlines of example hypothetical partnership projects
•From the viewpoint of the academic community, some
indications of issues, if any, that might arise in the
partnership, relative to academic community participation
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
The WATERS Network
Barbara Minsker and the
WATERS Network Design Team
NSF/EPA WATERS Network Workshop
April 30, 2008
WATERS NETWORK
-------
WATERS Network Goal: Understand &
predict the multi-scale processes coupling
water with Earth & human systems
-------
Water environment:
- Earth's land surface directly influenced by freshwater
- From outer limits of vegetation through groundwater
- Interacting suite of chemical, biological, physical &
human processes combine to sustain life on Earth.
Social forces both determine & respon
environment
e water
-------
ample: Chesapeake Bay - how can
predict water quality and quantity
this large scafe? How does thi~
** j?^ *
compare to San Francisco Bay?
Corpus Christ! Bay?
-------
Another Example: Large-scale effect
of Biofuels expansion in U.S.
High Plains Aquifers
2007 Existing and Planned Ethanol Facilities
Estimated Total Water use
Million Gallons Per Day
. 0 - 0.05
• 0.05-0.10
• 010-0.50
• 0.50-1.0
• > 1.0
0-250
250 - 500
500 750 Principal Bedrock Aquifers
2000 Water Use
750 -1000 |rrigation/Public Supply/Industrial
1000- 1250
1250 1500 Million Gallons Per Day
=1500
-------
Gulf of Mexico hypoxia
caused by runoff from
Mississippi Basin
In 2007, dead zone was
7,900 mi2 (21,000 km2)
BMPs and/or changes in centralized
and decentralized treatment?
iviississippi River meets the Gulf of Mexico
(Source: http://www.gulfhypoxia.net)
-------
Living sustainably requires a predictive
understanding of:
- Water & contaminant stores and fluxes
- Their inter-relationships with:
Surface environment processes
Human processes (behaviors, treatment
technologies, policies, etc.)
tit*
-------
Goal: Predict These Processes at HUC-2 Scale
nwide
WN Observations + HIS +
agency data + remote sensing +
NHDPIus = National Dynamic
Water Model
-------
Human Systems
Human Behavior
Infrastructure
Engineered Systems
Policy Decisions
Natural Systems
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Biogeochemistry
Ecology
Photo: Robert Walter
-------
Scaling in the Natural Water
Environment
Small-scale
i preferential
infiltration,
Weiler
Watershed-scale
contributing area
network
Hillslope-scale
preferential flow-path
network, Weiler,
McDonnell
WATERS NETWORK
-------
We need to determine:
/
how smaller-scale processes combine to control
macroscale processes '
if there are emergent properties at larger scales that
have greater predictive power
how they can most effectively be managed through
engineered processes & public policies
-------
WATERS Network: Advancing Multi-Disciplinary
Knowledge Through Integrated Infrastructure
Observatories/
Experiments
_ ...Field Facilities
Education & Outreach
•i;
Engineers
Geoscientists
Social Scientist;
Others...
User
Community
SMF
Sensors and
Measurement Facility
Informatics/
Cyberinfrastructure
domainDNS
•l
L Workstation Server Disk Array >
C/MS
Modeling/Synthesis i
M(x) =[JAJC(xa)dx
-------
" " > I _l_ I iP I _f ,i , ii '-4 ^ 4 M 11'-^' I " _l_ " I _l_ •! I *-*"" ^-ksis
coincident, high-frequency, spatia y distributes-*-
. 7 •- -I * n - , ,, J, 1 1 " - JZ* i l teffft^^^S'dff?-^ «i i *X "'
^^^ ^ .......' " r!S P- • "'.;• •« Jlh i-l i •! ^ap;*^-''-",.,,,,,-w,^;-' l
data from representative t!!5 continent
%*. ! 'i . •*" - ,:,^* " •§ •;„.,.. **** j- *- "^- *~ ^---
Ss
.^f
•
-------
ntegrated data product needs
Precipitation and snow ^m^,^
Evapotranspiration and sublimation |
Withdrawals, consumptive uses, return flows
Surface water
il
- I nfrastructure (reservoirs)
- Centralized & decentralized treatment processes
-------
Human Influenced Water Resource
Classification (HIWRC)
• Capture the diverse hydrologic conditions
that exist across the US.
• Set of variables that quantify hydrologic
setting, both physical and human
influenced
• Variables mapped to ordinal scale
• Principal Component and ISODATA
Cluster Analysis
fa Hutchinson and Schnoor-Appendix B, SEDS
WATERS
-------
HIWRC Variables
• Population Density (2000 Census)
• Land Cover (NLCD, 2001)
• Precipitation (PRISM)
• Temperature (PRISM)
• Soil Permeability (from STATSGO)
• Slope (as derived from NED by PRISM)
• Bedrock Permeability (from USGS lithologic
group)
• Water Use (USGS 2000 National
^Aggregate Water-Use Data System)
WATERS NETWORK
-------
Twelve Delineated HIWRCs
-------
Nested River Basin Observatory Design
3rd order Cluster
containing catchments
draining directly to 1st, 2nd
and 3rd order streams
1st order catchment
5th order Observatory
Terrestrial sensor package over catchment
V Stream sensor package
-------
Gradient Observatory Design
Systematic data
collection across
gradients to allow
isolation of individua
causative factors
Disturbance
WATERS NETWORK
-------
Experimental Village
Experimental
Treatme
Facility
Grey Water
Recycling
Sys
Decision
Theater
n Roof
Water
Use
Monitor
Instrumenfe
Hillslope
Instrumented Sewer
Bioswale
Dual Distribution System
-------
Experimental Farm
Instrument
Experimental
Hillslope
Tree Filter
Instrumented
Stream
Membrane
Bioreactor
Instrumented Cornfield
-------
Multi-scale and Multi-Modal Sensing
It is ready!
Handheld Sensing
In-situ, point measurements of a sub-region
Remote Sensing
Coarse, large-scale measurements
when the satelite passes over a region.
Robotic Mobility
In-situ, continuous spatial
measurements in a small area.
Static Sensors
Spatially constrained in-situ measurements,
along a riverbankfor example.
Drawing by Jason Fisher
UC Merced/WN/CENS-UCLA
-------
WATERS Network Cyberinfrastructure
Embedded
•Sensor Array
Microwave
Tower
OBSERVATORY
DIGITAL WATERSHED
HYDRO INFORMATION SYSTEMS
• Relational Database
• Eco-hydrological Simulators
• Quality Control, Calibration,
Validation
• Research Services
• Dissemination
• Digital Library
Database
Server
Application
Server
SYNTHESIS, MODELING
VISUALIZATION
• Observation-model Fusion
Process Analysis &
Visualization
Community Models
Open Access for:
- Investigators
- Partners
- Agencies
-K12,K16,K20
- Communities
- Museums
USERS
-------
WATERS Network Education & Outreach will
develop partnerships & leverage existing programs
Digital Libraries
& Partners
e.g. NSDL
MERLOT
\
Informal/Formal
Science and
Engineering
Education
Research
REU, GK-12and
RET programs
WATERS Network
E&O
Virtual Observatories with
Data Streams
Continuing Education: new
models and technology via
workshops and field camps
• Scientists
• Educators (K-PhD)
• Citizens
• Students (K-PhD)
Integration of Research &
Education
\
Assessment of WATERS E&O
Curriculum
Support for local &
national initiatives,
involving K-PhD,
industry, teachers
and researchers
Citizen Science
Projects
Projects with
women's,
historically black,
Hispanic-serving,
and tribal colleges
and universities
24
-------
WN Virtual Observatories will make observatories
remotely accessible to a range of users.
Daily Average
Temperature
Aspect
Slope
Elevation
Aerial
Photograph
WN E&O would be heavily involved in defining virtual
observatory functionality and tailoring capabilities to
support all of the types of users.
-------
Multi-Agency Role in WN
To date, WN has been an NSF initiative
To be successful at understanding large-scale
water systems, WN must become a multi-
agency initiative (Federal, state, local)
Mission agencies have
- Common research interests with WN
- Needs and expertise that can support strong:
• Problem-driven basic research
• Research-driven problem solving
- Extensive existing facilities and data collection efforts
that must be leveraged
WATERS NETWORK
-------
WATERS Network Testbed Sites
k^W&tershed
^^^™^^T^^
) \Micnigan \
Susauehan
San\Jbaqym Valley
Sierra Nevada
•^
•Testing aspects of observato
and operation
•Developing technologies (e.g., floatin
sensors & real-time sensing systems)
Albemarle Sound
"—\
C J Santa Fe Basin
N f lon*5*^^—^^^^^^^^^
-------
Conceptual Design and Development of a Prototypical
Chesapeake Bay Environmental Observatory (CBEO)*
A C/-E>4/\/ER-lnitiatecl Project supported through NSF's CEO:P Program
(Cyberinfrastructure for Environmental Observatories: Prototypes)
• Integration of many large data sets and archived model
results related to Chesapeake Bay water quality
• Analysis tools to use the disparate data sets together to
address science and management questions in new ways
• Educational tools and data for public and educational uses
• Incorporated into an environmental observatory network
(EON) -- prototype project toward WATERS Network
* UNIVERSITY of DELAWARE, Dominic DiToro, Director; JOHNS HOPKINS
UNIVERSITY, William Ball, PI, Assistant Director; UNIVERSITY of MARYLAND,
Mike Kemp, Laura Murray; HAMPTON UNIVERSITY, Benjamin Cuker; DREXEL
UNIVERSITY, Mike Piasecki; SAN DIEGO SUPER COMPUTER CENTER, llya
Zaslavsky; CHESAPEAKE RESEARCH CONSORTIUM, Alexey Voinov
-------
The CBEO Project has a close working relationship with
U.S. EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office (CBPO)
EPA's CBPO represents the Federal government
in the implementation of strategies to meet
restoration goals of the
Chesapeake Bay Program.
The Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP):
• A unique regional partnership that has led and
directed the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay
since 1983.
• Partners:
- Maryland
-- Pennsylvania
-Virginia
- District of Columbia
-- Chesapeake Bay Commission (tri-state legislative body)
-- the U.S. EPA
- participating citizen advisory groups.
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
map courtesy of
EPA Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
EPA's CBPO is working with the CBEO to integrate data from the
Chesapeake Information Management System (CIMS)
into the CBEO Test Bed
• Extensive data collection;
- Fixed station monitoring @ 2-4 wk
- Research data at finer spatial scales;
• CBP monitoring at over 100 stations in main
stem and tributaries;
• Vertical profiles in deep & shallow water
• CBP monitoring initiated in 1985
through present with few changes;
• The CBEO Project is integrating CIMS
data into its test bed together with other
NEW types of data:
• Archived (historical) model input
and output data (next two slides!)
• Satellite and research data (including
over-flight data, high-res, local data)
• The CBEO Project has translated the
CIMS data structure to CUAHSI's
"Observational Data Model" standard
• Available for use with national
network tools, such as HYDROSEEK
Maryland and Virginia
Water Quality
Monitoring Stations
-------
EPA's CBPO is working with the CBEO to integrate the
Chesapeake Bay Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Models
(and associated input/output data) into the CBEO Test Bed
Example Modeled Results:
June 1991 Bottom DO
• Monitoring Station Location
Modeled DO, mg/L
I I 0.0 - 2.0
]2.1 -4.0
]4.1 -6.0
| 6.1 -8.0
| 8.1 -10.0
110.1-12.5
• CBPO contracts the development,
calibration, and use of hydrodynamic and
water quality models for the Chesapeake
Bay through the Army Corps of Engineers'
Waterways Experiment Station (WES).
The following 'data' are being stored and
archived by the CBEO for network use:
• Archived model input and output for ten
years of high resolution calibration runs.
(version w/ 13K grid cells);
New input and output for on-going
calibration runs (ver. w/ 55K grid cells);
• A 50-year history of model runs, using
consistent input and output data obtained
via new runs of the HSPF (4K grid cells)
-------
EPA's CBPO is working with the CBEO to integrate the
Chesapeake Bay HSPF-based Watershed Model
(and associated data) into the CBEO Test
308 land segments
Painstakingly calibrated to simulate
stream flows, nutrient and sediment
loads delivered to the Bay under various
management strategies
Serves as input to the Chesapeake Bay
hydrodynamic and water quality model.
CBPO has provided the CBEO project
with model input and output data for all
runs from 1984-2005
- Being archived as part of the CBEO
testbed for shared Cl use.
The CBEO team is working
with EPA's CBPO to
compile a new 50-year
model run, also to be
archived for shared Cl use.
-------
Summary - Why the WN vision
requires major investment...
1. Understanding the complex behavior of water & related Earth
system processes as coupled human & natural systems requires
integrated, coherent observations at multiple scales using large-
scale observatories
2. Deriving general, place-independent theory & models requires
multiple sites with comparable data & controlled design variables
to overcome heterogeneity
3. Interdisciplinary research, education, & outreach, particularly for
complex systems that require integration, will advance more
rapidly when community resources enable multiple individuals to
efficiently leverage prior research investments.
4. Will enable significant interagency and inter-organizational
collaboration and partnering for addressing the Nation's water
resources challenges
WATERS NETWORK
-------
EPA/NRMRL Facility Resources:
Science Briefs and Presentations
-------
©ERA I science BRIEF
/ Ov->lv_xl lv^^7 I—-J I \ll^_ I
www.epa.gov
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/
The Test and Evaluation Facility
Cincinnati, Ohio
Introduction
The Test and Evaluation Facility (T&E)
is located on the grounds of Cincinnati's
Mill Creek wastewater treatment plant.
There, studies are conducted on new
treatment technologies for contaminants
in water and wastewater for EPA's
National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL). This unique facility
has a high-bay area for bench-, pilot-,
and full-scale research. It is supported by
analytical laboratories, chemical storage,
and office space.
A wide variety of innovative water,
wastewater, and soil/sediment treatment
technologies and environmental
monitoring and control systems are
conceived, designed, fabricated,
and evaluated at T&E. Innovative
environmental management concepts
may subsequently be field-validated and
nationally applied. T&E researchers
verify water security monitoring and
treatment technologies as part of EPA's
Environmental Technology Verification
Program.
Administered by NRMRL, T&E is
operated by a working core of experienced
EPA engineers and technicians, along
with contract engineers and operators.
The contracted full-time research
engineers and scientists work as principal
investigators for T&E studies and may be
supported by subcontracted specialists and
consultants from academia or industry.
Background
Designed in 1977 and opened in 1979,
T&E is a multipurpose research facility.
Research conducted there encompasses
drinking water treatment, wastewater
treatment, and hazardous waste, soil, and
ground water remediation. The facility is
a two-story building with 33,000 square
feet of space subdivided into 16 work
areas. T&E was designed with functional
versatility for future use.
Under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act, T&E is a permitted
treatment, storage, and disposal facility
that holds an Ohio EPA Treatability
Exclusion. This exclusion allows the
facility to conduct treatability studies
using quantities of all categories of
hazardous waste. This is unmatched by
any similar facility in the nation.
Features
T&E is a ventilated, fully heated and
lighted facility. Its features include:
• Wastewater flows to the 16
experimental locations in the 24,000-
square-foot high-bay area
• Two 5-ton bridge cranes for
ease of relocating large pieces of
experimental equipment
• A well-equipped, 700-square-foot
machine shop for fabricating specialty
items and building or repairing
experimental apparatus
• A 275-square-foot greenhouse for
agricultural studies of pollutant
application to soils
• 10,000 gallons of stainless steel tank
storage; drum storage areas for twenty
5 5-gallon drums
• Hazardous waste tank leak and spill
monitoring and alarm capability tied
into an automatic facility shutdown
system
To allow for installation and removal of
experimental equipment and units, several
large rollup doors facilitate the movement
of trucks and large equipment, including
trailer-mounted pilot plants, in and out of
the building.
T&E is equipped with:
• Chlorinated, dechlorinated, and
deionized water supplies
• Low- and high-pressurized air
supplies
• Electrical supply (110, 240, 480 volts)
• Analytical chemistry laboratories
(2,000 square feet)
• Chemical storage area
• Hazardous liquid and solid storage
facilities
• Liquid pumping systems
• Environmental chambers
• Office space (5,800 square feet)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
The on-site chemistry laboratories give
scientists the flexibility to study:
• Phytoremediation
• Drinking water contaminants
• Biosensors (devices that determine
the concentration of substances
and other biological parameters
of interest)
• Small systems (public water systems
serving fewer than 10,000 people)
• Water distribution systems, using two
water distribution system simulators
The T&E facility may be used by
scientists and engineers from other federal
agencies, academic institutions, nonprofit
organizations, and private companies.
Provisions are in place to ensure that
EPA research will not be impacted by
any agreements. In most cases, EPA will
provide in-kind services and contractor
support for studies at the T&E facility.
Results
EPA's objectives are to reduce the risk
to public health, ensure clean and safe
drinking water, and enhance science and
research. EPA accomplishes these by
conducting leading-edge, sound scientific
research that reduces human exposure to
contaminants in drinking water.
Research conducted at T&E has led
to technologies and strategies for
controlling and monitoring drinking
water contaminants, including microbial
pathogens and inorganic and organic
chemicals. The primary areas of
research are:
• Drinking water and the Contaminant
Candidate List
• Bio-monitoring
• Package plants (technologies
packaged together to provide an
affordable solution for small-system
operators who may not otherwise be
able to efficiently treat water)
• Distribution systems
• Remote monitoring demonstrations
To reduce the risk to public health,
researchers at T&E study source water,
water treatment technologies, and
water distribution systems. Specific
contaminants are also investigated to
determine treatment and analytical
alternatives.
Drinking water and wastewater studies at
T&E support EPA regulations and provide
regulators and utilities with environmental
results. Studies promote the development
and commercialization of practical and
innovative technologies that enhance
drinking water quality. T&E provides
diverse opportunities to convert drinking
water and wastewater research into
solutions for public water systems in
the United States.
CONTACT
Bio-monitoring - Joel Allen
(513)487-2806
allen.joeltgiepa.gov
Small systems - Craig Patterson
(513)487-2805
patterson.craig(g!epa.gov
Water distribution systems - Christopher Impellitteri
(513)487-2872
impellitteri.christopher(q),epa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
EPA/600/F-08/004
April 2008
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
U.S. EPA Test & Evaluation
Facility
Roy Haught
-------
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Designed 1977 and Opened 1979
- Wastewater, Solid, and Water
Progressively designed to make the facility
functionally versatile for future use.
A resource in which a wide variety of innovative
environmental protection technologies are;
- Conceived, designed, and evaluated
- Bench- and pilot- and full-scale level
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Located at City of Cincinnati
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Creek
Variety of wastewater and water streams are
available to the T&E Facility for research
purposes.
Studies promote the development and
commercialization of practical and innovative
technologies to enhance water quality.
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
T&E Facility is a two-story 33,000 ft2 building
- 24,000 ft2, 30-foot tall "High-bay" experimental
area.
- Subdivided into 16 work areas
- 2,000 ft2 of analytical laboratories,
- 700 ft2 machine shop, and
- 5,800 ft2 of office space.
Utilities; Accessible to all work areas.
TSDF/RCRA -
Wastes are discharges into the sanitary
sewer.
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Experimental Work Area 30 ft Tall
Two 5-Ton Bridge Cranes
Green House and Environmental Chambers
Fully Heated and Lighted
Ventilation System
Machine Shop
Three-16 ft overhead doors
Professional, Engineering, Scientific,
Craftsmen, Technical & Analytical Support
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Available to other Government Organizations via an
Interagency Agreement (IAG)
Available to public and private clients from all sectors
either through either a;
- Cooperative Research and Development Agreement
(CRADA) with the U.S. EPA
- Third-party contract agreement with the on-site contractor.
The principal requirement for research to be
conducted at the T&E Facility
- It must be within the scope and mission of the U.S. EPA's
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
US 1NVIHQNMEMAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HOT & IVALUAT10N FAdLTTY
CINCINNATI. OHIO
JJy2003
JY1
-------
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
M
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
-------
-------
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
-------
©ERA I science BRIEF
/ Ov_/lv_7l IV^^^ I—-J I \ll^_ I
www.epa.gov
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/
The Urban Watershed Research Facility
Edison, New Jersey
Introduction
In an undeveloped and undisturbed
environment, rainfall is naturally filtered
and absorbed by soil and plants, protecting
aquatic systems by slowly releasing the
water to ground water and streams. In an
urban setting with development and lots of
impervious surfaces, natural protection is
short-circuited. Storm water is rapidly and
purposefully transported from rooftops,
parking lots, and streets—where it has
collected pollutants—to sewers. The
sewers route the water to receiving water
or a treatment plant. The rapid runoff
can degrade receiving water or exceed
treatment plant capacity.
Scientists in the National Risk
Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) at the Urban Watershed
Management Research Facility in Edison,
New Jersey, investigate alternative
approaches to managing this wet-weather
flow, so that flow is lessened and flow-
associated pollutants are decreased.
Background
The facility occupies 205 acres on
the former Raritan Arsenal property,
a suburban location about 30 miles
southwest of New York City. The many
buildings and trailers are in an isolated,
secure 20-acre open space established to
develop and evaluate the performance
of common and innovative storm water
management practices. The laboratory
building is configured to conduct bench-
scale analyses of environmental samples.
Features
The facility includes:
• Greenhouses that allow all-season
operation
• Analytical laboratories for on-site
analysis of common chemical and
microbial stressors
• A high-bay engineering development
and support area
• Automated electronic monitoring and
automatic sampling equipment
• Office space and storage
Researchers routinely monitor and record
climatic data. On-site storage tanks,
and mixing, transfer, and distribution
equipment provide storm water collected
from an adjacent, highly impervious
drainage area. Other outdoor resources
include pilot-scale swales, wet ponds,
and wetlands to allow for evaluation of
common control practices under varying
loading and design conditions. Sewage
can be accessed from a local treatment
authority for research efforts that require
sanitary waste. The Edison facility
provides a safe location for collecting
engineering data needed for design
and evaluation.
The facility also features 2,500 feet
of buried pipeline. This pipeline test
apparatus is capable of supporting
controlled-condition experiments on
infrastructure conveyance and storage
systems. Its primary use is to evaluate
the performance of leak detection and
location devices and procedures under
static conditions; it will be upgraded
and expanded to meet research needs for
aging water infrastructure.
Four representative pipelines support
research on pipelines that simulate those
in use at operational facilities. The test
pipelines enable convenient study of:
• Different pipe and backfill materials
• Equipment designed to monitor for
leaks and corrosion, and prevent
backflow and contamination
• Remote-control instrumentation and
inspection technologies
Five buried experimental pipelines include
four 500-foot loops and one 100-foot
loop. A test pit provides the flexibility to
change leak rates and backfill materials,
and control backfill moisture content.
The area surrounding the test pit enables
replacement of 20-foot spool sections
without the need to excavate.
The pipeline test apparatus complements
the pipe loops at the Test and Evaluation
Facility in Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
In August 2005, EPA renewed its
commitment to support green power by
entering into a three-year contract to
purchase 6 million kilowatt hours (kWh)
of green power annually for the Edison
facility in the form of renewable energy
certificates. This contract supports the
generation of renewable energy from wind
farms in South Dakota, North Dakota, and
Wyoming, and will offset 100 percent of
the electricity consumption at the facility.
Three solar water-heating systems are
the primary source of hot water. All three
systems consist of a preheat tank (between
66 and 120 gallons) and various numbers
of roof-mounted, single-glazed, liquid-
evacuated tube collectors. Because the
building relies on the electrical systems
only for auxiliary water heating when
necessary, the solar heaters allow the
facility to conserve electricity and fossil
fuel. So far, Edison's solar technology
has registered energy savings results
significantly higher than expected.
Results
Wet-weather flow includes storm water,
sanitary sewer overflow, and combined
sewer overflow. Untreated releases of
wet-weather flow can harm receiving
water, which can lead to unsafe drinking
water. The majority of the U.S. population
lives in urban settings, where there are
greater risks associated with water quality.
But hydrologic-hydraulic improvements
can be made. NRMRL scientists study
the structural integrity of drainage and
treatment systems, the control and
treatment of discharge, and the effects
of the discharge on receiving water.
One storm water control system under
evaluation by NRMRL at the Edison
facility is green roofs. The Green Roof
Research Project centers on storm water
absorbency. Green roofs are vegetative
covers applied to building roofs to slow
or totally absorb rainfall runoff during
storms. While the concept of over-planted
roofs is ancient, the goal of modern
green roof technology is to replace the
absorptive capacity of the land on which
the building was erected. The vegetative
layer can reduce building energy demand,
extend the usable lifetime of the roof,
reduce noise levels, provide habitat, and
provide aesthetic value.
NRMRL researchers at Edison are
investigating permeable pavement
systems that allow rainfall to pass through
the roadway to the underlying soil,
significantly reducing runoff volume.
The pavement has the potential to:
• Reduce deicing needs in winter month
• Generate less traffic noise
• Produce a lower surface temperature
Research at Edison supports the activities
of various EPA organizations:
• The Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response's
Environmental Response Branch
• The Office of Research and
Development's Release Control
Branch
• The Regional Environmental Science
and Assessment Division
• The Regional Enforcement and
Compliance Assistance Division's
Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Program
• The Regional Emergency and
Remedial Response Division's
Emergency Preparedness Program
Scientists at the Edison facility continue to
develop and demonstrate new technologies
and methods to manage the risks to public
health, property, and the environment from
wet-weather flow.
CONTACT
John Beier
(732)321-4382
beieriohnetoiepa.gov
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
EPA/600/F-08/005
April 2008
-------
Green Infrastructure Research Facility
Edison, New Jersey
Michael Borst
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
A Research Question (one of many)
What is the performance of green Infrastructure
management alternatives?
- Effects of loading variation?
- Effects of antecedent conditions
- Changes with season?
- Effects of design options?
-------
Preliminary observations
Field data collection for performance
evaluation is expensive, difficult, hazardous,
time consuming, and generates uncertain
data.
- Hard to do at all
- Very very hard to do well
- How to complete statistical replication of a
stochastic event?
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Solution: Build demonstration site
Reasonable scale
Introduce a "significant" level of control
Improved QA/QC
Educational outreach / demonstration site
Collaborative opportunities
Design site for monitoring and instrumentation
-------
Permeable
Surfaces
Green
Roof
UWRF
constructed
swales
rain garden^
Permeable
pipelines
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
-------
wales
Permeable surface
(being installed)
Rain Garden
Constructed wetlands
Laboratory space
(analytical and engineering)
-------
The WATE
Project Wor
Open water wet ponds
Constructed wetlands
Variables
- Shape
- Loading
- Vegetation
-------
Swales
Three swales
Imbedded instrumentation
Trapezoidal cross section
with 4:1 side lopes
0.5% to 5% slope
Variable infiltration media
40-m long in 10-m
segments
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
-------
Rain Gardens
Variables
- Vegetation type (grass
v. herbaceous)
- Organic carbon content
of media (newspaper?)
- Hydraulic loading (Q/A)
- Induced anoxic zones
Eight gardens, 8-ft
diameter
Underdrain collection
-------
,curb
Non-
scarified
native soil
Proposed "New York City" experiments
-------
^ .f ^m
Permeable pavement
About 1 acre total area
Three permeable surfaces
surrounded by impermeable traffic
lanes
End parking area to be impermeable
surface (runoff feeds rain garden)
Liner with underdrain and tanks for
some segments
Heavily instrumented
Adjacent climatic monitoring
Direct infiltration elsewhere
About 110 spaces total
Anticipate full use
Piggyback on EEC project
UNIVERSITY
Phase 3 Conceptual Pilot
-------
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
^^^^^
Green roof
• Builds from existing NRMRL work
- Region 3 & PSU
- Region 8 EPA building
• Piggyback on EEC project
- About 15,000 ft2 on existing building
- Instrumented
- Multiple perceived benefits
• Approached to participate Green
Wall demonstration
-------
vvEPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Roughly 15,000 ft2 flat
roof area
Currently in external
engineering review for
building structural
considerations.
Paired study with other
part of building roof
Runoff loads (quantity
and quality)
Energy use (?)
-------
Pipeline Test
Facility
'• 'ftrrl
n-
D=
Pine D
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
^2*5*5-
1?"
Lapp. -P SQQ' Eee* L«q
u
-&
5MT
-------
Pipeline Test Apparatus
Performance data on innovative
systems, devices, procedures for:
- leak detection/location
- condition assessment
- Rehabilitation
Goals
• reduce energy and water losses
• reduce unnecessary capital expansion (e.g.,
excess capacity)
• reduce premature capital replacement
Expand and accelerate acceptance of
innovative technologies
-------
^r .^^B. ^H
Smaller-scale support
Permeable pavement
TM
Media comparison
Flume hydraulics
-------
On-site lab support
• Improves reliability
• QA / QC
• Turn around time!
.:•.••..
.'.'*•• : • '
*- • • • .*• **
• . •'
*^»
* "
-------
©ERA I science BRIEF
/ Ov_/lv_7l IV^^^ I—-J I \ll^_ I
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/
The Experimental Stream Facility
Clermont County, Ohio
Introduction
A watershed is the natural land area
that drains into a common waterway,
such as a stream, lake, estuary, wetland,
aquifer, or even the ocean. Watersheds are
important—they supply drinking water,
provide recreation, and sustain life. So it's
also important to reduce the loading of
stressors (pollutants) to watershed streams
and lakes.
Part of EPA's Sustainable Water
Infrastructure Initiative is encouraging
the adoption of the "watershed approach,"
which is incorporating watershed-sensitive
alternatives into utility planning and
management practices. The watershed
approach is supported by the results from
the research conducted at the Experimental
Stream Facility (ESF).
Background
ESF is a research facility located in
Milford, Ohio. EPA leases ESF from
Clermont County, and scientists and
engineers from EPA's National Risk
Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) share space with the Clermont
County Sewer District Water Quality
Testing Laboratory.
ESF is in the watershed drained by the
Lower East Fork of the Little Miami
River. Water is pumped through ESF
from the Lower East Fork to provide a
balance between the controlled conditions
of a laboratory and the variability of the
natural environment necessary to sustain
native communities. Studies are performed
to understand the relationship dynamics
between the plant and animal life in the
laboratory and those in the river.
Small-stream ecosystems comprise
over 72 percent of the river miles in the
United States. Yet the role they play in
managing watershed-level water quality
remains uncertain, and they are commonly
overlooked in watershed models. Many
small streams remain unregulated, so
they are put into culverts or replaced with
storm sewers during land development,
which eliminates any role they may play
in maintaining water quality. NRMRL
researchers conduct studies to better
understand the relative importance of
small-stream ecosystems and the role they
play in watershed management.
ESF is the result of collaborative efforts
from a number of sources. The facility
was originally designed for the needs
of a multinational corporation (the
Procter and Gamble Company). Today,
cross-laboratory collaboration takes
advantage of expertise within several
divisions of EPA's Office of Research and
Development, while biweekly meetings
attended by project officers, technicians,
and contractor staff guide the research
activities.
Features
ESF is unique in design and experimental
setup. Because some stream channels
receive test chemical doses while others
do not, it is possible to distinguish
chemical effects from natural
environmental influences on stream
organisms. Emerging contaminants of
concern, such as endocrine-disrupting
compounds, can be added precisely and
simultaneously with the influent river
water at the head of each experimental
channel. Suspended solid and nutrient
concentrations in the supplied river water
can be manipulated as well. Very few
operations other than ESF have the level
of dosing precision and fail-safe design
hardwired into their experimental setup.
Furthermore, incoming and outgoing river
water and effluents can be automatically
monitored and recorded every few minutes
for temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen,
conductivity, stream flow conditions
(light levels, temperature, and humidity),
turbidity, and weather conditions.
The facility features:
• Stream channels - eight 40-foot-
long channels with upper and lower
sections and a tail tank; many flow
configurations are possible
• Water sources - two natural sources
(the East Fork of the Little Miami
River and the Heiserman Stream)
and final effluent from the adjacent
wastewater treatment plant
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
• Solar irradiance - special lights
simulate a stream with a forest canopy
and a stream in an open field
• Chemical dosing system
• Supervisory Control and Data
Acquisition (SCADA) system -
sensors, valves, and meters connected
to a central computer to monitor
and control flows, lights, chemical
delivery, and data collection
ESF may be used by scientists and
engineers in other federal agencies,
states, academic institutions, nonprofit
organizations, and private companies.
Provisions are in place to ensure that
EPA research will not be impacted by
any agreements. In most cases, EPA
will provide federal employees to operate
the facilities.
Results
Reducing the loading of stressors to
watersheds is of concern to environmental
stakeholders, including local and state
governments, utilities, developers, and
homeowners. Adopting the watershed
approach and best management practices
(BMPs) to control both urban and rural
sources of waterborne pollutants is
helping to reduce contaminants at the
watershed level.
The chief beneficiaries are the
environmental decision makers who will
use ESF data in watershed models to
better characterize how streams react to
and process emerging contaminants and
stressful mixtures, and to quantitatively
link known stressors in stream flow
with the structure and function of
stream ecosystems.
CONTACT
Donald Brown
(513)569-7630
brown. donald(g!epa. gov
Christopher Nietch
(513)569-7460
nietch.christophertaiepa.gov
SEE ALSO
Sustaining Our Nation's Water Infrastructure (PDF)
(24 pp, 640 KB)
http://www.epa.gov/waterinfrastructure/pdfs/
brochure si sustainingournationswaters.pdf
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
EPA/600/F-08/006
April 2008
-------
• The WATERS Network
| Project Workshop
Experimental Stream Facility -;
J \WB
SF) and Nested Watershed
Monitorin
-------
f>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
iii
LN
cop
Controlled experiments at the meso-scale to support the
development of stressor/pollutant loading to in-stream
ecology linkages in watershed models.
Support process-level understanding of ecotoxicology
and fate and transport mechanisms for emerging
contaminants and stressful mixtures.
Continuity in base analytics among studies to provide
meta-information on ecosystem structure and function
useful to the development and testing of new indicators
of stress-response, monitoring technologies, and/or
management methods and models.
-------
ESF Process
Lower East
Fork River
(5th order)
River Flow Direction
Lower East Fork
Waste Water
Treatment Plant
Routed flow from dozed streams
Outside Experimental Stream Field Station
Inside Experimental Stream Field Station
pH, DO,
Turbidity, ORP,
Conductance,
Temp. Sensors
Controlled Re circulation Loop
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Stream Mesocosm Design
Designed for focus on biotic
responses.
Replicated repeated measures
within channels for statistical
power: Tile and Gravel-filled
Trays.
Controlled residence times for
reaction kinetics while maintaining
channel velocities and pollution
prevention.
Sampling/exposure methods for
drift, emergence, behavioral
monitoring, and side-stream
enclosures.
Channel sections are
interchangeable and can be linked
in series for longitudinal work.
-------
Gravel Section
The gravel section simulates a
riffle habitats of real streams.
- Froude, Reynolds, Boundary
Shear fall within real ranges for
experimental flows
Residence time at the whole
mesocosm scale can be adjusted
to match real reaches.
- Recirculation
- Mesocosms in series
-------
S-EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Linkage to the Field
The same parameters estimated in gravel trays during ESF experiments are made for trays that
have been placed in the field, including the following as base:
Total sediment accumulation
Size-fraction specific mass, organic content (LOI), Carbon, Nitrogen, and Phosphorus
Intergravel Ammonia, Nitrate-Nitrite, SRP, TN, TP, and DOC
Gravel periphyton AFDM and Chl-a
Macro in vertebrate community structure
-------
Nested Watershed Monitoring
^ **
. ^n
ESF
?>' i i
-s
p
1200-
-1000
0
2 800-
| 600-
i
f 400
0
°'P'
uyloi Crossing -Hejdnfflei Trih
istFoik-WAished
V
/*
/
~s
,j~
23-Jul 2-Aug 12-Aug
t
L
22-Aug
Mi.iylH Run- 14 digit sub-watershed
Pin
I
I-
[
f
1-Sep 11-Sep 21-
-0.1 f
5
-0.3 1
::i
-0.6 ;
0.7 1
0.8 =
-0.9 j-
1
3ep
v~ &
East Fork "Mixed-Use"
Watershed (500 mi2)
Lot's of 'Issues' for this
watershed
Headwatersheds (10)
vary in size-100 to 1500
acres.
5 headwaters nested
within 3rd/4th order
confluent channels to
mainstem
Mainstem continuous
and historical monitoring
points
Clermont County, Ohio
Office of Environmental Quality
-------
ESF
: MONITORS'',
ntake:
Stream 1
Stream 2
Stream 3
Stream 4
Stream 5
Stream 6
Stream 7
Stream 8
Chemical
Dosing
Lighting
Weather
Building ^
RiVer Water
In/Out Flow
INTERNET
Graphical
Interface
Firewall
Firewall
CAMILE
(SCADA)
DATA
SERVER
FIELD MONITORS
Local Alarm Auto Dialer •
ESF SAMPLE
DATA
Sediment/
CNP content
C-Nutrient
GW-SW
Inverts
StrucJbiomass
Periphyton-
CNPcontent'
Dosing
Study Data
FIELD SAMPLE
DATA
Sediment/
!/ CNP content
C-Nutrient
GW-SW
' -i Inverts-
Struc/biomass
i Periphyton-
I CNP content
SF & FIELD DATA ACQUISITIO.
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Collaborative Approaches and Processes
Infeasible not to work collabpratively. ORD's experimental data needs are too dense to afford
time for studies that are not in some way supportive of developing applied assessment and
management tools.
Organizational and data sharing protocols to guide study design, O&M during, and synthesis.
- Biweekly meetings with minutes disseminated to large e-mail group.
• Technical Support-Contract
• All Issues "Biotic"
• "All Scientists"
"Lead" designated for each study - final say on experimental design and scheduling.
Responsible for first draft of major synthesis product (manuscript).
QAPP addendum and HASP updated if necessary; Experimental configurations implemented
and tested. New data threads integrated into data management system.
Objectives within studies may support basic science (e.g. theoretical ecology of invertebrate
drift responses; biological transformity; ecohydrology - ecosedimentology at microhabitat
scale).
Primary stressor of focus for a specific study may support multiple paths of research, (e.g.,
Development of endpoints for antimicrobial exposure while using effects to inform the relative
functional roles of fungi and bacteria in stream periphyton communities.
Testing the response of new monitoring and measurement instrumentation/methods/endpoints
in relation to traditional assessment parameters in meso-scale/controlled setting, (e.g.,
genomic-based indicators of community structure changes (diatoms, microorganisms,
macroinvertebrates). -> more tomorrow.
-------
©ERA I science BRIEF
/ Ov_/lv_7l IV^^^ I—-J I \ll^_ I
www.epa.gov
National Risk Management
Research Laboratory
www.epa.gov/nrmrl/
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center
Ada, Oklahoma
Introduction
The Kerr Center, situated on 16 acres three
miles south of Ada, Oklahoma, houses the
Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration
Division (GWERD) of the National
Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL). The division develops
strategies and technologies to protect and
restore ground water, surface water, and
ecosystems affected by human-made and
natural events. The center, which includes
the Gaar Corner field site, contains
state-of-the-science analytical chemistry
equipment, specialized instrumentation,
and field equipment to study the transport
and transformation of contaminants in
soil and ground water.
Background
In 1961, amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act of 1956 directed
the federal government to establish field
laboratories in various parts of the United
States as research facilities to combat
increasing national water pollution
problems. One of these field laboratories
was established in Ada, Oklahoma.
Completed in 1966, the center was named
for Robert S. Kerr, a long-time U.S.
senator from Oklahoma.
With its beginnings as a regional U.S.
Public Health Service laboratory under the
U.S. Department of the Interior, the Ken-
Center provided technical assistance and
training, and conducted research to solve
water pollution problems in Arkansas,
Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,
and Texas.
In 1970, the Kerr Center became one of
15 research laboratories administered by
the newly created EPA through its Office
of Research and Development (ORD).
Between 1970 and 1980, research at
the Kerr Center included investigations
on water quality, land treatment, and
ground water, and the environmental
effects of mining, irrigation, petroleum
and petroleum-related activities, and
animal wastes.
ORD was realigned in 1995 and EPA's
15 research laboratories were consolidated
into three national laboratories and two
centers. As a result, the Subsurface
Protection and Remediation Division
of NRMRL was formed. From 1995
until 1997, the division's mission
was to conduct research to support
EPA efforts to protect and remediate
the subsurface environment. In 1997,
the mission was expanded to include
research on ecosystem restoration. In
2002, the division's name was changed
to the Ground Water and Ecosystems
Restoration Division to reflect the change
in its mission.
To reduce its environmental footprint,
the center became EPA's first carbon-
neutral laboratory. This means the center
reduces energy use whenever possible
and implements carbon offsets to mitigate
any remaining greenhouse gas emissions
caused by using energy. The result is net
zero emissions.
Features
The three-story Kerr Center provides
50,000 square feet of laboratory and
office space. An addition to the facility
in 1993 provides another 20,000 square
feet for the library, computer support
services, and a conference center. The
nearby 10,000-square-foot annex contains
a machine shop and storage facilities for
field equipment and supplies. Separate
facilities have been constructed for storing
bulk chemicals, compressed gases, and
hazardous waste.
Besides the Kerr Center, GWERD
researchers use the 110-acre Gaar Corner
field site to conduct research. Garr Corner
is located nine miles west of Ada and
is the setting for both in-house research
and collaborative efforts with academic
and commercial partners and private
companies.
The field site encompasses a mixture
of woodlands, open fields, and ponds.
Researchers use the site in their efforts
to safeguard underground supplies of
drinking water from contamination by
pollutants introduced to the subsurface via
injection wells. It offers several types of
underground injection wells for evaluating
mechanical integrity:
• Three logging wells
• A calibration well
• A leak-test well
• Three monitoring wells
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
-------
Gaar Corner is also used for ecosystem
research studies. With its sixteen 40-
square-foot enclosures, the site supports
research on interactions among primary
consumers, plants, microbes, detritivores,
and soil chemistry. Research also focuses
on the ecosystem's susceptibility to
nitrogen deposition and the development
of novel management interventions for
improving nitrogen-use efficiency in
watersheds. In addition to the enclosures,
researchers at Gaar Corner use a 2,000-
square-foot laboratory with computer
facilities, a 1,000-square-foot shop and
storage building, and a weather station.
Results
GWERD addresses areas of research
that are part of ORD's strategic plan and
NRMRL's mission. The division is EPA's
center of expertise for the investigation of
the soil and subsurface environment, and
ecosystem restoration nationwide. Topics
of research at the Kerr Center include:
• The potential use of in situ
bioremediation as a method of
restoring contaminated ground water
• The effects of concentrated animal
feeding operations on water quality
• The existence and implications of
nonaqueous phase liquids and ways
to clean them up
• The use of permeable reactive barriers
to remediate contamination from
metals and chlorinated solvents
• Site-specific technical support for
over 300 Superfund, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act,
and brownfield sites
• Evaluation of the effectiveness of
ecosystem restoration efforts on
streams in several different states
across the country
Research is conducted at the Ken-
Center to:
• Enhance understanding of the
physical, chemical, and biological
processes that control the transport
of mass and energy in surface and
subsurface ecosystems through the
movement of water
• Develop and evaluate the means to
protect and restore ground and
surface water
• Evaluate the benefits of restoring and
managing ecosystems
Information transfer materials and
activities (e.g., handbooks, journal articles,
reports, research briefs, issue papers,
workshops, and symposia) assist EPA in
protecting and restoring public health and
the environment. GWERD's Center for
Subsurface Modeling Support (CSMoS)
provides public domain ground water
and vadose zone modeling software
and services along with direct technical
support to EPA and state decision makers.
CONTACT
Bob Puls
(580) 436-8543
puls.robert(g!epa. gov
SEE ALSO
Center for Subsurface Modeling Support (CSMoS)
http://www.epa.gov/ada/csmos.html
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with vegetable-based ink on
paper that contains a minimum of
50% post-consumer fiber content
processed chlorine free
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Research and Development, National Risk Management Research Laboratory
EPA/600/F-08/003
April 2008
-------
Ecosystem Restoration
Research at GWERD
Paul M. Mayer, Ph.D.
USEPA/ORD/NRMRL/GWERD
-------
&EFA
Ground Water
&
Ecosystems
Restoration Division
Ada, OK
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Mission: Conduct research and technical assistance to
provide the scientific basis to support the development of
strategies and technologies to protect and restore ground
water, surface water, and ecosystems impacted by man
and natural disturbances
-------
Focus Areas
Wetlands/Streams
Restoration
Nitrogen
-------
Pi's conducting ecosystem restoration research at
GWERD lab in Ada, OK
Wetlands
-T. Canfield
-D. Burden
Riparian
Buffers
-P. Mayer
Floodplains
-K. Forshay
Decision Support
-D. Burden
-T. Canfield
Geomorphic
structures
Wetland
Type
MacTopfiytes
Microbes
-A. Shield
Modeling
B. Faulkner, C Cooper
-B. Faulkner, C Cooper
-P. Mayer
-------
3.
z>
tfl
O 2.5
!5
2.0
o
0 1.5
Costs of river restoration in the U.S.
(Bernhardt et al. 2005. Science 308:636-637)
u
aj
'o 1.0,
Q.
£ 0.5
_cc
3
E 0.0
o
Projects
•-
O DC -
CO
LJJ EL
Q O
Restoration Objectives
r14000
- 12000
-10000
.8000 £
- 6000 3
o
I-4000
,
E
2000 ^
0
-------
Excess nitrogen is a non-point source pollutant
that impairs water quality
Hypoxic Anoxic
12
10
8
I
'5Gs '60s 70s '80s '90s
Typical dead zone in summer, "90s
NorbU
-------
-------
Mfe
lyiinebank Run - after restoration
Sf
Restoration of Ecosystem Services?
Nutrient processing
Sediment control
Flood control
Temperature moderation
Biodiversity ** '" „
-------
N removal via denitrification
Dissolved
Organic
Carbon
Anaerobic
conditions
Hyporheic mixing
of nitrate with C
and microbes
-------
Biochemical effects of
geomorphic restoration
Organic
Soils
Saturated
Zone
Organic
Soils
Saturated
Zone
Modified from
Stream Corridor Restoration Handbook
-------
Run Watershed
Watershed boundary
(unrestored)
Study Site
(restored)
Mlnetank Run Sutehed
AenaJ Photograph
BaNrnore County, Maryland
A
wo o JooKOMDiaaiioo
.
-------
GWERD specializes in studying
subsurface biochemical processes
-------
Groundwater Monitoring
topographic floodplain
hydrologicfloodplain
Shallow/deep
monitoring wells
Piezometer well
nests
Shallow/deep
monitoring wells
-------
Collaborators
USGS-Water Resources Division-Baltimore
Baltimore Ecosystem Study - LTER
Institute of Ecosystem Studies
U Maryland - Center for Environmental Studies,
Chesapeake Bay Lab, Appalachian Lab
Oklahoma State University
Baltimore County DEPRM
Chesapeake Bay Program
Maryland Sea Grant
US Forest Service
Baltimore County Parks Dept.
Maryland Dept Natural Resources
Franklin and Marshall College
College of Franklin and Marshall
Johns Hopkins University
-------
600
0)
450
o
ro
300
N
C
0)
c
o
8 150
c
0)
Q
Denitrification increases
with soil organic matter
0.02
0.04 0.06
Soil organic matter (g g"1)
0.08
0.1
Gift Groffman & Mayer 2008 Restoration Ecology
-------
Hyporheic NO3' and DOC are linked
1.8
1.6 -
1.4 -
1.2 -
1.0 -
0.8 -
0.6 -
0.4 -
0.2
0.4
0.6
y = -0.84x+ 1.91
R2 = 0.64, P = 0.01
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.6
Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg/L)
1.8
-------
NO3" and hydrology are linked
D)
E
= 2.0036x- 433.5865
= 0.69, P=0.01
0.2
216.6
216.7
216.8
216.9
217.0
217.1
Mean water table level (msl ft)
217.2
217.3
-------
N removal is linked to GW residence
8000 ^
6000-
I
CD
4000 -I
cti
§
CD
Cfl
CO
2000-
2000 J
Unrestored (coinciding measurements)
Restored (scenario)
Rs = 0.70
Groundwater residence time (d)
-------
Stream restoration improved N uptake via denitrification
o
O)
120
100
«•»: 80
(B ^»
.2 o
15 «
o
o
Q
60
40
20
0
2003-2004
n=12
n=14
Unrestored Restored
Site
Kaushal, Groffman, Mayer, Striz, Doheny, and Gold. Effects of
stream restoration on denitrification at the riparian-stream interface
of an urbanizing watershed of the mid-Atlantic U.S. 2008 Ecological
Applications
-------
Nutrient metrics meta-analysis
100 r
s
t>0
2
I ™
o
10 r-
leg
O 1
0.1
O
o
Measured 28 m
Model fit 28 in
Measured 171 m
Model fit 171 m
o
o
10
Minutes after injection
100
Faulkner BR. (accepted) Bayesian modeling of the assimilative
capacity component of nutrient TMDLs. Water Resour. Res.
-------
New research in
Willamette River
Basin, Oregon -
Mapping and
managing ecosystem
services i
WESP Planning
Agriculture
Forestry
Urban
Public
Private
BIA
r
Calapooia River WS
Climate Station
Dykaar Site
ID 20
-------
Green Island
research site
McKenzie
River
Trust
Area
Imagery'
Sept. 2006
AirPhoto
-------
Theoretical basis for restoration -
How are C, N, & hydrology linked?
Denitrification response to flooding in the Willamette Basin
CO
"c
v
"o
o_
c
o
"CD
o
c
o>
D)
O
Max
denitrifi cation
Variability
Dry
Inundation duration
Wet
High
Substrate elevation
Low
-------
Empirical understanding of ecosystem
function/services: N arrives during flooding
then quickly disappears
2.0 i
1.5 -
D)
E
1.0 -
03
0.5 -
0.0 -
0
3/26 4/2 4/9 4/16 4/23 4/30 5/7 5/14
2001
1200
1000
800
600
400
200 o
o
o
0
(/)
5—
0
Q.
0
-i—»
0
E
River
S1
S2
S3
S4
Discharge
-------
Modeling: Nutrient retention metrics
to load attenuation
1000
I
800
600
400
200
0
E-200
cr
-400
'Gaussian Core1
C(X,t)
Observed
Indicial Response
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000
time (s)
Faulkner BR, Campana ME. 2007. Compartmental Model of Nitrate
Retention in Streams. Water Resour. Res. 43, W02406,
doi: 10.1029/2006 WR004920.
-------
Applications: Identify BMP's for stream restoration
N Source: Lar9e
X \
Transmission Efficient Inefficient
Small
X \
Efficient Inefficient
Load: High ^^^^
\ J>
_..,... Low Flows
Timing of delivery: 1
|
High priority High to Moderate loads
restoration sites: delivered at low flows
tf ***A
Primary restoration Optimize Increase c
design options: biological N between
demand and ben
Moderate
v^\
^*^ 1
Storm flows
f
\
Low
High to Moderate loads
delivered during storms
"" ^ t
:ontact Improve connections
water with adjacent terrestrial
thos environments
Craig, Palmer, Richardson, Filoso, Bernhardt, Bledsoe, Doyle,
Groffman, Hassett, Kaushal, Mayer, Smith, & Wilcock. Stream
restoration strategies for reducing river nitrogen loads. In press,
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
-------
Opportunities for NSF grantee
collaboration with ORD researchers
• Ecosystem response to restoration
- lots of data gaps
-work collaboratively, not like STAR
-publish papers
-applied research and tech transfer
• Access to research sites and facilities
• Data sharing
• Gadgets, Gages, Analyses
-------
-------
NSF/EPA WATERS Network
Workshop
May 1, 2008
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Day 2 Workshop Agenda
Overview of proposed EPA/NSF partnership
Charge to the breakout groups
Breakout group sessions (five in parallel)
Field operations—Field-Based Studies on Ecosystem Restoration and Enhancement of
Ecosystem Services
T&E Facility Systems and Processes for Water, Wastewater, and Storm Water
Streams and Watersheds
Synthesis and Modeling
Institutions and Decision Making
Lunch
Reports from the breakout groups
Discussion and wrap-up
-------
Recap: Workshop Background
EPA/NRMRL and NSF are exploring the possibility of a partnership related
toWN
In principle, NSF/EPA partnership projects might serve as new WN Test
Beds
For WN, this would have the benefit of building on EPA's existing facilities and
capabilities
For EPA, the benefit might be enhancement of already existing facilities and
capabilities
-------
Recap: Potential guidelines for research projects funded
through the NSF/EPA partnership:
•Research would be performed at EPA sites
•Research teams would be composed of university researchers and students teamed
with EPA researchers at EPA sites
•University researchers and students would be supported by NSF grants
(up to $300K per grant)
•To request grant funding, university Pis would submit a proposal to NSF in response
to a solicitation that might be posted by NSF (after concurrence by EPA),
perhaps in 2009
•Each proposal from a university PI should include a letter from an EPA partner
stating the intention to collaborate
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Special EPA Project Features
Lab Instrumentation QA/QC Plan
Sampling & Analysis Plan
Health & Safety Plan
RCRA/OSHA/TSDF Permits
Facility Access
Design of Research Plan
Unique Scientific Expertise
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Funding Options
Third Party Agreements (Private to Private)
Advantages: Recipient has full control of funds,
intellectual property, and FOIA protection
Disadvantages: Recipient must write (and pay for) all
QA, Safety, etc. plans, provide entire project
management oversight, and contract directly with
facility for fixed and variable costs. Limited EPA
involvement
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Funding Options (cont.)
Cooperative Research & Development
Agreements (CRADAs) (Public/Private)
Advantages: Multiple partners possible. Recipient
maintains research management, but EPA assumes
facility oversight and is able to provide in-kind services
directly. Patent & ROI process access.
Disadvantages: Funds "taken off the top" from project
for facility costs. Co-ownership of intellectual property.
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Funding Options (cont.)
InterAgency Agreements (Public to Public)
Advantages: All contractor interaction and project
management handled by EPA.
- Disadvantages: Project funds go directly to EPA
-------
Breakout Sessions: Logistics
-------
Anticipated Breakout Group Outputs
'Feedback from the academic community on the value of the proposed
NSF/EPA partnership to academic research and education
Outlines of example hypothetical partnership projects
•From the viewpoint of the academic community, some indications of issues,
if any, that might arise in the partnership, relative to academic community
participation
-------
&EFA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Anticipated Outputs
Charges
Feedback on the value of the
proposed partnership to
academic research and
education
Outlines of example
hypothetical partnership
projects
From the viewpoint of
academic community, some
indications of issues, if any,
that might arise in the
partnership, relative to
academic community
participation
Given the EPA facilities and
resident expertise, how can the
NSF WN benefit from a
partnership
Given the NSF WN objectives &
EPA program mission, stretch
your imagination for new broadly
defined research ideas
Given that the missions and
operating principles of the two
agencies are not identical, what
issues could possibly appear as
barriers to partnership, and
prescribe ways of overcoming
them
-------
Breakout Group Sessions
Field Operations - Field-based studies on
ecosystem restoration and enhancement
of ecosystem services
T&E Facility Systems and Processes for
water, wastewater, and storm water
Stream and Watersheds
Synthesis and modeling
Institutions and Decision Making
-------
Breakout Session Participants
Breakout Session #1
Field Studies,
Ecosystem
Restoration, and
Enhancement of Eco
Services
Francis de los Reyes
Erich Emery
Ken Forshay
Steven Loheide
Paul Mayer
Craig Patterson
Bob Puls
Dave Soballe
Alan Vicory
Linda Weavers
Breakout Session #2
Technical Evaluation
Facility
Michael Aitken
Nicholas Ashbolt
Scott Belanger
Paul Bishop
Michael Borst
Amy Childress
NickClesceri
Chuck Haas
Roy Haught
Ray Hozalski
Chris Impelliteri
Chip Kilduff
Dan Murray
John Novak
Dan Oerther
Ian Pepper
Joan Rose
Mike Royer
David Sedlak
Jeanne VanBriesen
Matt Whiles
Breakout Session #3
Streams and
Watersheds
Joel Allen
Patrick Brezonik
Dan Giammar
Cindy Lee
Clark Liu
Chris Nietch
Joe Schubauer-Berigan
Mike Stenstrom
Breakout Session #4
Modeling and
Synthesis
Bill Ball
Scott Dyer
Herbert Fredrickson
Peter Goodwin
Ferdi Hellweger
Barbara Minsker
Bill Schultz
Jim Shortle
Bruce Wilson
Breakout Session #5
Institutions and
Decision Making
John Braden
Annette Gatchett
Pat Gober
Matt Heberling
Sandra Schneider
Daniel Weltering
-------
Breakout Sessions: Results
-------
SEPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Field Operations Summary
Presentation
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Feedback on Value
EPA:
• Values the complementary nature of academic work, projects to improve
value and scope of research programs
• Synergy could improve results and implementation into practice
• NSF involvement improves program recognition, value insure continuity of
programs
Academic:
• Established sites with baseline data, historic data
• More people (expertise), more project capacity
• Network of interdisciplinary scientists
• Field equipment to instrument, sample sites
• Long-term monitoring important to see 'benefits of restoration,
management actions' at field scale, keep connection to site
• Access to larger scale perspectives on field research (e.g. Gulf Hypoxia,
Biofuels)
• Students are temporary, projects continue, have continuity for academics,
build on prior work
• Truthing bench to field
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Hypothetical Partnerships, Projects,
Research Ideas
• Area/Scale - Research to inform how to extrapolate results from
small to larger scales; also temporal scales
• What processes, influences are emergent or present at larger
scales
• Remote monitoring, control, data processing of watershed data
• Improvements in monitoring technology, data management
• More specific projects (e.g. Baltimore, Oregon): N transformations,
interactions which occur between different stream reaches, do we
have to restore all unstable stream banks to restore watershed? -
bang for the buck question
• Where to put BMPs? How do we sequence remedial actions?
• Relation of treatability to end goal (stormwater, wastewater)
• Optimization, prioritization of monitoring
- Modeling helps here
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Barriers or Issues Inhibiting Partnerships
• Communication, education
- More info on what EPA is doing, interest, current
activities
- GWERD 1 pagers, Professional 'personnels',
identification of needed expertise
- Team (Willamette) calls
• EPA project/program commitment - risk for NSF
grantees if program cancelled (see benefits to EPA)
• Competition between universities - existing
relationships
- NSF role seen as a benefit here to address this
concern
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Barriers or Issues Inhibiting
Partnerships Cont.
Understanding different publication goals between
Universities and EPA
- Sense that it is same re: journal articles
Funding for 'planning' to promote partnerships
Student housing at remote locations
Publication review process
- ORD clearance process
Intellectual property ownership
- Mixed reaction here - sense that it is similar for
both EPA & Universities (e.g. GWERD policy)
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
T & E Facility Summary
Presentation
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Overarching Points
WN needs to incorporate a stronger
urban/engineered process orientation
EPA needs stronger science and engineering
support for infrastructure program
How long term ownership and support of NSF
expanded EPA capability would be assured?
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Given the EPA facilities and resident
expertise, how can the NSF WN benefit from
a partnership?
• Could help WN become resensitized to issues of
urban water management (and necessary
science)
• Expertise in life cycle assessment, risk analysis,
infrastructure
• Unique facilities - which would need to be at
order of magnitude better capability
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
How can EPA benefit from such a
partnership?
Fundamental science of recycled water (engineering options, risk)
Bringing larger scope of expertise (e.g., hydrology, civil engineering
infrastructure) to bear on problems
Anticipate future contaminants and waste sources of concern and emerging
options for treatment. Perhaps more realistic to devise mechanisms
whereby these emerging aspects can be elucidated
Demonstrating "transportability" of current tools, techniques, expertise in
other venues
Understanding of how different (treatment and analysis) methods may
compare
Access to expertise in areas that may not be of highest priority to EPA, but
are needed to solve particular problems
Perception (on the part of some EPA folks) that this would be of a reduced
burden for peer review than via the EPA cooperative agreement approach
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Given the NSF WN objectives and EPA
program mission, stretch your imagination
for new broadly defined research ideas:
A virtual urban test bed looking at innovative water and
waste (e.g., urine separating toilets) management
strategies and impact on energy and materials flows.
Needs to be coupled with physical realization to test
concepts. Transitions issues need to be addressed.
Development of treatment & conveyance systems that
can deliberately be tested to failure
Investigation of system response to variability (and
controls for such variability)
-------
SEPA
WAI :RS
Network
Workshop
Given that the missions and operating principles
of the two agencies are not identical, what
issues could possibly appear as a barrier to the
partnership and prescribe ways of overcoming
them:
Issue of being restricted to a single feed (at T&E) - but in
the past, units have been taken off site in order to test
different feeds. Also ability to alter water quality
parameters exists.
Limited capacity and accessibility
Money flow, size of grants, IP issues, student housing,
travel
Would typical NSF reviewers fairly judge this type of
work?
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Feedback on the value of the proposed
partnership to academic research and
education:
Unique aspects of T&E - distribution system; Edison facility, stream
facility. Much else could be found at other locations.
Comparing novel technologies to conventional on the same
conditions would be useful to technology advancement
Use of particular chemicals of concern in tests
Uncertain if the facilities all represent an order of magnitude greater
than what might be doable at individual institutions
Some potential opportunities to perform "translational" research
(theory -> practice)
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Outlines of example hypothetical partnership
projects:
• Migration of lab expertise (e.g., water biosensor
work) to work outside of the laboratories.
• Use of samples generated by EPA for value
added follow on work (e.g., sludge, microbial
diversity)
• How to translate failure research to guidance for
maintenance planning (NSF Criteria 2)
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
From the viewpoint of academic community, some
indications of issues, if any, that might arise in the
partnership relative to academic community
participation:
Not clear whether $300 K would permit meaningful graduate student involvement at
a remote site.
Need to be clear that there is not a problem with international students
Having EPA personnel write a letter could serve as a "gatekeeper" to academics
submitting a proposal to NSF in the envisioned program. At what level in EPA
should level of support be required.
Need to develop a mechanism for researchers to find out whom to contact at EPA.
Need to define what the minimum time was that students would need to spend
physically at EPA and to determine if that was compatible with typical university
requirements. (But it may be possible to do some collaborations via remote
interactions).
NSF grants may need to pay for marginal time needed for on site contract
personnel.
Would collection of samples taken from EPA facilities for analysis back at
universities be a sufficient level of collaboration to fall under this program?
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
From the viewpoint of EPA, some indications of
issues, if any, that might arise in the partnership
relative to academic community participation:
Potential limitation of resource availability. How to fairly
deal with competing proposals?
A preliminary step would likely be needed in order to
reduce time for EPA personnel to determine suitability
for collaboration (liability/commitment issues?).
EPA management needs to realize that the
collaborations will require formal time commitments from
the EPA staff.
Defining types and mechanisms of in-kind support for
collaboration
-------
Streams and Watersheds
Summary Presentation
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Participants: Chris Nietch, Pat Brezonik, co-chairs
Joel Allen, Joe Schubauer-Berigan (EPA), Clark Liu (NSF),
Dan Giammar, Cindy Lee, Mike Stenstrom
I. Benefits of partnership to NSF/academic community and to EPA
1. Facilities like the streams are just not available at any universities
intellectual benefits
2. Leveraging resources, which is critical in multi-disciplinary studies
like watershed research
3. Having both the experimental streams and the watershed are a great opportunity
for translating mechanistic studies to field level
4. Benefits to students in collaborating with EPA researchers as well
as academic researchers
5. Benefit to EPA in getting the intellectual stimulation in being involved
with leading academic researchers—something that is difficult to get from contractors
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
I. Benefits of partnership to NSF/academic community and to EPA cont.
6. Less money that has to change hands, the simpler things can be
7. Facilities will allow verification of model results
8. But should think about expansion of facilities
9. The partnership could serve as a model in developing partnerships with other
agencies/data management database methods
10. Accessing rest of network as a benefit to EPA researchers
11. Partnership will provide concrete steps in developing true cross-agency
collaborations to address larger national issues
12. Ability to include biological (wq/ecosystem quality) measurements in
watershed studies is a big advantage—hydrologists and water quality
engineers typically do not include these kinds of measurements
13. Collaboration between EPA's engineering lab and NSF's engineering
directorate will lead to cross-fertilization of ideas and approaches
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
II. Examples of hypothetical projects
1. Watershed boot camp or summer internship program
2. Near-term projects:
(A) Bio-vector contaminant transport mechanisms in watersheds.
(B) Application of East Fork data to hydrologic models across the scales
of the East Fork and comparison of accuracy of various existing models.
(C) Linking hydrologic model to ecological services.
(D) Linking fate and transport of emerging contaminants from the experimental
stream scale to the (~500 mi2) watershed scale.
(E) Evaluating new BMPs having natural system components in terms
of fate and transport of stressor at the large watershed scale.
(F) Use of East fork data for testing and calibration of new CIS-based
(e.g., BASINS-oriented) modeling tools.
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
II. Examples of hypothetical projects cont.
2. Near-term projects cont.:
(G) Development of digital watershed (in HIS) for East Fork
(H) IT mechanisms for cybercollaboration using the East Fork site
(I) Use of East Fork sites to test various new hydrologic and chemical sensors
(J) Application environmental engineering reactor-based modeling approaches
to East Fork watershed modeling
(H) Use of indicator species (biological and chemical) to understand water and
contaminant source contributions under different hydrologic regimes.
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
III. Challenges/stumbling blocks
1. Publication review process may be more cumbersome—if EPA needs to do an extensive policy review
2. How can QAPP and HASP process be streamlined?
3. Data reports; EPA technical report as a requirement of a partnership project? Issues of data ownership
need to be resolved up front.
4. FOIA issues? We don't think this will be a major/common problem.
5. Student housing at EPA research facilities—on short term (for test-bed projects, may need to be done by
academic PI); on long term, it would be good if local arrangements were made by an EPA contractor or by
EPA with UC.
6. Security issues regarding foreign nationals are thought to be minor.
7. Space issues for student and perhaps faculty collaborators.
8. Time requirements for EPA researchers to advise students, but this is not likely to be a problem.
9. How do we set up a mechanism for writing proposals collaboratively between academic researchers and
EPA researchers that will work for both sides (e.g., in terms of timing of commitments)?
10. Academics want/need assurance that their project, if selected, will be allowed
to go to completion
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Modeling and Synthesis
Summary Presentation
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Breakout Members
Peter Goodwin, U of Idaho, fluid mechanics
Barbara Minsker, U of Illinois, environ and water resources systems
analysis
Herbert Fredrickson, EPA NRMRL, microbial biogeochemistry
Bill Shorts, NSF Fluid Mechanics program officer, desalination
Bill Ball, John Hopkins U, environ engineering
Jim Shortle, Penn State U, economics
Bruce Wilson, U of Minnesota, impaired waters, erosion and BMPs
Scott Dyer, Procter & Gamble, ecotoxicology, eco-epidemiology
(impacts of chemicals on environment & humans)
Ferdi Hellweger, Northeastern U, surface water modeling, microbial
agent-based modeling
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Research Ideas: Agency Perspectives
' Herbert's EPA perspective from ORD/regions meeting in
Washington recently:
- Ongoing process, no consensus yet on how EPA should engage
in integrated watershed management
- How to target which parts of a watershed to start working on to
fix problems (e.g., Gulf of Mexico hypoxia)
- How to prevent greenfields from getting further impaired
- How to make faster progress on brownfields so that greenfields
aren't getting impaired so quickly
- Making decisions today on land use that will affect outcomes for
generations - need available modeling tools today
• Have fairly good hydrological models, but trying to get ecological
data from retrofitted hydrological models. How can ecological
models be integrated in to hydrological models? Scalability and data
density are major barriers to doing that.
• If NSF can fund studies on high-density, high quality watersheds to
improve models, would be great benefit. Then need to look at how
to use those models to make land use decisions.
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Research Ideas: Agency Perspectives
cont.
Bill's buzz words at NSF
- Sustainability - water quality, usage, energy, funding
- Cl - Cyber-enabled Discovery and Innovation (data, virtual
organizations, computational thinking)
• A few in FY08 competition related to WN
• WQ2EAT will have massive data needs
- Complexity - multi-scale, multi-physics, transdisciplinarity -
includes human interactions & social science
- Nano - part of multi-scale? Sensor development?
- Transformative - mandate; data collection good but not sufficient
- Sensors - WN has research needs, how to make connection
with CENS, new research?
• Biological indicators
• Pathogens
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Research Ideas
EPA ORD not focusing on social science research &
model development. This program could be good way to
focus on integrated research
- Have reverse auction rain garden & barrel market
program in watershed nearby, but not in experimental
watershed we saw - could be started in experimental
watershed to look at human-natural interactions
- Prediction, prioritization of options, benefits (e.g.,
ecosystem services) require understanding human
impacts & their integration with natural systems
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Research Ideas cont.
Need appropriate suites of models that interact with
hydrologic/engineering models. E.g.:
• Geospatial land use modeling, including economics (ag, urban),
social issues (e.g., 70% of OH farms owned by elderly widows &
leased annually), & large-scale impacts of land use changes
• Water demand modeling
• Policy response modeling - e.g., effects of water or air quality
trading on watershed, ethanol subsidies
- Mismatch between policy & water prediction scales, need more
spatially explicit models
» E.g., can occur in small areas where information on water quality
is poor (e.g., HSPF models meant for large-scale forecasts) -
Dynamic feedbacks between natural and human
systems
May not need to understand water quality & quantity
everywhere to make good decisions
- Need information to prioritize
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Research Ideas cont.
Cyberinfrastructure tools developed at NSF could benefit
EPA and NSF researchers:
- Tools: CUAHSI observations data model (ODM), data
services, workflow tools, digital watersheds, virtual
observatories, modeling frameworks
- Modeling frameworks need to support testing one
model vs another
- Hypothesis testing & data mining on broader
datasets, easy access to those datasets
• Large quantity of operational data enhances research
• Research data enhances operations and management
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Research Ideas cont.
Basic science in aquatic ecology, taxonomy (identified to
species level), physiology (endocrine disruption,
Pharmaceuticals) needed to understand status of
ecology
- Decisions based on indices of aggregation that we don't know
much about
- Need better models of organism occurrence, response,
feedbacks with environment
• Including extrapolation to watershed scales
- Stream facility allows isolation of factors, then testing in
watershed in parallel experiments
Smart speciation system - capture expert knowledge
(e.g., need to count particular parts of body) and
automate identification of species
- Stream facility data used to train expert system
- Stream camera and expert system, expert feedback to continue
to train system over time
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Research Ideas cont.
How to use bioindicators as sensors of stream health at watershed
scale, e.g.:
- Nitrate/nitrogen measurements
- Clam opening
Food web models, stream ecosystem models could be created from
database related to aquatic systems and models
Identifying optimal management and sampling strategies (including
adaptive), using experimental watershed as case study
- Using integrated models and advanced optimization tools
- Including human decision makers in optimization process
Use EPA data to explore better integration of models and data
- Data assimilation
- Interpolation approaches that include models
- Integrating multiple types of data at different scales, including legacy
data
-------
SEPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Research Ideas cont.
Developing and testing solutions for rural water supply
and sanitation
- Model-based performance
EPA urban village , stream facility could help identify
response functions for models, scale up process results
to large scale
Performance and prioritization models for stream
restoration - EPA expertise and database
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Low-Hanging Fruit Research Ideas
Include EPA facilities in Phase 2 WNPO proposal
- Stream/watershed experimental facility for:
• Nested watershed design (need data & model access)
• How to integrate hydrology and ecology at multiple spaces - include
NEON?
• Impacts of variable and reduced flows
- T&E facility
• Design WN pilot and mobile treatment facilities (need data access)
- Chesapeake Bay Program Office
- Green Infrastructure Facility
• Design experimental village/BMP facility (need data access)
• Feasibility of adding wastewater to Green Infrastructure Facility to
study integrated stormwater/wastewater management & treatment
Evaluate stormwater model using Green Infrastructure
Facility data (Bruce Wilson)
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Value of EPA/NSF Partnership
NSF doesn't have specific mission, so can operate as
external force to bring agencies together
- Ensure that state of science & information transfer is state of art
- Support development of standards/protocols for data & model
synthesis
Problem-based research brings disciplines together
Unique facilities, expertise, and datasets will benefit NSF
researchers
- EPA has long-term data streams
EPA can help disseminate research results, identify new
problem-driven research needs
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Issues/Barriers
Grad students
- International students allowed at facilities?
- Temporary housing?
Is there a conflict between EPA's immediate needs and
NSF's long-term research timeframe?
Who pays for and maintains databases and tools?
- Need long-term commitment that includes all data types (Fed,
state, local, researcher)
- Sign of commitment needed for people to spend time on it.
Need to create and adopt standards/protocols
- Emerging Federation of Environmental Observatory Networks
(FEON) may be mechanism
- If protocols change, will it affect value of historical datastreams?
Will people be willing to adopt standards?
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Issues/Barriers cont.
Funding issues
- Are agencies putting their money where their mouth is on
synthesis? E.g., most NSF budgets are allocated along
disciplinary lines.
- Synthesis projects require engagement of multiple disciplines &
may require larger budgets than typical projects - $300K may not
be enough.
- Should there be a special solicitation at NSF just for researchers
using EPA facilities? Counter arguments:
• If there is interest, researchers could submit to unsolicited
program.
• Prototyping and fostering of partnerships needed for WN is
important.
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
nstitutions & Decision-Making
Summary Presentation
-------
SEPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Defining Institutions
& Decision-Making
Interface between science and policies
Interface between information and behaviors
(constructive & reactive)
Stakeholder interactions, social networks, and
agency
Domain of psychologists, sociologists,
anthropologists, economists, geographers
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Value of Proposed Partnership
Develop best practices (effective policies,
procedures)
- Managing water quality/quantity
- Putting science into action
- Positively informing/influencing behavior
- Community engagement
- Setting priorities
Advance basic social science knowledge
Integrate social science knowledge and
modeling into water science
Strengthen social dimensions of EPA natural
science infrastructure
Expanded opportunities for data collection
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Prospective Outcomes
Understand decision making networks for water
supply, quality, reuse
Improve information/communication with
decision makers (individual & community)
More systematic collection & organization of
data on water-related social phenomena
Capacity to answer new, integrative research
questions about human/water interactions
Enhance public understanding, awareness,
involvement
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Ideas for Collaboration
Decision-making research infrastructure
(visualization, perceptions, attitudes, responses
to institutions)
Social data coupled to hydrologic information
system
Mapping information/interaction networks (e.g.,
scientist/stakeholder/community interactions)
Development of national survey instrument for
repeated application (ref. national surveys on
income dynamics, voting, etc.)
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Short/Intermediate Term Opportunities
' Pilot development of national survey on water
perceptions and use
Mapping and analysis of science-policy network
of EPA labs and stakeholders
• Identify social data sets for HIS (workshop at
IISRM meeting - June 11)
-------
<>EPA
The WATERS Network
Project Workshop
Barriers/Solutions
Federal requirements for collection of survey
data
Agency PI co-authorship of studies related to
surveys conducted by grantees
Understanding institutions as "infrastructure"
Harmonizing basic and mission-driven research
Articulating "basic" contributions of water-
oriented social science research
Difficulty of involving stakeholders in research
design impedes transferability
-------
Next Steps:
Work toward a Memorandum of
Understanding between NSF and EPA
Coordinate the financial aspects of the
NSF/EPA partnership
Draft a Solicitation and Management Plan
-------
Attendee Roster
Last
Aitken
Allen
Ashbolt
Ball
Belanger
Bishop
Borst
Braden
Brezonik
Childress
Clesceri
de los Reyes III
Dyer
Emery
First
Michael
Joel
Nicholas
William P.
Scott
Paul
Michael
John
Patrick
Amy
Nicholas
Francis
Scott
Erich
Organization
University of North Carolina
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Johns Hopkins University
Procter & Gamble
NSF
U.S. EPA, Edison, NJ
University of Illinois
University of Minnesota
University of Nevada, Reno
WATERS Network Project
Office
NC State University
The Procter & Gamble
Company
ORSANCO
Phone
919-966-1024
513-487-2806
513-569-7318
410-516-5434
513-627-1928
703-292-8320
732-321-6631
217-333-5501
952-997-2909
775-784-6942
202-554-1158
919-515-7416
513-627-1163
513-231-7719
Email Address
mike aitken@unc.edu
alien, j oel@epa. gov
ashbolt. nick@epa. gov
bball@jhu.edu
belanger. se@pg. com
pbishop@nsf.gov
borst. mike@epa. gov
jbb@uiuc.edu
brezonik@umn. edu
amyec@unr.edu
clescn@gmail. com
fldelosr@eos.ncsu. edu
dyer.sd@pg.com
emery @orsanco. org
-------
Attendee Roster
Last
Forshay
Fredrickson
Gatchett
Giammar
Gober
Goodrich
Goodwin
Gutierrez
Haas
Hamilton
Haught
Hellweger
Hozalski
Impelliteri
First
Ken
Herbert
Annette
Daniel
Patricia
James
Peter
Sally
Charles
Bruce
Roy
Ferdi
Raymond
Christopher
Organization
U.S. EPA, Ada, OK
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Washington University
Arizona State University
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Center for Ecohydraulics
Research - University of
Idaho
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Drexel University
NSF
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Northeastern University
University of Minnesota
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Phone
580-436-8912
513-569-7402
513-567-7967
314-935-6849
480-727-8446
513-569-7605
208-364-6164
513-569-7683
215-895-2283
703-292-7066
513-569-7067
617-373-3992
612-626-9650
513-487-2872
Email Address
forshay, ken@epa.gov
Herbert.Fredrickson@epa.gov
gatchett. annette@epa.gov
giammar @wustl . edu
gober@asu.edu
james.goodrich@epa.gov
pgoodwin@uidaho. edu
Sally. Gutierrez@epa.gov
haas@drexel.edu
bhamilto@nsf . gov
haught. roy @epa. gov
ferdi@coe. neu. edu
hozalOO 1 @umn. edu
impelliteri. christopher@epa.gov
-------
Attendee Roster
Last
Kilduff
Lee
Liu
Loheide
Mayer
Minsker
Murray
Nietch
Novak
Oerther
Pepper
Puls
Rose
First
Chip
Cindy
Clark
Steven
Paul
Barbara
Dan
Christopher
John
Daniel
Ian
Bob
Joan
Organization
RPI
Clemson University
NSF
University of Wisconsin -
Madison
U.S. EPA, Ada, OK
University of Illinois Urbana-
Champaign
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
Virginia Tech
Civil Engineering,
University of Cincinnati
The University of Arizona,
Environmental Research
Laboratory
U.S. EPA, Ada, OK
Michigan State University
Phone
518-276-2042
864-656-1006
703-292-4480
608-265-5277
580-436-8647
217-265-5293
513-569-7522
513-569-7460
540-231-6132
513-556-3670
520-626-3328
580-436-8543
517-432-4412
Email Address
kilduff@rpi.edu
LC@clemson. edu
ccliu@nsf.gov
loheide@wisc. edu
mayer. paul@epa.gov
minsker@uiuc. edu
murray.dan@epa.gov
nietch. christopher@epa.gov
jtnov@vt.edu
daniel. oerther@uc. edu
ipepper@ag.arizona. edu
puls.robert@epa.gov
rosejo@msu.edu
-------
Attendee Roster
Last
Royer
Soballe
Schneider
S chubauer-B erigan
Sedlak
Shortle
Schultz
Sikdar
Stenstrom
VanBriesen
Vicory
Weavers
Whiles
Wilson
Weltering
First
Mike
Dave
Sandra
Joseph
David
Jim
Bill
Subhas
Michael
Jeanne
Alan
Linda
Matt
Bruce
Dan
Organization
U.S. EPA, Edison, N.J.
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
University of South Florida
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
UC Berkeley
Penn State University
NSF
U.S. EPA, Cincinnati, OH
C & EE Dept, UCLA
Carnegie Mellon University
ORSANCO
The Ohio State University
Southern Illinois University
University of Minnesota
Water Environment Research
Foundation
Phone
732-321-6633
601-623-4631
813-974-5570
513-569-7734
510-643-0256
814-865-7657
703-292-4418
513-569-7528
310-825-1408
412-268-4603
513-231-7719
614-292-4061
618-453-7639
612-625-6770
703-684-2447
Email Address
roy er. michael@epa. gov
David. M. S oballe@usace. army . mil
sandra@research. usf . edu
joseph.Schubauer-Berigan@epa.org
sedlak@ce. berkeley . edu
jshortle@psu.edu
wschultz@nsf.gov
Subhas.Sikdar@epa.gov
stenstro@seas.ucla.edu
jeanne@cmu.edu
avicory@orsanco.org
weavers. 1 @osu.edu
mwhiles@zoology . siu. edu
wilson@umn. edu
dwoltering@werf . org
-------
EPA Principal Investigator Expertise
Name
Adams, Jeffrey Q
Adams, William
Adcock, Noreen
Allen, Hubert Joel
Almassalkihi, Brittany
Bennett-Stamper, Christina
Blannon, Janet C
Boczek, Laura A
Borst, Michael
Brown, Donald S
Brown, Stephanie K.
Burden, David
Canfield, Tim
Cohen, Jeffrey
Dugan, Nicholas
Elovitz, Michael
Faulkner, Bart
DW Treatment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Watershed
Management
X
X
X
X
Field of Expertise
GAC, Membranes
GAC, Membranes
Microbial disinfection
Biosentinels, Aquatic Toxicology
SmartChem, ICAP, ICPMS
SEM, TEM, and AFM analyses
and upkeep. xRD Spectrometry,
Electron Microscopy
Microbial disinfection
Microbial disinfection
Green Infrastructure
Wastewater treatment
Ion Chromatography,
Instrumental Analysis, Chemistry
GIS, modeling
Wetland Restoration
Infrastructure Economics
Disinfections, PAC, GAC,
Membranes, Cyano toxins, EDCs
chemical oxidation, ozonation,
chlorination, reaction kinetics,
chemical reactor modeling,
environmental relevant redox
transformations, advanced
oxidation processes (AOPs)
Ecohydrology, modeling
Email
ieff.adams@epa.qov
william. adams@epa.gov
noreen.adcock@epa.qov
ioel.allen@epa.gov
brittanv.almassalkhi@epa.gov
bennett-stamper.christina@epa.gov
ianet.blannon@epa.qov
laura.boczek@epa.gov
mike.borst@epa.gov
donald.brown@epa.qov
Stephanie k.brown@.epa.qov
david.burden@epa.gov
tim.canfield@epa.qov
ieffrey.cohen@epa.qov
nicholas.duqan@epa.qov
michael.elovitz@epa.qov
bart.faulkner@epa.qov
Phone
513-569-7835
513-569-7656
513-569-7724
513-569-2806
513-569-7231
513-569-7010
513-569-7608
513-569-7282
732-321-6631
513-569-7630
513-569-7083
580-436-8606
580-436-8535
732-321-4436
513-569-7239
513-569-7642
580-436-8530
-------
EPA Principal Investigator Expertise
Name
Field, Richard
Frederick, Ray
Garner, Lucille
Hantush, Mohamed
Hayes, Samuel L.
Impellitteri, Christopher
Johnson, Clifford H.
Jorgensen, Eric
Kelty, Catherine A
Kelty, Keith C.
Kleier, Karen A.
Lai, Dennis
Lu, Jingrang
Lytle, Darren A.
Macke, Dana
DW Treatment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Watershed
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Field of Expertise
Water Quality Mgmt
Technology Verification
Distribution Systems,
Microbiology
Ground water Modeling
Microbial disinfection, UV
Inorganic Chemistry, Absorption
Media
Microbial disinfection
N processing, global climate
Fecal source tracking
Analytical chemistry, Inorganic
chemistry, and Instrumental
analysis
Microbiology, molecular
techniques, manual and
instrumental analytical chemical
analyses
Modeling/ Water Resources
Fecal source tracking
Arsenic, inorganic contaminants,
nitrification, corrosion, lead,
copper, coagulation, softening
adsorption technology,
distribution system water quality
Aquatic Toxicology, On-line
toxicity monitors, watershed and
distribution system early warning
systems
Email
richard.field@epa.gov
ray.frederick@epa.gov
lucille. garner@epa.gov
mohamed.hantush@epa.gov
sam.hayes@epa.gov
christopher.impellitteri@epa.gov
cliff.iohnson@epa.gov
eric.iorgensen@epa.gov
catherine.kelty@epa.gov
keith.keltv@epa.gov
karen.kleier@epa.gov
dennis.lai@epa.gov
iingrang.lu@epa.gov
darren.lvtle@epa.gov
dana.macke@epa.gov
Phone
732-321-6674
732-321-6627
513-569-7417
513-569-7089
513-569-7514
513-569-2872
513-569-7345
580-436-8545
513-569-7080
513-569-7414
513-569-7288
732-321-6632
513-569-7019
513-569-7432
513-569-7570
-------
EPA Principal Investigator Expertise
Name
Mash, Heath E.
Mayer, Paul
Meckes, Mark C
Mills, Marc
Miltner, Richard J.
Morrison, Matthew
Muhlen, Christy
Namboodiri, Vasudevan
Neal, Jill R.
Nietch, Christopher T.
O'Connor, Thomas
Olszewski, John
Parrett, Christopher
DW Treatment
X
X
X
X
X
X
Watershed
Management
X
X
X
X
X
Field of Expertise
Environmental Transformations,
Mass Spectroscopy
Riparian and Stream Restoration
Wastewater treatment
Wastewater treatment
Conventional treatment, powdered
and granular activated carbon,
softening, chlorine, chloramine,
chlorine dioxide, ozone,
disinfection byproducts,
pesticides
Watershed Management
corrosion, arsenic, nitrification,
student/interns
Inorganic and Organic lab
analyses, Membrane Technology
Development
BMPs, GIS, Communication
Systems Ecology, Carbon and
Nutrient Biogeochemistry,
Ecological Engineering, Source
Water Protection
Wet Weather Flows
Microbial disinfection
Construction of Drinking Water
Treatment, electron microscopy
Email
heath.mash@epa.gov
paul.maver@epa.gov
mark.meckes@epa.gov
marc.mills@epa.gov
richard.miltner@epa.gov
matthew.morrison@epa.gov
christv.muhlen@epa.gov
vasudevan.namboodiri@epa.gov
iill.neal@epa.gov
christopher.nietch@epa.gov
thomas.oconnor@epa.gov
iohn.olszewski@epa.gov
christopher.parrett@epa.gov
Phone
513-569-7713
580-436-8647
513-569-7348
513-569-7322
513-569-7403
513-569-7441
513-569-7901
513-569-7446
513-569-7277
513-569-7460
732-321-6723
513-569-7481
513-569-7033
-------
EPA Principal Investigator Expertise
Name
Patterson, Craig L.
Pressman, Jonathan G.
Revetta, Randy P
Rodgers, Mark
Roose, Deborah
Rowe, Amy
Royer, Michael
Santo-Domingo, Jorge
Schenck, Kathleen M.
Schock, Michael R.
Selvakumar, Ariamalar
Shanks, Orin C
Sinister, William
Sidle, William C.
DW Treatment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Watershed
Management
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Field of Expertise
Small DW Systems, Sensor
Technology, Remote Telemetry
and Early Warning Systems
Nitrification, membranes,
disinfection by-products, natural
organic matter
Bacterial communities
Microbial disinfection
Lab analyses: AA, ICP. . .
Porous Pavement/ Stormwater
Runoff
Infrastructure Integrity
Fecal source tracking
Treatment and Method
Development for PPCP's &
Endocrine Disrupters
Corrosion control of distribution
system, inorganics removal
processes, lead and copper
chemistry, x-ray spectroscopic
analytical methods of solids,
geochemical modeling
BMP Infrastructure Rehabilitation
Fecal source tracking
Hydrology
Nuclear Chemistry & Isotope
Hydrology & Geology
Email
craig.patterson@epa.gov
Jonathan. pressman@epa.gov
randy.revetta@epa.gov
mark.rodgers@.epa.gov
deborah.roose@epa.gov
amv.rowe@.epa.gov
michael.rover@epa.gov
iorge.santodomingo@epa.gov
kathleen.schenck@epa.gov
michael.schock@epa.gov
ariamalar.selvakumar@epa.gov
orin.shanks@epa.gov
william.shuster@epa.gov
william.sidle@epa.gov
Phone
513-569-2805
513-569-7625
513-569-7129
513-569-7225
513-569-2866
732-906-6823
732-321-6633
513-569-7085
513-569-7947
513-569-7412
732-906-6990
513-569-7314
513-569-7244
513-569-7212
-------
EPA Principal Investigator Expertise
Name
Sorg, Thomas J.
Speth, Thomas F.
Slander, Emilie
Stinson, Mary K
Tafuri, Anthony
Thurston, Hale
Wahman, David
White, Karen M.
Williams, Daniel
Wu, Tai
Yang, Jeff Yingping
DW Treatment
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Watershed
Management
X
X
X
X
Field of Expertise
Treatment technology for
inorganic contaminants and
radionuclides, arsenic
Drinking water treatment,
(activated carbon, membranes, air
stripping, conventional treatment,
disinfection)
Ecosystem Ecology
Wet Weather Flows
Water Quality
Mgmt/mfrastructure
Watershed Economics
Monochloramine disinfection,
nitrification, biological treatment
Microbial disinfection
Pilot plant design,
cryptosporidium, pesticide
research, copper pitting research,
perchlorate research
Computer systems, databases, GIS
Innovative Water Treatment
Technology, Nuclear Chemistry,
Water Quality and Control
Modeling Reuse
Email
thomas.so rg@epa.gov
thomas. speth@epa.gov
emilie.stander@epa.gov
marv.stinson@epa.gov
anthonv.tafuri@epa.gov
hale.thurston@epa.gov
david.wahman@epa.gov
karenm.white@epa.gov
daniel.williams@epa.gov
tai.wu@epa.gov
ieff.vang@epa.gov
Phone
513-569-7370
513-569-7208
732-906-6898
732-321-6683
732-321-6604
513-569-7627
513-569-7733
513-569-7248
513-569-7237
513-569-7198
513-569-7655
-------
Websites:
WATERS Network - http://www.watersnet.org/
Association of Environmental Engineering and Science Professors
(AEESP) - http://www.aeesp.org/
Consortium of Universities for Advancement of Hydrologic Science
(CUAHSI) - http://www.cuahsi.org/
U.S. EPA National Risk Management Research Laboratory
(NRMRL) - http://www.epa.gov/nrmrl/index.html
------- |