Monitoring Consortiums - United States Environmental ... · Monitoring Consortiums A cost-effective means to enhancing watershed data collection and analysis Assessment and Watershed

i

EPA841-R-97-006May 1997

• Information Transfer Series, No. 3 •

Monitoring Consortiums

A cost-effective means to enhancingwatershed data collection and analysis

Assessment and Watershed Protection DivisionOffice of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503F)401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

Cover - The beneficial result of a monitoring consortium: more than double thebuying power of monitoring dollars for the Triangle Area Water Supply MonitoringProject in the Triangle J region of North Carolina.

ii

iii

FOREWORD

The watershed approach has changed the waythat the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) and other federal, tribal and state agenciesformerly managed water resources programs. Wenow generally recognize that the criticalenvironmental issues facing society are sointertwined that a comprehensive, ecosystem-based and community-based approach is needed.We also recognize that solving environmentalproblems depends increasingly on localgovernments and local citizens. Thus, the need tointegrate across traditional water program areas(e.g., flood control, wastewater treatment,nonpoint source pollution control) and tocooperate across levels of government (federal,state, tribal, local) and across public and privatesectors is leading toward a watershed approach.

Public and private organizations, academicinstitutions, and citizens and their governments inthousands of communities across the nation areforming partnerships and learning new ways tomanage their watersheds together. These groupsseek guidance and examples of watershedapproach success stories after which to modeltheir own activities. The EPA Office of Waterestablished the Watershed Academy to helpaddress these needs by providing training forwatershed managers based on local, state, tribal,and federal experiences in implementingwatershed approaches throughout the pastdecade.

The Watershed Academy provides technicalwatershed information and outreach through livetraining courses, the Internet, and publisheddocuments. The Academy offers live trainingcourses on the basics of watershed man-agementand maintains a training catalogue concerningwhere to obtain more advanced training. AnInternet distance learning program calledAcademy 2000 is being developed to help servethe training needs of those who cannot attend thelive courses. The Watershed Academy alsoprovides watershed approach reference materials,

such as this document, through the WatershedAcademy Information Transfer Series.

This document, number 3 in the Series,addresses coordination in watershed monitoring.Monitoring is absolutely essential to track overallwatershed health and detect changes in anyvalued features or functions, but monitoring costsare often a limiting factor. As demonstrated in thedocument’s four case studies, consortiums canstretch the monitoring dollar, improve cooperationamong partners, and increase sharing of expertiseas well as expenses of data collection andmanagement.

The Information Transfer Series titles include:

no. 1: Watershed protection: a project focus(EPA841-R-95-003)

no. 2: Watershed protection: a statewideapproach (EPA841-R-95-004)

no. 3: Monitoring consortiums: A cost-effective means to enhancingwatershed data collection and analysis(EPA841-R-97-006)

no. 4: Land cover digital data directory forthe United States (EPA841-B-97-005)

no. 5: Designing an information managementsystem for watersheds (EPA841-R-97-005)

no. 6: Information management andcommunications support for thewatershed approach in the PacificNorthwest (EPA841-R-97-004)

no. 7: Watershed Academy catalogue ofwatershed training opportunities(EPA841-D-97-001)

iv

This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Waterunder partial support from each of two EPA contracts: EPA Contract 68-C3-0303 with TetraTech, Inc. and EPA Contract 68-C4-0051 with The Cadmus Group, Inc. Kimberly Brewer andTrevor Clements of Tetra Tech, Inc. and Audrey Beach of The Cadmus Group, Inc. are thedocument’s primary authors, and Douglas J. Norton of the EPA Office of Water is the projectmanager.

Notice

This document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency review and hasbeen approved for publication. Publication does not signify that the contents necessarilyreflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or of any otherorganization represented in this document. Mention of trade names does not constituteendorsement or recommendation for use.

This report should be cited as:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Monitoring consortiums: A cost-effective meansto enhancing watershed data collection and analysis. EPA841-R-97-006. Office of Water(4503F), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 37 pp.

To obtain a copy free of charge, contact:

National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)Phone: (513) 489-8190Fax: (513) 489-8695

This EPA report may also be available on the Internet for browsing or downloadat:

http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/info/PubList/pubcon.html

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. ii

LIST OF FIGURES................................ ................................ ................................ ................... vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................ ................................ ................................ ........... ix

INTRODUCTION................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 1

CASE STUDY 1: REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SAN FRANCISCOESTUARY................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..3

BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................3GEOGRAPHIC SETTING....................................................................................................................3CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................3BENEFITS...........................................................................................................................................6DATA PROCEDURES.........................................................................................................................6COST ..................................................................................................................................................8CHALLENGES................................................................................................................................... 10PROGRAM EVALUATION................................................................................................................. 10

CASE STUDY 2: TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT.................. 11BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 11GEOGRAPHIC SETTING.................................................................................................................. 11CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 11BENEFITS......................................................................................................................................... 13DATA PROCEDURES....................................................................................................................... 16COST ................................................................................................................................................ 17CHALLENGES................................................................................................................................... 17PROGRAM EVALUATION................................................................................................................. 18

CASE STUDY 3: THE LOWER NEUSE BASIN ASSOCIATION................................ .............. 19BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 19GEOGRAPHIC SETTING.................................................................................................................. 19CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 19BENEFITS......................................................................................................................................... 20DATA PROCEDURES....................................................................................................................... 21COST ................................................................................................................................................ 21CHALLENGES................................................................................................................................... 22PROGRAM EVALUATION................................................................................................................. 23

CASE STUDY 4: MID-ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS ASSESSMENT................................ .............. 24BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 24GEOGRAPHIC SETTING.................................................................................................................. 24CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 24BENEFITS......................................................................................................................................... 26DATA PROCEDURES....................................................................................................................... 27COST ................................................................................................................................................ 28CHALLENGES................................................................................................................................... 28

vi

PROGRAM EVALUATION................................................................................................................. 29

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUILDING AND MAINTAINING STRONG MONITORINGCONSORTIUMS................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 30

SUGGESTED MILESTONES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES............................................................... 30CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................... 33

APPENDIX A. MAJOR ITFM RECOMMENDATIONS................................ ............................... 35

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. RMP Study Area Within The San Francisco Estuary ............................................................. 3

FIGURE 2. Organizational Structure Of The San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program ......... 5

FIGURE 3. Annual Leveraging Factors For The San Francisco RMP ...................................................... 7

FIGURE 4. Annual Budget For The San Francisco RMP......................................................................... 9

FIGURE 5. Cost Allocation By Discharger Category................................................................................ 9

FIGURE 6. Monitoring Sites For Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project .................................. 12

FIGURE 7. Organizational Chart For The Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project .................... 13

FIGURE 8. TAWSMP Annual Resource Leveraging ............................................................................. 15

FIGURE 9. OWASA Resource Leveraging In TAWSMP ....................................................................... 15

FIGURE 10. Study Area For The Lower Neuse Basin Association........................................................... 20

FIGURE 11. LNBA Annual Cost Savings ................................................................................................ 22

FIGURE 12. LNBA Annual Savings In Dollars By Permitted Flow ........................................................... 22

FIGURE 13. Study Area For The Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment ..................................................... 24

FIGURE 14. Extensive Cooperation And Data Sharing Are Critical To MAHA’s Success. ....................... 25

FIGURE 15. MAHA’s Five-Step Approach .............................................................................................. 26

FIGURE 16. Steps To Building A Strong Monitoring Consortium. ............................................................ 30

viii

ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recently, many watershed and ecosystemmanagement approaches have placed renewedemphasis on strategic, coordinated monit-oring.Coordinated monitoring is essential to assessingthe overall condition of our water resources andevaluating how well we are maintaining thequality needed for its intended use; developinggoals and priorities for restoring and protectingenvironmental sys-tems; and developingintegrated management strategies.

Numerous monitoring partnerships, or consor-tiums, have been formed in the last decade tomeet the need for coordinated monitoring. Thisdocument presents four different case studies todemonstrate how consortiums can be tailored tofit available resources, geographic areas ofconcern, diverse par-ticipants, and goals. Each

case study details where and how eachpartnership was formed; organization structureand responsibilities; monitoring goals andobjectives; benefits to consortium participants;data management procedures; cost of themonitoring program; obstacles overcome, withadvice for avoiding pitfalls; and methods ofprogram evaluation.

Although the purposes and structures of themonitoring consortiums varied, key to eachconsortium was the pooling of funds, exp-ertise,and capital to meet the needs of its members.The success of this leveraging of resourcesshows that monitoring consortiums can be acost-effective means to enhancing watersheddata collection and analysis.

WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

1

INTRODUCTION

Many environmental resource managers areturning to an ecosystem-based approach torestore and protect our natural resources.Integrating a wide range of technical expertise,regulatory and nonregulatory authorities, andstrategic implementation is critical to the successof an ecosystem approach to management,including statewide watershed managementframeworks and watershed protection projects.Increasingly limited program resources haveintensified the need for coordinated managementand for decision-making focused on priority envi-ronmental concerns. Well defined prioritiesdepend on solid assessment of good information,which, in turn, depends on well designed moni-toring programs. Therefore, many watershed man-agement approaches have placed renewedemphasis on strategic, coordinated monitoring.

In recent years, numerous monitoring partner-ships, or consortiums, have been formed. Theirpurposes vary from water supply protection tocoordinated, whole-basin wastewater dischargemanagement to ecosystem assessment. Poolingfunds, expertise, and capital is essential for eachconsortium to monitor a watershed or ecosystemin a way that meets the needs of all partnerswithin the group.

Monitoring consortiums are flexible tools. We pre-sent four case studies to demonstrate howconsortiums can be tailored to fit available re-sources, geographic area of concern, diverse par-ticipants, and goals. We document why eachconsortium was formed and the "nuts and bolts" oforganizing and maintaining them.

The San Francisco Estuary Project:Regulatory incentive for coordinated NPDES-permit compliance that monitors and support-s strategic basin planning through compre-hensive water-column and sediment monitor-ing over a large geographic area.

The Triangle Area Water SupplyMonitoring Project: Supplemental,

voluntary monitoring of water supply intakeareas and their tributaries over a smallgeographic area with the overall goal ofprotecting public health.

The Lower Neuse Association: Regulatoryincentive for coordinated NPDES-permitcompliance that monitors and supports stra-tegic planning as a component of NorthCarolina's basinwide management approachover a mid-sized geographic area.

The Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment:Comprehensive, integrated monitoring tosupport federal, state, and local strategicplanning for ecosystem management over avery large geographic area.

The four case studies detail where and how eachpartnership was formed; organizational structureand responsibilities; monitoring goals and objec-tives; benefits to consortium participants; dataprocedures; cost of the monitoring program;

WHAT DOES THE COORDINATION OFSTRATEGIC MONITORING ALLOW FOR?

Identifying water quality/ecosystem stres-sors

Quantifying problems

Identifying key resources in need of pro-tection

Estimating risk to waterbodies

Evaluating attainment of designated uses

Developing environmental goals and objec -tives, including site-specific standards

Assigning priorities

Developing management strategies

Evaluating the success of implementa tion

Identifying trends toward improvement ordegradation

Knowing the condition of the waterbody orecosystem

NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

2

obstacles overcome, with advice for avoidingpitfalls; and method of program evaluation.

In the early 1990s, the Intergovernmental TaskForce for Monitoring (ITFM), comprising represen-tatives from multiple state and federal agencies,

recognized the importance of effectively coordi-nating efforts and developed tenrecommendations for collaborative, integratedmonitoring. Using recommendations from ITFMand the monitoring consortiums, the final sectionprovides a step-by-step list for forming andmaintaining strong monitoring partnerships.


3

CASE STUDY 1REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY

BACKGROUND

Before a monitoring consortium was formed forthe San Francisco Estuary, users and dischargersin the watershed did not coordinate monitoringefforts. A vast amount of water quality informationwas collected in the bay at an estimated annualcost of $16 million, but each party had its ownfocus and reporting format, and data were oflimited use to decision-makers (Mumley 1995).The Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) was im-plemented in 1993 to coordinate NPDES-permitcompliance monitoring and comprehensive water-column, sediment, and biota (tissue) monitoring insupport of strategic basinwide planning. The staterequired that permittees participate in the strategicregional monitoring program and stronglyencouraged the consortium approach. Consortiumparticipants, including permitted dischargers anddredgers, have found that the cooperative effort ismore cost effective than operating individually andhas generated greater quality and quantity of data.

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The San Francisco Bay-Deltaon the Pacific Coast of centralCalifornia includes the SouthBay, Central Bay, San PabloBay, Carquinez Strait, SuisunBay, and lower portions of theSacramento and San JoaquinRivers in the area known asthe Delta. Figure 1 shows RMPsampling station locations. Thebays and delta combine toform the West Coast's largestestuary, containing about5 million acre-feet of water atmean tide and encompassingroughly 1600 mi2. The estuarydrains more than 40 percent ofCalifornia (60,000 mi2) andcontains 34 subwatersheds.The drainage area crossesmultiple political jurisdictions,including 12 counties.

CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION

HOW WAS THE CONSORTIUM FORMED?

The San Francisco Regional Water QualityControl Board initiated a regional monitoringprogram in 1989 primarily to provide "costeffective, coordinated regional monitoring andsurveillance to evaluate the effectiveness of itswater quality control program" (RMP 1993b). Theboard began conducting pilot studies the sameyear to develop a long-term multimediamonitoring program for the Bay Protection andToxic Cleanup Program, EPA-funded Bay-DeltaProject and Basin Planning Program. Aconceptual monitoring plan was developed basedon input from numerous policy makers, resourcemanagers, scientists, and representatives ofpublic and private interest groups. When initiatingthe program, the Board took advantage of existingstudies and organizations to demonstrate the needfor and benefits of a more coordinated, strategic

San FranciscoEstuary

Sampling Locations

W ater

Sediment

Bivalve Tissues

FIGURE 1. RMP STUDY AREA WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY.


4

approach, including the San Francisco EstuaryProject (SFEP), Bay Area Dischargers' Authority,and San Francisco Estuarine Institute (SFEI).

In October 1991, SFEI hosted a Regional Monitor-ing Workshop where participants reached consen-sus on the need for a coordinated, regional moni-toring program. The board then obtained grantsfor pilot studies in 1991–1992 that demonstratedthe ability to generate high-quality, useful data fordecision-makers. Based on workshop consensusand pilot studies, the board adopted a resolution inApril 1992 that endorsed the Regional MonitoringProgram (RMP) in concept and instructed theboard's Executive Officer to beginimplementation.

The Executive Officer wrote letters to eachNPDES permittee and dredger requestingtechnical reports and listing parameters that wouldhave to be monitored. Letters stated that strategicmonitoring and reporting could be conductedeither individually or collectively, but encouragedthe group to design a collective approach. TheExecutive Officer discussed the concept of astrategic, coordinated monitoring program withkey dischargers to obtain their buy-in (Mumley1995).

The Board offered monitoring easements oncurrent permits, where feasible, to minimize theoverall monitoring cost. At the end of negotiations,some financial sponsors of the project wereallowed to use strategic monitoring data in lieu ofsome conventional ambient monitoringrequirements. For instance, reviewing historic pH,dissolved oxygen (DO), and nutrient dataindicated that these parameters were no longer aconcern and could be waived for certainpermittees. (These dischargers still collect someambient monitoring data as required by theirpermits.)

Permittees and dredgers also presented thefollowing additional concerns and program design

requirements during negotiations. Facilities hadbeen spending a lot of money on monitoring, yetdata were of limited value. They wanted betterdata for decision-making. Publicly ownedtreatment works (POTWs) believed that betterdata would show that they were not the bigproblem generally perceived by others. Sufficienthigher-quality data would allow more timelydecisions on the need for dredging. Generally,private dischargers anticipated less benefit fromthe program than did POTWs but werecooperative. The Bay Area Dischargers' Authority,however, did identify concrete potential benefitsfor each permit group. In summary, the boardrequired strategic monitoring/reporting,encouraged a cooperative monitoring approach,provided flexibility in permitting, and involved thewhole group early in the program design anddecision-making process (Mumley 1995).

HOW IS THE CONSORTIUM ORGANIZED?

After negotiations, the first formal step in the for-mation of the consortium was the creation of astrategic monitoring plan that specified responsi-bilities of involved parties. The organizationalchart provides an overview of the structure andmechanisms for accountability (Figure 2). Theboard is ultimately responsible for the regulatorystructure, for selecting permittees that mustparticipate in the regional monitoring program,notifying them of their responsibilities, andorganizing the financial structure of the project.RMP is currently managed and administered bySFEI through a Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) with the San Francisco Regional WaterQuality Control Board. The board's basin plan andNPDES permits govern the water quality of anddischargers to the estuary. RMP monitorscompliance with objectives set forth in the basinplan. The institute is an objective party thatensures fair treatment of participants by the boardand that the monitoring plan is implemented in atechnically sound manner (Carlin 1994/1995).


5

The institute staffs two committees to oversee im-plementation of the RMP: The SteeringCommittee and the Technical Program ReviewCommittee. Both committees are composed ofrepresentatives from sponsoring dischargers; theboard, and SFEI. In addition to these workingadvisory committees, the institute consults with itsBoard of Directors regarding monitoring goals andobjectives and program evaluation.

WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSORTIUM?

RMP was designed to help implement thestrategic monitoring objectives of the Board'sBasin Planning Program, the San FranciscoEstuary Project, and the Bay Protection and ToxicCleanup Program, including the following (RMP1993b):

1. Obtain high-quality, baseline data on con-centrations of toxic, and potentially toxictrace elements and organic contaminantsin the water and sediments of the estuary.

2. Determine seasonal and annual trends inwater chemistry in the estuary.

3. Determine whether water-column chemi-cal quality and sediment quality in the es-tuary complies with objectives set forth inthe Board's basin plan.

4. Provide a data base on water-columnchemical quality and sediment quality inthe estuary that is compatible with data

REPRESENTATIVES OF

FINANCIAL S PONSORS

Participants include permitteddischargers and dredgers

SAN F RANCISCO ESTUARINE I NSTITUTE ' S

REGIONAL M ONITORING P ROGRAM

Responsible for study planimplementation and

cost-effective expenditure

SAN F RANCISCO R EGIONAL W ATER

QUALITY C ONTROL BOARD

Responsible for regulatorystructure, selecting and notifying

permittees that must participate inthe RMP, organizing the financialstructure, approving study plan,

and approving the final report in apublic meeting

FundingRegulatoryAuthority

MOU

FIGURE 2. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM.

STEERING COMMITTEE

Ensure communication among sponsors,the board, and SFEIPlan and provide input into RMPimplementationProvide feedback on effective use of theinformation that is gathered

TECHNICALPROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE

Develop annual work plans and specialstudies based on guidance from theSteering Committee and Regional BoardReview data and reports produced byRMP


6

collected in ongoing studies, including, butnot limited to, the following areas: waste-load allocation studies and models, sedi-ment quality, in-bay dredged material dis-posal, enhancement of the InteragencyEcological Study Program's (IESP's)water quality and species productivitystudies, local biomonitoring programs, andstate and federal mussel watch programs.

HOW IS THE CONSORTIUM IMPLEMENTED?

Representatives from financial sponsors, alongwith the board, formally oversee RMPimplementation. In 1993, the first year of programimplementation, RMP was financially sponsoredby 46 federal agencies, local special districts, andprivate companies that held permits for dischargeto the estuary. The list grew to 62 financialsponsors in 1994: 34 municipal dischargers, 11industrial dischargers, 9 stormwater dischargers, 7dredgers, and 1 cooling-water discharger.

Representatives coordinate with a larger group ofpublic resource agencies. A key monitoring part-ner is IESP, a consortium that conducts researchon fisheries, water quality, and fish facilities aswell as manages a special project called the DeltaOutflow/SF Bay Study, which conducts compli-ance monitoring for their water rights permit in theCentral Valley. Their annual project budget isapproximately $10 million. IESP's focus on issuespertaining to the Delta of the San Joaquin andSacramento Rivers complements SFEI's effortswell.

BENEFITS

After two years of implementation, membersidentified the following benefits of strategic, co-ordinated monitoring:

Better understanding of the areas andpollutants of greatest concern

Higher quality and consistency of data

Consistent data format across the estuary

Greater cooperation among stakeholders

Discovery of problems not previouslyidentified (such as PCBs)

Cost savings for small operations

Permittee leveraging 1

DATA PROCEDURES

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

RMP data are transferred electronically to theSFEI data base in various spreadsheet forms. Allproject participants, including laboratories, havestandard operating procedures (SOPs) andmaintain quality assurance/quality control(QA/QC) records. The QA Program Plan details 1 In 1995, for example, through COE annual cost-sharing funds of

$250,000 and a USGS cooperative agreement of $40,000 per year,permittees paid $1,710,000 for a project valued at $2 million. Thiscalculation excludes university research funds and data contributed byother organizations, so the estimate is conservative. Generally, theleveraging factor has declined as the annual program budget hasincreased.

RESOURCE AGENCIES INVOLVED INTHE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY PROJECT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)California State Water Resources ControlBoardSan Francisco Regional Water QualityControl BoardCentral Valley Regional Water QualityControl BoardU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS)U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)U.S. Bureau of Land Reclamation (BLR)Parks and preserves (including East BayRegional Park District, San Francisco andSan Pablo Bay Wildlife Refuges, and theGolden Gate National Recreation Area)City and county governmentsResource conservation districtsPort authoritiesAcademic research facilities (including theUniversity of California at Berkeley, SantaCruz, and Davis)Numerous interest groups (ranging fromindustrial to conservationist)


7

procedures for sampling and analysis. RMPsubcontractors who collect data generate datasets in a standardized format. Data sets are firstsent to Applied Marine Sciences (AMS), thecontractor in charge of coordinating the samplingprogram and assuring data quality. After QA/QC,AMS sends data sets to SFEI where they will beuploaded to the Oracle Relational Data BaseManagement System for the Sun operatingsystem. Oracle is the primary platform for theproject's data management system.

SFEI performs statistical analyses using the PCversion of SAS, a computerized statistical analysissystem. Spatial and geographic analyses will beperformed using GIS ARC/INFO and GeographicResources Analysis Support System (GRASS) onthe Sun workstation. Toxicity data will be analyzedusing the program Toxics.

According to project staff, creating a user-friendlydata management system was a high priority. Thedata base will be available to RMP members, edu-cators, researchers, policy makers, and thegeneral public. The vision for the datamanagement system is a menu-driven interfacethat enables key word searches by general topic,parameter measured or analyzed, region, andtime frame. The estuary data base will besearchable by specific geographic reference (e.g.,latitude-longitude) or general location. Becausedifferent users will require different levels of

information, the system will ultimately generatethree levels of information: (1) unprocessed data,(2) general program summary, and (3) data sum-maries.

DATA COLLECTION

Monitoring activities are coordinated with othermonitoring programs on the bay, includingUSGS's bay modeling and primary productivitystudies; mussel watch studies sponsored byNOAA and the state; Bay Protection and ToxicCleanup Program; and many other private,municipal, state, and federal programs. Afterconsidering historical data and results of pilotprojects, the Board selected 16 stations to bemonitored, all of which will be analyzed forchemical constituents and sediments. Fewer sta-tions will be targeted for biological and toxicitydata; to the greatest extent possible, stationsdesignated for biological and toxicity evaluationwill overlap with stations monitored for chemicalsand sediment.

Months for seasonal sampling were selectedbased on an idealized hydrograph for the estuary.The RMP has four general types of monitoringprograms: biological, chemical, physical/conven-tional, and sediment, all of which are highlightedbelow.

19931994

19951996

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Lev

erag

ing

Fac

tor

FIGURE 3. ANNUAL LEVERAGING FACTORSFOR THE SAN FRANCISCO RMP.

[*=RMP ANNUAL BUDGET DIVIDED BY PERMITTEE COST]


8

Biological: Bioaccumulation studies oftrace elements and organic contaminantsin bivalve tissues are conducted at 11 pre-determined stations.

Chemical: Trace elements and organiccontaminants in the water column will bemonitored at 16 stations three times ayear. Organic contaminants will beanalyzed based on the particulate fractionof the filtered sample of water. Traceelements monitored include As, Cd, Cr,Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, and Zn. Theprogram also measures five petroleumcompounds, fourteen polynucleararomatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nineSOCs, PCBs, DDT, and chlordane.Water-column toxicity will be measured at8 stations three times a year, and in-depthchronic toxicity tests are conducted on afish, invertebrate, and algal species.

Physical and Conventional Parameters:Whenever chemical and trace metal sam-ples are taken, physical and conventionalparameters are also measured: salinity,temperature, conductivity, DO, chloro-phyll-a, TSS, dissolved organic carbon,pH, and nutrients.

Sediment: Sediment is sampled at all 16stations during the wet and dry periods.Parameters tested include sedimentquality, trace elements, and organiccontaminants. To enhance interpretationof metal concentrations in sediments, theprogram will examine the relationships offour trace elements (Cu, Hg, Ni, and Se),three trace organics (PAHs, PCBs, andpesticides), and different contaminants.Frozen duplicate samples will be kept forpossible future analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS

Before establishing RMP procedures, the SanFrancisco Estuary Project inventoried andevaluated existing monitoring efforts and data setsto identify and remedy data gaps, redundancies,and incompatible procedures. The QA ProgramPlan details procedures for RMP sampling andanalysis. The Regional Monitoring Strategyrecommends a performance-based monitoringsystem, where different methods for measuringthe same constituents are allowed provided that

results are comparable. To resolve questionsabout compatibility of methods, field samples arecollected, split, and then sent to laboratories foranalysis to determine whether differences in dataare due to sampling procedures. Methods used todate yield comparable data.

In 1993, SFEI contracted with AMS in Livermore,CA, for field collection and data analysis. Subcon-tractors include Marine Research Specialists inSoquel, CA; University of California-Santa Cruz'sInstitute of Marine Sciences in Santa Cruz, CA;University of California-Berkeley's Trace OrganicsLaboratory in Richmond, CA; Brooks-Rand, Ltd.,in Seattle, WA; and S.R. Hansen and Associatesin Concord, CA.

USE OF DATA

Participants have identified numerous uses fordata gathered by the consortium, including:

Determining use support status

Offsetting ambient monitoring require-ments

Analyzing trends

Calibrating models

Establishing priorities

Educating/conducting outreach2

COST

To pay for collective monitoring and analysis, thestate divided dischargers into five categories andallocated costs to each category based on

2 Data are currently incorporated into technical reports. The

centerpiece of the institute's outreach effort will be an annual State ofthe Estuary Report, including an assessment of the es tuary'scondition, trends in water quality, the status of aquatic populations,and description of human activities that affect the ecosystem. Thereport will draw attention to resources at risk and identify immediateand long-term monitoring and research needs. In addition, theinstitute will use newsletters, periodic seminars and conferences, andresearch reports to communi cate with a wide audience, ranging fromscientists and educa tors to policy-makers and the general public.


9

the proportion of pollutants it dis-charges into the bay (Figure 5). Thestate allowed each category todetermine how to fund its share.RMP's budget has steadily increasedsince the first year of implementationin 1993 (Figure 4). (Note thatdischargers are still required tomonitor some parametersindividually, so costs shown in tablesdo not reflect total costs of allmonitoring activities conducted inthe estuary.)

Board staff indicate that the budgetfor baseline data collection (i.e., fieldwork and laboratory analysis) has re-mained stable, but costs haveincreased for data management,particularly QA, data interpretation,pilot projects, and special studies (Carlin1994/1995). Budget allocations for 1995 areshown in the sidebar. Initially, QA and datainterpretation were the most underestimated costs(Carlin 1994/1995). Staff indicated that increasingcost is a challenge to maintaining the consortium.

19931994

19951996

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Th

ou

san

ds

of

Do

llars

FIGURE 4. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO RMP.

M unicipal

Industrial

Stormwater

Cooling W ater

Dredging

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage of Project Cost

1995

1994

1993

FIGURE 5. COST ALLOCATION BY DISCHARGER CATEGORY.

Program Area1995 Budget

Allocation Data collection 1,100,000 Data interpretation/data management*

400,000

Pilot projects 200,000 Special studies 300,000 Total 2,000,000 * Includes overall project management


10

CHALLENGES

Staff identified key challenges to forming the con-sortium. First, because monitoring data have beenof little use in the past for assessing problems andmaking decisions, many potential partners did notvalue monitoring. The Board addressed this skep-ticism during negotiations by working with key rep-resentatives from each group to identify concretepotential benefits of a strategic, coordinatedmonitoring program and ways to offset programcosts. The Board also designed and conductedpilot studies to demonstrate the ability to producehigh-quality, useful data for decision-makers.Through meetings, workshops, and conferences,the Board and Institute used this information toachieve buy-in early in the process. Second, theBoard demonstrated that permittees could meetmany regulatory objectives within the RMP (e.g.,determining use support status). Finally, equitabledistribution of program cost across differentgroups was (and continues to be) a challenge tothe board. For instance, POTW permittees have acollective annual O&M budget of $500 million,whereas stormwater permittees have an annualO&M budget of $5 million. If each group were tocontribute $1 million, budget impacts would beunequitable. The Board assesses each group apercentage of program cost, and the group itself(e.g., all POTWs) determines a fair way toallocate cost among individual permittees withinthe group.

Staff also identified four ways to address the chal-lenges to maintaining a strong consortium: effec-tively communicate the value of the project, becost effective, ensure data collection and interpre-tation are technically sound, and use findings ofthe program in making decisions (Mumley 1995;Carlin 1994/1995).

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The RMP was designed as a long-term monitoringprogram, and will be comprehensively evaluatedand updated after 5 years of monitoring. The RMP

has short- and long-term evaluation processes:annual program assessments and a five-yearcomprehensive assessment. Monitoring goals andobjectives are evaluated annually by SFEI, basedon decisions from its seven-member Board ofDirectors and input from its working advisorypanels. The Scientific Advisory Panel includesresearchers from universities, agencies, and otherprivate or public research organizations and isresponsible for reviewing the Institute's annualworkplan and assisting in the production of theInstitute's annual report. A Policy Panel wasformed to advise the Scientific Advisory Paneland Board of Directors on research andmonitoring needs, resource managementquestions, and policy implications of scientificfindings. This panel is composed of represen-tatives from local, state, and federal governmentalagencies that have stake in regulating uses of theestuary.

SOURCES

Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). 1993b. SanFrancisco Estuary Regional Monitoring ProgramPlan. September.

Mumley, Tom. 1995. Personal communicationwith staff San Francisco Bay Regional WaterQuality Control Board.

Carlin, Michael. 1994/1995. Personal communi-cation with staff San Francisco Bay RegionalWater Quality Control Board.

RMP. 1993a. San Francisco Estuary Project Re-gional Monitoring Strategy. March.

San Francisco Estuary Project Status and Assess-ment of Selected Monitoring Programs in the SanFrancisco Estuary. March 1992.

Aquatic Habitat Institute (AHI). 1988. Inventory ofPriority Datasets Relating to the San FranciscoEstuary. May.


11

CASE STUDY 2TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT

BACKGROUND

The Triangle Area Water Supply MonitoringProject (TAWSMP) began in 1988 as asupplemental, voluntary monitoring program fordrinking water source protection. The projectconducts chemical, physical, and sedimentsampling at 34 stations, both at water supplyintake areas and their tributaries throughout theTriangle J Region. Primary objectives of the pro-ject are to conduct spatial and temporal waterquality trend analyses and pollutant loadingstudies, better understand the role of sediments intrapping and transporting SOCs, and evaluate thecondition of the source water.

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Triangle J Region encompasses 3320 mi2and includes six counties of North Carolina withinthe upper Neuse and Cape Fear Basins in thePiedmont Province: Chatham, Durham, Johnston,Lee, Orange, and Wake (Figure 6). Nearly 80percent of the households in this region depend onpublic drinking water supplies, and most of the13 supplies for the Triangle Area are drawn fromthe region’s streams and reservoirs.



Two major federal, multipurpose reservoirs werebuilt in the early 1980s, Jordan Lake and FallsLake, with a combined estimated drinking watersafe-yield of 160 million gallons per day (MGD).Because these lakes were built in the midst of anurbanized area, potential users raised questionsabout the types and quantities of SOCsdischarged upstream and how potentialcontaminants might impact the quality of thesedrinking water supplies (Brewer and Childress1994). At the same time, with rapid urbanizationacross the region in the early and mid-1980s andthe associated increase in nonpoint source runoffand point source industrial and municipal

wastewater discharges, interest grew in protectingthe region’s surface water supplies (Brewer andChildress 1994).

The Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG)sponsored the 1987 World Class Region Confer-ence, which was attended by approximately500 local elected officials, business leaders, envi-ronmentalists, and other citizens of the region.Participants' request for a Triangle Area WaterSupply Monitoring Project added legitimacy andimpetus to a project idea that had been discussedfor several years. Potential cost savings of such aproject provided even greater impetus.Heightened interest in the quality of drinking watersupply sources led several local governments tobegin their own supplementary monitoringprograms at a combined annual cost of hundredsof thousands of dollars.

TJCOG formed a task force comprised of key citymanagers and public utility directors to design theproject. This group relies heavily on advisors fromuniversities, North Carolina's Division of Environ-mental Management (DEM), and the U.S. Geo-logical Survey (USGS). During project design,task force members focused on seven questions(Brewer and Childress 1994):

1. Who is interested in designing and partici-pating in a monitoring program?

2. What are the objectives of the monitoringprogram?

3. Which parameters should be monitored?

4. Where should the project monitor?

5. How often do we need to monitor to detecttrends?

6. Who will conduct field work, laboratoryanalysis, and data interpretation?

7. What are the costs, and how will we fi-nance the project?


12


Local governments in the region signed letters ofinterest in forming a monitoring project throughinterlocal agreement. Then, a task force designedthe project, drafted by-laws for projectgovernance, and negotiated a draft interlocalagreement. Local governments entered into aPhase I monitoring project contract/agreement forthree years, with the understanding that meetingproject objectives would require many additionalyears of monitoring, and 3- to 4-year phases wereappropriate for major data interpretation studiesand for monitoring program evaluation (Brewer1989–1995).

Participating local governments appointed staffrepresentatives to the project Steering Committee,which makes technical, financial, and administra-tive recommendations to participating localentities (Figure 7). Non-voting resource advisorsfrom DEM, USGS, and local universities alsoparticipate on the Steering Committee. Officially,committee chair persons are elected annually;generally, every 2 years the Steering Committeeselects a new Chair and Vice Chair and appoints anew Technical Subcommittee Chair to expand and

renew opportunities for leadership among allrepresentatives (Brewer 1989–1995).

Through interlocal agreement, the project is co-sponsored by 11 city and county governments.The USGS and local governments share the costof the monitoring program through cooperativeagreement. USGS operates 18 sites in the waterquality monitoring network and all 13 streamdischarge gages, conducts laboratory analysis andquality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), andinterprets data from all water quality and streamdischarge sites. To complete the network, DEMsupplies data from 12 sites in its ambientmonitoring program and collects additionalsamples for USGS laboratory analysis.

Participating local governments contract withTJCOG as the project manager to (1) coordinatesample collection, analysis, and data-reportingamong technical contractors and DEM; (2) provideday-to-day oversight of technical contracts;(3) maintain financial records, including collectingfunds and paying contractors; (4) maintain recordsto ensure compliance with state statutes; (5) pro-vide staff support to the project Steering Commit-tee; and (6) conduct project outreach, includingannual reports, press releases, and public

Research TrianglePark Area, NC

Study AreaUrbanized AreaSampling StationCounty BoundaryWaterbody

FIGURE 6. MONITORING SITES FOR TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT.


13

presentations. Additionally and importantly, parti-cipants view TJCOG as a neutral managerproviding a neutral meeting place (Brewer 1989–1995).


TAWSMP has two overall goals: (1) improve un-derstanding and awareness about the quality ofthe region’s drinking water supplies (includingintake areas and tributaries) and (2) minimizemonitoring costs (TAWSMP 1989, 1991, and1995). The primary and secondary objectivesdeveloped in support of these goals are listed inthe side bar (TAWSMP 1989, 1991, and 1995).

HOW IS THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTED?

Monitoring began in October 1988. Initially, theproject focused on EPA’s priority pollutant list andconventional parameters (TAWSMP 1989, 1991,and 1995). Prior to the start of sampling, a statisti-cal review of existing data collected in the studyarea indicated that many additional years of moni-toring may be required to be confident of project

conclusions concerning changes in water quality(Reckhow et al. 1989). Local participants view theproject as long-term, with monitoring frequencyvarying from 3–12 times per year, depending onthe sampling location and parameters. The state’sambient monitoring stations and parameters areincorporated into program design to avoidduplicating efforts.

BENEFITS

The Steering Committee reports the followingbenefits (Kalb 1995, Brewer 1989–1995):

• Pinpointing Problems More Quickly: Theproject has not yet detected a major prob-lem, but problems can develop quickly inrapidly developing urbanized areas. Theannual monitoring program allows localgovernments to pinpoint and addressproblems in the Triangle more quickly.Also, one of the project’s primary objec-tives has been to determine the concen-tration of contaminants in the region’swater supplies.

TRIANGLE A REA W ATER S UPPLY

M ONITORING P ROJECT C ONSORTIUM

11 city and county governmentsplus OWASA

A DVISORS : USGS,Universities, DEM

STEERING

COMMITTEE

DATA C OLLECTION

AND A NALYSIS

USGS (cost-share)DEM (leveraged)

Appoint

PROJECT

M ANAGEMENT

TJCOG

ContractCooperativeAgreement

FIGURE 7. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR THE TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT.


14

• Preventing Water Treatment Problems:Federal regulations generally do not re-quire monitoring untreated water. Thougha local utility may identify contaminants intreated water, it will not detect contami-nants until they have already become aproblem. By tracking the quality of thewater supply source, the project helps pre-vent treatment problems.

• Establishing Long-Term Trends: Throughannual monitoring, the project has begunto gather enough data to conduct trendanalyses. Building on this data basethrough continued monitoring will allowfrequent assessment of trends.

• Responding Flexibly to Emerging Issues:Annual monitoring has allowed the projectto deal with emerging concerns in a flex-ible and timely manner. Monitoring in-cludes special pesticide studies and Cryp-tosporidium and Giardia monitoring.

• Sharing Costs, Expertise, and Analysiswith USGS: Through the cooperativeagreement described above, USGSequally matches the project’s monitoringcosts and conducts field sampling,laboratory analysis, and datainterpretation. The Steering Committeebelieves USGS’s QA/QC as well as itsindependent, unbiased analysis is key tothe credibility of the project.

• Helping to Protect Major Resources at aLow Cost: Although this supplementarymonitoring program has been operationalduring a time of very limited program re-sources, the Steering Committee stresses,and most local governing boards concur,that the project cost is small relative to thevalue of the water resources being mon-itored.

• Leveraging Resources: Through USGScooperative agreement and DEM ambientmonitoring contributions, the local gov-ernments pay $231,733 for a project val-ued at $543,094—a local government lev-eraging factor of 2.34 (Figure 8). Also,

because multiple governments shareinterest in individual sites, the consortiumcost to each local government is lowerthan each would pay to maintain its ownmonitoring program. The resourceleveraging factor varies for eachjurisdiction depending on its size and thenumber of monitoring stations associatedwith a jurisdiction’s intake and other in-lake and tributary sites.

PRIMARY PROJECT OBJECTIVES

• Develop and maintain a data base for SOCsto determine their concentration in TriangleArea water supplies

• Supplement existing data on nutrients, majorions, and trace elements as a basis formeasuring long-term water quality trends

SECONDARY PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Phases I and II

• Provide a basis for measuring shorter-term,but long-lasting, changes due to large-scalemanagement practices in the watershed,such as the phosphate detergent ban andtreatment plant upgrades

• Document overall spatial differences amongwater supplies within the region, especiallydifferences between smaller upland sources,large multipurpose reservoirs, and run-of-the-river supplies

• Provide additional tributary loading and in-lake data that can be used for predictivemodels

• Help determine the role of stream sedimentsin transporting or removing SOCs in thewater column

Phase III

• Develop a coordinated data base for state,local, and USGS data

• Report results of the monitoring program tocitizens


15

For instance, OWASA is a mid-sizedwater supplier, with a direct interest in 9 ofthe 30 water quality monitoring sites and 4of the 13 stream gaging sites. Most sitesof direct interest to OWASA are also ofdirect interest to other local governmentsand USGS. The monitoring, analysis, andmanagement costs of these sites is about$164,000 per year, and OWASA is onlyassessed about $23,000—a leveragingfactor of 7 (Figure 9). Another example isthe region’s largest water supplier, theCity of Raleigh. There are 13 water quality

monitoring sites and 7 stream gagingstations in Falls Lake and its tributaries,with a total estimated value of $247,639.The City of Raleigh pays $96,394—a lev-eraging factor of 2.5.

The USGS benefits fromthe program’s joint waterresource investigation andcost sharing; the compre-hensive, long-term nature ofthe study that allows fortrend analysis andinterpretive work; and thefocus on emerging issuessuch as Cryptosporidiumand Giardia. USGS’scooperative cost share is$211,361—a federal lever-aging factor of 2.57.

These leveraging factorsinclude only the monitoringcost associated with ajurisdiction’s intake and itsother in-lake and tributarysites (i.e., related drainagearea). These factors couldbe seen as conservativeestimates, because thereare indirect benefits frommonitoring in other basins,such as being able tocompare data from similarrun-of-the-river intakes orsimilar small lake intakes.The structure of allocatingcost by percent of waterproduced generally yieldslarger leveraging factors forsmaller jurisdictions than forlarger jurisdictions.

DEM is also able toleverage resources throughthe program. Before themonitoring project began,

TotalValue Local

Cost

0

200

400

600

Th

ou

san

ds

of

Do

llars

Estimated project cost /value: $543,000

Cost for localparticipants: $231,733

Local governmentleveraging factor: 2.34

FIGURE 8. TAWSMP ANNUAL RESOURCE LEVERAGING.

Th

ou

san

ds

of

Do

llars

Total Valueto OWASA Total Cost

to OWASA

0

50

100

150

200 Leveraging with:• U SGS• NC DEM• O ther local members

FIGURE 9. OWASA RESOURCE LEVERAGING IN TAWSMP.

AgencyExample Leveraging

Factors (1995)Local governments 2.34City of Raleigh 2.50USGS 2.57OWASA 7.00


16

the state conducted intensive monitoringof Falls and Jordan Lakes. The division isnow able to refocus its program resourcesand mainly contributes tributary ambientmonitoring data to the project. DEM alsouses project data in its basinwidemanagement planning for the Neuse andCape Fear River basins.

DATA PROCEDURES


TJCOG, as project manager, coordinates andhelps design data base management, maintainsall project records, distributes information, and isthe central contact. USGS built and maintains aproject data base for its sites and retrieves datafrom STORET for DEM’s 12 project sites. USGSalso has a combined data base for all sites. Inresponse to the Steering Committee request foreasy, user-friendly access to project data, USGSrecently developed an Excel spreadsheet formatfor each site that holds all observations for eachsite as well as generates summary statistics ofmost interest to local participants. Data will beloaded, then updated annually. During Phase III ofthe project, local compliance monitoring data willbe incorporated into this spreadsheet format.USGS works with the Project Steering Committeeto develop annual reports to local governments,data reports, interpretive reports, and summaryupdates of special studies.

DATA COLLECTION

The project monitors sites near water supply in-takes, other port

ions of lakes, lake tributaries, and near river intakeareas. Several upland tributaries are relativelyunimpacted and serve as control sites. There areabout 30 water quality sites (the number of sitesslightly varies from phase to phase) and13 stream gaging sites. The project's regional,long-term design enables data to be interpretedfor detection of spatial trends in water (e.g., howthe water quality changes as it moves downstreamor down lake). Areas below wastewater treatmentplants and urban areas can be compared, waterquality of the intake areas in small reservoirs canbe compared to large reservoirs, and loading fromdifferent tributaries can be measured. In addition

to this routine monitoring, the project alsoconducts special studies, such as analysis ofpesticides, storm events, pollutant loading, andCryptosporidium and Giardia.

The monitoring program has been amendedbased on findings to rotate monitoring parameters(such as dropping VOCs in Phase II and cyclingthem back in Phase III), to drop sites that are soclose to each other that they yield nearly identicaldata, and to reduce frequencies of monitoring.These amendments allow the project to add otherconstituents of concern, conduct special studies,and minimize project cost (Brewer 1989–1995).

Two agencies, USGS and DEM, collect samplesand conduct laboratory analysis. They conducttests, as needed, to determine whether differentsampling and analytical techniques caused differ-ences in data, and, if so, how to reconcile proto-cols. For instance, USGS and DEM have basicdifferences in field sampling methods: DEM grabssamples from mid-stream, and USGS does depth-integrated samples from multiple points in thecross-section. DEM generally samples duringbase flow, whereas USGS samples during base-flow and high-flow events. Both agencies collectedsamples at the same sites (using their respectivemethods), split the samples, and traded. Eachsent its split sample to its own laboratory.Analyses revealed no significant differences inbase-flow data. There would likely be morevariability in the data using the two methodsduring high-flow events; because only USGStargets high-flow samples, however, thisdifference in field sampling methods has thus farnot posed a problem (Childress 1995).

Also, for some parameters, USGS and DEM havedifferent detection limits. USGS, which maintainsand interprets the project data base, notes thedifferent detection limits in its data reports. Differ-ences have not posed a problem for the project todate since both agencies generally measured nodetects for these parameters. While USGS, DEM,and the Steering Committee informally agreed toperformance-based protocols in 1988, only in thesecond phase did USGS formally document andreport DEM's and USGS's respective protocols forthe project. This delay, along with changes in keypersonnel, led to unnecessary errors in samplecollection and analysis (Brewer 1989–1995).


17

DATA ANALYSIS

Currently, water samples are quantitatively ana-lyzed for 8 major ions, 11 nutrients, 10 physicalproperties (including chlorophyll-a and b), 15 met-als and trace elements, 133 volatile and semi-volatile organic compounds, and 15 inorganic con-stituents. In addition, a qualitative analysis of or-ganic compounds is conducted at about half of thesites by scanning with a gaschromatography/flame ionization detector. Whensignificant organic compounds are detected,samples are re-analyzed by gaschromatography/mass spectrometry and a librarysearch of more then 40,000 SOCs to identify thecompound. Qualitative analysis does not measurethe amount or concentration of the compounds,but does provide a snapshot of "molecular litter"present in the water column.

USE OF DATA

Data are used by the Steering Committee to meetproject objectives, particularly evaluating the con-dition of drinking water supply source waters andanalyzing spatial and temporal trends. TheSteering Committee has focused and reported ontechnical, factual issues to date rather than onland-use management and policy issues. Localgovernments, however, use project data toevaluate wastewater and water treatment plantoperational policies and procedures, identifynonpoint source problems, and research the needfor watershed protection measures (Brewer 1989–1995).

COST

Through cooperative agreement with the ProjectSteering Committee, USGS conducts field work,laboratory analysis, and data interpretation.Generally, USGS’s technical cost are about$422,722 per year; USGS pays one-half of thetechnical service cost. Through interlocal agree-ment, participating local governments pay theremaining one-half of the technical service cost,plus TJCOG's project management cost of$20,372 per year. Overall project costs have beenheld constant or reduced since 1988. DuringPhases I and II, project costs were allocated tolocal governments based on each member’spercentage of the total membership’s waterproduction. In Phase III, costs will be heldconstant for all members, except for the largestmember whose cost and sites were reduced. Theproject estimates that the value of the DEMambient monitoring data is about $100,000. Thetotal estimated cost of the monitoring project istherefore $543,094 per year.

CHALLENGES

TAWSMP encountered the following obstacles inimplementing and maintaining the consortium:

1. Revised Safe Drinking Water Act require-ments increased monitoring costs, therebyreducing funds available for supplementalmonitoring.

2. Raw water monitoring data could not beused in lieu of additional requirements fortreated monitoring data.

3. Because no major drinking waterproblems have yet been detected, someask, "Why continue monitoring?" Twosmall local participants have withdrawnfrom the project for this reason.

4. Individual costs not commensurate withindividual benefits or with one-memberone-vote governance structure.

Two smaller participants decided not to participatein Phase III for reasons 1, 2, and 3. The City ofRaleigh, the largest participant, decided not toparticipate in Phase III for all four reasons. Nineparticipants have signed the Phase III interlocalagreement for an additional 5 years of monitoring(Brewer 1989–1995).

Agency andCost Category 1995 Cost

USGS: Technical Services $211, 361

Local Governments: Technical Services Project Management

$211,361$20,372

DEM: Technical Services $100,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST $543,094


18

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Since its inception in 1988, the monitoring projecthas periodically evaluated alternative samplingplans for achieving project objectives while mini-mizing project cost. The monitoring program isevaluated on annual and triennial cycles. Theinterlocal agreement expires and is renegotiatedevery 3 to 4 years. Each year the project reportsfindings and, at the end of each phase, producesa major data interpretive report. Resourceadvisors review and comment on these reports.

During the last year of each phase, the ProjectSteering Committee comprehensively evaluatesthe program in light of project findings, commentsfrom resource advisors regarding program needs,and resources available. Essentially, everything isput on the table for evaluation, including theproject’s goals and objectives, design of theroutine monitoring program, special studiesneeded, technical contracts, and the local shareformulae. The Steering Committee then nego-tiates a 3- to 4-year project proposal, outlinesamendments to the existing program, andforwards the proposed interlocal agreements tolocal governing boards for their consideration.

Each year, the program also annually evaluatesemerging issues or concerns; new special studiesor constituents are added as funding becomesavailable or as current monitoring can bereconfigured to redirect resources. The underlyinggoal of program evaluation is to maintain a project

design that allows the Steering Committee toevaluate conditions and detect long-term waterquality trends.

SOURCES

Brewer, Kimberly. 1989–1995. Experience ofauthor and monitoring project manager.

Brewer, Kimberly, and Carolyn Childress. 1994.Design and Preliminary Results of the TriangleArea Water Supply Monitoring Project, NorthCarolina. Journal N.C. Section AWWA & WPCA,Volume LXIX.

Childress, Carolyn. 1995. Personal communica-tion with C. Childress, Hydrologist, USGSmanager for Triangle Area Water QualityInvestigation.

Kalb, Kathryn. January–July 1995. Personal com-munication with K. Kalb, Chair Triangle AreaWater Supply Monitoring Project SteeringCommittee and Committee correspondence.

Reckhow, Kenneth, et al. 1989. Design of the Tri-angle Area Water Supply Monitoring Program.Duke University, Durham, NC. Page 90.

Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project(TAWSMP) Interlocal Agreements. 1988, 1991,and 1995.


19

CASE STUDY 3THE LOWER NEUSE BASIN ASSOCIATION

BACKGROUND

In 1992, the state targeted the Neuse Basin as itsfirst basinwide water quality management studyarea. During the basin planning and assessmentstages, DEM reviewed the NPDES compliancemonitoring data and the state's ambientmonitoring data, and concluded that the state andpermittees could generate more useful, cost-effective, higher quality data. In 1994, majorNPDES dischargers in the Basin formed amonitoring corporation, the Lower Neuse BasinAssociation. The association signed a relatedMemorandum of Agreement with the state'sDivision of Environmental Management.Monitoring began in July 1994 with the primaryobjectives of determining the effectiveness ofstate-established TMDLs and better understandingthe CBOD/DO relationship in the river and therelative contributions and impact of nutrientloading.

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Lower Neuse Basin is the area draining intothe Neuse River below Falls Lake Dam in thePiedmont Province to the tidal waters in theCoastal Province of North Carolina (Figure 10).Comprising 4807 mi2, the basin is predominantlyforested and agricultural along its 185-mi course.The Lower Neuse, which includes 15 counties, isimportant for the state’s economy from itsheadwaters in the commercial, industrial,institutional center in Raleigh, through itsubiquitous farms, to its recreational boating,fishing, commercial fishing, and shellfishharvesting waters at the coast (NCDEHNR 1992).



In 1992, the state targeted the Neuse Basin as itsfirst basin-wide water quality management studyarea.3 During the basin planning and assessment

3 In 1988, DEM classified the Lower Neuse Basin as a nutrient

sensitive water and tightened phosphorus limits for permittedwastewater dischargers as well as sharing the cost of imple menting

stages, North Carolina's Division of EnvironmentalManagement (DEM) reviewed NPDES-compliance monitoring data and state ambientmonitoring data and concluded that through amore flexible, basin-oriented monitoring design,all parties could generate more useful, cost-effective, higher-quality information. Through twoof its regional offices, DEM staff initiated talks withsome of the larger wastewater dischargers about acoordinated, strategic monitoring program thatwould replace the routine NPDES compliancemonitoring (Crisp 1995).


The largest discharger, the City of Raleigh,assumed the lead role in recruiting and organizingothers. In 1994, the largest dischargers in theLower Neuse River Basin formed a monitoringcorporation, the Lower Neuse Basin Association,and opened membership to local governmentsholding NPDES wastewater discharge permits andpublic and private entities holding NPDESwastewater discharge permits for 1 MGD orgreater. Twenty-three dischargers joined. DEMdesigned the association’s monitoring program,then both signed a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA) (LNBA 1995).


The governing mission of the Lower Neuse BasinAssociation is to preserve the waters of the LowerNeuse River through innovative and cost-effectivepollution reduction strategies by:

1. Forming a coalition of local governments,public and private agencies, and otherinterested and affected communities,organizations, businesses, and individuals

agricultural BMPs. In addition to nutrients, the basin also regularlyexceeds DO standards, primarily due to biologi cal oxygen-demandingwaste from point source discharges. There are 256 permitteddischarge facilities in the Lower Neuse Basin, 24 major discharges(i.e., permitted flow greater than 1 MGD) and 232 minor (permittedflow less than 1 MGD). Major dischargers constitute about 85% ofthe total permitted flow, though less than 10% of the number offacilities (NCDEHNR 1992).


20

to secure and pool financial resources andexpertise;

2. Collecting and analyzing information anddata; and developing, evaluating, andimplementing strategies to reduce,control, and manage pollutant discharge;

3. Providing accurate technical,management, regulatory, and legalrecommendations regarding theimplementation of strategies andappropriate effluent limitations ondischarges into the lower portion of theNeuse River.

HOW IS THE CONSORTIUM IMPLEMENTED?

DEM established the monitoring sites, parameters,and sampling frequencies. The Associationimplements the monitoring program through itsannual workplan and MOA with the states.Monitoring began July 1994. The programintegrates in-stream monitoring requirements inNPDES permits with the basinwide water qualitymanagement strategy that was beingimplemented in North Carolina (LNBA 1995).

BENEFITS

The Lower Neuse Basin Association and DEMhave identified the following benefits of thecoordinated monitoring program:

• The state and Association can nowconduct special studies that otherwisewould not have been possible, includingevaluating TMDLs, the relativecontributions and impacts of nutrientloading, the impacts of point versusnonpoint sources, and model verification.

• Establishing uniform standard operatingprocedures and contracting with onecertified environmental firm yields higher-quality, more reliable data.

• The state designed a monitoring programthat was flexible and basin-oriented andthat provides useful information forevaluating point and nonpoint sourcecontributions, for describing tributary andmainstem water quality relationships, andfor verifying wasteload allocation models.

M unicipality

Neuse River Basin

Study Area

Neuse River

FIGURE 10. STUDY AREA FOR THE LOWER NEUSE BASIN ASSOCIATION.


21

• The monitoring consortium yieldssubstantial annual cost savings forits members.

• One of the greatest benefits is thatdischargers are building and maintainingstrong working relationships amongthemselves and with DEM to betterunderstand and protect the water qualityof the Neuse River.

DATA PROCEDURES


All monitoring data are compiled and stored in aconsistent format in STORET. The MOAstipulates that the Lower Neuse Basin Associationis responsible for coordinating the collection ofwater quality data, entering data into STORETwithin 3 months of its collection, and archivingdata sheets for 10 years.

DATA COLLECTION

Monitoring is conducted at 42 sites, generallybelow the wastewater discharges of associationmembers. Water samples are analyzed for

• Field parameters: temperature, DO,conductivity

• Nutrients: total phosphorus, total nitrogen,ammonia, total Kjedahl nitrogen, and NO x

• Chlorophyll-a• Turbidity and TSS• pH• Metals: Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cn, Fe, Fb, Hg, Ni, Zn• Long-term BOD• Fecal coliform

• Flow

DATA ANALYSIS

The Association contracts with a certifiedlaboratory to conduct field work and analysis. TheMOA requires the association to retain a firmcompetent to perform the monitoring activities anduse a laboratory appropriately certified forrequired analyses (i.e., certified by the state usingEPA-approved procedures).

USE OF DATA

The MOA reflects joint interests of dischargersand the state in strategic monitoring data,including the following uses:

• Evaluate the effectiveness of establishedtotal maximum daily loads (TMDLs)throughout the Neuse River Basin

• Evaluate the impacts of point andnonpoint sources

• Quantify relative contributions andimpacts of nutrient loading to the Neuse

• Further describe the relationship betweencarbonaceous biochemical oxygendemand (CBOD) and dissolved oxygen(DO) in the Neuse River and its largertributaries, including verification of theQUAL2E model.

COST

Seasonal sampling for the Lower Neuse Basin

Parameter SiteSummer (May–

September)Winter

(October–April)Field parameters All sites Bi-weekly MonthlyNutrients All sites Monthly MonthlyChlorophyll-a Selected sites Monthly MonthlyTurbidity Selected sites Monthly MonthlyMetals Selected sites Monthly MonthlyFecal coliform All sites Monthly MonthlyLong-term BOD Selected sites June, July, and August

Cost Comparison for 1993 and 1995

Range ofPermitted Flow

(MGD)

Average NetAnnual Savings

Number ofReportingMembers

0.1–1 $11,707 3>1–4 $4,600 8>4–6 $77 210–20 $17,021 2>20–30 $19,133 1>60 $5,000 1


22

The annual Association budget is $132,000:$82,000 for in-stream monitoring, $6,000 foradministration, and $44,000 for consultation.Through association by-laws, costs are allocatedto each member based on its percentage of theassociation’s total permitted flow. A 1995 surveyof association members revealed that thestrategic monitoring program yields a substantialannual cost savings. Based on informationsubmitted by 19 of the 23 members thatresponded to the survey, annual net savings was$130,319 (i.e., total annual monitoring cost beforestrategic monitoring minus total annual cost of theassociation's monitoring program equals netannual savings) 4.

The pattern of cost savings from surveyresponses suggest a net savings for all 23members of more than $165,000 and anoverall monitoring cost savings factorgreater than 2 (i.e., an estimated pre-association annual monitoring cost of$297,000 compared to annual associationcost of $132,000) (Figure 11).

Although all participants save, dischargerswith a permitted flow of 10 to 30 MGDsave the most (Figure 12). Absolutesavings for smaller dischargers have verydifferent budgetary impacts than for thelarger. For instance, the smallestdischargers have a current average annualmonitoring budget of $246 and an averageannual savings of $11,707—a cost savingsfactor of almost 50. While mid-sizeddischargers have a greater net annualsavings than smaller dischargers ($17,021per year compared to $11,707), theircurrent average annual monitoring budgetis $51,064—a cost savings factor of 1.33.

CHALLENGES

When state and local officials begandiscussing the consortium, there were noneutral parties at the table, and there were

4 Calculated by subtracting the total annual cost of the associa tion's

monitoring program in 1995 from the total annual moni toring cost in1993 (before strategic monitoring). Cost com parisons from 1993 to1995 were not adjusted for inflation. As sociation staff also indicatedthat estimates of cost savings were conservative.

questions about the advisability of the state or asingle discharger leading the effort (NCDEHNR1992). Although Raleigh, the largest discharger inthe basin, began organizing the association, thecity made concerted efforts to have differentmembers assume future leadership positions. Forinstance, as working committees were formed,chair people were selected from representativesof different dischargers to strengthen commitmentearly in the process and ensure that no singleorganization dominated the process.

The second significant issue was determining whoshould be responsible for designing the

association’s monitoring program. The stateinitially wanted the association to draft monitoringgoals and objectives and send them to DEM for

Th

ou

san

ds

of

Do

llars

0

100

200

300

BeforeLNBA LNBA

Current annualbudget: $132,000Net annual savingsfor participants:$165,000Cost savings factor:Greater than 2.0

FIGURE 11. LNBA ANNUAL COST SAVINGS.

10 t

o 2

0

20 t

o 3

0

>600.

1 to

1

1 to

4

4 to

6

0

5

10

15

20

Flow (MGD)

Th

ou

san

ds

of

Do

llars

FIGURE 12. LNBA ANNUAL SAVINGSIN DOLLARS BY PERMITTED FLOW.


23

comment and approval. The association wantedDEM to design the program. After a prolongedimpasse, the state did design the program, whichbecame part of the state-association MOA (LNBA1995; NCDEHNR 1992).

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The MOA is effective from 1994-1999, the sameperiod of the initial Neuse Basin Water QualityPlan. The association must submit to the state anannual notice of compliance or non-compliancewith MOA requirements. Additionally, theassociation meets once annually to reviewnotices, reports, proposed workplans, andbudgets. When the state completes its secondbasin management cycle, monitoring design andrequirements in the MOA will be reassessed. Thecurrent agreement may be modified to simplysubstitute parameters or change samplingfrequencies at any time by consent of both parties.

SOURCES

Crisp, Dale. 1995. Personal communication withthe City of Raleigh Utilities Department andProject Manager. June and August.

Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA). 1995.Instream Monitoring Savings Survey.

Lower Neuse Basin Association Budget FY95-96and Dues.

Lower Neuse Basin Association. By-Laws.

Memorandum of Agreement between NorthCarolina's Division of Environmental Managementand the Lower Neuse Basin Association.

North Carolina Department of Environment,Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).1992. Neuse Basin Water Quality ManagementPlan.


24

CASE STUDY 4MID-ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS ASSESSMENT

BACKGROUND

EPA's Region III led the design of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment as part of theagency's shift to geographic-basedenvironmental planning. Stakeholdersparticipating in the program include four federalagencies, water resource agencies in fourstates, and numerous local and regionalagencies. The assessment evaluates changesin four diagnostic categories: chemistry,hydrology, physical habitat, and biology.Information will be for strategic planning andalso to assess ecological conditions, locatesensitive areas, and prioritize needs foradditional research.

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Mid-Atlantic Highlands are composed of65,000 mi2 of oak-hickory forests and uplandareas and contain six major watersheds inPennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and WestVirginia. The Highlands comprise 55 percent ofEPA Region III and include six ecoregions: theWestern Allegheny Plateau, the NorthernAppalachian Plateau and Uplands, the CentralAppalachian Ridges and Valleys, and the BlueRidge Mountains (Figure 13). All these areas areof rich environmental and aesthetic value and arealso stressed by internal and external forces(EPA). For instance, the Highlands receive thehighest rates of acidic deposition in the UnitedStates, with 8 percent of its streams becomingchronically acidic. The Highlands are alsoimpacted by erosion, siltation, and acid minedrainage attributable to coal mining. Constructionof new resort communities and general populationgrowth are also taxing these natural systems (EPA).



In the late 1970s and early 1980s, EPA begandeveloping geographic-based plans, such as theChesapeake Bay’s comprehensive monitoring

projects, to address problems. The impetus for theMid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment (MAHA)project was EPA Region III's belief that a shiftfrom technology- and media-based regulations tostrategic monitoring, planning, and managementof large ecosystems would make environmentalprotection and restoration more effective (EPA ).MAHA provides support to EPA Region III andstates for strategic planning. The monitoringprogram, which is based on EMAP's probability-based sampling design, targets point sources andboth overland and atmospheric nonpoint sourcesof pollution.


EPA led the design of the Mid-Atlantic HighlandsAssessment and, by 1993, was working with stateenvironmental protection and water qualityagencies in four states plus dozens of local andregional agencies to implement the monitoringprogram. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)areworking with EPA to evaluate how their monitoringactivities could be integrated into the assessment(EPA). Integral to the MAHA approach isextensive internal and interagency cooperationand data sharing (Figure 14). The EPA Region IIIEnvironmental Services Division administers theproject, including coordinating with cooperators on

FIGURE 13. STUDY AREA FOR THE MID-ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS ASSESSMENT.


25

the project design and logistics planning. TheDivision provides in-kind administrative andtechnical services. The EPA Office of Researchand Development's EMAP staff fund, contract,and coordinate the scientific, technical, andinformation services as well as coordinate theactivities/meetings of the field teams. Projectcooperation in field sampling teams include statewater pollution control staff from Maryland,Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, as wellas the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Thesecooperators as well as other local and federalgovernment agencies, and universities, assisted inprotocol design and data analysis.


MAHA's overall program goal is to provide supportfor EPA Region III and state strategic planning.MAHA was not originally designed as part of astate strategic monitoring program, but EPA staffindicate that one long-term objective of theprogram is to use assessment results in the designof future state monitoring programs (Preston1995). Participants identified three additional

program objectives: (1) assess the currentecological condition of the mid-Atlantic Highlandsand its component ecoregions and states,(2) locate sensitive areas in need of specialprotection or restoration, and (3) prioritize needsfor additional investigation into causes andconsequences of pollution (DeMoss).

HOW IS MAHA IMPLEMENTED?

MAHA participants developed five basic steps totheir approach (Figure15) (MAHA 1994):

Step 1: Define major regional environ-mental management questions.

Step 2: Establish biological criteria (i.e.,indicators) for unpolluted reference (orcontrol) conditions within streams of spe-cific subecoregions to provide a baselineof what expectations should be. Carefullydefine ecoregions that share biologicalcriteria.

PROJECT T ECHNICAL C OORDINATOR

EPA Office of Research and Development

EMAP Program Staff

Provides budget for technical, scientific, and informationmanagement services

Coordinates cooperator field team activities and meetings

Manages contractural field work and lab analysis

Manages project data

Produces project reports

PROJECT C OOPERATORS

State water pollution control staff from Maryland,Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Assist EPA staff and contractors in protocoldevelopment, fieldwork, and data analysis

Other agenices such as USGS and local govern-ments contributed to sampling protocol design

PROJECT A DMINISTRATOR

EPA Region III

Environmental Services Division

Coordinated project design and logisticsplanning with cooperators

Provides in-kind administrative and technicalservices

FIGURE 14. EXTENSIVE COOPERATION AND DATA SHARING ARE CRITICAL TO MAHA’S SUCCESS.


26

Step 3: Monitor indicators derived in Step2 at approximately 215 probability-basedsites across the Highlands. Sites areselected using EMAP's fixed samplinggrid to provide unbiased results withknown confidence for given geographicareas. Each year, over a four-year period,MAHA randomly selects new sites and asubset of previously sampled monitoringsites to increase the accuracy of temporaland geographical statistical analysis(DeMoss).

Step 4: Produce an integrated assessmentof biological conditions and diversity forstreams and rivers in the mid-AtlanticHighlands.

Step 5: Combine the assessment ofstreams and rivers with similarassessments of major forest types andagricultural systems and with analyses ofland-use patterns and other landscapeand human impact measures; develop acomprehensive, integrated report onenvironmental conditions for the largeecosystem and major subcategories (suchas specific states, forest types,

ecoregions, or other designations). RegionIII is working with EMAP–LandscapeCharacterization to develop data onregional land cover.

BENEFITS

MAHA participants have identified the followingbenefits of coordinating and integrating monitoringactivities:

Conducting special studies that otherwisewould not have been possible if not for theprobability based sampling design,

Leveraging resources for monitoring sitesthat are important to multiple agencies toallow broader and more intensivemonitoring, and

Building and maintaining strong workingrelationships.

Step 1. Define major environmental issues/questions

Step 2. Establish indicators from reference sites

Step 3. Monitor indicators at selected sampling sites

Step 4. Produce integrated assessment of biological conditions/diversity

Step 5. Integrate waterbody assessment into a comprehensive assessment

Year 1

Year 4

FIGURE 15. MAHA'S FIVE-STEP APPROACH.


27

DATA PROCEDURES


The field teams enter data into field computersthen ship data and samples to lab contractors. Alldatasets are sent to the EMAP staff at EPA forstorage and analysis using a SAS database. DataQA/QC is completed by the EMAP staff. Datasetsstructures were designed by each indicator teambut the datasets had to be compatible with thecentralized SAS database.

DATA COLLECTION

In 1993, MAHA monitored a total of 246 wadablestream sites (EPA):

65 surface water demonstration sitesselected using EMAP's probability-basedsampling sites,

31 reference sites (unimpacted areas),

46 regional sites, and

104 acidic deposition sites.

Monitoring parameters included benthicorganisms, macroinvertebrates, fish samples,physical habitat condition, and physical andchemical water quality components. Themonitoring period was from mid-April to late June(EPA). MAHA also coordinated monitoring at45 sites for forest conditions. In 1994, monitoringincluded 296 wadable stream sites, forest healthmonitoring at 120 sites, and 1200 NationalAgricultural Statistical Survey sites (EPA). Themonitoring frequency and duration was designedto support an assessment of current conditions,rather than trend analysis (Preston 1995). Thestaff hopes that possible future monitoring cycleswill generate sufficient data for trend analysis.

MAHA also includes landscape ecology—thestudy of the influence of landscape patterns on theflow of water, energy, nutrients, and biota (EPA).To generate an accurate picture of land use/landcover of the Highlands, EPA, FWS, USGS, andthe National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA) formed a partnership withthe National Data Center at USGS to developcomprehensive land-characteristic data fromsatellite imagery for the entire United States.Land-cover mapping for the MAHA region isestimated to be complete in 1996 (EPA). At that

time, stream biological conditions and landscapeconditions can be compared at different watershedscales and overlaid with numerous coveragessuch as point source discharges. Therefore EPAwill have georeferenced formats for both arepresentative sample of stream segments andthe watersheds that influence them. This modelcan be used by others as they move towardwatershed-based management.

The field crews include a team of fourinvestigators (including staff from EPA Region IIIstate water pollution control agencies, FWS, andcontractors) which conducts 6- to 8-hour sitevisits. Project investigators also attend an annualtraining session on SOP documentation.

MAHA adopted EMAP's sampling protocols forbenthic surveys, chemical analysis, fishcommunity sampling, and physical habitatassessment. An EMAP team of representativesfrom EPA, USGS, state water pollution controlagencies, and FWS jointly reviewed eachagency’s protocols and negotiated uniformprocedures for each of the above areas. Thereview team selected EPA’s procedures forbenthic macroinvertebrate surveys and chemicalanalysis and USGS's NAQWA procedures for fishcommunity sampling. Because physical habitatassessment was not standardized, the teamcontracted with a consultant to developassessment procedures that were incorporatedinto the sampling SOPs. The manual adopted byMAHA also includes standardized procedures forsample preservation.

DATA ANALYSIS

EMAP contracted with laboratories for the MAHAproject previously used by EMAP for otherprojects, including a university contract forchemical analysis, a private laboratory formacroinvertebrate sampling and analysis, and theSmithsonian for fish community. EMAP used aninteragency team, the same procedure used tonegotiate field sampling protocols, to establishand document SOPs and QA/QC for laboratoryanalysis.

Laboratories send MAHA data to EMAP staff forsecond-level QA/QC. Data are currently beinginterpreted jointly by EMAP and EPA Region IIIstaff. The strategy is to develop strawman


28

assessments to be sent out for interagency peerreview and comment. MAHA staff indicated thatadditional time and planning are needed for thedata analysis/interpretation stage.

USE OF DATA

MAHA uses data to develop stressor indicators.Stressors are characteristics of the environmentthat are suspected to worsen the condition of theecological resource; they can be natural or humaninduced (EPA). MAHA uses reference conditionsto evaluate alterations in four diagnosticcategories that comprise the full range of impactsto aquatic systems (EPA):

Chemical alterations, including pollutionby nutrients, metals, and organiccompounds. They can be classified bycontaminant source categories: pointsource, overland non-point source, andatmospheric point and nonpoint sources.

Hydrologic alterations, including the tim-ing, amount, and path of flow.

Physical habitat alterations, includingchanges in habitat complexity, substratesize, bank stability, and riparian vegeta-tion.

Biological alterations, including the intro-duction of exotic species (both plant andanimal), overstocking and overharvestingof fish, and loss of plant and animal spe-cies.

Assessments are intended to support strategicplanning efforts; also, some states havecommitted to using assessments to (EPA):

Rank problems according to severity andfocus future field assessment work onareas with the worst problems to measurethe effectiveness of remediation efforts.

Identify problems with toxics for specialcontrol programs.

Select waters to be protected from anyfurther degradation.

Establish instream goals for clean-up ac-tivities and calculate appropriate permitlimits.

Evaluate the effectiveness of waterquality criteria or best managementpractices.

COST

Scientific and information management servicesare funded through EPA ORD's EMAP budget at acost of $1.4 million per year. EPA Region IIIprovides in-kind administrative services at anestimated cost of $300,000 per year, bringing thetotal annual project cost to $1.7 million currently.This is an in-house EPA leverage factor of 1.2 anddoes not include the in-kind contributions fromother agencies.

CHALLENGES

MAHA staff identified obstacles EPA faced informing the consortium. First, each state and fed-eral agency had its own procedures. To obtainbuy-in for adopting EMAP's uniform proceduresfor field sampling and laboratory analysis for thedata collection period, EPA Region IIIdemonstrated that:

Existing monitoring objectives could bemet using the new, uniform protocols

New protocols would not automatically bemandated in the future by EPA (Due tothe experimental nature of the project inwhich EMAP protocols were essentiallybeing implemented for the first time,protocols would be evaluated and refined,as needed, after project completion.)

The monitoring design could save thestates money in the future

Second, an ongoing challenge to the MAHAproject is communicating the value of the projectto multiple agencies and how it might help meettheir diverse objectives. Staff sees this as not onlya challenge in effective communication, but alsoto a sustained leadership. From the earliestdiscussions, EPA Region III assumed theleadership, or champion, role. Staff indicated thatother partners had previously viewed EPA as anarrowly focused regulator (Preston 1995). MAHApartners accepted and appreciated EPA's new roleof neutral organizer of holistic resourceassessment, but some individuals and landowners


29

believed EPA would turn MAHA into anenforcement action.

MAHA also identified major obstacles to imple-menting or continuing the project. First, the logisti-cal challenge was significantly underestimated, in-cluding obtaining landowner permission for sam-pling, a narrow window for sampling requiring 6crews in the field at a time, and all equipment andsupplies assembled and conveniently dropped forthe teams. Running the project smoothly requireddetailed advanced planning. For highestefficiency, similar projects should (Preston 1995):

Identify all sampling sites 9 months in ad-vance

Identify all landowners of sampling sitesand requested access permission 6months in advance

Have all logistical information in hand,including equipment and supplies needed,3 months in advance

Getting landowner approval to enter property re-quired a great deal of research, mailing, follow-up,and local site visits. After increased mediaattention about the Endangered Species Act, anumber of land owners refused site access.Dropping these sites has the potential to biasresults. MAHA staff advised overcoming thislimitation by identifying a local, part-timecooperator who can go to the courthouse toidentify the landowners and make initial contactwith landowners.

Thorough planning is needed for the data interpre-tation and analysis phase (Preston 1995). In retro-spect, the staff believes each phase needs equalattention upfront. MAHA staff believes that

planning for the data collection phase and, inretrospect, that MAHA would have benefited frommore upfront planning for data interpretation. Oneway that MAHA/ORD-EMAP staff are dealing withthe quandry of a tremendous amount of data andlimited assessment/evaluation resources is todistribute strawman assessment documents forwide peer review to state and regional experts.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

MAHA staff indicate the program will be evaluatedin 1996–1997 upon completion of field samplingand an interpretation of the 1993–1994 data(Preston 1995).

SOURCES

EPA. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment—TheApplication of Environmental Assessment to theManagement of Ecosystems.

MAHA. 1994. Mid-Atlantic Highlands As-sessment—Monitoring and AssessmentConference. February.

Jones, DeMoss, et al. Mid-Atlantic HighlandsAssessment: Comprehensive EnvironmentalAssessment for Strategic Planning in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands of the United States. A Paperfor the 25th International Symposium on RemoteSensing and Environmental Change.

Preston, R. August 6, 1995. Personal com-munication with EPA Region III BiologicalSciences Coordinator.


30

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUILDING ANDMAINTAINING STRONG MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

In the early 1990s, the Intergovernmental TaskForce for Monitoring, comprising representativesfrom multiple state and federal agencies, recog-nized the importance of effectively coordinatingefforts and developed recommendations for col-laborative, integrated monitoring (Appendix A).Additionally, staff from the four consortium casestudies were asked, "What would you advise othergroups that would like to set up a consortium,particularly insights on obstacles they may face,how to overcome them, and keys to success?"Several common themes on pitfalls andsuccesses emerged from our study.Recommendations from ITFM and the consortiumsuggest a ten-step process for building a strongmonitoring consortium (Figure 16). Below are sug-gested milestones and guiding principles for eachof the ten steps. Generally, the list conveys aprogression of actions; many steps, however, willbe conducted concurrently, and all actions areinterrelated.

SUGGESTED MILESTONES AND GUIDINGPRINCIPLES

STEP 1: EXPLORE NEED FOR AND BENEFITS OF

STRATEGIC, COORDINATED MONITORING

• Identify key managers and permit holders inthe study area (e.g., estuary drainage area,water supply watershed, and whole river basin)and determine whether sense of need isshared.

• Identify at least one expected benefit for eachpartner (e.g., the state, local governments, andindustrial dischargers).

• Host discussions in a neutral meeting placeusing a neutral facilitator (if possi ble).

STEP 2: ESTABLISH LEADERSHIP (WHO WILL

CHAMPION THE CAUSE?)

• If initial discussions with key players indicatean interest in coordinated monitoring, identify

which agency or organization will assume theprimary leadership role.

STEP 1: EXPLORE NEED FOR AND BENEFITS OFSTRATEGIC, COORDINATED MONITORING

STEP 2: ESTABLISH LEADERSHIP (WHO WILLCHAMPION THE CAUSE?)

STEP 3: ESTABLISH CONSENSUS ON NEED FOR CO-ORDINATED MONITORING

STEP 4: DESIGN THE MONITORING PROGRAM

STEP 5: PLAN HOW TO INTERPRET DATA AND REPORTFINDINGS

STEP 6: DESIGN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

STEP 7: ESTIMATE COST AND ACQUIRE FUNDING

STEP 8: DRAFT CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS

STEP 9: DEVELOP GOVERNANCE AGREEMENTS ANDSTRUCTURES

STEP 10: DEVELOP A TIMELINE AND METHOD FOREVALUATING THE PROJECT

FIGURE 16. STEPS TO BUILDING A STRONGMONITORING CONSORTIUM.


31

• Identify an objective, neutral organization tolead recruiting, organizing, and educatingpotential partners and facilitating the process (ifpossible).

• Establish a plan for contacting partners in thewatershed and exploring monitoring strategies.

• To the extent possible, tap leadership in exist-ing organizations, associations, and forums.

• Spread leadership mantle over potential part-ners (for example, by speaking at existingforums in the watershed, working on taskforces, and chairing task forces.

• Engage a representative of each potentialpartner in the design and decision-makingprocess.

STEP 3: ESTABLISH CONSENSUS ON NEED FOR CO-

ORDINATED MONITORING

• After laying initial groundwork, establish abroad-based consensus through a neutralforum on the need for and general purposes ofthe monitoring program. Use an existing forumfor consensus building, if possible.

• For NPDES permit holders ensure that thecoordinated monitoring program helps meet, oroffsets, regulatory requirements (to the extentpossible).

• Communicate specific expected benefits toeach partner group, including potential costsavings and resource leveraging.

• Obtain buy-in or authority to develop recom-mendations on specific monitoring goals andobjectives, monitoring design, project budgetand cost allocations, project governance andmanagement, and project evaluation.

• Establish a timeline and a task force for de-veloping and reporting recommendations.

• The Task Force completes Step 4-10.

STEP 4: DESIGN THE MONITORING PROGRAM

• Draft specific monitoring goals and objectivesto guide program design. If the monitoringprogram is a component of a watershedmanagement framework, monitoring goals

should reflect needs and priorities for long-term, baseline assessment as well as shorter-term, strategic assessment.

• Design the monitoring program for the flexibil-ity and continuity to measure long-term trends;regularly evaluate the monitoring program toensure that the project meets goals andobjectives cost effectively and adequately ad-dresses emerging issues and priority concerns.

• Review and evaluate historical monitoring dataand protocols for the study area.

• Identify others who may participate in co-ordinated monitoring and assessment, in-cluding representatives from all levels ofgovernment, the private sector, universities,and regulatory and voluntary monitoringprograms.

• Design program to take advantage of historicaland existing monitoring programs of otheragencies and overall capabilities and resourcesof consortium members; avoid duplicatingefforts.

• Select monitoring parameters, sites, andfrequencies consistent with monitoring goalsand objectives.

• Establish flow measurement sites as well asreference sites to aid in water quality datainterpretation and assessment.

• Using a performance-based monitoring ap-proach, establish field sampling, laboratory,and QA/QC protocols that are compatible andyield comparable data.

• Where there are uncertainties about compati-bility of protocols, incorporate tests into firstyear workplan (and subsequent years asneeded) to determine compatibility, andinstitute changes in protocols in a timely way.

• Jointly choose/design data interpretationmethods and indicators to measure progress inmeeting monitoring goals (related to Step 5 -Interpreting and Reporting Data). Make suremonitoring design supports index measurementand other assessment tools.

• Conduct pilot studies as needed.


32

• Document monitoring design, protocols, andparticipants’ responsibilities in a manual ofstandard operating procedures.

• Determine who will do field work, and labanalysis.

• Develop annual cost estimates for the moni-toring program, including field work, labanalysis, and QA/QC.

STEP 5: PLAN HOW TO INTERPRET DATA AND REPORT

FINDINGS

• Outline methods and types of data interpre-tation (e.g., water quality trend analysis,pollutant loading, and general conditions)consistent with project goals and objectives.Because the monitoring design must supportindex measurement and other assessmenttools, the planning process for monitoringdesign and data interpretation should beintegrated and concurrent.

• Determine audience for project reporting anddevelop effective and appropriate formats foreach audience.

• Jointly select environmental indicators tomeasure progress in meeting monitoring goals.Make sure monitoring design supports indexmeasurement and other assessment tools.

• Develop communication plan for regularlyscheduled data interpretation and report onproject findings.

• Develop mechanism for tracking benefits, in-cluding documenting cost savings, for theconsortium collectively and for membersindividually. Report benefits with other projectfindings.

• Determine who will interpret data and producereports.

• Estimate annual cost for interpreting data andreporting results to consortium members andthe general public.5

5 Data interpretation and reporting constitute 20 -30% of the entire

annual project budget. MAHA is currently inter preting data, butproject staff did not develop a detailed workplan and budget for thiscomponent; in hindsight staff believe they should have devoted equalresources to data collection and data in terpretation phases.

STEP 6: DESIGN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

• Implement a performance-based monitoringsystem to obtain comparable data and achievemore flexible use of monitoring and laboratoryanalysis methods.

• Jointly develop standard names, definitions,and formats for each data element. Produce across-referencing code list and data dictionary,as needed.

• Jointly establish QA/QC procedures for datareview, entry, verification, etc.

• Document methods, protocols, and QA/QCprocedures in a standard operating proceduresmanual.

• Record metadata (e.g., data sources andquality).

• Using standard programs, make data availableto project participants and other interestedgroups.

• Have central, automated library for all updatedfiles and reports.

• Determine who will manage project data.

• Develop annual cost estimates for managingdata, including retrieving data from cooperatingagencies and conducting QA/QC of overalldatabase.

STEP 7: ESTIMATE COST AND ACQUIRE FUNDING

• Add cost estimates from Steps 4-6.

• Estimate project administration/managementcost (at a minimum of 5% of total technicalbudget).

• Identify funding sources for project monitoringand administration, including likely cost-sharecooperative agreements; grants; and federal,state, and local governments.

• Propose annual project budget detailing costand major revenue sources for the first phaseof the project, which is generally 3-5 years.


33

STEP 8: DRAFT CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS

• Draft contracts, memoranda of agreement,cooperative agreements, a manual of standardoperating procedures, and other mechanismsfor formalizing technical and administrativeroles and responsibilities of consortiumparticipants.

STEP 9: DEVELOP GOVERNANCE AGREEMENTS AND

STRUCTURES

• Include representatives of potential partnersearly in the project design.

• Convene a subcommittee with policy andtechnical representatives to draft proposedproject by-laws establishing roles, functions,and membership as well as methods ofappointment and voting rules for the project’ssteering committee.

• Develop criteria for allocating project costsamong and within member groups.

• Develop a subcommittee with policy andtechnical representatives to draft proposedproject incorporation agreement, interlocalagreement, memoranda of agreement, or otherinstrument to formalize the purpose, goals, andobjectives of the monitoring consortium;responsibilities of members; duration of theproject; and project budget, method ofallocating costs, and member dues. Send draftagreement to potential partners for ratification.(They should receive it 4-6 months before newfiscal year to include project dues early inbudget process.)

• Retain a project manager considered by alltask force members to be neutral and objective(if possible).

STEP 10: DEVELOP A TIMELINE AND METHOD FOR

EVALUATING THE PROJECT

• The measures for project evaluation are itsstated goals and objectives.

• Generally, the project should be comprehen-sively evaluated every 3 to 5 years. Thisshould also be the duration for memoranda ofagreements and other contracts.

• The project should be adjusted annually, asneeded, to meet emerging issues or concerns.

• Project evaluation should include benefits toconsortium members.

• After evaluation, proposed changes in the pro-ject workplan, goals and objectives for the nextphase, as well as cost should be clearlyexplained and defended.

• New contracts agreements should be draftedand forwarded to consortium members toreflect results of project evalu ation.

• Experience indicates that this process—fromearly explorations to initial field sampling—willtake at least 1 year, but more often 2 years, tofully implement.

CONCLUSION

Many environmental resource managers areturning to a watershed-based approach to restoreand protect our natural resources. Key to thisapproach is management that integrates a widerange of technical expertise, regulatory and non-regulatory authorities, and strategicimplementation. Increasingly limited programresources intensify the need for strategic,coordinated management and for decision-makingthat remains focused on priority environmentalconcerns.

In the last decade, groups have successfully usedmonitoring partnerships to address many differentproblems and monitoring objectives as well as wa-terbodies and ecosystems of varying geographicscales. Moreover, they have saved money in theprocess. Purposes of monitoring programs varyfrom water supply protection to coordinated,whole-basin wastewater discharge management toecosystem assessment. Although the case studieshighlighted some differences in the approach tosetting up and maintaining a consortium, severalcommon themes on program pitfalls andsuccesses, and a ten-step process for building andmaintaining a strong monitoring consortiumemerged.


34

Watershed management is a continuing cycle ofidentifying, prioritizing, and mitigating key water-shed issues. Well-defined watershed priorities de-pend on solid assessment of good information;good information depends on well-designed moni-toring. Public and private agencies should design

a strategic, coordinated monitoring program as acycle within the larger cycle of watershedactivities.

TOP TEN LESSONS LEARNED

• Establish watershed-wide consensus on the need for a coordinated monitoring program.

• Take advantage of existing organizations (particularly key leaders), current and historicalmonitoring programs to establish a strong foundation.

• Design a coordinated monitoring program that meets the collective and individual needs of theparticipants. For example, to the extent possible, ensure that the monitoring helps the regulatedpartners help meet or offset permit monitoring require ments.

• Bring potential partners into the design and decision-making process early and spread theleadership mantle.

• Design the monitoring program for continuity (so you can measure long-term trends) and flexibility(so you are adequately addressing emerging issues and priority concerns).

• Using a performance-based approach, design field sampling, lab analysis, or data managementwith flexibility and compati bility as your guiding principles.

• Adequately plan and budget for data collection, management, and interpretation. Quality assuranceand quality control is essential for long-term program credibility.

• Clearly and regularly communicate the pro gram’s benefits for each partner and for the region.

• Regularly evaluate the monitoring program to make sure you are meeting the project’s goals andobjectives cost effectively and that you are adequately addressing emerg ing issues.

• Value the project’s unquantifiable asset: the good working relationship you are building withconsortium partners.


35

APPENDIX A

MAJOR ITFM RECOMMENDATIONS

A. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM DESIGN

• Design water-quality monitoring programs to measure progress in meeting clearly stated goalsfor aquatic resources.

• Public and private organizations should develop and/or evaluate their monitoring programs usingthe framework fro monitoring recommended in this report.

• Gather and evaluate existing information using geographic information systems to portray waterresources conditions and the River Reach File 3 codes to georeference water bodies.

• Adopt flexible monitoring program designs tailored to the conditions, uses, and goals for waterresources in specific areas.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

• Jointly choose specific environmental indicators to measure progress toward water quality goals,including State standards for designated uses.

• Use the multimetric approach to characterize biological integrity.

• Agree on a core set of widely physical, chemical, and biological indicators that support interstateand national aggregations of comparable information for assessments.

C. COMPARABLE METHODS AND DATA

• Jointly develop and adopt standard data-element names, definitions, and formats.

• Implement a performance-based monitoring methods system (PMBS) to achieve bothcomparable data and more flexible use of monitoring methods.

• Jointly establish reference conditions as a key tool for shared use in biological and ecologicalassessments.

D. DATA STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL

• Automate useful information .

• Use metadata standards to help secondary users judge whether data are useful for theirapplications.

• Use standard data sets, communications, and access systems when they are available.


36

E. INTERPRETATION, ASSESSMENT, AND REPORTING

• Regularly interpret, assess, and report measurements and raw data for use by the public anddecision-makers. Do not simply collect data.

• Develop more effective reporting formats that are tailored for specific audiences.

• Seek a change in the Clean Water Act to alter the reporting period identified in section 305(b)from every 2 years to every 5 years.

F. TRAINING

• Promote training at all levels of government to transfer technology and to facilitate comparableand scientifically sound methods and data.

G. VOLUNTEER MONITORING

• Establish formal links between volunteer monitoring programs and agencies at all levels ofgovernment.

• Develop guidance to assist volunteer groups in documenting their methods and conducting theirprograms.

H. EVALUATION

• Organizations should regularly evaluate the monitoring programs and resulting information toensure that they are meeting management goals and to adjust the programs as requirementschange.

• Nationwide evaluations of water-quality monitoring activities similar to the ITFM effort should beconducted every 5 years.

I. INSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATION

• Work with representatives from all levels of government and the private sector to improve water-quality monitoring at national, interstate, State and Tribal, and watershed levels.

• Establish a National Water Quality Monitoring Council with broad representation to developguidelines for use nationwide, to foster technology transfer, and to coordinate planning andresource sharing.

• Building on existing collaborative mechanisms, establish and maintain teams comprised ofmonitoring organizations to implement the strategy within State and Tribal jurisdictions and at theinterstate level, as necessary.

• Link national ambient water-quality assessment programs.


37

J. PILOT STUDIES AND PLANNING

• Conduct additional pilot studies before widespread implementation of the ITFM proposals.

• Carefully plan and coordinate efforts to implement the ITFM recommendations. In particular,special care must be taken to ensure that attempts to implement aspects of the strategy usingavailable monitoring resources do not adversely impact existing monitoring that now supportscritical objectives.

Documents

Monitoring Consortiums - United States Environmental ... · Monitoring Consortiums A cost-effective means to enhancing watershed data collection and analysis Assessment and Watershed