**A National Water Quality Monitoring Network**

**for U.S. Coastal Waters and their Tributaries**

**Prepared by**

**The Advisory Committee on Water Information, and**

**the National Water Quality Monitoring Council**

**Requested by**

**The Council on Environmental Quality,**

**The National Science and Technology Council, and**

**The Joint Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology**

**April 2006**

**Report and appendices are available on-line at:**

[**http://acwi.gov/monitoring/network/design/**](http://acwi.gov/monitoring/network/design/)

This report on *A National Water Quality Monitoring Network for U.S.
Coastal Waters and their Tributaries* (Network) has been prepared by the
National Water Quality Monitoring Council (Monitoring Council), a
sub-group of the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI). The
ACWI approved this report and presented it to the requesting
organizations on April 5, 2006. ACWI was tasked by the President's
Council on Environmental Quality, the National Science and Technology
Council's Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality, and the Joint
Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology, as a result of
recommendations in Chapter 15 of the Final Report of the U. S.
Commission on Ocean Policy (COP, 2004).

The Monitoring Council, co-chaired by Gail Mallard, U.S. Geological
Survey and Charles Spooner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, led
this effort, supported by a Network Steering Committee and four Network
Work Groups. About 80 participants from Federal and State governments,
universities, water associations and the private sector participated
actively in the design of this Network and the preparation of the
report. All Network participants are listed in Appendix 1-2 of the
report.

In approving the report, the ACWI identified the following:

1\. The current report is to serve as a network design and a planning
document for the Network. It is understood that many implementation
issues are pending. These include program management and resource needs.

2\. The report will recommend Regional Pilot(s) \[likely within IOOS
Regions\] as a proof of concept -- a way to move forward to test the
Network Design.

3\. The report will recommend creation of a small inter-agency program
coordination staff, with dedicated FTE to provide leadership and
coordination. The staff will help to facilitate development of the
pilot(s), track next steps, develop and track metrics, and document the
process and progress of the Network. Program staff would report progress
to and seek guidance from ACWI's Monitoring Council.

4\. A joint inter-agency briefing will be scheduled at the Executive
Office level to further inform the requesting organizations (CEQ,
NSTC/SWAQ and JSOST) as well as the President's Office of Management and
Budget, and Office of Science and Technology Policy. This briefing
occurred on April 5, 2006, and additional briefings for related
committees in the COP structure are scheduled.

The network design and report will be a focus of the 5^th^ National
Monitoring

Conference in San Jose, California, May 2006, with 600 registrants
anticipated

from throughout the monitoring community.

**A National Water Quality Monitoring Network**

**For U.S. Coastal Waters and their Tributaries**

**Executive Summary**

The annual cost of water resource monitoring is hundreds of millions of
dollars. Yet, numerous reports in recent years indicate that monitoring
has been and remains insufficient and lacks coordination to provide
comprehensive information about U.S. water resources. In 2004, the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy recommended a national monitoring network to
improve management of ocean resources:

> "Ongoing monitoring is essential to assess the health of ocean and
> coastal ecosystems and detect changes over time. More than any other
> measure, monitoring provides accountability for management actions.
> The nation needs a coordinated, comprehensive monitoring network that
> can provide the information necessary for managers to make informed
> decisions, adapt their actions as needed, and assure effective
> stewardship of ocean and coastal resources." **An Ocean Blueprint for
> the 21^st^ Century", U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, 2004.**

**Background**

In response to the 2004 Ocean Policy Commission report, the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC) Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ), and the
Joint Subcommittee on Oceans Science and Technology (JSOST) charged the
Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) with the task of
designing a national water quality monitoring network. ACWI is a federal
advisory committee, which has membership representing federal and
nonfederal interests with a wide range of responsibilities for water
resources. ACWI formally accepted the charge to design a national
monitoring network in February 2005, and delegated leadership for the
effort to the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (Council). About
80 individuals, who represent 40 different organizations, including
federal and state agencies, academia, interstate organizations, and the
private sector, accomplished the network design.

**Network Objectives and Attributes**

This report contributes to water quality monitoring in the U.S. by
proposing a national water quality monitoring network for U.S. coastal
waters and their tributaries (herein referred to as the "Network"). The
proposed Network shares many attributes with ongoing monitoring efforts
but is unique in that it uses a multidisciplinary approach and addresses
a broad range of resource components, from upland watersheds to offshore
waters and does so using an integrated approach. Specifically, the
proposed Network has several key design features:

1.  Clear objectives linked to important management questions (outlined
    in Table ES-1 and discussed in more detail in the report).

2.  Linkage with the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), which is
    an integrated system of observations and data management that
    routinely provides information about coastal waters and coastal
    ecosystems for eleven U.S. IOOS Regions.

3.  A multi-resource and multidisciplinary approach that integrates
    water resource components from uplands to the coast and that
    integrates physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
    water resources.

4.  Flexibility in design over time. After interpreting data, some
    locations or constituents may drop from the Network, whereas other
    locations or constituents may fill critical gaps. Improvements in
    technology over time may also result in design changes.

5.  The Network stresses the importance of metadata, quality assurance
    procedures, comparable methodology, and data management that allows
    readily accessible data storage and retrieval.

**Table ES-1. Alignment of NMN Objectives and Management Questions**

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| **Objective**                     | **Management Questions**         |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 1\. Define status and trends of   | What is the condition of the     |
| key water quality parameters and  | Nation\'s surface, ground,       |
| conditions on a nationwide basis. | estuarine, coastal, and offshore |
|                                   | waters?                          |
|                                   |                                  |
|                                   | Where, how, and why are water    |
|                                   | quality conditions changing over |
|                                   | time?                            |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 2\. Provide data relevant to      | Are strategies that protect or   |
| determining whether goals,        | remediate water quality working  |
| standards, and resource           | effectively?                     |
| management objectives are being   |                                  |
| met, thus contributing to         | Are we meeting water quality     |
| sustainable and beneficial use of | goals and standards?             |
| coastal and inland water          |                                  |
| resources.                        |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 3\. Provide data to identify and  | What are the water quality       |
| rank existing and emerging        | problems?                        |
| problems to help target more      |                                  |
| intensive monitoring, preventive  | Where are the water quality      |
| actions, or remediation.          | problems?                        |
|                                   |                                  |
|                                   | What is causing the problems?    |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 4\. Provide data to support and   | What research activities will    |
| define coastal oceanographic and  | help us to understand water      |
| hydrologic research, including    | resources and ensure they are    |
| influences of freshwater inflows. | sustainable?                     |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 5\. Provide quality-assured data  | All management questions require |
| for use in the preparation of     | these data.                      |
| interpretive reports and          |                                  |
| educational materials.            |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

**Continuing Need for Monitoring Outside the Network**

No one monitoring design can begin to address or answer all of the
Nation's water-resource issues or questions. The proposed Network, which
primarily provides critical information about the quality of coastal
waters and their tributaries at regional and national scales, does not
incorporate or replace all ongoing water quality monitoring. For
example, monitoring designed to identify and track water issues and
environmental responses to management actions within small rivers,
lakes, reservoirs, local ground water aquifers, and in smaller
watersheds should continue as the primary responsibility of State and
local agencies. In addition, monitoring designed to address drinking
water issues must continue. Ground water monitoring in large inland
aquifers is also critical and should continue, although it is outside
the scope of the Network. The key point is that a great deal of
monitoring does not fall under the umbrella of the proposed Network. For
resource management, continuing this monitoring is critical.

**Network Design**

Table ES-2 shows an overview of the Network design, which lists (1) the
monitored resource and the purpose of monitoring, (2) site-selection
procedure and the number of monitored sites, (3) sampling frequency, and
(4) interval between periods of intensive sampling. A total of 149
estuaries are included in the Network (see Table 3-3 for a full listing
along with their major tributaries). Using a probability-based design to
select sampling sites, IOOS Regions will monitor these estuaries to
determine conditions individually and by IOOS Region. Each estuary will
also be monitored at sites along the salinity gradient to provide
information about transport of water and materials through the estuary
to the coastal ocean. A probability-based design for site selection, as
well as for shipboard surveys targeted for specific purposes, and remote
sensing, will help to monitor nearshore marine waters, the Great Lakes,
and Great Lakes embayments. Shipboard cruises and remote sensing will
help to monitor the vast ocean from three nautical miles to the seaward
edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone.

The focus for river monitoring is on sampling (1) rivers that represent
90 percent of the outflow of major inland watersheds, (2) rivers that
flow directly into Network estuaries, and (3) rivers that flow directly
into the Great Lakes and drain watersheds greater than 250 square miles
in area. Network river monitoring will allow calculation of seasonal and
annual fluxes of freshwater and loads of constituents from the uplands
to coastal marine waters and the Great Lakes. Ground water will be
monitored where direct discharge into coastal waters is important based
on criteria outlined in Chapter 3. The focus for atmospheric deposition
monitoring is at sites chosen to represent direct input to coastal
waters. Coastal beaches will be monitored for bacterial indicators of
human or animal waste which determine the suitability of water for
swimming and other primary

contact recreation. The design for monitoring wetlands is deferred for
the present, pending additional research on methods and approaches.

**Constituents**

Constituents to be monitored include physical characteristics, inorganic
and organic chemical concentrations, and biological conditions. Many of
the same measurements will be made in all resource components and no
measurement is made in fewer than three of the components. This is an
important aspect of the overall design because the continuity of
measurements will provide a better understanding of the linkages among
resources. Development of a list of specific analytes and environmental
parameters that will serve as a set of core measurements for the Network
will require consensus among experts and is one of the early steps
needed for Network implementation.

**Data Comparability, Data Storage, and Data Access**

Full implementation of the Network will require the use of data
collected by a number of federal, tribal, state, local, academic, and
private sources. Data must be comparable to allow integration into a
coherent assessment of the condition of and trends in the quality of the
Nation's coastal waters and their tributaries. A successful and
efficient national-scale compilation and integration of environmental
monitoring data will require:

-   known and appropriate methods;

-   documented quality assurance and quality control;

-   metadata; and

-   access to data and related information.

A survey of several agencies that collect nitrate data in the Delaware
River Basin revealed that most used similar methods but that routine
quality assurance and quality control procedures were not routinely or
well documented and that few of the agencies maintain metadata that are
available electronically.

A survey of 173 monitoring programs from five regions of the U.S.
(Chesapeake Bay, Delaware Bay, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and
Pacific Northwest), plus 4 federal databases (NWISWeb, NAWQA Data
Warehouse, STORET, and Legacy STORET) was conducted to evaluate the
current status of water quality data management systems. These programs
represent various types of data (e.g., chemistry, biology, spatial) from
various types of organizations (volunteer groups, nonprofit groups, and
state and federal agencies), collected by a variety of methods (direct
observation, sampling, continuous monitoring, remote sensing) within
various environmental settings and parts of the water cycle. The
evaluation helped to acquire information regarding four categories: (1)
access method, (2) search and retrieval capabilities, (3) level of
metadata available, and (4) archive method. None of the programs
evaluated had all the capabilities desired for the Network data
management and access system. Furthermore, the lack of information
regarding metadata and archival methods are potential impediments to
developing a Network access system.

As the surveys related to methods comparability, quality assurance and
quality control, and data management indicate, it will take significant
effort to integrate data from different sources into the proposed
monitoring Network. To fully engage potential participants, it will be
necessary to work on both of these issues, to identify how their
existing procedures could be adjusted to make them compatible with the
Network.

**Monitoring and Modeling**

There is an ever-increasing demand for environmental monitoring data and
other interpretive products derived from those data. However, there will
never be enough money to collect needed data in all of the places and at
all of the times. Using available data to improve the ability to
extrapolate to unmonitored areas partially compensates for this. Among
the tools that will help this effort are improved statistical analyses
of data and development and use of models to interpret environmental
data and facilitate scientific understanding of complex environmental
issues.

In terms of their modeling approaches, inclusion of resource areas, and
spatial and temporal domains, currently available water quality models
vary. Some models are statistical in nature; that is, they are empirical
and derived from a set of observations. Others are mechanistic or
numerical, based on a set of relationships between environmental
characteristics and functioning or performance of an ecosystem. All of
these types of models require a broad spectrum of observations and an
array of quality-assured monitoring data. Routine monitoring programs
often do not have sites in optimal locations for model verification or
other targeted applications. The flexibility of site selection and
inclusion of targeted monitoring sites in the proposed Network
alleviates such shortcomings.

A fully implemented Network will contribute to advances in both modeling
and monitoring by providing data that address the following
interconnections:

-   *Model improvement*--More data will contribute to increased
    understanding of processes, improved analysis of observations, and
    greater predictive capability.

-   *Model testing*--The credibility and utility of model performance
    and outputs will be enhanced by providing field verification data,
    or data to validate interior test points of models.

-   *Experimental design*--Models provide outputs that reveal patterns
    of variability in key environmental characteristics and may serve as
    the basis for designing efficient sampling schemes, such as
    improvements in the spatial scale and frequency of observations.

-   *Inference about hidden variables*--Models can provide inferences
    about the significance of variables that are difficult to measure
    routinely or directly or may be missing from the monitoring program
    but which could substantially influence the processes or parameters
    being investigated.

-   *Remotely sensed data*--Model simulations encompassing broad areas
    or geographical regions often require corroborating data obtained
    from satellite, aircraft, or shore-based sensors with a wide swath,
    and by means of synoptic sampling coverage from moored and drifting
    buoys.

-   *Application*--The quality of model output strongly relates to model
    assumptions and input data. If models, based on information gained
    in specific experiments are used, data obtained from national and
    regional scale monitoring programs will provide a broader
    perspective and improve the quality of modeling results.

**Recommendations and Next Steps**

The Network design concepts presented in this report can best be tested
and refined through one or more pilot studies. The process of planning
and conducting these pilot studies will address some of the next steps
listed below. The recommended scale for the pilot studies is either an
IOOS region or sub-region. To be consistent with the Network design, the
pilot studies should include all resource components. A study that
monitored only rivers and estuaries or only the near shore environment
would not be appropriate for assessing the Network design because one of
the most important characteristics of the Network is the connectivity
among resource components. Another important criterion for selection of
the pilot studies would be the willingness of different sectors of the
monitoring community to participate in the collaborative effort.

Creation of a small inter-agency program coordination staff, with
dedicated personnel, will provide leadership and coordination of the
next steps of Network implementation. This program coordination staff
should help facilitate development of the pilot studies, coordinate and
track the next steps in Network design, develop and track metrics, and
document progress in Network implementation. A dedicated staff is needed
to maintain the level of effort and momentum to begin implementation of
the Network. This effort goes beyond what the volunteers who designed
the Network and prepared this report can continue to invest.

It is appropriate for the Council and its parent organization, ACWI, to
have a continuing role in Network implementation because these are the
two organizations chosen to lead the Network design effort and they have
a stake in its success. Program staff should periodically report
progress and seek guidance from the Monitoring Council. Finally, because
the Network is included in the Administration's plan to address the
recommendations of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, and because its
implementation will need support at the policy level, the groups that
requested creation of the Network design, CEQ and NSTC (SWAQ and JSOST),
should have an on-going role in Network implementation.

Next Steps: Important steps for Network implementation that need
attention in the near term include:

1.  Designate an inter-agency program coordination staff.

2.  Select one or more pilot studies to begin Network implementation and
    test Network design concepts.

3.  Engage the monitoring community in dialogue about the Network to
    develop support for implementation.

4.  Further refine Network design details such as the list of core
    measurements, location of monitoring sites, and performance
    requirements for sampling protocols and analytical methods.

5.  Establish metadata standards and requirements for data systems.

6.  Conduct a full inventory of on-going water quality monitoring
    efforts that might contribute to the Network.

7.  Develop a set of metrics.

8.  Identify resources needed by federal and non-federal agencies for
    Network implementation and work to secure those resources.

**Chapter 1 Introduction**

Water quality monitoring in the United States is conducted by federal,
tribal, state, and local agencies, interstate commissions, the academic
community, the private sector, and citizen volunteers. It includes
monitoring inland and coastal waters, ground water, atmospheric
deposition, and the living resources that depend on these waters.
Collectively, many millions of dollars and uncounted hours are spent
annually on water- resource monitoring. Yet, there have been numerous
reports in recent years indicating that this level of monitoring is
insufficient and/or not well enough coordinated to provide comprehensive
information about U.S. water resources (GAO, 2004, GAO, 2002, H. John
Heinz Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, 2002, National
Academy of Public Administration, 2002). This is due, at least in part,
to an inability to access and integrate the data on water quality that
are collected by the various organizations, are engaged in water quality
monitoring.

A recent statement of the need for improved monitoring is in the final
report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy (herein after referred to
as the Ocean Commission Report). Chapter 15 of the Ocean Commission's
report, "**An Ocean Blueprint for the 21^st^ Century**" contains the
following statement:

> *"Ongoing monitoring is essential to assess the health of ocean and
> coastal ecosystems and detect changes over time. More than any other
> measure, monitoring provides accountability for management actions.
> The nation needs a coordinated, comprehensive monitoring network that
> can provide the information necessary for managers to make informed
> decisions, adapt their actions as needed, and assure effective
> stewardship of ocean and coastal resources."*

A specific example of the need for monitoring data to support wise
decisions about resource problems is the story of the loss of seagrass
in Tampa Bay and the efforts to restore the vegetation described in [See
Tampa Bay example](../TampaBay_121905.doc).

This report is the direct result of recommendations in the Ocean
Commission report and the Administration's U.S. Ocean Action Plan (2004)
that was written in response to the recommendations found in the Ocean
Commission's report. The proposed Network will, when implemented,
contribute to water quality monitoring in the U.S. by monitoring U.S.
water resources from the uplands to the coasts in an integrated and
coordinated fashion. The Network has a clear and specific design,
founded on specific goals and objectives. The report specifies site
selection and monitoring approaches to determine estuarine, coastal and
offshore marine, and Great Lakes resource conditions, and to determine
the flux of water and constituents from upland watersheds to coastal
waters. Network plans stress the need for quality data and efficient
data storage and access.

The intended audience for the report is policy makers and resource
managers of federal, tribal, and state agencies. The report will also be
of interest to more local decision makers because the Network will
provide some context for local decisions. The report will also be used
by the water quality monitoring community who will be interested in the
overall design and how it fits with their monitoring efforts. Because
the report is written at general level, the day-to-day practitioners of
water quality monitoring may find that some details are missing. This is
due, in part, to the fact that some design details will be worked out
during a pilot phase which will include participation by the monitoring
community, including federal, state, and local agencies, interstate
organizations, and the academic community.

1.  **Background and Approach**

The Oceans Act of 2000 created the Ocean Commission, which issued its
final report in September 2004 (see
[http://www.oceancommission.gov](http://www.oceancommission.gov/) for
information). Chapter 15 of that report, "An Ocean Blueprint for the
21^st^ Century," called for a national water quality monitoring network.
The Administration's response to the Ocean Commission report is the U.S.
Ocean Action Plan. As part of that overall plan, the CEQ and the SWAQ,
and the Joint Subcommittee on Oceans Science and Technology JSOST,
(which is a subcommittee of the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC), charged the ACWI with the task of designing the national water
quality monitoring network. [See Appendix 1-1 for the full text of this
charge](../final_approved_CEQ_Proposalappen1-1_111604.doc). ACWI is a
federal advisory committee which has membership representing federal and
nonfederal interests and includes agencies and organizations that have a
large range of responsibilities for water resources. ACWI formally
accepted the charge from CEQ, SWAQ, and JSOST in February, 2005, and
delegated leadership for the effort to the National Water Quality
Monitoring Council (herein after referred to as the Council), which is a
subcommittee of ACWI. The Council has a similar broad range of
representation and interests (see
<http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/monitoring/index.html> for
information). The project began in early 2005 and was completed in
January 2006.

Given the large size of the task and the short timeframe for completion,
the actual work of designing the network was accomplished by about 80
individuals representing about 40 different organizations, including
federal and state agencies, academia, interstate organizations, and the
private sector. The project was divided among a steering committee that
had overall responsibility and four workgroups, each of which was
responsible for a major aspect of the project---network design, methods
and data comparability, data storage and access, and review of existing
monitoring. All of these participants, each of whom is an expert in some
aspect of monitoring, generously volunteered their time. The names and
affiliations of all participants are provided in [Appendix
1-2.](../NMNAckList.doc)

The general approach taken was to design the Network to address specific
goals and objectives based on what is actually needed as opposed to
presenting a consolidation of ongoing programs. Of course, members of
the Network design team are familiar with current monitoring efforts and
were mindful of the fact that Network implementation will be built on
monitoring efforts that are already in place or planned. For example,
federally funded monitoring that provides nationwide water resource
information will be the foundation of the Network which will be
augmented by state and local monitoring. To the extent possible,
existing data systems will be better coordinated to make data sharing
more efficient. All of this will reduce the costs of Network
implementation, although completely new monitoring efforts will be
required to some extent. As part of Network implementation, a full
inventory of ongoing activities will be needed to determine which
portion of the proposed Network design can be achieved through ongoing
monitoring and which will require new efforts.

2.  **Network Design Features**

The Network focuses on coastal waters and proposes a significant
monitoring effort to determine conditions and trends in estuaries,
nearshore marine waters, offshore marine waters within the U.S.
Exclusive Economic Zone, and the Great Lakes. The Network also includes
a significant monitoring component for rivers. The design for rivers is
focused on the need for data on flow and loads of constituents to
coastal waters. Ground water will be monitored where appropriate as will
atmospheric deposition to determine direct loads to coastal waters.
Coastal beaches will be monitored to determine the levels of
microbiological indicators of human or animal waste. Wetlands are
included in the list of resources to be monitored but the design of this
effort is deferred at present because of technical considerations. The
Network will address specific water quality issues, listed in Table 1-1,
that are relevant to resource managers and the general public.

An important feature of the design is that it is linked with the IOOS
which is an integrated and sustained system of observations and data
management that will routinely provide information about coastal waters
and coastal ecosystems. (See [http://www.ocean.us](http://www.ocean.us/)
for additional information about IOOS.) The Network will produce much of
the water quality data and information needed to address some of the
IOOS goals and be a part of the overall plan for an IOOS. For example,
water quality monitoring is specifically designed around the eleven U.S.
IOOS regions, and data will be aggregated and report to allow regional
assessments and regional comparisons. Furthermore, IOOS Regional
Associations will have an important role in establishing final
specifications for some of the Network resource components. U.S. IOOS
Regions are Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, Caribbean, Gulf of
Mexico, Southern California, Northern California, Pacific Northwest,
Alaska, Hawaii and the Pacific Islands, and the Great Lakes (see
<http://usnfra.org/>).

The Network is designed to allow for trend detection, yet it is also
designed to be flexible and to change over time. This is not necessarily
contradictory. Rather, it implies that Network data will be frequently
interpreted to identify monitoring sites that might be dropped from the
Network or sampled less frequently, as well as identifying spatial gaps
or the need for more frequent data collection. The design also
recognizes that there will continue to be improvements in
instrumentation that will allow for more in-situ monitoring and the
collection of more data by remote sensing. New technologies will be
incorporated into the Network when they are ready for operational
deployment. Finally, the Network will need to expand its suite of
constituents as analytical detection limits decrease over time and new
and potentially problematic chemicals are detected in the environment.

**1.3 What the Network will not do**

There is a great deal of monitoring in the U.S. that does not fall under
the general umbrella of the Network proposed in this report. This
monitoring continues to be important and necessary for resource
management. For example, the Network will provide critical information
at regional and national scales. However, there are problems that will
not be identified and environmental responses to management actions that
will not be tracked simply because they happen at a smaller scale than
the Network is designed to detect. Monitoring at this finer scale in
small rivers, lakes, reservoirs, local ground water aquifers, and in
smaller watersheds will continue to be needed and will be the primary
responsibility of state and local agencies. The Network focuses on
coastal waters and issues that affect coastal water quality. Thus,
drinking water monitoring is not specifically included, although it is
certainly critical to the health of the Nation. A key point is that the
proposed Network does not incorporate or replace all existing water
quality monitoring programs. These other programs address important
societal needs and provide important monitoring data that will not be
provided by the Network.

4.  **Organization of this report**

This report is presented in five additional chapters. Chapter 2 presents
some of the management issues that the Network was designed to address
and two general goals for the Network. The chapter then goes into detail
about each of five major Network objectives. Chapters 3-5 present the
design of the Network. Chapter 3 provides specifics about the
constituents that will be monitored in the Network, general monitoring
approaches, and plans for each of the resource components. Chapter 4
addresses the need for methods and data comparability so that data
collected from multiple monitoring efforts across the country can be
integrated to provide regional and national perspectives. Chapter 5
provides an overview of important features of data management systems
that will make Network data accessible to multiple users. Chapter 6
focuses on implementation of the network and suggests models for how the
Network might be managed and maintained. The report closes with
recommendations for pilot studies and for formation of a small
interagency program staff to provide leadership and coordination of
early steps in Network implementation.

Table 1-1: Water Quality Issues

-   Oxygen depletion

-   Nutrient enrichment

-   Toxic contamination

-   Sedimentation

-   Harmful algal blooms

-   Habitat degradation

-   Invasions by exotic species

-   Pathogens (indicator bacteria)

Loss of Seagrass in Tampa Bay

An Example of the Effects of Upland Activities on an Estuarine Ecosystem

Seagrasses provide both food and shelter for many marine animals,
especially young fish and shellfish. A significant decline in the extent
of seagrass beds or a change in their composition is one measure of
undesirable change in marine ecosystems. Since 1950, when population
growth began to increase exponentially in the Tampa Bay, Florida area,
nearly half the bay\'s marshes and 40 percent of its seagrasses have
disappeared. Evidence indicated that the dieback of seagrasses could be
attributed to the rapid urbanization of the Tampa Bay region.
Urbanization contributed excessive nitrogen to the bay, which stimulated
an overabundance of phytoplankton (algae suspended in the water column)
which, in turn, resulted in insufficient light reaching submerged
grasses.

Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus are necessary for growth of
plants and animals and help to support a healthy aquatic ecosystem. In
excess, however, nutrients can be a cause for concern. Much of the
nutrient input to estuaries comes from upland sources in the coastal
watershed, including point and non-point sources such as sewage
treatment plant discharges, runoff of storm waters from lawns and
agricultural lands, faulty or leaking septic systems, animal wastes,
groundwater discharge, and atmospheric deposition originating from power
plants or vehicles.

Excessive nutrients stimulate the growth of algae. As the algae die,
they decay and rob the water of oxygen. The algae also prevent sunlight
from penetrating through the water column. Fish and shellfish are
deprived of oxygen, and underwater seagrasses are deprived of light.
Animals that depend on seagrasses for food or shelter leave the area or
die. Increased algae and their decay products may also cause foul smells
and decreased aesthetic value in coastal areas.

Wastewater (sewage) discharges were once a major source of nitrogen to
Tampa Bay. In the 1970s, major improvements to sewage treatment plants
reduced the nitrogen in wastewater by more than 90 percent, leading to
clearer water and sparking a recovery of seagrasses that continues to
this day. However, improvements in sewage treatment plants were not the
entire solution to the problem because the estuary is also affected by
nitrogen from nonpoint sources such as urban and agricultural stormwater
runoff. The Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP), established in 1991 under
the guidance of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, forged an
unprecedented partnership of federal, state, regional and local
interests. Because of concerns about seagrass loss and other problems
associated with excess nutrients, the TBEP organized the Nitrogen
Management Consortium, a precedent-setting alliance of local
governments, regulatory agencies and key industries affecting Tampa Bay.
Consortium members developed a comprehensive plan to control nitrogen
inputs to Tampa Bay from the coastal watershed as a means of restoring
vital underwater seagrass beds. Seagrass beds were selected by TBEP as a
yardstick by which efforts to improve the bay could be measured because
of their overall importance to the bay ecosystem and because they are an
important indicator of long-term changes in water quality. The TBEP's
short-term management goal was to cap nitrogen loadings to the bay at
1992-1994 average levels, requiring a reduction in nitrogen loading by
17 tons per year (or 85 tons in 5 years) to compensate for expected
population growth. The long-term goal is to recover 12,350 acres of
seagrasses bay wide, while maintaining the existing 25,650 acres. This
number roughly represents the seagrass acreage that existed in 1950,
excluding areas that have been permanently altered by dredging or
filling activities.

When fully implemented, the actions proposed by TBEP's comprehensive
conservation and management plan (Charting the Course for Tampa Bay,
1996) will reduce the amount of nitrogen entering the bay by an average
of 134 tons over a five-year period\--exceeding the reduction target by
60 percent. Management actions and projects include: 1). stormwater
facilities and upgrades; 2). wastewater effluent reuse; 3). atmospheric
emissions reduction; 4). industrial upgrades; 5). agricultural best
management practices or BMPs; 6). land acquisition and protection; and
7) education and public involvement.

Success in restoring Tampa Bay is measured by the collective progress in
achieving the priority goals of the program. For example, nitrogen
reduction has led to seagrass recovery at a rate of 500 acres per year
baywide. TBEP's success in reducing watershed nutrient loadings and
restoring seagrass beds in the estuary is an example of how management
actions in upland coastal watersheds directly impact the condition of
estuarine receiving waters.

In addition to restoring habitat in the estuary, reducing nutrient
loading to estuaries also results in a reduction of nutrients entering
the oceans. The positive effects of coastal watershed nutrient load
reductions may include improvements in water quality that reduce or
suppress excessive algae growth and negative impacts to shellfish and
other commercially important species.

The Tampa Bay study is an example of the kinds of data that will be
provided by the monitoring Network for most of the important estuaries
in the United States. The Network will generate data on loads of
nutrients and other chemicals from major tributaries and will sample
water chemistry and biological condition within the estuary itself.
Although the density of sampling may not lead directly to the kinds of
management actions taken in the Tampa Bay area, the Network will produce
data of sufficient spatial and temporal scale to alert managers to
widespread problems which can then be addressed by more detailed
monitoring by local, state, and regional organizations.

**Chapter 2 Network Goals, Objectives, and Management Issues**

In its final report, The COP envisioned a future when the Nation's
waters and beaches would:

-   Be clean, safe, prospering, and sustainably managed.

-   Support multiple, beneficial uses such as:

    -   food production;

    -   development of energy and mineral resources;

    -   recreation and tourism;

    -   transportation of goods and people; and

    -   discovery of novel medicines.

-   Preserve a high level of biodiversity and a range of critical
    natural habitats.

The COP acknowledged that despite growing threats to ocean, coastal, and
Great Lakes waters, there was no national monitoring network in place to
assess their status, track changes over time, help identify causes and
impacts, or determine the success of management efforts. They recognized
the need for increased monitoring not only along the Nation's coasts,
but also inland where pollutants often originate and then travel
downstream, to ultimately affect coastal waters.

Recognizing this need, one of the primary recommendations from the COP
was the creation of a national monitoring network (herein after referred
to as the Network). In their recommendation, the COP acknowledged the
necessity of establishing clear monitoring goals and objectives that are
linked to contemporary resource management issues. Specifically, Chapter
15 of the COP's final report states:

> *"The national monitoring network should set clear, specific goals and
> objectives that reflect national, state, regional, territorial,
> tribal, and local needs. The goals and objectives should be geared
> toward the assessment of management approaches, including best
> management practices, and be based on pressing management issues.
> Successful monitoring should target issues that policy makers,
> scientists, managers, and the public consider important, providing a
> basis for possible management actions."*

**2.1 Management Issues**

As discussed in Chapter 1, the Council is the entity selected to design
the Network. The approach suggested by the COP is consistent with the
Council's longstanding guidance that identification of management
targets, issues, and questions is the essential first step in developing
any water quality monitoring effort. Establishment of clear goals and
objectives to address those issues and questions then follows. The set
of questions selected by the Council is intended to capture the types of
water quality information the Nation needs from its monitoring efforts
as a whole. The Network has been designed to directly address some of
these questions while providing data that, when interpreted through
existing monitoring and management efforts, will help address others.
These management questions include:

-   What is the condition of the Nation\'s surface, ground, estuarine,
    and coastal waters?

-   Where, how, and why are water quality conditions changing over time?

-   Where/What are the problems related to water quality?

-   What is causing the problems?

-   Are programs to prevent or remediate problems working effectively?

-   What research activities are needed to support these important
    resources and ensure they are understood and sustainable?

**2.2 Network Goals and Objectives**

Based on these management issues and questions, the following goals and
objectives have been established to provide the foundation for the
Network. Alignment of the Network's objectives with the management
questions listed above is provided in [Table
2-1](../table/table2-1.Alignment-of-NMN.doc).

Table 2-1. Alignment of NMN Objectives and Management Questions

+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| Objective                         | Management Questions             |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 1\. Define status and trends of   | What is the condition of the     |
| key water quality parameters and  | Nation\'s surface, ground,       |
| conditions on a nationwide basis. | estuarine, and coastal waters?   |
|                                   |                                  |
|                                   | Where, how, and why are WQ       |
|                                   | conditions changing over time    |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 2\. Provide data relevant to      | Are programs to prevent or       |
| determining whether goals,        | remediate problems working       |
| standards, and resource           | effectively?                     |
| management objectives are being   |                                  |
| met, thus contributing to         | Are water quality goals and      |
| sustainable and beneficial use of | standards being met?             |
| coastal and inland water          |                                  |
| resources                         |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 3\. Provide data to identify and  | Where/What are the problems      |
| rank existing and emerging        | related to WQ?                   |
| problems to help target more      |                                  |
| intensive monitoring, preventive  | What is causing the problems?    |
| actions, or remediation.          |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 4\. Provide data to support and   | What research activities are     |
| define coastal oceanographic and  | needed to support these          |
| hydrologic research, including    | important resources and ensure   |
| influences of freshwater inflows. | they are understood and          |
|                                   | sustainable?                     |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+
| 5\. Provide quality-assured data  | Needed for all management        |
| for use in the preparation of     | questions.                       |
| interpretive reports and          |                                  |
| educational materials.            |                                  |
+-----------------------------------+----------------------------------+

> [Goals]{.underline}:

1.  Integrate, coordinate, and as necessary, enhance water quality
    monitoring efforts needed to make informed management decisions for
    sustainable use of aquatic resources.

2.  Communicate the availability of quality-assured data, and
    disseminate information products relevant to national, regional, and
    local needs.

[Objectives]{.underline}:

1.  Define status and trends of key water quality parameters and
    conditions on a nationwide basis.

2.  Provide data relevant to determining whether goals, standards, and
    resource- management objectives are being met, thus contributing to
    sustainable and beneficial use of coastal and inland water
    resources.

3.  Provide data to identify and rank existing and emerging problems to
    help target more intensive monitoring, preventive actions, or
    remediation.

4.  Provide data to support and define coastal oceanographic and
    hydrologic research, including influences of freshwater inflows.

5.  Provide access to quality-assured data for use in the preparation of
    interpretive reports and educational materials.

These objectives, detailed below, are intended to provide data for use
in determining whether the conditions of the Nation's freshwater,
estuarine, and coastal resources are getting better or worse at a broad
regional or national scale. It should be noted, however, that a national
monitoring network will be unable to answer all questions or resolve
issues at the local level where important water-quality standards,
compliance, and control decisions are often made.

It is envisioned that the Network will make use of and build upon
existing federal, tribal, state, and local monitoring. These entities
will contribute data to the network database and will use the database
to address important scientific and management questions. The Network
will not replace existing efforts; rather, it will supplement these
efforts and help make resulting products more definitive and useful.

**2.2.1. Define status and trends of key water quality parameters and
conditions on a nationwide basis.**

Water quality status refers to current or recent water quality
conditions. An understanding of water quality status requires knowledge
of not only local natural conditions (e.g., geology and hydrology) that
influence water quality characteristics but also experience with natural
variability associated with water quality sample collection and
measurement efforts. These typically require a priori knowledge of an
area to be sampled or several years of monitoring efforts to establish a
baseline. A few important water quality characteristics, such as
temperature, salinity, some chemical constituents, and a variety of
physical characteristics can be measured with remote sensing or in situ
monitoring devices and reported in real time. Other characteristics,
such as specific dissolved ions and anthropogenic organic chemicals, are
typically analyzed in the laboratory from samples collected in the field
and the data are, therefore, available some time after the samples are
collected. For chemical constituents, water quality data are usually
expressed in terms of concentrations of the constituent of interest. It
is important to note that water quality parameters and conditions
include not only physical and chemical constituents, but biological
characteristics as well. Important biological characteristics include
chlorophyll-a concentrations, fish, shellfish, zooplankton, and
phytoplankton species, and abundance and the presence of pathogens and
invasive species. To fully understand water quality conditions, it would
be necessary to have considerable information about the physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics of a water body. In this
report, the word "condition" is used to refer to an understanding of a
some aspect of the resource. Thus, it is not necessary to know
everything about a resource component in order to know something about
it.

Trends in water quality imply changes in particular parameters or
indices over space or time. Time trends usually involve repeated
measurements of the same parameters at the same location over time.
Trends in spatial coverage can also be important. Interpretation of
trend data must consider changes in factors that affect water quality,
such as geology, temperature, flow, and other hydrologic
characteristics. Key terrestrial drivers of change in the oceans include
river and stream flows, ground water discharge, and mass transport of
sediments, nutrients, and contaminants. Natural variability in water
quality observations will increase the difficulty in detecting trends
but some understanding of this complicating factor is available from the
historic records of monitoring programs that have been underway for
several decades in this country.

**2.2.2. Provide data relevant to determining whether goals, standards,
and resource management objectives are being met, thus contributing to
sustainable and beneficial use of coastal and inland water resources.**

The final report from the COP states that, to be successful, the Network
must provide information that allows assessment of the effectiveness of
management approaches, such as determining the management practices and
actions that lead to continual improvements in reaching ecosystem goals.
Likewise, the report states that monitoring results should support
adaptive management that allows decisionmakers to support approaches
that demonstrate measurable success in attaining ecosystem goals and
revise practices that are falling short of achieving those goals.

Environmental monitoring is essential for determining the effectiveness
of water management activities. The focus of the Network is on coastal
resources and the upland watersheds that affect them. Thus, measuring
the conditions of coastal environments is key to determining whether
goals for protection of coastal resources are being achieved. Monitoring
watersheds that drain to the coast is also important because land and
water use in inland areas affects the quality of rivers that flow into
coastal bays, estuaries, wetlands, and the ocean. Inland freshwaters are
critical to human water use and to healthy aquatic ecosystems. Network
monitoring of larger freshwater river systems at a level that is needed
to help identify the sources and causes of problems in coastal areas
will also provide insight into the conditions of these inland waters
and, therefore, assist managers whose primary concerns are with
freshwater resources.

The Network will include monitoring protocols and approaches that
provide data relevant to a variety of management issues, such as:

1.  Water quality summaries prepared by state or federal scientific and
    management agencies;

2.  Assessments of coastal conditions;

3.  Fisheries management;

4.  Determination of the status of freshwater, estuarine, and marine
    habitats and biological communities;

5.  Recreational beach quality;

6.  Atmospheric deposition; and

7.  Availability of water for sustaining coastal ecosystems.

It is noteworthy to recognize that, while data from the Network will be
useful to a variety of agencies and other end users in determining
whether goals and standards are being met, the Network will not make
such determinations itself. Reports generated by the Network will
provide results based on absolute values rather than on specific water
quality standards, and will present results by natural geographical
zones to account for spatial differences due to natural causes. Temporal
trends will be evaluated by examining absolute values through time.

**2.2.3. Provide data to identify and rank existing and emerging
problems to help target more intensive monitoring, preventive actions,
or remediation.**

The Network will provide data to help identify and rank causes of
concern and their sources for waters that are judged by others to not
meet criteria, standards, or management expectations, or that show
trends indicating deteriorating conditions. An important component of
this effort will be to provide data that will support an analysis of the
effectiveness of preventive actions or remediation, or whether targeted,
more intensive monitoring is needed to better determine causes and
appropriate action. In most cases, intensive studies will be beyond the
scope of the Network and will be designed and conducted by local and
regional agencies. This objective requires that the Network provides
information to assist in designing special studies to determine the
probable causes of observed problems in the environment. For example,
the Network should not only document that a harmful algal bloom occurred
in a specific location at a specific time, but it should also provide
information on the changes in certain environmental conditions that may
have influenced such a bloom so that the appropriate management actions
can be taken or further research can be initiated. That does not mean
that the Network should in all cases provide all of the information that
is needed but it should, at least, lead to development of testable
hypotheses about why conditions have improved or deteriorated.

**2.2.4. Provide data to support and define coastal oceanographic and
hydrologic research, including influences of freshwater inflows.**

Research is a widely recognized priority for addressing coastal resource
management issues and developing innovative procedures and technologies
to assess and forecast impacts of single and multiple stresses on the
coastal environment and ecosystems. However, research is often not
integrated into long-term environmental monitoring protocols. In part
this is due to problem of scales of observations, data ownership issues,
and timeframes within which key decisions have to be made. The Network
will provide data that will help to integrate and strengthen research
and modeling studies, including development of:

1.  A better understanding of scales and trends in physical alteration
    of watersheds, freshwater delivery, and water quality parameters;

2.  Models that simulate linkages between land, water, and air across
    spatial and temporal scales, and that forecast ecological response
    to changing patterns of land and resource use;

3.  Relationships between pollution loads and habitat quality;

4.  Criteria and indicators to assure habitat quality and restoration;
    and

5.  Insight into sources, transport, transformation, fate and effects of
    toxic chemicals, excess nutrients, pathogens, and other sources of
    environmental degradation.

> In addition, the data will support research projects to develop
> statistical tools for trend detection, scale integration among
> monitoring parameters, site selection criteria for more intensive
> monitoring, sensor calibration and improvement, and introduction of
> new remote- sensing tools and platforms that could be used by the
> Network in the future.

**2.2.5. Provide access to quality-assured data for multiple uses
including preparation of interpretive reports and educational
materials.**

One of the guiding principles used by the Council in developing the
Network was that monitoring efforts must provide data that are useful
and used. Details of the types of information products provided by the
Network are provided in Chapter 6. In summary, the Network will provide
data in a timely fashion with appropriate metadata so that the data can
be used for a variety of purposes as outlined in objectives 1-4. Easy
accessibility will be a key to effective use of the monitoring network
data, because it is likely that the data will come from a variety of
federal, tribal, state, municipal, academic, and private sector sources.
Each of these data providers will have a responsibility to meet defined
criteria or standards to assure comparability as is described in Chapter
4 and 5. Those chapters describe the data production, transmission,
storage, and retrieval standards that will allow maximum use by
scientists, resource managers, and the interested public. In addition to
providing data that are used by numerous agencies and groups to develop
interpretative reports, it is expected that Network managers will
provide a written summary of national water quality conditions on a
regular basis.

**Chapter 3 Design Specifications**

The Network design proposed in this report and outlined in detail in
this chapter provides a blueprint for what is needed to assess water
quality conditions and trends in US coastal waters and their
tributaries. For most resource components, design concepts and
strategies are complete, although some specific monitoring sites and
other details will be determined by consultation with local experts. The
design for coastal beaches and wetlands and for resource conditions in
large rivers is deferred at present pending additional research on
methods and approaches. The overall design, however, is clear enough for
both the water-quality monitoring community and the potential users of
the data to envision the kind of information that will be available to
them upon full implementation of the Network. This specificity is a key
feature of the proposed Network and one that has rarely been attempted
at this scale and for so many different resource components.

Resource components included in the Network are estuaries, near shore
marine waters (0 to 3 nautical miles), offshore marine waters (3
nautical miles to the seaward edge of the exclusive economic zone or
EEZ)), the Great Lakes, and recreational beaches along the coast. The
Network monitors rivers that flow directly into estuaries, coastal
marine waters, the Great Lakes, and rivers draining upland watersheds
that are tributary to these waters. Atmospheric deposition near the
coasts will be monitored as will ground water in those areas where
aquifers discharge directly to coastal waters. The Network is national
in scope and will provide data at a temporal and spatial scale that is
sufficient for regional and national statements about resource
conditions. Sampling is repeated over time so that changes and trends
can be detected. Data from the proposed Network will make a significant
contribution to evaluations of the effectiveness of management actions,
identification of emerging problems, and other objectives described in
Chapter 2 of this report.

Data from each resource component could stand alone and would be
valuable for that reason alone. However, the Network was designed as a
whole so that its value is greater than the sum of its parts. Several
features of this integrated design are worth noting. First, the design
recognizes that the environmental components are linked by the
hydrologic cycle ([See Figure 3-1](../Figure3-1.doc)) through which
water is constantly moving. The quality of coastal waters is determined
in large part by the sources of tributary waters that carry materials
including sediment, naturally-occurring and anthropogenic chemicals, and
many types of organisms. Second, the monitoring plan has a common set of
physical, chemical, and biological analyses that will further strengthen
the linkages established by the flow of water among the resource
components. Thus, the sampling design will provide insights into the
onshore sources of water, sediment, nutrients, and contaminants and to
their effect on the coastal resources. Third several different methods
of data collection are used in the design, each of which is appropriate
for the scale of the specific resource component and monitoring purpose.

Figure 3-1. The Water Cycle

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="5.989583333333333in"
height="4.166666666666667in"}

**3.1 Constituents**

The general categories of measurements and the resource components where
these measurements will be made are listed in [Table
3-1](../table/table3-1.doc). The constituents to be monitored include
physical characteristics, inorganic and organic chemical concentrations,
and biological condition. All of these categories are necessary and a
broad suite of measurements is needed to be relevant to the water
resource issues that the Network was designed to address ([see table
2-1](../table/table2-1.Alignment-of-NMN.doc)). These issues which
include nutrient enrichment, oxygen depletion, toxic contamination,
sedimentation, and habitat degradation affect both human use of water
resources and the suitability of these resources as habitat for living
creatures. The relationship between the constituents chosen for
monitoring and the issues that the network is designed to address is
provided in the column, "Why Monitor". For example, some trace metals
and organic chemicals are toxic to humans and wildlife.

**Table 3-1: Network measurements**

\[E, estuary; NC, near shore; EEZ, offshore; GL, Great Lakes; R, river;
GW, ground water; A, atmospheric deposition\]

Constituents listed in the examples column will not all be measured in
all resource components.

Examples highlighted in bold type are identified as persistent,
bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT) chemicals <http://www.epa.gov/pbt/>.

+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Mon     | Examples  | Why monitor                           | Res   |
| itoring |           |                                       | ource |
| c       |           |                                       | compo |
| ategory |           |                                       | nents |
|         |           |                                       | moni  |
|         |           |                                       | tored |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| P       |           |                                       |       |
| hysical |           |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Flow    | st        | Measurements of streamflow are needed | E,    |
| ma      | reamflow, | to determine loads and transport of   | NC,   |
| gnitude | ground    | chemicals in the hydrologic           | EEZ,  |
| and     | water     | environment. The direction of winds   | GL,   |
| di      | flow,     | and water currents affect the         | R,    |
| rection | tide      | transport of chemicals in the         | GW, A |
|         | height,   | atmosphere and in water.              |       |
|         | water     |                                       |       |
|         | currents, |                                       |       |
|         | wind      |                                       |       |
|         | direction |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| P       | channel   | The physical habitat influences water | E,    |
| hysical | slope,    | velocity, sediment transport, and     | GL, R |
| habitat | width,    | potential for biological growth.      |       |
|         | bottom    |                                       |       |
|         | m         |                                       |       |
|         | aterials, |                                       |       |
|         | depth     |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Se      | suspended | Sediments transport inorganic and     | E,    |
| diments | and       | organic chemicals in the water        | GL, R |
|         | bottom    | column. Suspended and bottom          |       |
|         | sediment  | sediments should be analyzed for      |       |
|         | conce     | trace metals, carbon, pesticides,     |       |
|         | ntration, | PCBs, and PAHs.                       |       |
|         | (%        |                                       |       |
|         | sand/s    |                                       |       |
|         | ilt/clay) |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Chemic  |           |                                       |       |
| al---in |           |                                       |       |
| organic |           |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Water-  | tem       | Basic characteristics of water, often | E,    |
| quality | perature, | measured in the field, provide        | NC,   |
| c       | pH,       | valuable information about the        | EEZ,  |
| haracte | dissolved | resource. Sensors measure many        | GL,   |
| ristics | oxygen,   | continuously. They may be indicators  | R,    |
|         | con       | of the presence or the effects of     | GW, A |
|         | ductance, | other contaminants in the water       |       |
|         | t         | column.                               |       |
|         | urbidity, |                                       |       |
|         | color,    |                                       |       |
|         | a         |                                       |       |
|         | lkalinity |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Major   | calcium,  | Major anions and cations affect the   | GL,   |
| ions    | m         | taste of water (hardness or salty).   | R,    |
|         | agnesium, | They are indicators of natural        | GW, A |
|         | p         | dissolution of local geology and      |       |
|         | otassium, | human sources such as agricultural    |       |
|         | sodium,   | and urban runoff.                     |       |
|         | chloride, |                                       |       |
|         | sulfate   |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Nu      | nitrate,  | Nutrient concentrations and ratios of | E,    |
| trients | nitrite,  | nitrogen to phosphorus in water limit | NC,   |
|         | ammonium, | or enhance the growth rate of         | EEZ,  |
|         | organic   | organisms in water such as harmful    | GL,   |
|         | nitrogen, | algae.                                | R,    |
|         | ph        | h                                     | GW, A |
|         | osphorus, | ttp://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/nutrients/ |       |
|         | silica    |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Metals  | aluminum, | Many metals are abundant in the       | E,    |
| and     | arsenic,  | earth's crust and in water. Trace     | NC,   |
| met     | cadmium,  | elements are inorganic chemicals      | GL,   |
| alloids | chromium, | usually occurring in small amounts in | R,    |
|         | copper,   | nature. Many trace metals are toxic   | GW, A |
|         | iron,     | and or carcinogenic. Recently,        |       |
|         | lead,     | arsenic and mercury concentrations in |       |
|         | **m       | water are of concern.                 |       |
|         | ercury**, | http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/trace/    |       |
|         | selenium, |                                       |       |
|         | zinc      |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Chem    |           |                                       |       |
| ical--- |           |                                       |       |
| organic |           |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Carbon, | organic,  | The amount and type of carbon may     | E,    |
| total   | inorganic | affect the transport of other         | NC,   |
| and     |           | contaminants in the water column.     | EEZ,  |
| di      |           | Reflects the general trophic state of | GL,   |
| ssolved |           | the resource.                         | R, GW |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Bulk    | oil and   | Oil and grease is an analytical       | E,    |
| o       | grease,   | method-based term that includes       | NC,   |
| rganics | humic and | hydrocarbons, fatty acids, soaps,     | GL,   |
|         | fulvic    | fats, waxes, and oils. Humic and      | R, GW |
|         | acids     | fulvic acids originate from plant and |       |
|         |           | soil materials that are leached into  |       |
|         |           | water.                                |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| V       | TCE, PCE, | Many VOCs, commonly used as solvents, | E,    |
| olatile | carbon    | degreasers, or components of          | GL,   |
| organic | tetra     | petroleum products are persistent,    | R, GW |
| co      | chloride, | bioaccumulating toxins.               |       |
| mpounds | benzene,  | http://sd.water.usgs.gov/nawqa/vocns/ |       |
| (VOCs)  | toluene   |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Pes     | **aldrin, | Pesticides are used to control or     | E, R, |
| ticides | dieldrin, | kill unwanted organisms. Pesticides   | GL,   |
|         | DDT, DDD, | include both hydrophobic and          | GW    |
|         | DDE,      | hydrophilic compounds. They are       |       |
|         | c         | applied to agricultural, residential, |       |
|         | hlordane, | industrial, forested, and             |       |
|         | h         | recreational areas. These pesticides  |       |
|         | exachloro | include organochlorine,               |       |
|         | -benzene, | organophosphate, and carbamate        |       |
|         | mirex**,  | insecticides and the triazine and     |       |
|         |           | acetanilide herbicides. Many of the   |       |
|         | atrazine, | chlorinated pesticides are PBTs.. Low |       |
|         | simzine,  | levels of more than 80 pesticides and |       |
|         | alachlor, | breakdown products were detected in   |       |
|         | aldicarb  | surface and ground water across the   |       |
|         |           | country.                              |       |
|         |           | http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/        |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Halo    | **Polych  | PCBs, dioxins, and furans are PBTs.   |  E,   |
| genated | lorinated | PCB have been shown to cause          | GL, R |
| hydro   | biphenyls | [cancer](htt                          |       |
| carbons | (PCBs),   | p://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/#Cancer) |       |
|         |  dioxins, | and a number of serious               |       |
|         | furans**  | [non-cancer](http:/                   |       |
|         |           | /www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/#NonCancer) |       |
|         |           | health effects in animals, including  |       |
|         |           | effects on the [immune                |       |
|         |           | system](http                          |       |
|         |           | ://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/#Immune), |       |
|         |           | [reproductive                         |       |
|         |           | system](htt                           |       |
|         |           | p://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/#Repro), |       |
|         |           | [nervous                              |       |
|         |           | system](htt                           |       |
|         |           | p://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/#Neuro), |       |
|         |           | and [endocrine                        |       |
|         |           | system](http://                       |       |
|         |           | www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/#Endocrine). |       |
|         |           | http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/pcb/      |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Pol     | nap       | PAHs are produced naturally and from  |  E,   |
| ycyclic | hthalene, | anthropogenic sources such as         | GL, R |
| a       | phen      | incomplete combustion of organic      |       |
| romatic | anthrene, | materials. Exposure to BaP over short |       |
| hydro   | pyrene,   | periods potentially causes red blood  |       |
| carbons |           | cell damage, leading to anemia and    |       |
| (PAHs)  | **b       | over long term it may cause           |       |
|         | enzo(A)** | suppressed immune system              |       |
|         |           | developmental, reproductive effects,  |       |
|         | **pyrene  | and cancer.                           |       |
|         | (BaP)**,  | http://www.epa.gov/pbt/pubs/benzo.htm |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| New and | Pharma    | Recently, low-level concentrations of |  E,   |
| e       | ceuticals | multiple organic wastewater           | GL,   |
| merging | and       | contaminants such as pharmaceuticals, | R, GW |
| conta   | personal  | personal care products, and endocrine |       |
| minants | care      | disrupters were reported in           |       |
|         | products  | surface-water samples                 |       |
|         | (PPCPs),  | http://toxics.usgs.gov/). The effects |       |
|         | ant       | of multiple PPCPs in water on biota   |       |
|         | ibiotics, | and humans are unknown.               |       |
|         | flame     |                                       |       |
|         | re        |                                       |       |
|         | tardants, |                                       |       |
|         | stain     |                                       |       |
|         | re        |                                       |       |
|         | pellents, |                                       |       |
|         | lub       |                                       |       |
|         | ri-cants, |                                       |       |
|         | i         |                                       |       |
|         | ndustrial |                                       |       |
|         | d         |                                       |       |
|         | etergents |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| Bio     |           |                                       |       |
| logical |           |                                       |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+
| > Bio   | ch        | Biological assessments are            |  E,   |
| logical | lorophyll | evaluations of the condition of water | N     |
| > asse  | A, algae, | bodies using surveys and other direct | C,GL, |
| ssments | bacteria, | measurements of resident biological   | R     |
|         | viruses,  | organisms. Biological assessment      |       |
|         | ma        | results are used to answer the        |       |
|         | cro-inver | question of whether water bodies      |       |
|         | tebrates, | support survival and reproduction of  |       |
|         | fish      | desirable fish, shellfish, and other  |       |
|         |           | aquatic species \-- in other words,   |       |
|         |           | if the water bodies meet their        |       |
|         |           | designated aquatic life uses.         |       |
+---------+-----------+---------------------------------------+-------+

Many of the measurements are made in all resource components and no
measurement is made for fewer than three of the components. This is an
important aspect of the overall design because this continuity of
measurements will allow linkages among the resources. For example every
constituent group measured in rivers is also measured in estuaries and
the Great Lakes. Where appropriate, ground water and atmospheric
deposition will also be monitored for the same group of constituents.
Thus, for example, it will be possible to identify at a broad scale the
inland sources of nutrients and determine loads of these chemicals to
estuaries and the coastal ocean or to the Great Lakes. Similarly, many
of the constituents measured in estuaries will also be monitored in the
near shore and offshore oceans to strengthen our understanding of the
linkages among these marine resource components.

There are a large number of organic chemicals that might be included in
the Network. Naturally-occurring organic chemicals which are produced by
plants from carbon dioxide are the base of the food chain. Thus a
general measure of total organic carbon will reflect the general trophic
status of the resource. There are also thousands of organic chemicals in
the environment that are made by humans. Most of these synthetic organic
chemicals were manufactured for some useful purpose; however, when they
occur in water resources, they can be a cause for concern. Because
chemical analyses of thousands of organic chemicals would be
prohibitively expensive, there is a need to select a specific set of
these chemicals for any monitoring program.

Most Federal and State agencies have established lists of organic
chemicals appropriate for program goals and objectives and the
environmental components that are monitored. Agencies generally use a
systematic approach to compiling their lists based on chemical use,
toxicity, environmental occurrence or some combination of these factors.
For example, the U.S. Geological Survey National Water Quality
Monitoring Program chose to monitor water for pesticides and selected
pesticide degradation products that collectively account for 75 percent
of agricultural pesticide use in the U.S. and a substantial portion of
urban and suburban use (<http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/anstrat/>). Every
two years the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others revise the
National Priorities List (NPL) which is a list of chemicals that pose a
significant potential threat to human health due to their known or
suspected toxicity and potential for human exposure
([http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/clist.html]{.underline}). EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program uses a subset of the NPL list when it
tests marine sediments for a broad suite of organic chemicals that are
associated with sediments
(<http://www.epa.gov/emap/nca/html/data/analyte.txt>). The National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Status and Trends program
analyzes mussels and oysters for over 100 organic chemicals that are
persistent and accumulate in biological tissue
(<http://ccma.nos.noaa.gov/cit/data/mw_contaminants.html>).

Final decisions about the Network's specific list of chemicals and the
performance characteristics of the methods to detect them are deferred
at present. Selection of the inorganic chemicals is relatively
straight-forward. The methods to be used will likely depend on which
methods are sensitive enough to accomplish network goals yet operational
in the sense that they can be used by many different agencies across the
country. Chapter 4 of this report contains much additional information
about issues that must be considered in making decisions about
analytical methodology. In the case of organic chemicals, there will
need to be additional dialogue among experts to produce a final suite of
chemicals based on a comprehensive consideration of issues such as
toxicity and environmental distribution. This list of organic chemicals
will need to be reviewed periodically because new synthetic chemicals
are continuously being introduced into the environment. Further,
analytical chemistry methods are improving and detection limits are
falling, both of which allow detection and measurement of lower and
lower amounts of organic chemicals. The Network, operating as a
sentinel, must be prepared to incorporate these so-called emerging
contaminants into its list of constituents.

Selection of methods and approaches to be used to assess biological
conditions is also deferred. Biological measurements and assessments are
critical to the success of the Network and the general kinds of
measurements are clear. There will be measures of chlorophyll and,
perhaps, other biological pigments to determine trophic status.
Indicator bacteria will be measured at recreational beaches to assess
suitability for primary contact recreation. Mussels and other shellfish
will be monitored for bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals. Fish
populations will be assessed to determine changes in species
composition. Measures of the quality of water and sediment will provide
insight into whether or not habitats are improving or degrading.
Although this general picture of biological assessment is clear, there
are many decisions to be made about important details such as exactly
which species will be tracked, what characteristics of sediment quality
will be measured, and which biological pigments will be monitored. All
of these decisions will result from dialogue among technical experts
after careful consideration of Network goals and objectives.

**3.2 General approaches to site selection**

In 1997, a CENR report, **"Integrating The Nation's Environmental
Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed Framework,"**
defined a three-level framework related to the spatial and temporal
coverage of monitoring (CENR, 1997). The three levels were given as:

-   inventories and remote sensing programs,

-   national and regional resource surveys, and

-   intensive monitoring and intensive research sites.

The Network design includes inventories and remote sensing, targeted
monitoring and probability-based surveys, and intensive monitoring.
Thus, the Network takes advantage of all of the types of monitoring
approaches listed above and of current technology to meet multiple
objectives. Inventories provide complete spatial coverage of a resource.
An inventory is a census of the entire resource at a particular point in
time, such as that available from remote sensing programs. To be useful
in a monitoring program, the inventory must be available in near-real
time or within a few months. Many physical parameters proposed for open
oceans can be obtained this way. At the opposite end of the spectrum of
spatial coverage, intensive monitoring is characterized as site-specific
and is typified by either repeated measurements at a single site or the
use of a large number of sites in a relatively small area. Examples of
intensive monitoring include the use of moored buoys that record (and
transmit in some cases) data in relatively small time steps to provide
information about short term variability in water temperature.

National and regional surveys are the most frequently used approach.
These surveys gather information at a large number of locations with a
goal to describe the results at broad spatial and temporal scales.
Monitoring sites for national and regional surveys may be selected as
"targeted" or "representative" sites. Targeted sites are necessary when
information is required at specific locations or implementation can only
be accomplished under special conditions. For example, the Network
proposes to collect data at river sites that represent 90% of the
outflow of water and loads of constituents from large watersheds within
the United States. The location of these sites can be determined
objectively. Targeted site selection also applies to selection of sites
using the best professional judgment of experts guided by local
knowledge and Network goals and objectives. Transport within individual
estuaries will be monitored using this approach.

When the objective is to make inference to an entire resource, for
example, all estuaries in an IOOS region or all estuaries in the United
States, then determining the location of "representative" sites is best
accomplished by implementing a probability-based survey design.
Selecting sites randomly enables a scientifically-defensible answer to
such questions as "What percent (or how many hectares) of the estuarine
resource in the United States has sediment contamination greater than a
specified value?" The form of the question provides information that
helps determine the number of sites required. If, for example, the
percent of the resource with a specific condition must be estimated with
a margin of error (confidence interval half-width) of plus or minus 12
percent and confidence of 90 percent, then approximately 50 sites are
required. As an example, estimates are required for ten U.S. IOOS
regions (Great Lakes are treated separately) for near shore waters,
thus, approximately 500 sites will be included in a national design.

3.  **Data Collection Approaches**

The Network uses three basic approaches for data collection: remote
sensing, continuous sampling, and discrete sampling.

-   **Remote Sensing** platforms can be atmospheric-based (i.e.:
    > aircraft deployed), space-based (satellite deployed), or deployed
    > on autonomous underwater vehicles. Remote sensing instruments are
    > often categorized by the sensor\'s radiometric resolution, spatial
    > resolution, and temporal resolution. The temporal resolution that
    > can be achieved using remote sensing varies from less than an hour
    > to several days depending on characteristics of the sensor and
    > whether it is deployed on an aircraft or satellite. The great
    > advantage of remote sensing is that this tool allows for an
    > inventory of the entire resource at a particular point in time.
    > The U.S. National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
    > Satellite System (NPOESS) is an example of a new generation of
    > satellite systems intended to address the challenges of resolution
    > and continuity. NPOESS, the first operational satellite with an
    > ocean color sensor, will combine infrared and microwave
    > measurements to provide a powerful new tool for synoptic mapping
    > of temperature discontinuities and ocean color in real time and
    > for comparative analysis of water quality in coastal ecosystems on
    > a global scale. Remote sensing is typically applied for continuous
    > observation and measurement of physical variables such as water
    > temperature, wind speed and direction, current speed, wave height,
    > sea level, and sea ice distribution. With a few exceptions, such
    > as ocean color and chlorophyll concentrations, most chemical and
    > biological measurements are not amenable to remote sensing at this
    > time, although improvements in sensing technology may allow these
    > measurements in the future.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Continuous Sampling** results in multiple evenly spaced in situ
    measurements over a time interval. This type of data is normally
    collected electronically (sensors with data logger) and may or may
    not be real time (cell phone or satellite communications). The
    collection of continuous data allows for the investigation of a
    system's response to short-term events (tidal cycles, weather
    fronts, algal blooms, etc.) and provides calibration and/or
    validation data for models that run with short time steps. For
    example: the continuous stations in the rivers portion of the
    Network will supply information on flow of water into the estuaries
    which is needed to understand climatic and hydrologic variability,
    to calculate nutrient loading to the estuaries, and a variety of
    other purposes. Moored and drifting buoys are also commonly used
    offshore to measure characteristics such as sea surface winds,
    surface atmospheric pressure, wave height and direction, wave
    period, sea surface temperature, salinity, and chlorophyll and other
    plant pigments. Continuous water quality monitoring is commonly
    performed using in situ sensors and, increasingly, with auto
    analyzers. In situ sensors can monitor temperature, pH, dissolved
    oxygen, and specific conductance. Auto analyzers can now monitor for
    some nutrients including total reactive phosphorus, ammonia, and
    nitrate. The drawbacks to continuous sampling are that sensors and
    auto analyzers must be visited periodically for maintenance and
    calibration. Parameters that cannot currently be measured with
    continuous sampling include: contaminants, plankton, fish abundance,
    benthic organisms, pathogenic and indicator bacteria, and many macro
    and micro nutrients.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   **Discrete Sampling** is the collection of individual samples,
    usually by an observer, which result in measurements with a larger
    sample interval than for continuous sampling (for example, monthly).
    Discrete samples may also be collected with an unequal sample
    interval. For example, monthly samples are typically collected
    during about the same time of the calendar month as opposed to a
    constant 30-day sample interval. The great advantage of discrete
    sampling is that the sample is typically transported to a
    laboratory, on shore or aboard research vessels, where it can be
    analyzed for a great range of chemical and biological
    characteristics. The collection of discrete data can provide spatial
    patterns of physical, chemical, and biological variables. If
    collected at the same points, over the long-term (several years) the
    discrete data become an invaluable tool for identifying water
    quality trends and developing measures for addressing ecosystem
    changes. For example, the estuary portion of the Network is designed
    to characterize and monitor changes in the estuary waters, and will
    depend, in part, on monthly discrete sampling.

    4.  **Summary of monitoring design**

A summary of sampling plans for each of the environmental components is
presented in [Table 3-2](../table/3.2_summarytable_CSS_3-14-06.doc). The
condition of the resource is assessed for estuaries, the near shore
marine environment (0 to 3nautical miles), the offshore marine
environment (3 nautical miles to the seaward edge of the EEZ), and the
Great Lakes. Monitoring in estuaries, near shore coastal waters, and the
Great Lakes is achieved by a probabilistically-based design. Each of
these resources is also assessed using targeted sampling and remote
sensing. The offshore marine environment is so vast that the primary
means of monitoring will be remote sensing, shipboard surveys, and
moored or drifting buoys. Rivers will be monitored to determine the flow
of water and loads of constituents into estuaries and the Great Lakes.
Because estuaries are the connection between fresh water flowing from
land to the oceans, each estuary will also be monitored along a salinity
gradient to gain insights into the transport of water and waterborne
constituents. In some places, where ground water flows directly into
coastal waters, that resource will be monitored. Atmospheric deposition,
which can be a significant source of some constituents will be monitored
in the coastal zone. Finally, recreational beaches will be monitored for
bacterial indicators.

As an example of how the information in [Table
3-2](../table/3.2_SummaryTable_gem.010706.doc) is organized, consider
the first entry for estuaries. If the purpose is to assess the condition
of US estuaries, the reporting unit is either the nation as a whole
(i.e. all estuaries) or estuaries within one of the ten U.S. IOOS
regions. Note that the Great Lakes are also a U.S. IOOS region but are
treated separately in the design; therefore, only ten are counted for
some purposes. Sites are selected using a probability based approach
which will assure geographic coverage (General Random-Tessellation
Stratified (GRTS) sampling design). Samples are collected once per year
in 50 estuaries for each IOOS region. A different set of estuaries is
sampled each year in years one through ten. In year six, the estuaries
that were monitored in year one will be revisited. In year seven, the
estuaries monitored in year two will be visited and so on for years
eight through ten.

+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| *      |        |       |       |        |       |         |       |
| *Table |        |       |       |        |       |         |       |
| 3-2    |        |       |       |        |       |         |       |
| N      |        |       |       |        |       |         |       |
| etwork |        |       |       |        |       |         |       |
| Design |        |       |       |        |       |         |       |
| Sum    |        |       |       |        |       |         |       |
| mary** |        |       |       |        |       |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| **Re   | **Pur  | **R   | **N   | *      | *     | **S     | **Sam |
| source | pose** | eport | umber | *Total | *Site | ample** | ple** |
| compo  |        | ing** | of    | number | S     |         |       |
| nent** |        |       | sites | of     | elect | **freq  | **    |
|        |        | **u   | per   | s      | ion** | uency** | inter |
|        |        | nit** | repo  | ites** |       |         | val** |
|        |        |       | rting |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | u     |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | nit** |        |       |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| *      | Con    | Nat   | 50    | 500    | Pr    | Once    | 5     |
| *Estua | dition | ional | per   | sites  | obabi | per     | years |
| ries** | of US  | &     | IOOS  | s      | lity- | year    | (r    |
|        | est    |       | r     | ampled | based |         | epeat |
|        | uaries | IOOS  | egion | per    | d     |         | year  |
|        |        | re    |       | year   | esign |         | 1     |
|        |        | gions |       |        | that  |         | sites |
|        |        |       |       |        | will  |         | in    |
|        |        |       |       |        | a     |         | year  |
|        |        |       |       |        | ssure |         | 6)    |
|        |        |       |       |        | geogr |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | aphic |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | cov   |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | erage |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Con    | Indiv | 50    | 1500   | Pr    | Monthly | 5     |
|        | dition | idual | sites | s      | obabi | for     | years |
|        | of     | es    | per   | ampled | lity- | p       | (r    |
|        | indi   | tuary | es    | per    | based | hysical | epeat |
|        | vidual |       | tuary | year   | d     | and     | year  |
|        | est    |       | e     |        | esign | c       | 1     |
|        | uaries |       | xcept | (50    | that  | hemical | estu  |
|        |        |       | for   | sites  | will  | con     | aries |
|        |        |       | very  | X 30   | a     | ditions | in    |
|        |        |       | small | est    | ssure | in      | year  |
|        |        |       | estu  | uaries | geogr | water   | 6)    |
|        |        |       | aries | s      | aphic | column; |       |
|        |        |       |       | ampled | cov   |         |       |
|        |        |       |       | per    | erage | Once    |       |
|        |        |       |       | year)  |       | per     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | year    |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | for     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | bio     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | logical |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | ch      |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | aracter |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | ization |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | and     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | s       |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | ediment |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | quality |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Tra    | Indiv | 15    | 2235   | D     | Monthly | On    |
|        | nsport | idual | sites |        | istri | for     | going |
|        | t      | es    | per   | (15    | buted | p       |       |
|        | hrough | tuary | es    | sites  | along | hysical |       |
|        | est    |       | tuary | X 149  | sal   | and     |       |
|        | uaries |       |       | estu   | inity | c       |       |
|        |        |       |       | aries) | gra   | hemical |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | dient | con     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | from  | ditions |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | major | in      |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | river | water   |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | mouth | column  |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | to    |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | se    |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | award |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | o     |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | utlet |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Shor   | Indiv | 2 per | 298    | At    | Con     | Conti |
|        | t-term | idual | es    |        | two   | tinuous | nuous |
|        | varia  | es    | tuary | (these | ends  | mon     |       |
|        | bility | tuary |       | sites  | of    | itoring |       |
|        |        |       |       | are    | sal   |         |       |
|        |        |       |       | subset | inity |         |       |
|        |        |       |       | of     | gra   |         |       |
|        |        |       |       | sites  | dient |         |       |
|        |        |       |       | used   |       |         |       |
|        |        |       |       | for    |       |         |       |
|        |        |       |       | tran   |       |         |       |
|        |        |       |       | sport) |       |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| *      | Con    | Nat   | 50    | 500    | Pr    | Once    | 5     |
| *Nears | dition | ional | per   | sites  | obabi | per     | years |
| hore** | of     | &     | IOOS  | s      | lity- | year    |       |
|        | near   | IOOS  | r     | ampled | based | unless  | (r    |
|        | shore  | re    | egion | per    | d     | con     | epeat |
|        | waters | gions |       | year   | esign | ditions | year  |
|        |        |       |       |        | that  | dictate | 1     |
|        |        |       |       |        | will  | greater | sites |
|        |        |       |       |        | a     | fr      |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | ssure | equency | in    |
|        |        |       |       |        | geogr |         | year  |
|        |        |       |       |        | aphic |         | 6)    |
|        |        |       |       |        | cov   |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | erage |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Con    | Nat   | Var   | Va     | Deter | V       | On    |
|        | dition | ional | iable | riable | mined | ariable | going |
|        | of     | &     | -data |        | by    |         |       |
|        | near   | IOOS  | coll  |        | res   |         |       |
|        | shore  | r     | ected |        | ource |         |       |
|        | waters | egion | at    |        | manag |         |       |
|        |        |       | a     |        | ement |         |       |
|        |        |       | pprop |        | age   |         |       |
|        |        |       | riate |        | ncies |         |       |
|        |        |       | fixed |        | &     |         |       |
|        |        |       | s     |        | IOOS  |         |       |
|        |        |       | ites, |        | Reg   |         |       |
|        |        |       | where |        | ional |         |       |
|        |        |       | avai  |        | As    |         |       |
|        |        |       | lable |        | socia |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | tions |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Con    | Nat   | R     | Not    | E     | Con     | On    |
|        | dition | ional | emote | Appl   | ntire | tinuous | going |
|        | of     | &     | se    | icable | res   |         |       |
|        | near   | IOOS  | nsing |        | ource |         |       |
|        | shore  | re    | (     |        | ass   |         |       |
|        | waters | gions | satel |        | essed |         |       |
|        |        |       | lite, |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | airc  |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | raft, |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | in-   |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | water |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | and   |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | s     |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | hore- |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | based |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | sen   |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | sors) |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | &     |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | auton |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | omous |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | under |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | water |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | veh   |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | icles |        |       |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| **Offs | Con    | Nat   | Varia | Va     | Deter | V       | On    |
| hore** | dition | ional | ble-- | riable | mined | ariable | going |
|        | of     | &     | -data |        | by    |         |       |
|        | of     | IOOS  | coll  |        | res   |         |       |
|        | fshore | re    | ected |        | ource |         |       |
|        | waters | gions | d     |        | manag |         |       |
|        |        |       | uring |        | ement |         |       |
|        |        |       | ship  |        | age   |         |       |
|        |        |       | board |        | ncies |         |       |
|        |        |       | su    |        | &     |         |       |
|        |        |       | rveys |        | IOOS  |         |       |
|        |        |       | &     |        | Reg   |         |       |
|        |        |       | from  |        | ional |         |       |
|        |        |       | buoys |        | As    |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | socia |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | tions |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Con    | Nat   | R     | Not    | E     | Con     | On    |
|        | dition | ional | emote | Appl   | ntire | tinuous | going |
|        | of     | &     | se    | icable | res   |         |       |
|        | of     | IOOS  | nsing |        | ource |         |       |
|        | fshore | re    | (     |        | ass   |         |       |
|        | waters | gions | satel |        | essed |         |       |
|        |        |       | lite, |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | airc  |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | raft, |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | in    |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | water |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | and   |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | s     |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | hore- |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | based |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | sen   |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | sors) |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | &     |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | auton |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | omous |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | under |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | water |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | veh   |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | icles |        |       |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| *      | Con    | Indiv | 50    | 250    | Pr    | Once    | 5     |
| *Great | dition | idual | per   | sites  | obabi | per     | years |
| L      | of     | lake, | lake  | per    | lity- | year    | (r    |
| akes** | Great  | aggre | in    | year   | based |         | epeat |
|        | Lakes  | gated | lake  |        | d     |         | year  |
|        |        | to    | wide, |        | esign |         | 1     |
|        |        | IOOS  | d     |        | that  |         | lake  |
|        |        | r     | epth- |        | will  |         | sites |
|        |        | egion | strat |        | a     |         | in    |
|        |        |       | ified |        | ssure |         | year  |
|        |        |       | d     |        | geogr |         | 6)    |
|        |        |       | esign |        | aphic |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | cov   |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | erage |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Con    | Emba  | Va    | 50     | Pr    | Once    | On    |
|        | dition | yment | riabl | emba   | obabi | per     | going |
|        | of     | popul | e\--w | yments | lity- | year    |       |
|        | Great  | ation | ithin |        | based |         |       |
|        | Lakes  | in    | each  |        | d     |         |       |
|        | emba   | IOOS  | emba  |        | esign |         |       |
|        | yments | r     | yment |        | that  |         |       |
|        |        | egion |       |        | will  |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | a     |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | ssure |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | geogr |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | aphic |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | cov   |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | erage |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Con    | Indiv | Var   | Va     | Deter | Once to | On    |
|        | dition | idual | iable | riable | mined | twice   | going |
|        | of     | lake  | by    |        | by    | per     |       |
|        | Great  |       | l     |        | res   | year    |       |
|        | Lakes  |       | ake\- |        | ource |         |       |
|        |        |       | -data |        | manag |         |       |
|        |        |       | coll  |        | ement |         |       |
|        |        |       | ected |        | age   |         |       |
|        |        |       | d     |        | ncies |         |       |
|        |        |       | uring |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | ship  |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | board |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | su    |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | rveys |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | at    |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | f     |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | ixed, |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | histo |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | rical |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | sites |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | off   |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | shore |        |       |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Con    | Indiv | R     | Not    | Deter | Con     | On    |
|        | dition | idual | emote | Appl   | mined | tinuous | going |
|        | of     | lake  | se    | icable | by    |         |       |
|        | Great  |       | nsing |        | res   |         |       |
|        | Lakes  |       | (     |        | ource |         |       |
|        |        |       | satel |        | manag |         |       |
|        |        |       | lite, |        | ement |         |       |
|        |        |       | airc  |        | age   |         |       |
|        |        |       | raft, |        | ncies |         |       |
|        |        |       | in-   |        | and   |         |       |
|        |        |       | water |        | IOOS  |         |       |
|        |        |       | and   |        | Reg   |         |       |
|        |        |       | s     |        | ional |         |       |
|        |        |       | hore- |        | A     |         |       |
|        |        |       | based |        | ssoci |         |       |
|        |        |       | sen   |        | ation |         |       |
|        |        |       | sors) |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | &     |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | auton |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | omous |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | under |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | water |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | veh   |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | icles |        |       |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| **Ri   | Flow   | Indiv | 1-3   | 258    | Sites | Monthly | On    |
| vers** | and    | idual | per   | sites  | lo    | plus    | going |
|        | loads  | wate  | wate  |        | cated | high    |       |
|        | from   | rshed | rshed | for    | to    | flows   |       |
|        | inland |       |       | conter | repr  | (about  |       |
|        | HUC-6  |       |       | minous | esent | 15      |       |
|        | wate   |       |       |        | 90%   | times   |       |
|        | rsheds |       |       | U.S.   | of    | per     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | fresh | year)   |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | water |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | ou    | Once    |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | tflow | per     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | from  | year    |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | HUC-6 | for     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | wate  | bio     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | rshed | logical |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | ch      |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | aracter |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | ization |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | and     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | s       |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | ediment |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | quality |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Flow   | Indiv | Var   | 72     | Sites | Monthly | On    |
|        | and    | idual | iable |        | lo    | plus    | going |
|        | loads  | es    |       |        | cated | high    |       |
|        | to     | tuary |       |        | to    | flows   |       |
|        | est    |       |       |        | mo    | (about  |       |
|        | uaries | and   |       |        | nitor | 15      |       |
|        |        | aggre |       |        | 97%   | times   |       |
|        |        | gated |       |        | of    | per     |       |
|        |        | for   |       |        | fresh | year)   |       |
|        |        | Ne    |       |        | water |         |       |
|        |        | twork |       |        | i     | Once    |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | nflow | per     |       |
|        |        | estu  |       |        | to    | year    |       |
|        |        | aries |       |        | Ne    | for     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | twork | bio     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | estu  | logical |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | aries | ch      |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | and   | aracter |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | i     | ization |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | nflow | and     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | to    | s       |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | 70%   | ediment |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | of    | quality |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | Ne    |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | twork |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | es    |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | tuary |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | su    |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | rface |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | area  |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
|        | Flow   | Indiv | 1 per | 56     | Sites | Monthly | On    |
|        | and    | idual | wate  |        | lo    | plus    | going |
|        | loads  | wate  | rshed |        | cated | high    |       |
|        | to     | rshed |       |        | to    | flows   |       |
|        | Great  |       |       |        | repr  | (about  |       |
|        | Lakes  |       |       |        | esent | 15      |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | ou    | times   |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | tflow | per     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | of    | year)   |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | b     |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | asins | Once    |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | dra   | per     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | ining | year    |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | 250   | for     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | s     | bio     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | quare | logical |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | miles | ch      |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | or    | aracter |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | more  | ization |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | and     |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | s       |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | ediment |       |
|        |        |       |       |        |       | quality |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| **     | Direct | Co    | Var   | Va     | Sites | V       | On    |
| Ground | inflow | astal | iable | riable | sel   | ariable | going |
| W      | to     | aq    | depe  |        | ected |         | where |
| ater** | c      | uifer | nding |        | by    |         | a     |
|        | oastal |       | on    |        | local |         | pprop |
|        | waters |       | wh    |        | and   |         | riate |
|        |        |       | ether |        | reg   |         |       |
|        |        |       | aq    |        | ional |         |       |
|        |        |       | uifer |        | ex    |         |       |
|        |        |       | pro   |        | perts |         |       |
|        |        |       | vides |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | s     |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | ignif |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | icant |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | flow  |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | and   |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | loads |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | of    |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | co    |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | nstit |        |       |         |       |
|        |        |       | uents |        |       |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| *      | Direct | Indiv | Var   | Design | Deter | Con     | On    |
| *Atmos | loads  | idual | iable | de     | mined | tinuous | going |
| pheric | to     | es    | depe  | ferred | by    |         |       |
| Deposi | est    | tuary | nding |        | res   |         |       |
| tion** | uaries | and   | on    |        | ource |         |       |
|        | and    | Great | size  |        | manag |         |       |
|        | Great  | Lake  | of    |        | ement |         |       |
|        | Lakes  |       | repo  |        | age   |         |       |
|        |        |       | rting |        | ncies |         |       |
|        |        |       | unit  |        | and   |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | tech  |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | nical |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | ex    |         |       |
|        |        |       |       |        | perts |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| **Bea  | Est    | Lo    | V     | Data   | All   | Approx  | Ann   |
| ches** | ablish | gical | aries | r      | re    | imately | ually |
|        | con    | grou  |       | ecords | cords | weekly  |       |
|        | dition | pings |       | from   | in    |         |       |
|        | based  | to be |       | 2,765  | exi   |         |       |
|        | on     | deter |       | b      | sting |         |       |
|        | bac    | mined |       | eaches | State |         |       |
|        | terial |       |       |        | beach |         |       |
|        | c      |       |       |        | monit |         |       |
|        | ontami |       |       |        | oring |         |       |
|        | nation |       |       |        | data  |         |       |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+
| **Wetl | We     | D     | D     | Design | D     | Design  | D     |
| ands** | tlands | esign | esign | de     | esign | d       | esign |
|        | con    | def   | def   | ferred | def   | eferred | def   |
|        | dition | erred | erred |        | erred | --      | erred |
|        |        | --    |       |        | --    | about   | --    |
|        |        | t     |       |        | pro   | once    | about |
|        |        | entat |       |        | bably | per     | 5     |
|        |        | ively |       |        | ran   | year    | years |
|        |        | by    |       |        | domly |         | (r    |
|        |        | IOOS  |       |        | c     |         | epeat |
|        |        | R     |       |        | hosen |         | year  |
|        |        | egion |       |        |       |         | 1     |
|        |        | & by  |       |        |       |         | s     |
|        |        | we    |       |        |       |         | ample |
|        |        | tland |       |        |       |         | sites |
|        |        | cat   |       |        |       |         | in    |
|        |        | egory |       |        |       |         | year  |
|        |        |       |       |        |       |         | 6)    |
+--------+--------+-------+-------+--------+-------+---------+-------+

The plan for monitoring each resource component is presented in detail
in the following sections of this chapter. For all of these resources,
there is on-going monitoring funded by national programs. As was
described in Chapter 1, programs designed and funded by federal
agencies, some of which are implemented by other monitoring agencies or
organizations, form the backbone for the Network. These programs are
listed and described in general in [Appendix
3-1](../appendix/Appendix3-1_FederalMonitoringInventoryV-4.xls) and
referred to in the sections of this chapter that describe monitoring
plans for each of the resource components.

5.  **Estuaries**

The design for estuaries will address the following questions.

1.  What is the condition of estuaries nationwide and in the ten U.S.
    IOOS regions of the country? Is it changing over time?

2.  What spatial and temporal trends exist in individual estuaries?

    a.  What is the variability along estuarine salinity gradient which
        generally reflect flow paths within the estuaries?

    b.  How are water quality conditions changing over time? Are goals
        and standards being met?

    c.  What is the temporal variability in estuaries? Can we
        distinguish between seasonal changes vs. pulses for flow and
        chemicals?

3.  What is the importance of anthropogenic stressors carried by
    freshwater flows or atmospheric inputs? What is the residence time
    which is critical to understand susceptibility of estuaries to
    stressors?

4.  What are the sources and transport of nutrients in estuaries and how
    does this link to hypoxia?

The estuarine monitoring will also provide information that can be
linked to existing empirical models and increase the refinement of these
models such as NOAA's dissolved concentration potential (DCP) and
estuarine export potential (EXP). This information can be used in the
Land Ocean Interactions in the Coastal Zone (LOICZ) Biogeochemical
Budgets program (<http://data.ecology.su.se/MNODE/>).

**3.5.1 Network Estuaries**

A total of 149 estuaries have been selected for inclusion in the
Network. These are listed, along with their major tributary rivers in
[Table 3-3](../table/table3-3.010506.doc). The Network list is based on
work by NOAA to describe and characterize the Nation's estuarine
resources and develop a database that could be used for enhancing our
nationwide assessment capabilities. The original list was published in
1985 and updated in 1990 and finally by Bricker and others in 1999. The
list from Bricker and others contained 138 estuaries. These estuaries,
each of which is defined spatially by an estuarine drainage area (EDA),
represent over 90 percent of the estuarine surface water and freshwater
inflow of the coastal regions of the contiguous United States. As an
example of the diversity of estuaries, their surface area ranges between
1 and nearly 7000 square kilometers. The NOAA list of 138 estuaries was
augmented for purposes of the Network by adding 8 estuaries in Alaska, 2
in Hawaii, and 1 in Puerto Rico. The Network contains sub-estuaries for
some of the largest estuaries. For example, the Network list of
estuaries includes 9 separate entries for Chesapeake Bay: Patuxent River
estuary, Potomac River estuary, Rappahannock River estuary, York River
estuary, James River estuary, Chester River estuary, Choptank River
estuary, Tangier-Pokomoke Sound, and the Chesapeake Bay main stem. The
list of estuaries that the Network will monitor includes most of the
estuaries in EPA's National Estuary Program and NOAAs Estuarine Research
Reserve Program. See appendix 3-6 for a list of coastal areas designated
by Federal programs, where water quality monitoring is already underway.

Rivers in **bold** are major freshwater inflows to be monitored near the
head of the estuary. Rivers in *italic* are minor tributaries for which
streamflow is currently measured. Multiple tributaries to a single
estuary are listed in descending order of freshwater inflow.

Table 3-3.

  ---------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------------
                   **NMN Estuaries By IOOS  **Major Rivers Tributary to the NMN
                   Region**                 Estuaries**

  **Northeast                               
  Region**                                  

                                            

                   Penobscot Bay            **Penobscot River**

                   Kennebec/Androscoggin    **Kennebec, Androscoggin Rivers**
                   River                    

                   Passamaquoddy Bay        *St. Croix*, Denny\'s Rivers

                   Blue Hill Bay            Union River

                   Muscongus Bay            St George, Medomak, Rivers

                   *Sheepscot Bay*          *Sheepscot River*

                   Damariscotta River       Damariscotta River

                   Machias/Englishman Bay   Machias River

                   *Narraguagus Bay*        *Narraguagus River*

                   Casco Bay                Presumpscot, *Royal* Rivers

                   Saco Bay                 Saco River

                   Great Bay                Salmon Falls, Scuamscott Rivers

                   Hampton Harbor           Hampton Falls River

                   Wells Bay                Mousam River

                   Merrimack River          **Merrimack River**

                   Boston Harbor            *Charles, Neponset Rivers*

                   Massachusetts Bays       no major drainage

                   Plum Island Sound        *Ipswich River*

                   Cape Cod Bay             No major drainage

                   Narragansett Bay         *Blackstone, Taunton Rivers*

                   Buzzards Bay             no major drainage

                   Waquoit Bay              *Quaashnet River*

  **Mid-Atlantic                            
  Region**                                  

                   Connecticut River        **Connecticut River**

                   Long Island Sound        **Connecticut,Housatonic, Shetucket
                                            Rivers**

                   Hudson River/Raritan Bay **Hudson, Raritan Rivers**

                   Great South Bay          No major drainage

                   Gardiners Bay            *Peconic River*

                   Delaware Bay             **Delaware River**

                   New Jersey Inland Bays   *Batsto*, Great Egg, *Tuckahoe* Rivers

                   Barnegat Bay             *Toms, Metedeconk Rivers*

                   Chesapeake Bay Mainstem  **Susquehanna River**

                   Patuxent River Estuary   *Patuxent River*

                   Tangier/Pocomoke Sounds  **Nanticoke, Pocomoke Rivers**

                   Choptank River Estuary   *Choptank River*

                   Chester River Estuary    Chester River

                   Chincoteague Bay         no major drainage

                   Delaware Inland Bays     no major drainage

                   Maryland Inland Bays     no major drainage

                   Potomac River Estuary    **Potomac River**

                   Rappahannock River       *Rappahannock River*
                   Estuary                  

                   York River Estuary       *Pamunkey, Mattaponi Rivers*

                   James River Estuary      **James, Appomattox Rivers**

  **Southeast                               
  Region**                                  

                   Albemarle Sound          **Roanoke, Chowan Rivers**

                   Pamlico/Pungo Rivers     **Pamlico River**

                   Bogue Sound              White Oak River, Newport River

                   Pamlico Sound            **Neuse, Pamlico Rivers**

                   Neuse River              **Neuse River**

                   Cape Fear River          **Cape Fear, Northeast Cape Fear
                                            River**

                   New River                New River

                   Winyah Bay               **Pee Dee Rivers**

                   North/South Santee       *Santee River*
                   Rivers                   

                   Charleston Harbor        **Cooper River**

                   St. Helena Sound         **Combahee River**

                   Broad River              **Coosawhatchie River**

                   Stono/North Edisto       Stono, Edisto Rivers
                   Rivers                   

                   Savannah River           **Savannah River**

                   Ossabaw Sound            **Ogeechee River**

                   St. Catherines/Sapelo    North Newport, Sapelo, South Newport
                   Sounds                   Rivers

                   Altamaha River           **Altamaha River**

                   St. Andrew/St. Simons    Satilla River
                   Sounds                   

                   St. Marys                St. Marys, Crooked River
                   River/Cumberland Sound   

                   St. Johns River          **St. Johns River**

                   Indian River             St. Lucie, Indian River, S. Canal, N.
                                            Canal, Turkey Cr.

                   Biscayne Bay             Canals: Military, Snapper Cr., Snake
                                            Cr., and Miami

  **Caribbean                               
  Region**                                  

                   San Juan Bay             

  **Gulf of Mexico                          
  Region**                                  

                   Caloosahatchee River     Caloosahatchee River

                   South Ten Thousand       no major natural drainage channels
                   Islands                  

                   Florida Bay              no major natural drainage channels,
                                            Canal 111

                   North Ten Thousand       no major natural drainage
                   Islands                  

                   Rookery Bay              no major natural drainage

                   Charlotte Harbor         Peace, Myakka Rivers, *Shell Creek*

                   Tampa Bay                *Hillsborough,* *Alafia*, Manatee,
                                            Little Manatee Rivers

                   Sarasota Bay             Phillipe Creek

                   Suwannee River           **Suwanee River**

                   Apalachee Bay            **Ochlockonee River, Aucilla, St Marks
                                            Rivers**
  ---------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------------------

  --------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------
  **Gulf of                                       
  Mexico Region                                   
  (Continued)**                                   

                  Apalachicola Bay                **Apalachicola River**

                  St. Andrew Bay                  *Econfina*,Wetappo Creek

                  Choctawhatchee Bay              **Chocatawhatchee River**

                  Pensacola Bay                   **Escambia, Yellow,** Blackwater
                                                  **Rivers**

                  Perdido Bay                     *Perdido*, Styx Rivers

                  Mobile Bay                      **Mobile River**

                  East Mississippi Sound          **Pascagoula, Escatawpa Rivers**

                  West Mississippi Sound          **Pascagoula, Escatawpa Rivers**

                  Atchafalaya/Vermilion Bays      **Atchafalaya River**

                  Calcasieu Lake                  **Calcasieu River**

                  Mermentau River                 **Mermentau River**, Bayou
                                                  Lacassine

                  Mississippi River               **Mississippi River**

                  Lake Borgne                     **Pearl River**

                  Lake Pontchartrain              **Tangipahoa, Tickfaw, and Amite
                                                  Rivers**

                  Breton/Chandeleur Sound         **Mississippi, Pearl Rivers**

                  Barataria Bay                   *Barataria Waterway*

                  Terrebonne/Timbalier Bays       Bayou Terrebonne, **Bayou
                                                  LaFourche, Houma Canal**

                  Sabine Lake                     **Sabine River, Neches River**

                  Galveston Bay                   **Trinity River, San Jacinto
                                                  River**

                  Brazos River                    **Brazos River**

                  Matagorda Bay                   **Colorado, Lavaca, Navidad
                                                  Rivers**

                  San Antonio Bay                 *Guadalupe, San Antonio Rivers*

                  Aransas Bay                     *Mission*, Aransas Rivers

                  Corpus Christi Bay              *Nueces River*

                  Lower Laguna Madre              **Arroyo Colorado**

                  Baffin Bay                      No major drainage

                  Upper Laguna Madre              No major drainage

  **Southern                                      
  California                                      
  Region**                                        

                  San Pedro Bay                   Los Angeles River

                  Santa Monica Bay                no major drainage

                  Alamitos Bay                    San Gabriel River

                  Newport Bay                     San Diego Creek

                  Anaheim Bay                     no major drainage

                  San Diego Bay                   Sweetwater River

                  Tijuana Estuary                 Tijuana River

                  Mission Bay                     *San Diego River*

  **Central and                                   
  Northern                                        
  California                                      
  Region**                                        

                  Eel River                       Eel River

                  Humboldt Bay                    Elk River, Freshwater Creek,

                  Klamath River                   **Klamath River**

                  Central San Francisco/San       **San Joaquin, Sacramento Rivers**
                  Pablo/Suisun Bays               

                  San Francisco Bay               **Sacramento, San Joaquin Rivers**

                  Tomales Bay                     Lagunitas, Walker Creeks, Estero
                                                  de San Antonio

                  Drakes Estero                   no major drainage

                  Monterey Bay                    *San Lorenzo River*

                  Elkhorn Slough                  No major drainage

                  Morro Bay                       Morro, Charro Creeks

  **Northwest                                     
  Region**                                        

                  Columbia River                  **Columbia River**

                  Grays Harbor                    **Chehalis River**

                  Willapa Bay                     *Willipa, North, Naselle Rivers*

                  Tillamook Bay                   *Trask, Wilson Rivers*

                  Nehalem River                   *Nehalem River*

                  Siletz Bay                      Siletz River

                  Yaquina Bay                     Yaquina River

                  Alsea River                     Alsea River

                  Siuslaw River                   Siuslaw River

                  Netarts Bay                     No major drainage

                  Umpqua River                    **Umpqua River**

                  Rogue River                     **Rogue River**

                  Coquille River                  Coquille River

                  Coos Bay                        Coos River

                  Skagit Bay/Whidbey Basin        **Skagit, Snohomish, Stillaguamish
                                                  Rivers**

                  Puget Sound                     **Puyallup, Nooksak Rivers**

                  South Puget Sound               *Nisqually*, Deschutes Rivers

                  Hood Canal                      *Skokomish*, Dosewallips,
                                                  Duckabush, Rivers

                  Port Orchard Sound              No major drainage

  **Alaska                                        
  Region**                                        

                  Cook Inlet                      Susitna, *Kenai*, Knik, Rivers

                  Glaicer Bay                     

                  Norton Sound                    **Yukon**, Koyukuk Rivers

                  Prince William Sound            

                  Unalaska Bay                    no major drainage

                  Bristol Bay                     

                  Kotzubue Sound                  Kobuk, Noatak Rivers

                  Harrison Bay                    *Colville River*, Fish Creek

  **Hawaii                                        
  Region**                                        

                  Pearl Harbor                    Halawa, Waimalu, Waiawa Streams

                  Kaneohe Bay                     Kamooalii, Keaahala, Kawa Streams
  --------------- ------------------------------- ----------------------------------

**3.5.2 Current Monitoring in Estuaries**

Current monitoring in estuaries funded by NOAA which has significant
mission responsibilities for monitoring in estuaries, the near shore
marine environment, and the open ocean is summarized below. Note that in
some cases, the same program includes both estuaries and near shore
coastal waters. In addition, there is significant estuarine monitoring
that is conducted by other federal agencies, state and local agencies,
and the academic community that is not reported on in this chapter.

National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program -- Mussel Watch

Since 1986, the program has provided data on concentrations of a broad
suite of environmentally persistent toxic chemicals in bivalve tissues
and bottom sediment samples from over 250 sampling sites in coastal and
estuarine regions around the nation. Sites are selected to be
representative of large coastal domains and to avoid small-scale patches
of contamination, or "hot spots."

*National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program -- Bioeffect Surveys*

Since 1991, the program has determined and reported on the incidence,
severity and spatial extent of adverse biological effects associated
with toxic chemicals in specific estuaries and coastal embayments.
Studies are performed over a one-to-four year period in a selected
waterbody; to date more than 25 waterbodies have been assessed. In
nearly all cases, the sampling sites are selected using a
stratified-random sampling design.

*System-Wide Monitoring Program (SWMP)*

A water quality monitoring program has been implemented in each of the
26 reserves of the National Estuarine Research Reserves System (NERRS),
some dating back to 1995. The primary emphasis on water quality
observations is their relationship with weather observations and coastal
use activities and is intended to identify and understand short-term
variability and long-term changes in the integrity of representative
estuarine ecosystems and coastal watersheds.

*System-Wide Monitoring (SWiM): National Marine Sanctuaries*

Although most of the National Marine Sanctuaries are located offshore,
Water Quality Protection Programs of individual sanctuaries are based on
questions related to sedimentation, nutrient over-enrichment, persistent
pesticides, metals, oil and grease, detergents. A system-wide monitoring
strategy is currently under development. In addition, a buoy-based West
Coast Observations Network has recently been implemented. Presently, it
consists of a few wind and ocean current related measurements; the buoys
could be furnished with water quality sensors (for dissolved oxygen,
fluorometry, turbidity, etc.). Currently, a 20-year monitoring plan is
being considered for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, the
largest sanctuary encompassing coastal and ocean areas (nearly 14
thousand square km) extending to a depth of 3.25 km.

*Prince William Sound Long-Term Monitoring Program*

Since 1989, selected intertidal sites have been monitored yearly to
determine the extent to which Prince William Sound, Alaska has
"recovered" from the Exxon Valdez oil spill and subsequent response
operations. Three types of study sites, "oiled with mechanical
cleaning," "oiled without mechanical cleaning," and "not oiled," are
compared. At each type of sites, biological, chemical and
geomorphological monitoring data are integrated to develop an integrated
assessment of environmental recovery.

*Impervious Surface Area Mapping*

Based on data from satellite-based sensors, NOAA provides estimates of
the relative extent (percent) of impervious surface area (ISA) in the
conterminous United States, ranging from less than one percent to over
40 percent. It is noted that adverse effects on water quality ensue once
ISA exceeds 10 percent.

*Coastal Change Analysis Program*

This program, in cooperation with partners, uses remotely sensed data to
classify land cover in coastal upland and wetland habitats of the United
States. Subsequent classifications are used to document changes in these
resource areas and help coastal managers understand the consequences of
landscape changes on coastal water quality.

*CoastWatch Program*

This program, consisting of Central Operations and six regional nodes,
processes satellite-derived data and provide oceanographic products to
Federal, State and local marine scientists, coastal resource managers,
and the general public. For instance, temperature images are used to
locate potential fishing spots and for forecasting weather. Ocean color
images help scientists track biological changes in the ocean, while sea
surface wind images are used primarily by meteorologists and boaters.
Data are processed near real-time, therefore are usually only a few
hours old.

*Topographic Change Mapping Program*

The program, in collaboration with Federal and state partners, analyzes
high-resolution topographic and other spatial data sets from LIDAR and
other mapping instruments to derive current status and changes in
coastal physiography and dune field topography. The derived information
is in coastal zone decision making process. Period of record starts in
1996.

**3.5.3 Network Design for Estuaries**

There are four purposes for the estuarine component of the Network:
first, to accurately and precisely assess the condition of estuarine
ecosystems nationwide and by IOOS region; second, to assess the
condition of individual estuaries; third, to determine transport of
substances through individual estuaries; and, fourth, to gain insights
into short term variability in conditions within individual estuaries on
a limited scale. Targeted and probabilistic site selection is used, as
is continuous and discrete sampling. Changes and trends over time will
be detected by repeated collection of data within the individual
estuaries and by re-visiting the randomly-selected sites used to
determine conditions of estuaries nationwide on a five year cycle. Each
of the purposes and the approach taken will be described briefly.

**[Conditions Nationwide and Regionally]{.underline}**: The assessment
of conditions for estuaries nationwide and by IOOS region will employ a
total of 500 sites that will be sampled once per year years for a broad
suite of constituents including water chemistry, bottom sediment
chemistry, and biological characterization. The sites will be selected
probabilistically from among all estuaries with 50 sites selected per
IOOS region. Thus, it will be possible to make statistically valid
statements about the conditions of estuaries nationwide and in each IOOS
region. Comparisons between and among regions will be possible. Each
year a different set of 500 estuaries will be selected. Thus in the
first five years, a total of 2500 different sites will have been
sampled. In year six the sites sampled in year one will be revisited; in
year seven, the sites sampled in year two will be revisited, and so
forth for years eight through ten.

**[Conditions in Individual Estuaries]{.underline}**: In general, the
assessment of conditions for individual estuaries will employ a total of
50 sites per estuary, selected using a probability method that will
assure geographic coverage. [Figure 3-2](../Figure3-2.doc) illustrates
this sampling design for estuaries in the Mid-Atlantic region. Note that
sampling sites for the estuaries extend to the head of tide in the major
tributaries. For the smallest estuaries, 50 sites would be far too many
and in those cases a smaller sample size will be used to give coverage
that is at least as dense as for larger estuaries. In the nation as a
whole 30 different estuaries will be studied each year for a total of
about 1500 sites to be sampled each year. The selected sites will be
sampled monthly for physical and chemical characteristics in the water
column and once per year for biological characterization and sediment
quality. At the end of five years, all 149 Network estuaries will have
had one year of intensive monitoring. In year six, those estuaries
visited in year one will be re-visited; in year seven those studied in
year two, and so on. The intensive sampling of each estuary will provide
managers with a statistically valid picture of conditions within the
estuary. Because the estuary will be re-sampled at five year intervals,
it will be possible to assess changes in overall conditions over time.

![](media/image2.png){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="4.499305555555556in"}

Figure 3-2. Location of Estuarine Sampling Sites in the Mid Atlantic
IOOS Region

The multi-agency National Coastal Assessment served as the prototype for
the estuary condition assessment. This assessment has just completed its
second five-year cycle of probability surveys where it monitored and
documented a set of environmental indicators to estimate the ecological
condition of the coastal resources of the U. S. The program is organized
by physiographic province to cover the Northeast Coast, Southeast Coast,
Gulf Coast, West Coast, Great Lakes, Alaska, Hawaii, and Island
territories. The National Coastal Assessment includes estuarine waters
and sediments and biological conditions.

**[Transport through estuaries]{.underline}**: This component of
estuarine monitoring will provide data to help understand the timing and
flow paths for water and waterborne constituents moving from major
riverine inputs through the estuary and seaward into the near shore
environment. A targeted approach based on professional judgment and made
in consultation with IOOS Regional Associations will select a maximum of
15 sites (fewer in the smallest estuaries) located along the major
salinity gradient of each of the 149 Network estuaries. These sites will
be sampled monthly for physical and chemical conditions in the water
column. For those locations where the average water depth is greater
than 5 meters, samples will be collected at the top and bottom of the
water column. This effort will be on-going with the same sites sampled
every year. Specific information this monitoring will provide includes
(1) processing of nutrients within the estuary, (2) export of nutrients
to the coastal zone, and (3) residence time within the estuary. These 15
permanent sites will also provide a bridge between the more spatially
intensive monitoring conducted every 5 years. Many of the existing NOAA
National Estuarine Research Reserve System Wide Monitoring sites could
be used for transport studies.

Some of the largest estuarine restoration and protection programs funded
by EPA and others use studies such as are proposed here to understand
the dynamics of estuarine processes so important to pollution control
and resource management. For example, this type of study is seen in the
Chesapeake Bay where extensive fixed station networks collect data to
understand the time and spatially-varying concentrations of water
quality parameters. These data are used in constructing and calibrating
computer models that project future conditions based on planned
pollution reductions.

**[Short-term variability]{.underline}**: Two of the sites in each
estuary that are used for the transport component will be instrumented
for continuous monitoring of constituents such as depth, temperature,
salinity, dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity. Other possible
constituents such as chlorophyll and other plant pigments and nutrients
may also be included as technology improves and these measurements
become more feasible. Specific information this monitoring will provide
includes (1) timing and duration of conditions like hypoxia, (2) timing
and duration of freshwater pulses, and (3) effects of hurricanes and
other extreme events on estuarine water quality. Many of the existing
NOAA National Estuarine Research Reserve System Wide Monitoring sites
could be used for transport studies.

**3.6** **Near-shore coastal waters**

The design for the near shore environment will address the following
questions.

> 1\. What is the condition of near shore coastal waters nationwide and
> in IOOS Regions? Is it changing over time?
>
> 2\. What regions exceed specific threshold concentrations of nutrients
> or other constituents? In broad terms, what is the extent of hypoxia
> in near shore coastal waters?

The vastness of the ocean, multiple jurisdictions, and broadly defined
objectives of the Integrated Ocean Observing System necessitate a
hierarchical system of observations and cooperation among monitoring
organizations. It is also important to recognize that many oceanographic
features related to water quality result from processes that operate at
basin-to-hemispherical scales and yearly-to-decadal time frames. They
include storage and transportation of materials and energy, sea surface
temperature anomalies, basin-scale climatic signals, global transport of
atmospheric pollutants, spatial distribution and migratory pathways of
living resources, and indicators eutrophication. This requires
consideration of four dimensions when establishing boundaries of
interest for water quality assessment and a corresponding sampling
design. The dimensions are: breadth of variables to be monitored, the
spatial scales of selected variables, time-frame of observations, and
the depth of analysis to be performed (Walters 1986). In some instances,
for example NOAA-managed sanctuaries and Marine Protected Area, these
dimensions can be specified on the basis of region-specific management
plans, which identify resource management issues and specific questions
for which scientific data and analyses may be required.

Three different monitoring approaches will be used to address conditions
in near shore waters. First, a probability based survey will allow an
assessment of the resource nationwide and by region. This is similar in
design to that for the condition assessment in estuaries except that a
total of 50 sites will be chosen for each of ten IOOS regions (excluding
the Great Lakes which are treated separately) for a total of 500 sites
nationwide. These sites will be sampled once per year, primarily for
physical conditions and water column chemistry. This sampling effort
will be based on discrete samples collected from research vessels. There
is a five-year repeat interval for the sites with those sampled in year
one re-visited in year six. [Figure 3-3](../Figure3-3.doc) illustrates
how 50 sites might be allocated in near shore waters of the Mid-Atlantic
region. [Appendix 3-2](../appendix/Appendix%203-2-map.doc) contains
similar illustrations for the other IOOS regions. A second, targeted,
approach will also be used to assess near shore conditions. These sites
will be located at fixed locations, where appropriate such as
lighthouses or small islands. The frequency of data collection and the
constituents to be monitored will be determined by resource management
agencies and IOOS Regional Associations. Because samples will be
analyzed in laboratories, the list of constituents that can be monitored
is large. The third approach for near shore waters is the use of remote
sensing which will allow the entire resource to be assessed for those
constituents that can be monitored remotely.

![](media/image3.png){width="5.998611111111111in"
height="4.499305555555556in"}

Figure 3-3. Location of Near Shore Sampling Sites in the Mid Atlantic
IOOS Region

For oceanic areas, the following core variables are obtained by NOAA in
collaboration with other entities:

> a\. Temperature: Polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites, moored
> and drifting buoys, shipboard resource assessment surveys, voluntary
> observing ships
>
> b\. Salinity: Drifting and moored buoys, shipboard resource assessment
> surveys, voluntary observing ships
>
> c\. Currents: Moored instruments, shipboard Acoustic Doppler Current
> Profilers, high frequency radar current profilers (long-range)
>
> d\. Sea Level: National Water Level Observation Network, Global Tide
> Gauge Network
>
> e\. Surface and interior fields of dissolved oxygen, nutrients,
> chlorophyll and other plant pigments, etc.: Satellite and aircraft
> mounted sensors, specially instrumented buoys, shipboard resource
> assessment surveys, voluntary observing ships.

For several routinely measured oceanographic parameters, NOAA has
developed a "U.S. Marine Observations Backbone." It is comprised of data
distribution from a variety of moored buoys and coastal stations, many
of which are automated. In addition, the system provides data from
Voluntary Observing Ship (VOS) program, Deep-Ocean Assessment and
Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) buoy array, and other NOAA observing
platforms. The data can be obtained from the National Data Buoy Program
Office website or using the Dial-a-Buoy telephone call.

**3.7 Offshore coastal waters**

The Network design for offshore coastal waters will answer questions
about conditions and trends in water quality and biological conditions
at the largest spatial scale.

Offshore coastal waters which include waters between 3 nautical miles
from shore and the seaward edge of the EEZ represent a vast expanse
([see figure 3-4](../Fig.3-4.US.EEZ.doc)). For this resource, monitoring
will be conducted primarily be remote sensing, shipboard surveys, and
buoys. Most monitoring efforts will be designed and coordinated with
IOOS Regional Associations. For most coastal offshore waters, key
parameters to be monitored are inputs of N, P and Silicon; turbulent
mixing and advection; currents; temperature and salinity; and grazing
rates of fish populations. Coastal eutrophication is best monitored in
terms of water column properties, chemical contamination is best
measured in terms of concentrations of contaminants in sediments,
benthic organisms and large consumers.

Figure 3-4 U.S. Exclusive Economic Zones

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.25in" height="3.3784722222222223in"}

The design of a water quality monitoring network for offshore waters
must consider both the effects of land-based sources and the effects of
coastal circulation (e.g., nutrient inputs from coastal upwelling and
the transport and fate of land-based sources) and optimize the mix of in
situ and remote sensing to achieve required time-space resolution of
observations. Monitoring of water quality parameters can not be
accomplished in the same manner as it is nearer to shore where
land-based inputs often predominate, especially in the Gulf of Mexico,
the South and Mid-Atlantic Bights, and the Great Lakes (Heinz Center,
2002).

Both national and regional approaches will be implemented (Ocean.US,
2005). Nationally, the Federal Backbone of the IOOS incorporates
space-based remote sensing, a sparse network of sentinel and reference
stations, and voluntary observing ships. Sentinel stations must be
located to provide early warnings of the impacts of both land-based
inputs and oceanic inputs related to processes such as upwelling and
ENSO events. Reference stations will also be needed at sites where
oceanic and land-based impacts on water quality are minimal. Recognizing
that the requirements for improved time-space resolution and the
parameters of water quality vary from region to region, the plan for
monitoring this resource will be determined by resource management
agencies and IOOS Regional Associations..

8.  **Great Lakes**

The design for the Great Lakes will address questions such as:

1.  What is the condition of each of the Great Lakes and the Great Lakes
    as an IOOS region?

2.  Are conditions changing over time? How do conditions differ
    spatially within the lakes?

3.  What is the condition of embayments and nearshore waters, which are
    the areas of the Great Lakes most immediately vulnerable to
    landscape stressors?

The approach for the Great Lakes has some elements similar to those for
estuaries, near shore and offshore marine coastal waters, with
individual lakes and lake zones as reporting units, in addition to the
entire IOOS region. Targeted sampling of the Great Lakes will use fixed
sites and continue historical monitoring efforts in the offshore waters
conducted under the Great lakes Water Quality Agreement and the
International Joint Commission (IJC). This monitoring is currently
conducted through the Great Lakes National Program Office (GLNPO) and
Environment Canada (EC) surveillance programs. Shipboard surveys, buoys,
and remote sensing are also employed to monitor the Great Lakes
(Regional IOOS, through Great Lakes Observing system \[GLOS\]).

The Network also has a probabilistic design feature that will select 50
sites from each lake to determine conditions of each lake; these data
can also be aggregated for the Great Lakes IOOS Region. There are two
unique features that must be considered in the plan for monitoring Great
Lakes: (1) the need to factor in depth in the probability design to
include better coverage in the nearshore zones and make improved
lake-wide condition estimates and (2) the need for monitoring
embayments. These two features are necessary because both productivity
and variability are much higher in shallower zones. Further, different
depth zones differ physically and ecologically and have inherently
different exposure to stressors. Shallow embayments offer a sentinel
monitoring population to assess conditions linked to landscape-level
change.

**3.8.1 Great Lakes conditions**

The probability-based survey of lake conditions will use 50 sites per
lake with unequal weighting to include more points at shallow depths.
There are three "zones" in the Great Lakes design (1) deepwater in the
offshore zone, (2) a medium depth near shore zone, and (3) a shallow
near shore zone ([figure 3-5](../figure3-5.doc)). Criteria for
establishing these zones are explained in [Appendix
3-3](../appendix/Appendix%203_3-criteria_for_establishing.doc). Sampling
points are selected using a spatially-balanced probability design but
with unequal weighting to achieve more points at shallow depths. The set
of zones provides a view of conditions from shallow to deep, with the
shallow near shore being more subject to landscape-delivered stressors.
The spatially-balanced probability design ensures strong regional
coverage and representation throughout the lake, as can be seen in
[figure 3-5](../figure3-5.doc). Note that some sites are located in
Canadian waters. This is necessary to understand the spatial continuity
of conditions within the lakes shared by the US and Canada. It is
expected that sampling at these sites will be closely coordinated with
Canadian resource agencies and scientists. The probability design is
complimented with a set of fixed, historical stations for continuity and
analysis of temporal trends, which have generally been biased to the
offshore zone, where some regular time series are now quite lengthy
(decades).

Figure 3.5 Great Lakes sampling design, nearshore and offshore sites.

![](media/image5.jpeg){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="4.636111111111111in"}

**3.8.2 Great Lakes Embayments**

There are two goals for embayment monitoring, (1) to provide a condition
assessment of the population of embayments and (2) to use embayments as
a sentinel population to assess perturbations being transferred from the
landscape to the lake. Embayments are a coastal interface between the
watershed and the lake's near-shore. They are a valuable coastal
resource with unique habitats of importance to biota and contribute to
the productivity of the lake as a whole. They are highly vulnerable to
human uses, and, thus, are often greatly impacted by human activities. A
number of embayments are included as Areas of Concern (AOCs) identified
for special focus and remedial action (<http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/aoc/> )
and thus are important to monitor not only for protection purposes but
also for evidence of restoration success. Because embayments are highly
vulnerable to landscape disturbances, they offer a sentinel population
for effects that maybe transported to the open lake.

Fifty embayments are randomly drawn from a defined population of
embayments ([Appendix
3.3](../appendix/Appendix%203_3-criteria_for_establishing.doc).) to
constitute a probability-based sample of the population of embayments
for the Great Lakes. This may be supplemented by targeted sites, or all
members of the population may be included on a rotating basis through a
repeated random draw for each sampling interval. . Although not used as
a design criteria in the site selection, the sampling points are shown
([Figure 3-6](../Figure3-6.doc)) in relation to 762 coastal
segments/watersheds, characterized by the Great Lakes Environmental
Indicators Project GLEI) project (see Danz et al. 2005a, b and
[http://glei.nrri.umn.edu](http://glei.nrri.umn.edu/)). The landscape
metric illustrates how a selection of embayments exists across a
gradient in land cover/land use conditions and, more broadly, a general
human disturbance gradient. The outcome of this monitoring will be a
condition assessment for the embayment population. Trends in embayment
conditions will assist interpretation of nearshore trends and provide
information on the contribution of the basin and watersheds to lake
conditions.

Figure 3-6. Embayment population sampling design.

![](media/image6.jpeg){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="4.636111111111111in"}

**3.9 Rivers**

River monitoring provides information on the critical link between human
activities within a watershed and the estuarine and coastal response to
river flows and loads. The river monitoring network will document
freshwater flows and loads of chemical constituents at a national scale
and identify trends in flows and loads.

The spatial extent of the rivers network is based on the following
design criteria:

-   Locate sites to measure streamflow, contaminant loads, and
    biological conditions at the outlet of each Hydrologic Accounting
    Unit within the Nation, including Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean
    Region. Sites selected will measure streamflow from at least 90
    percent of the basin area of each accounting unit.

-   Locate sites to measure streamflow and constituent loads from
    coastal rivers such that at least 90 percent of the freshwater
    inflow to Network estuaries is measured.

The river monitoring design presented here includes the conterminous 49
states, Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean Region Data required to
develop a complete network design were somewhat limited for Alaska,
Hawaii, and the Caribbean, so the design is less complete for these
regions than the 48-states, as is subsequently discussed.

In order to meet the objectives of the river monitoring network,
continuous measurement streamflow gages and routine chemical and
biological sampling at those gages will be required. Hence, it is
desirable to incorporate existing streamgages into the Network in order
to (1) reduce start-up infrastructure costs, (2) take advantage of
historical data, and (3) avoid duplicative activities at sites that are
in close proximity to one another. Likewise, it is desirable to
incorporate existing water-quality sampling sites into the network for
the same reasons. Water-quality sampling sites typically do not require
the somewhat permanent shelters and instrumentation that are needed at
streamgaging sites. As a result, it is easier to relocate an existing
water-quality sampling site than to move a streamgaging site.

**3.9.1 Monitoring at the Hydrologic Accounting Unit Scale**

Hydrologic Accounting Units (also known as HUC-6 basins because each
accounting unit is defined by a unique 6-digit Hydrologic Unit Code) are
well-defined watershed areas (see http://water.usgs.gov/GIS/huc.html).
There are a total of 334 HUC-6 basins in the 48 conterminous states
(fig. 3-7), 5 in Alaska, 9 in Hawaii, and 3 in the Caribbean Region.
HUC-6 basins in the 48 conterminous states range in size from 131 to
47,750 square miles. The smaller basins are typically on the borders
between the U.S. and Canada and the U.S. and Mexico. The larger HUC-6
basins are typically closed basins. The median HUC-6 basin size is about
8,000 square miles; 90 percent of the HUC-6 basins have a drainage area
of between 1,000 and 17,000 square miles.

![](media/image7.jpeg){width="6.0in" height="4.216666666666667in"}

Figure 3-7. Map of the conterminous United States, showing Hydrologic
Accounting Unit boundaries, closed basins, coastal basins, Great Lakes
basins, and streamgages required to meet the design criteria for inland
rivers.

Hydrologic Accounting Units provide a reasonable national framework for
the rivers component of the Network. Many HUC-6 basins include areas
within two or more states and many state boundaries are coincident with
a part of a HUC-6 boundary. As a result, monitoring at the HUC-6 basin
outlet will address interstate water issues and water-quality conditions
not typically addressed in state or local monitoring programs. The size
of the HUC-6 basins ensures that river monitoring will address regional
issues, as is appropriate for the Network. At the same time, the plan
will maintain sufficient detail to provide needed information on the
relative contributions of each basin to total loads delivered to coastal
waters, as has been recommended for the Mississippi River Basin
(Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 2004).

The first step was to identify which Accounting Units are to be included
in the Network. Of the total 334 HUC-6 basins in the 48 conterminous
states, 22 are closed basins; i.e., the basin has no natural outlet
through which water can ultimately flow to the ocean. Five of the
Accounting Units consist entirely of a Great Lake. These 27 basins are
not included in the Network. The remaining 307 Accounting Units are the
basins (fig. 3-7) to be included in the Network for the 48 conterminous
states. They are discussed in this report in three categories: (1)
inland basins that do not drain directly to coastal waters, (2) basins
that drain directly to coastal marine waters; and (3) basins that drain
directly to the Great Lakes. Monitoring in Alaska, Hawaii, and the
Caribbean Region also is discussed, although in less detail.

**3.9.2 Monitoring Inland Rivers**

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and
several States operate a network of about 7,500 streamflow gaging
stations across the Nation. Information on active and inactive
streamgages was retrieved from the USGS National Water Information
System (NWIS) database (http://waterdata.usgs.gov/usa/nwis) in order to
identify gages within the existing network that could meet Network
design criteria. The downstream-most active streamflow gage in each
HUC-6 basin was identified, as well as the downstream-most inactive
streamflow gage and the downstream-most active stage-only gage. These
gages (inactive and stage-only) were identified because reactivation of
an inactive gage and conversion of a stage-only gage to a streamflow
measurement site would probably be less expensive than a completely new
installation.

Downstream-most streamgages in each HUC-6 basin were examined to
determine the percentage of the total Accounting Unit drainage area
upstream from the streamgage. In order to meet the design criteria, the
drainage area at the streamgage should be equal to at least 90 percent
of the drainage area for the entire Accounting Unit. A summary of this
analysis for the inland HUC-6 basins is given in table 3-4.

Table 3-4. Summary of streamgage needs for inland and coastal Hydrologic
Accounting Units in conterminous United States.

  ------------ ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  **Number of  **Number of **Total       **Number of   **Number of   **Number of
  Accounting   HUC-6       number of     entirely new  existing      inactive
  Units (HUC-6 basins for  streamgages   streamgages   stage gages   streamgages
  basins)**    which 90%   required to   required to   to be         to be
               or more of  meet design   meet design   converted to  reactivated
               the         criteria**    criteria**    streamgages   to assist in
               drainage                                to assist in  meeting
               area is                                 meeting       design
               accounted                               design        criteria**
               for at 1 or                             criteria**    
               2 sites**                                             

  **Inland                                                           
  Hydrologic                                                         
  Accounting                                                         
  Units**                                                            

  220          201         258           20            17            24

  **Coastal                                                          
  Hydrologic                                                         
  Accounting                                                         
  Units**                                                            

  65           n/a         72            15            12            10

  **Great                                                            
  Lakes                                                              
  Hydrologic                                                         
  Accounting                                                         
  Units**                                                            

  22^1^        5           56^2^         0             2             10

  **TOTAL**                                                          

  307^1^       n/a         386           35            31            44
  ------------ ----------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------

^1^ Does not include the 5 Accounting Units that are entirely a Great
Lake.

^2^ Total number of streamgages shown is total number of active
streamgages with drainage areas greater than 250 sq. mi. in Great Lakes
Accounting Units, plus 10 inactive streamgages and 2 stage-only gages.
See text for additional details.

Based on this analysis, 197 of the streamgages required to implement the
river monitoring network in the inland HUC-6 basins within the lower 48
states are already in place and operational. (Flows at several of the
existing sites can be provided by dam operators.) Active streamgages
therefore represent 76 percent of the total that is needed to meet
design criteria. Only 61 new streamgages are required; of these 20
entirely new gages should be constructed; reactivation of inactive gages
or conversion of stage-only gages to streamflow gages can account for
the other 41 needed gages.

There are 19 accounting units for which 90 percent of the drainage
cannot by captured by two streamgages. Generally, these are located (1)
along the border with Canada or Mexico; (2) along the eastern bank of
the Mississippi River in Tennessee and Mississippi, where numerous small
streams drain directly to the Mississippi; and (3) in southern
Louisiana, where the drainage system is complicated.

During 1987 -- 1992, the USGS NASQAN (National Stream Quality Accounting
Network) program operated 5 stations in Alaska (fig. 3-7a), 6 stations
in Hawaii, and 4 stations in Puerto Rico (Alexander and others, 1996).
The location of the historic NASQAN sites in Alaska gives an approximate
indication of possible Network monitoring site locations, corresponding
to the 5 HUC-6 basins, for that State. Each HUC-6 basin in Hawaii
corresponds to an individual island, which is drained by numerous small
streams. Hence, identification of a single monitoring station to
represent the HUC-6 basin (or island) requires local knowledge in order
to complete the design. A similar situation exists in the Caribbean
Region.

![](media/image8.jpeg){width="6.0in" height="4.591666666666667in"}

Figure 3-7a. Map of Alaska showing streamgages and monitoring sites
which could meet the design criteria for inland rivers.

After locations of inland streamflow monitoring gages were determined,
existing and historical water-quality monitoring sites on Network rivers
were identified. The primary national repositories of water-quality data
are EPA's New STORET system, the EPA legacy STORET system, and the USGS
National Water Information System. Each of these systems was queried to
identify existing and historical water-quality sampling sites across the
Nation. Several rules were implemented to aid in the retrieval: sites
were required to be in surface water, have a minimum number of samples,
and include analyses from a specified set of common parameters. More
than 52,000 water-quality sampling sites meeting these criteria were
identified in the conterminous United States.

Water-quality sampling sites were then matched against streamgage sites
for each Accounting Unit. Of the 258 streamgaging sites in the inland
HUC-6 basins (fig. 3-7), there were 222 locations (or 86 percent of the
total) at which a water-quality sampling site (existing or historical)
coincides with a Network streamgage site. This means only that
water-quality data have been or are being collected at the sites. It
does not mean that the water-quality data collection methods and
constituents are exactly the same as those proposed for the Network. As
with the streamgages, however, the existence of historical water-quality
data at the proposed sites enhances the value of the data to be
collected as part of the Network.

Streamflows will be measured continuously at each of the Network sites.
In some cases, streamflow information will be provided by the operators
of dams, but most of the data will come from existing or new (table 3-4)
streamgages. Water-quality sampling will be conducted routinely at
monthly intervals, with three additional high-flow samples collected
each year, for a total of 15 samples per year. Sampling at this schedule
has proven to give good information for the calculation of fluxes and
trends for larger rivers (U.S. Geological Survey, 2005). Collection of
routine samples will be timed so as to provide data aver a range of flow
conditions. Biological sampling will be conducted once per year during
relatively stable hydrologic conditions. Bottom sediment samples also
will be collected annually. Constituent coverage is described elsewhere
in this report. As the Network is implemented, additional information on
current water-quality sampling procedures, schedules, and constituent
coverage will be required to determine the extent to which ongoing
sampling can be incorporated into the network.

**3.9.3 Monitoring Inflows to Coastal Marine Waters**

There are 65 Accounting Units in the conterminous 48 states that contain
rivers which drain directly into marine waters (fig. 3-7). Most of these
coastal Accounting Units contain one or more Network estuaries. Some of
the estuaries receive drainage from a single large river, such as the
Connecticut River Estuary. Most of the estuaries, however, receive
drainage from several rivers or small streams. Hence, the Network design
criterion (monitor 90 percent of the fresh surface-water flow and
constituent loads to each Network estuary) is difficult to achieve for
some situations. Moreover, monitoring flows and loads from many small
streams, such as those that drain to Florida Bay, for example, is not
appropriate for a national network.

Table 3-3 lists the 149 estuaries that will be monitored by the Network
and the major rivers that flow into them. For the majority of network
estuaries, one to three major inflows can account for 90 percent of
known freshwater inflow to the estuary. Many estuaries receive water
from multiple rivers with a small number of rivers that dominate flow.
San Francisco Bay, for example, is accounted for in the Network by
monitoring the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers which flow directly
into sub-estuaries of San Francisco Bay. In contrast, Cape Cod Bay,
which has no major tributary listed, is an example of an estuary
receiving substantial freshwater drainage directly from ground water
(see subsequent discussion on ground water in this chapter).

The network estuaries were sorted by magnitude of freshwater inflow. A
subsequent analysis indicated that 97 percent of the freshwater flow to
the Network estuaries in the conterminous 48 states could be monitored
by 54 streamgaging sites. Network estuaries were subsequently sorted by
surface area. The addition of 18 more monitoring sites (for a total of
72, table 3-4) would ensure that inflows to estuaries representing 70
percent of the Network estuary surface area would be monitored. The
number of monitoring sites required to measure inflows to the remaining
Network estuaries would be quite large. In many situations, numerous
sites on small streams would be required for a single estuary, which is
the case for Indian River Lagoon, one of the larger estuaries in terms
of surface area for which Network inflow monitoring is not proposed.
Such a monitoring design is not appropriate for a National Network.

The Network will require 15 new streamgages, reactivation of 10 inactive
gages, and conversion of 12 stage-only gages to streamflow gages. Some
monitoring locations will provide information for more than one estuary.
For example, Neuse River monitoring provides information for both the
Neuse River Estuary and Pamlico Sound. Streamflow monitoring in coastal
rivers will require the use of acoustic technology in order to properly
account for the effects of tides and reverse flows on freshwater inputs
and constituent loadings to the estuaries.

The rivers which are shown in bold in table 3-3 are those Network
estuary tributary rivers which are proposed for monitoring. These rivers
account for more than 97 percent of the freshwater flux to Network
estuaries, account for 70 percent of the Network estuary surface area,
and include the majority of the National Estuary Program estuaries.
Inflows to many of the other Network estuaries are also currently
monitored (the rivers shown in *italic* in table

3-3), but many of these rivers either (1) have relatively small flows or
(2) drain to relatively small estuaries. Hence, these sites are not
included in the proposed Network. Nevertheless, the coastal Network
could be readily expanded by adding water-quality sampling at these
currently-active streamgaging sites.

The final Network design for coastal rivers is less certain than the
inland and Great Lakes network. Final decisions about the rivers to be
monitored will be made through consultation with local experts and with
those who are designing the estuarine sub-network, which monitors
transport through estuaries along the major salinity gradients. As an
example, the Eel River, California, was not proposed for inclusion in
the Network. This river, however, is known to carry extremely large
sediment loads; local and regional concerns about sediment flux to
coastal waters could, then, result in the inclusion of this site into
the Network. Local issues in Hawaii and the Caribbean, where tributary
streams are small, will guide decisions about monitoring in those areas.
Some streamgaging stations providing information on inflow to Alaska
estuaries (fig. 3-7a) also exist, but further analysis is required for
that region.

**3.9.4 Monitoring Inflows to the Great Lakes**

There are 22 HUC-6 basins with a total area of 117,000 square miles that
drain to the Great Lakes (table 3-4; fig. 3-8). This does not include
the five HUC-6 basins that consist entirely of a Great Lake (with a
total area of about 61,000 sq mi).

![](media/image9.jpeg){width="6.0in" height="4.583333333333333in"}

Figure 3-8. Map of the Great Lakes drainage in the United States,
showing proposed river monitoring sites.

Within the Great Lakes drainage, a total of 56 monitoring sites will be
required to monitor the downstream point of basins draining 250 square
miles or more (see Appendix 3-4 for a list of rivers). This represents
about 70 percent of the total Great Lakes drainage area. The design
criteria established for the inland HUC basins (monitoring flow from 90
percent of each watershed) is not necessary or practical to implement in
the Great Lakes drainage. Many small basins having an area of less than
100 square miles drain directly to a Great Lake. In order to meet the 90
percent criterion, more than 100 additional sites would be needed, all
of which would have a drainage area less than 250 square miles, and many
of which would have a basin area of less than 100 square miles. This
level of monitoring is much more intense than that proposed for the
inland HUC-6 basins and is not an appropriate scale for a national
network. The proposed monitoring sites will provide adequate information
on fluxes into the Great Lakes from the drainage basin, and will
complement the sampling proposed within the Great Lakes. Flow
measurements, water-quality sampling, and measurement of biological
conditions will be conducted as described elsewhere in this chapter.

Of the 56 monitoring sites proposed for the Great Lakes drainage, 44 of
the streamgages are currently active (table 3-4). Ten additional
inactive gages would need to be re-activated, and 2 stage-only gages
would be converted to streamflow gages. Water-quality sampling at some
level has occurred (or is occurring) at more than 90 percent of the
proposed Great Lakes drainage streamgaging stations.

3.9.5 Summary

The fixed station sampling design that has been outlined here for the
Nation's rivers, provides data that can be used to estimate fluxes of
freshwater and contaminants from individual accounting units and from
the continent to marine coastal waters and the Great Lakes. More than 97
percent of the total freshwater flux to the coastal ocean will be
measured, along with associated contaminants. In addition, inflows to
about 70 percent of the Nation's estuaries (as defined by estuarine
surface area) will be monitored. Information on trends in constituent
concentrations and fluxes can be determined from these sites. In
addition, data from this network can be used in models to provide
information for river reaches or throughout the watershed upstream from
the fixed site.

10. **Ground water**

Determining the significance of ground water to coastal water quality
involves the characterization of local and regional hydrogeologic
settings, hydraulic relationships between surface waters and ground
water, and natural and manmade contaminant sources. Because the Network
is national in scale, the focus is on ground water resources that could
be termed "major aquifers," both in relation to the potential impact on
coastal resources as well as their intrinsic value as water resources.

Ground water monitoring is important to the Network but the design has
less detail and specificity when compared to other resources. The
primary reason for the difference in treatment within the overall
Network design is that the relative impact of ground water on coastal
waters will vary by location. In some areas, ground water monitoring
will be critical to understanding loads of constituents to coastal
waters. In other areas, ground water will be relatively insignificant
when compared to surface water; however, ground water must always be
considered in the overall budget of sources of contaminants. Notable
examples that demonstrate the importance of ground water to coastal
water quality include the effects of nutrients on estuarine and coastal
resources along Cape Cod and in Florida's Biscayne Bay, and the impacts
of water supply pumping along the Gulf Coast/Mississippi River delta
area where subsidence is causing significant loss of wetlands. In
addition, ground water monitoring is especially useful in areas where
loadings from other sources cannot account for the measured values
within an estuary.

**3.10.1 Ground Water Resource Characteristics of Significance to
Coastal Water Quality**

The importance of ground water, as a contributing factor or mechanism
affecting coastal surface water quality, varies spatially around the
country. Overall, the importance depends primarily on the following
factors:

1.  The relative contribution of ground water discharge in relation to
    surface runoff and stream flow. For example, Long Island and Cape
    Cod consist of thick Coastal Plain or glacial sediments that hold a
    vast supply of ground water, discharging indirectly to the coastline
    through minor streams and directly into estuarine and coastal
    waters, and thus ground water represents the most significant source
    of freshwater to the coastal resources in these two areas. Ground
    water monitoring is needed because the local streams do not carry a
    significant enough percentage of the flows to the coastal water
    bodies. By contrast, the Delaware River and the several rivers
    draining to the Delaware Bay in southern New Jersey constitute the
    predominant source of freshwater to the bay as compared to the
    Coastal Plain aquifers surrounding the bay. Monitoring of the rivers
    would therefore provide characterization of a high percentage of the
    freshwater flow. In addition, monitoring of stream water quality
    during low, baseflow periods can provide sufficient estimation of
    the ground water-generated contaminant loadings.

2.  The direct discharge of ground water to bays and estuaries. There
    are several examples along the U.S. coastline where major aquifers
    discharge directly to coastal and estuarine waters, increasing the
    likelihood that ground water-borne loadings could represent a
    significant source of impacts. Concomitantly, there is inherently
    more concern regarding impacts of coastal and estuarine waters on
    such direct-discharge aquifers---including the potential for
    saltwater intrusion into water supply aquifers, and the entrainment
    of pollutants found in the coastal/estuarine systems. Examples of
    "direct-discharge" major aquifers include those found along the
    entire Atlantic Coastal Plain area, the North Shore of Long Island,
    and Cape Cod, as well as portions of the Southern California coast.

3.  The importance of site-specific conditions related to contaminant
    loadings. This factor represents the effectiveness of the aquifer
    system as a conduit for land-based contamination, in combination
    with the presence of natural or manmade contaminants in the ground
    water flow system. In general, the effectiveness as a conduit is
    similar to the factor described above. For example, wastewater and
    waste-liquid injection and petroleum drilling and pumping activities
    in deep aquifer units along portions of the Atlantic Coastal Plain
    Aquifer System represent known potential sources of ground water
    contamination that could result in coastal water pollution. The
    conduit to coastal waters can be effective if the contaminated
    aquifer unit discharges directly to coastal or estuarine waters. As
    another example, the Long Island aquifer system is an effective
    conduit, generally, because of its high permeability and the flow
    patterns from inland areas to the coastline, resulting in discharge
    to coastal waters.

4.  Multiple vs. single aquifer units. The country's coastline can be
    divided into segments with single, unconfined aquifers vs. multiple,
    stacked aquifers. In the Coastal Plain areas, multiple aquifer units
    exist, separated by confining units. Each aquifer can have different
    characteristics in terms of flows and contaminant loadings to the
    coastal waters. In particular, the deep, confined aquifer units are
    generally more protected from surface contamination, but they also
    have very long timeframes in terms of contaminant source-to-coastal
    discharge and thus they can act as significant long-term threats to
    coastal waters. The Coastal Plain formations stretch from the south
    coast of Long Island through Texas, and similar aquifer systems
    exist along the Southern California coastline. In the rest of the
    coastal areas, single aquifer systems predominate, with generally
    more rapid response times but a higher degree of threat due to
    shallower water table aquifer conditions.

5.  Presence of ground water contamination at significant enough
    concentrations. While the hydraulic discharge rate in relation to
    surface water flows is important, the concentrations in ground water
    must also be considered in relation to the potential impacts of
    contaminant loadings in ground water discharging to coastal waters,
    as well as the potential for the ground water-borne contaminants to
    reach the coastal waters. Specifically, the fate and transport
    characteristics of each contaminant of potential concern help
    determine its threat to coastal resources. For example, nitrates
    generally migrate in ground water flow systems with little
    attenuation, whereas many phosphorus compounds are filtered via
    various processes. In addition, high concentrations of some
    contaminants that are carried by relatively small ground water
    discharge rates can cause surface water problems.

**3.10.2 Challenges in Designing a Ground Water Monitoring Network for
Coastal Water Quality Contributions**

By the examples offered above, the importance of ground water to coastal
water quality has been demonstrated for at least a portion of the U.S.
coastline. However, the various factors and characteristics listed above
also indicate the level of complexity involved in designing a national
monitoring network component for ground water. The challenges include:

-   Spatial variability and the significance of site-specific problems
    make it difficult to develop a generalized approach.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Ground water aquifers have "response times" and "delivery rates"
    that extend over longer time periods than surface waters, extending
    the duration of contaminant-discharge impacts in comparison to
    similar-scale surface water bodies.

-   Effective sampling of ground water is hampered by accessibility and
    representative-volume problems.

-   Solving problems that involve ground water quantity and quality
    seems to suffer more (than equivalent surface water system-generated
    problems) from the lack of data, and gathering data once a problem
    is identified is generally more difficult and expensive.

-   Historically, ground water problems predominantly revolved around
    quantity and hydraulics issues; thus, in general, the historic
    database of ground water quality information still lags that of
    surface water qualityl.

**3.10.3 Basic Design Approach**

With these challenges in mind, a set of recommendations has been
developed to provide the basic design approach for the ground water
resource component. Overall, the design approach should follow a
logical, stepwise process that relies upon oversight by a nationwide
group of ground water experts, and local implementation by ground water
experts in each defined local ground water area.

The following overall guiding principles are recommended:

-   Before the local ground water experts can perform their design work,
    the nationwide group of experts must define the local areas as well
    as recommend a framework for the local designs. This framework will
    ensure consistency across the entire country by providing guidance
    on minimum spatial density, sampling frequency, and water quality
    parameters.

-   The local ground water experts should reach a consensus on
    appropriate levels of monitoring in each local area to be monitored.
    In addition, they should provide input to the national group of
    experts on the areas appropriate to local studies, and on the
    national framework for ground water monitoring.

-   Existing data collection programs should be utilized to the extent
    possible. Within the U.S., the NAWQA efforts undertaken by the USGS
    serve as one "model" program, as well as that agency's State Water
    Office implemented efforts toward long-term monitoring of ground
    water levels and ground water quality, tied together through
    national data portals on the Internet. The hallmark of these efforts
    is regional monitoring coverage that includes spatially distributed
    monitoring at appropriate frequencies for providing important ground
    water hydraulic, hydrologic, and water quality information.

-   Overlay mapping should be conducted to identify the relative
    significance of ground water to coastal water quality, using maps of
    surface water hydrologic networks, hydrogeologic
    formations/aquifers, land use and population density, ground water
    quality, and existing coastal water quality problems related to
    ground water. This will help to focus the efforts of local ground
    water experts by identifying the coastal areas where ground water
    discharge and ground water-borne contamination are known to be, or
    are likely to be, the predominant factors in coastal water quality.

-   National ground water quality monitoring should focus on nonpoint
    sources, while allowing local entities to handle identification and
    mitigation of point sources, such as leaking USTs, CERCLA/RCRA
    sites, and similar contaminant sources. Some point sources,
    including septic tanks, may be considered nonpoint sources at the
    scale of the national monitoring network because of housing density
    and geographic spread.

-   The most pressing ground water related problems (see Section 3.10.4)
    should be identified, and a list of ground water parameters to be
    measured should be developed, based on the identified problems. Most
    of the parameters will be monitored through direct sampling of
    ground water in drilled wells; however, the design should also
    incorporate innovative methods, including remote sensing and
    imagery. For example, the use of satellite imagery to identify
    temperature changes and contrasts in coastal waters could be used to
    indicate the relative magnitude and significance of ground water
    discharges. As another example, radon concentrations in surface
    waters can help differentiate areas where large amounts of ground
    water are seeping from the sea floor.

**3.10.4 Pressing Ground Water Problems**

For selecting the parameters to monitor in ground water, the most
pressing ground water-related problems were identified, as follows:

-   Nutrient transport from nonpoint sources, such as septic systems,
    fertilized areas, and natural sources.

-   Saltwater intrusion, due to overpumping of supply wells, and the
    resulting changes in freshwater discharges to coastal resources.

-   Toxic contamination from point and non-point sources, including
    manmade and natural sources.

-   Sustainability of ground water reserves for maintaining minimum or
    threshold surface water flows, and the attendant surface water
    quality of streams that discharge to coastal water bodies.

    10. **Atmospheric deposition**

The focus of the atmospheric deposition component of the Network is the
deposition that falls directly on estuaries and coastal waters and the
loads of substances that are present in wet and dry deposition. This
monitoring of direct deposition is distinguished from the water and
associated constituents that enter coastal waters through storm water
runoff. At present very little is known about the importance of
atmospheric loadings to coastal waters (Valigura and others, 2000);
thus, the Network monitoring proposed here will make a significant
contribution to our current understanding.

The Network will address the atmospheric deposition by monitoring wet
and dry atmospheric deposition near the mouths of coastal HUC 6
outflows. Actual sites will be selected by resource management agencies
and other technical experts. This will provide data for estimates of
direct atmospheric deposition to coastal waters. Although these sites
are likely to be land based, if they are located near the coast, they
will capture dry deposition that is representative of the area to be
monitored and wet deposition from widespread storms. These sites will
not capture the effects of localized events but this is consistent with
the overall Network design which is focused on a larger spatial scale.).

The constituents in atmospheric deposition that need special attention
include nutrients, synthetic organic chemicals, and mercury. At present,
the primary atmospheric deposition monitoring program is the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). The NADP is a cooperative that
includes federal and state agencies, tribes, universities, industry, and
non governmental organizations. See Appendix 3-5 for more information
about NADP and associated monitoring efforts.

**3.12 Coastal beaches**

Coastal beaches are important recreational resources. According to data
compiled by NOAA, 64 million American spent 878 million days at beaches
in the year 2000. This is projected to increase to 927 million in 2005,
and to 970 million by 2010. Overnight saltwater beach trips are longer,
on average, than other trips, lasting an average of 5.9 nights, compared
to 4.1 nights for overall travel. Yet every year these activities are
impeded by hundreds of beach advisories or closings at coastal and Great
Lakes beaches due to high concentrations of bacteria that indicate the
potential for contamination by human and animal waste.

The primary U.S. beach monitoring program is conducted by states using
grant funds administered by EPA under the BEACH Act. The resource
monitored by this program is defined as discrete coastal waters adjacent
to beaches or similar points of access that are used by the public.
States and territories have developed a risk-based beach evaluation and
classification plan for identifying which beaches are monitored. EPA
provides guidance for collection and storage of beach monitoring data
and makes data on beach closures available through BEACON, which is an
online notification of beach advisories and beach closures
(<http://oaspub.epa.gov/beacon/beacon_national_page.main>). The BEACON
Web site also provides location maps and other information for 6,099
individual beaches, of which 3,472 are monitored.

The overall design for the monitoring of this compartment recognizes the
existing monitoring of beaches by programs in 35 states and territories.
Beach monitoring is usually accomplished by collecting water samples and
analyzing them for organisms that indicate the potential for sewage or
fecal contamination from warmblooded animals. Great Lake beaches monitor
for either E.coli or Enterococci, but only Enterococci is the relevant
measure at marine beaches. The suitability of waters for primary contact
recreation (swimming, surfing, scuba diving) is determined by comparing
the measured levels of indicator organisms to state standards. States,
tribes, and local governments report their monitoring data to the public
and EPA. Reported data must be consistent with a defined list of data
elements. Each state program is required to identify and monitor
high-priority beach areas with significant public use, and to notify the
public if bacterial levels exceed the standards each state adopts. Most
high-priority beaches are monitored at a minimum on a weekly basis.

Although there is a wealth of monitoring data available for coastal
beaches, there are also some problems associated with interpreting and
aggregating the data for purposes of the Network. First, one of the
design features of the Network is that it will focus on actual data
rather than reporting on incidences where standards were exceeded. Data
for coastal beaches are used by the public and regulatory agencies
primarily to decide whether or not beaches are open or closed for
primary contact recreation. The underlying data, that is the
concentrations of bacteria, may or may not be reported directly. As
programs mature, these data are becoming more available, but data on
concentrations of bacteria are not yet universal. A second problem is
that an accurate picture of bacterial contamination must be obtained at
a scale that is meaningful beyond the individual beach. The goal is to
define areas that can be used to aggregate beach bacterial
concentrations by an objective design using a statistical description of
all monitored beaches in an area or a probability-based survey. It is
agreed that routine beach monitoring can likely yield data that can be
meaningfully aggregated, but this concept has not yet been proven with
pilot studies. Finally, concentrations of bacteria can change
significantly after rainfall runoff events and this presents problems
for results interpretation that have not yet been resolved. More work is
needed to establish the most effective way to analyze these data.

The following strategy is proposed for monitoring beaches. It will be
tested in pilot studies. The digitized boundaries of monitored beaches
as determined by states will be assigned to logical groupings for
purposes of data summaries. Sample sites will be selected in each of
these areas Bacterial concentration data will be assessed during a
representative 60-day period during the summer season (probably the
months of July and August). A geometric mean will be computed from
available data and a single sample maximum will be noted. These two
metrics will be used to describe water quality in each of the reporting
units. These metrics are consistent with, but do not substitute for, the
assessments that states make to determine attainment of their water
quality standards for recreational waters.

**3.13 Wetlands**

The design for the Network recognizes the importance of wetland
resources but does not provide explicit plans for wetlands monitoring.
Wetland resources are critical habitats in both fresh water and coastal
areas. They provide a range of critical functions wherever they are
found and understanding their quality is important. Consistent
monitoring to discern trends needs to be a long-term goal of the
Network. The Council considered, but rejected using wetland extent as a
surrogate for the quality of wetlands. The extent of wetland acreage is
a measure used in two major Federal inventories, and these may be used
in a subsequent wetlands monitoring design to define the extent of the
conditions monitored.

The Council concluded that methods used to monitor wetland quality are
still evolving and that no consensus now exists on how such monitoring
should be done. Like other water resources, wetlands vary widely in
their size, physical attributes, and hydrology. This variety presents
challenges in defining the important variables to use in characterizing
them. Current categories, which appear to focus primarily on the
physical location of wetlands (e.g. depressional wetlands, fringe
wetlands, coastal wetlands), may be a sufficient basis for designing
monitoring programs, but a consensus that this is so has not apparently
formed. For these reasons, few states monitor the quality of wetland
resources, although efforts are underway to develop and apply the
techniques for doing so. As the conceptual infrastructure for wetlands
monitoring evolves and as the procedures to be used in conducting that
monitoring gain acceptance, surveys of wetland quality can be added to
the Network.

**3.14 Monitoring and Modeling**

There is an ever-increasing demand for environmental monitoring data and
interpretive and other products derived from that data. This is driven
in part by the increased data holdings of agencies and individuals, the
worldwide accessibility of data, and increasing capabilities of personal
computers. Thus, there are growing expectations that government agencies
and others that produce data will maximize the quality, objectivity,
utility and integrity of the information they produce and disseminate.
Maximizing the use of data includes improved statistical analyses of
data and development and use of models to interpret environmental data.
For example, recommendations by government oversight agencies such the
U.S. Government Accountability Office and ad hoc scientific advisory
groups such as the National Academy of Sciences stress the need to
advance the development of geosptatial Internet-based query tools and
analytical schemes for environmental data. These tools include a suite
of models that facilitate scientific understanding of complex
environmental issues and a comprehensive, yet transparent, decision
support system for improved resource management.

The utility of models for conducting water quality assessments and
policy analyses on water allocation and pollution abatement strategies
has been underscored in a number of authoritative scientific reviews
spanning decades (OTA 1987; NRC 1994; NSTC 1998; NRC 2000; GAO 2004).
These reviews, notably NSTC (1998), also recommended inclusion of
monitoring, modeling and research as key elements of a scientific
framework used to assess water quality, develop environmental and
natural resource policies, and inform decision-making. An integrative
framework such as that proposed by NSTC is considered essential for
achieving a predictive understanding of the linkages between water
quality and aquatic ecosystem functions, with emphasis on conceptual and
mathematical models that can lead to new ways of understanding how
ecosystems function.

Water quality models that are currently available are varied in terms of
their modeling approaches, inclusion of resource areas, and spatial and
temporal domains. Some models are statistical in nature; that is they
are empirical and derived from a set of observations. Others are
mechanistic or numerical; they are based on a set of relationships
between environmental characteristics and functioning or performance of
an ecosystem (Table 3-5). Modeling approaches based on analog approaches
or fuzzy logic have also been used in water quality assessments. All of
these types of models require a broad spectrum of observations and an
array of quality-assured monitoring data. This is particularly true for
complex coupled atmosphere-watershed-coastal ecosystem models, models
that simulate contaminant inputs and transformations, and models that
project the impacts of stressors on valued ecosystem components.
Depending on the degree of abstraction and the nature of supporting
data, simulation model results can, and sometimes do, lead to a false
sense of confidence in the likely results of management actions. Still,
environmental or ecosystem-based models have a key role to play in
advancing adaptive ecosystem (or water quality) management because they
provide the means for evaluating management alternatives and exploring a
broad range of options (NRC 1994; NSTC 1998)

Table 3-5. Examples of different types of models used in the assessment
of water quality conditions.

  ------------------ ------------------------------------ ----------------
  Model Name         Description                          Reference

  SPARROW (Spatially A regression procedure based on      Smith, R.A. et
  Referenced         spatially referenced land use and    al. (1997)
  Regression on      stream channel characteristics for   
  Watershed          prediction of total nitrogen and     
  Attributes ) Model total phosphorus at the outlet of    
                     major U.S. watersheds                

  Long-term PCB Fate A multi-compartment mass budget      Leatherbarrow,
  and Transport      model to describe long-term fate of  et al. (2005)
  Model              PCBs in San Francisco Bay; model is  
                     run both in a hindcast mode and to   
                     forecast trends over the next 100    
                     years.                               

  Better Assessment  A GIS-based framework to display and Lahlou, et al.
  Science            integrate water-quality related      (1998)
  Integrating Point  (land use, contaminant discharges,   
  and Nonpoint       water withdrawals, etc.) at          
  Sources (BASINS)   user-specified scales                

  Curvilinear-grid   A hydrodynamic model that can be     Sheng (1990)
  hydrodynamics 3D   linked to a water quality sub-model  
  (CH3D) model       to develop system response to        
                     changed water levels, bathymetric    
                     features, salinities, temperatures,  
                     current velocities and nutrients (or 
                     seagrass, contaminants); has been    
                     modified for applications in         
                     Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, Indian  
                     River Lagoon.                        

  HYSPLIT (Hybrid    Model simulates emissions of         Cohen, et al.
  Single-particle    environmentally persistent           (2002)
  Lagrangian         contaminants (such as dioxins) from  
  Integrated         specified sources and describes      
  Trajectory) Model  contaminant trajectories and         
  applications       deposition in designated areas.      

  Ecosim, Ecopath    Application of models to describe    Booth and Zeller
  and Ecotracer      transfer of methymercury through the (2005)
  models             food web in a marine ecosystem, and  
                     assess potential impacts of climate  
                     change                               

  FWLAM (Fuzzy       Application of fuzzy sets to         Sasikumar and
  Waste-Load         optimize water quality management    Mujumdar (1998)
  Allocation Model)  options in a river                   
  ------------------ ------------------------------------ ----------------

In all instances, the reliability of model outputs is critically
dependent on environmental observations and monitoring data. These data
are essential to derive input parameters and coefficients for the
models. They are also important to assuring credibility of model outputs
in terms of sensitivity analyses which can help to assess the
consequences of uncertainties in the input parameters on model
performance. The reliability of model outputs is affected not only by
the quality of the monitoring data; it is also dependent on
understanding the ecological processes that are incorporated in the
model. This latter need has been articulated in a number of scientific
reviews, including those mentioned herein, which call for coordinated
research that characterizes structural and functional aspects of
regional ecosystems. One aspect of this research that is particularly
important is documentation of the interactions and feedback mechanisms
that may occur under different scenarios of natural or anthropogenic
stimuli. Routine monitoring program often do not have sites in optimal
locations (for example in interior test points of a model domain) for
model verification or other targeted applications. The flexibility of
site selection and inclusion of targeted monitoring sites in the
proposed Network are intended to help alleviate such shortcomings.

The Network monitoring design, as outlined in this report, provides a
continuum of observations from the watershed to the open ocean and
assures quality assured monitoring data on a set of core variables. An
added benefit of the Network will be wide accessibility and broad
dissemination of data, including water quality monitoring data from
different sources presented in compatible formats. Data sub-sets may be
offered to users (including modelers) through effective search engines
that allow data sets to be selected based on the location where the data
were collected, the variables included in the data set, and the time
that environmental observations were made.

A fully implemented Network, as proposed in this report, would
contribute to advances in both modeling and monitoring as suggested by
the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (NSTC, 1998) which
noted a number of areas of interdependence between monitoring and
modeling:

> • *Model improvements* -- through increased understanding of process
> studies, experiments and observations
>
> • *Model testing* -- enhancing the credibility and utility of the
> model performance and outputs by providing field verification data or
> data to validate interior test points of the model
>
> • *Experimental design* -- models provide outputs that signify
> patterns of variability in key variables and may serve as the basis
> for designing efficient sampling schemes, i.e., targeted observations
> at different spatial scales and frequencies.
>
> • *Inference about hidden variables* -- models can provide inferences
> about the significance of variables that are difficult to measure
> routinely or directly \-- or may be missing \-- but which could
> substantially impact the processes or parameters being investigated.
>
> • *Remotely-sensed data* -- model simulations encompassing broad areas
> or geographical regions often necessitate corroborating data obtained
> from satellite, aircraft or shore-based sensors with a wide swath and
> by means of synoptic sampling coverage from moored and drifting buoys.
>
> • *Application* -- quality of model output is strongly related to the
> input; if models are used to make inferences over large regions from
> information gained in specific experiments, then model input must be
> obtained by national and regional scale monitoring programs.

**Chapter 4 Importance of Comparable Data**

Full implementation of the Network will require the use of data
collected by a number of federal, tribal, state, local, academic, and
private sources. Because data will come from such a variety of
participants, it is vital that these data are comparable and capable of
being integrated into a coherent assessment of the condition of and
trends in the quality of the Nation's estuaries, coastal and offshore
marine waters, the Great Lakes, and the tributaries of these waters.

A successful and efficient national-scale compilation and integration of
environmental monitoring data will require the following elements:

-   known and appropriate methods;

-   documented quality assurance and quality control;

-   metadata, and;

-   access to data and related information**.**

In this chapter, each of these elements will be described in more detail
and then applied to data collected by multiple agencies within the
Delaware River Basin to determine to what extent data collected from
on-going programs can be compared. Finally, this chapter will discuss
tools that are available to make data sharing easier and the use of new
technologies.

### 4.1 Elements Needed for Comparable Data

### Known and Appropriate Methods

Most current programs and projects are designed using a process that
leads to specific and identified Data Quality Objectives or DQOs. DQOs
and their use are described in detail in USDOE, 2000, USEPA, 2000, and
Grumbly, 1994.. In brief, the DQO process leads program planners through
a series of steps in which management objectives of the program are
specified. These management objectives then become the basis for
decisions about the kind of data and data interpretation that are
needed. If data are to be included in the Network, it is best if site
selection, sampling methods, analytical procedures, and other network
specifications are included in the DQO process for the participating
monitoring program. In this way, decisions will match Network
requirements for (1) data that accurately represent the medium sampled
(air, water, sediment, and biota) at the intended spatial and temporal
scale and (2) use appropriate methods that yield impartial,
reproducible, and comparable results.

Placing an emphasis on the quality of data needed from a method in order
to meet DQOs, rather than on a specific data-collection method, is
referred to as a performance-based system (PBS) approach (see [Appendix
4-1](../appendix/append4-1PBMSFINAL_Aug15_2001.pdf)). If implemented
properly and validated suitably, a PBS approach can further the
comparability and interpretability of data among organizations and
programs. Also, using a PBS approach offers greater flexibility in
method selection and greater latitude in using new, more efficient
data-collection and analytical technologies in the Network, as they
become available.

**Documented Quality Assurance and Quality Control**

### Monitoring efforts that integrate a comprehensive quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program, and that document such activities, are likely to produce high-quality data that are useful for a variety of purposes. For example, data-collection plans should specify the qualifications and training needed by field and laboratory personnel and the data-collection system as a whole (e.g., accreditation, certifications, etc), as well as the types and minimum amount of quality-control data to be generated. QA/QC programs should also specify accurate and complete documentation of field and laboratory records and data transmission and storage procedures.

### Metadata

Metadata are information about the data. Metadata are extremely
important to the Network and, indeed, to any secondary use of the data
because they allow the user to make an informed determination as to how
(or if) they wish to use that data. Descriptive metadata (the who, what,
where, when, why, and how) are central to the purposes of the Network.
They will include information about who produced the data; what was
collected, when, where, and how the samples were collected and analyzed;
and why the data were produced in the first place. Monitoring programs
that are part of the Network must record and make accessible this type
of associated information so that others can use their data in an
appropriate manner. At a minimum, documented metadata will help inform
others about the uncertainties surrounding any decisions or
interpretations that are based on those data.

**Access to Data and Related Information**

Sharing electronic data across programs is a fundamental goal of the
Network. To meet the demands of the Network, data must be electronically
accessible and capable of being easily accessed and shared. This will
require a data sharing system that engages a diverse spectrum of data
providers and users. This topic is discussed detail in Chapter 5.

**4.2 Case Study of Delaware River Basin Nitrate Data**

To help determine the importance of the above issues to the Network, the
methods used and data generated for nitrate in the Delaware River Basin
were examined (appendix 4-2). The Delaware River Basin includes parts of
Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Nitrate was chosen as an example
constituent because it is commonly measured in water quality monitoring
programs and it is relevant to many of the management issues and
objectives being addressed by the Network (see Chapter 2). In this case
study, data collection, analyses, and storage procedures from six
agencies representing the three states, a federal agency and the
Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) were compared. Collectively these
agencies collect and analyze samples from about 100 stream sites within
the Basin and in Delaware Bay. Because the Delaware River Basin includes
multiple agencies from multiple jurisdictions that collect both stream
and estuarine samples, this case study is particularly relevant to the
Network.

An informational survey of the six major organizations monitoring
nitrate in the Basin indicated that methods used by the different
organizations were probably comparable because, in most cases, the same
analytical method was used. This is so because the Delaware River Basin
Commission (DRBC) requires their partner programs to use either a
specific EPA method or adhere to a specific method detection limit in
order for the data to be accepted and used to fulfill the Clean Water
Act, 305(b) reporting requirements. Even though the methods were
substantially the same, there were some differences in methods of
preservation and holding times among organizations that may or may not
affect data comparability.

There were important differences among the agencies with respect to some
of the elements that are needed to make data comparable and, thus, to
meet the needs of the Network. These are illustrated in Figure 4-1. In
this case study, the elements that would need to be improved if data
from the different agencies were to be combined into a regional or
national monitoring network are shown in either orange or blank cells.
For example, in many cases, the methods used for sample collection and
sample analyses are not fully available to the public on the agencies'
Web sites. The use of routine QA/QC procedures are not carried out or
not fully documented by several of the agencies. For example, the
procedure in which a sample is divided into two identical samples, each
of which is analyzed independently to test whether the same result is
achieved, is only used and documented by one agency. Few of the agencies
surveyed have electronic metadata that can readily be made available to
the public. Finally, much of the methodological metadata recommended by
ACWI were lacking or inaccessible for most programs surveyed.

Although preliminary in scope, the Delaware Basin survey illustrates
many of the current challenges to using existing monitoring programs in
the Network. These results are not unique to the programs in the
Delaware Basin. A survey of metadata and data accessibility conducted
via the Internet (see Chapter 5) also indicated that many programs have
incomplete metadata and do not provide easy access to their metadata.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 11%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 4%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
</colgroup>
<thead>
<tr class="header">
<th><strong>Program</strong></th>
<th></th>
<th><p><strong>Sample</strong></p>
<p><strong>Collection</strong></p></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><mark>Sample</mark></p>
<p><mark>Processing /</mark></p>
<p><mark>Analysis</mark></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th colspan="4"><blockquote>
<p><mark>QA/QC</mark></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th colspan="2"><blockquote>
<p><mark>Metadata</mark></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th colspan="3"><blockquote>
<p><mark>Data Reporting</mark></p>
</blockquote></th>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<th><blockquote>
<p><mark></mark></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p><strong>Method available to public on Internet?</strong></p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p>Method available to public on Internet?</p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p>Replicate samples?</p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p>Matrix spikes?</p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p>Reference sample?</p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p>Split samples?</p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p>Recommended metadata maintained?</p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p>Publicly available</p>
<p>on Internet?</p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p>Data electronic?</p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p>Publicly available on Internet?</p>
</blockquote></th>
<th><blockquote>
<p>Ancillary data available?</p>
</blockquote></th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td>1</td>
<td>NJDEP</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>2</td>
<td>DNREC</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>3</td>
<td>PADEP</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>4</td>
<td>DRBC #88</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5</td>
<td>DRBC #36</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>6</td>
<td>USGS</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

**Figure 4-1.** Status of different monitoring elements, described under
Section 4.2 in this chapter, for the major programs monitoring nitrate
in the Delaware River. Green indicates that the program does meet the
particular category. Orange indicates that the program does address the
category as requested but that the information is not necessarily with
the data on their web site (e.g., information may be in STORET on EPA's
Web site (need web site) or method information is on EPA's Web site
(URL). A blank cell indicates that the program does not apparently
address the category. Need key to agency abbreviations.

**4.3 Tools**

Several tools are available to help identify comparable methods for the
Network and to help ensure comparable data. Use of these tools should
make it easier for agencies to participate in the Network.

**NEMI**

The National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI,
[http://]{.underline}[www.nemi.gov](http://www.nemi.gov/)) is a free,
Web-based compendium of methods developed by the Methods and Data
Comparability Board (Appendix 4-3). NEMI is searchable and can be used
to easily compare expected accuracy and precision, cost, and other
factors among methods that are used to analyze for the same parameter or
analyte. Agencies participating in the Network can use NEMI to identify
potentially appropriate methods for many constituents of interest (see
[Appendix 4-3](../appendix/append4-3nemi.fctsht.doc)) and help to ensure
that comparable methods are used. Ideally, all methods used by Network
participants should be entered into NEMI.

**Water Quality Data Elements and Other Metadata Standards**

The Advisory Committee on Water Data (ACWI) has endorsed a set of water
quality data elements that it believes are the core set of elements
necessary to facilitate the exchange of chemical, microbiological,
population/community (ecological and bioassessment), and toxicological
data (see [Appendix 4-4](../appendix/append4-4WQDE081905%20v8JD.rtf) and
**http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methods/tools/wqde/index.htm**). These lists
were developed in conjunction with numerous local, state, federal, and
private sector water quality monitoring entities to assure that the use
of the data elements listed are compatible with the majority of existing
databases. These data elements are now being used as a foundation by the
Environmental Data Standards Council (EDSC) to develop a multi-media
Environmental Sampling, Analysis, and Results (ESAR) standard
(<http://www.envdatastandards.net/content/article/detail/649>).

> The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Content Standard for
> Digital Geospatial Metadata (CSDM) is widely used for geospatial data.
> It was developed from the perspective of defining the information
> required by a prospective user to determine the following: The
> availability of a set of geospatial data, its fitness for an intended
> use, the means of accessing it, and then how to successfully transfer
> the set of geospatial data
> (<http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/contstan.html>). While the FGDC
> metadata standard is useful for documenting geospatial data and
> datasets, content metadata standards are useful for documenting the
> quality of the underlying data, e.g., water quality monitoring data.

Metadata standards have also been developed in conjunction with the U.S.
Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), which will be appropriate for
some monitoring programs in the Network. According to the U.S. IOOS Data
Management and Communications Plan (DMAC), IOOS will initially use the
FGDC Content Standard (FGDC-STD-001-1998), and any applicable
supplemental profiles (i.e., the Biological Data Profile, Shoreline
Profile), as its standard for metadata. For more information on DMAC see
<http://dmac.ocean.us/dacsc/docs/march2005_dmac_plan.pdf>. The Plan also
acknowledges the need for an extensible metadata schema that makes
provisions for the needs of various scientific disciplines, and for the
needs of machine-to-machine interoperability. Furthermore, it is
acknowledged that other communities may be invested in other metadata
standards, and that some work may be required to develop "crosswalks
mapping elements between the FGDC CSDM and these other standards"
(Hankin et al., 2005).

**Field and Laboratory Accreditation**

A key component for improving data comparability is third party
accreditation of laboratories and field personnel that provide
environmental data (see
<http://wi.water.usgs.gov/methods/tools/accred/index.htm>).
Accreditation is defined as the independent assessment of laboratory or
field technical competence and its quality system. The use of a
consistent accreditation program will help to improve the overall
quality of water monitoring data in the U.S. and, therefore, contribute
to the goals of the Network.

### 4.4 New Technologies 

If the Network is to remain viable and relevant, it must be prepared to
incorporate new and innovative technologies. With the increasing
awareness of potentially widespread health and environmental effects of
various pathogenic organisms and anthropogenic chemicals, there is
increasing interest in monitoring new analytes (or biomarkers) and/or
developing better technologies for detecting known contaminants at lower
concentrations or in real-time. The attention on homeland security, as
well as on other emergency situations, has also increased the demand for
rapid methods and/or technologies that can rapidly measure constituents
on-site. Examples of new technologies that may have applicability to the
Network include immunoassay kits that analyze a wide range of
contaminants relatively inexpensively and quickly, probes for pathogen
analyses, microbial source-tracking techniques
(<http://water.usgs.gov/owq>), and a wide array of real-time toxicity
systems using surrogate indicator species (e.g., algal sensors, fish
respiration monitors). In addition, remote-sensing technologies are
becoming increasingly effective in detecting water quality patterns.
This may be very helpful for tracking large-scale status and trends in
some of the constituents to be measured by the Network.

Advances in information technology, modern electronic instrumentation
and biosensors, wireless telecommunications, encryption, and the
development of new laboratory procedures and protocols also provide
opportunities for the use of innovative technologies in the monitoring
Network. Additionally, as monitoring technologies change, new questions
often emerge because we have new or better information available. As a
result, it is not uncommon for monitoring objectives and data
characteristics to change or be refined as monitoring technologies
improve in order to address new environmental issues or existing issues
in a new way.

One of the challenges to the Network will be incorporating data from new
and innovative technologies. This is a challenge not only because of the
need for full documentation of methodologies and performance
characteristics, but also because of the need to provide a continuous
data record that will support trend detection and analyses. This can be
accomplished by establishing some period of overlap between new and old
methods. Comparing the results from two different methods should aid in
understanding the effects of lowered reporting limits, detection of new
analytes, application of field-based and real-time data, and evaluation
of fundamentally different methods of detection. New technologies that
are incompatible with existing methods may still be highly desirable
with respect to the value of information they provide to the network.
For example, existing methods that measure concentration of a chemical
contaminant might be complemented by, or even replaced by, new methods
that measure exposure to chemical or biological hazards, such as changes
in enzyme systems and damage to DNA.

### 4.5 Recommendations

### Based on the issues discussed in this chapter, the following recommendations, if adopted, will promote comparability of data and the use of data for multiple purposes:

-   Methods must meet detection and reporting limits and any other
    performance criteria stipulated in the Network design. Use of
    methods that are either in NEMI or that will be entered into NEMI in
    a short period of time are strongly encouraged.

-   Routine QA/QC analyses must be conducted and reported with the data.

-   Projects and datasets relevant to the NMN should be documented using
    the ACWI Water Quality Data Standards or other widely accepted
    metadata standards.

-   Over time new technologies will improve the data produced by Network
    participants; however, new methods and other technologies must be
    fully documented to assure data continuity.

**Chapter 5 -- Data Management, Access, and Retrieval**

A recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office on the status of
water-quality data collection in the U.S. concluded that unlike water
quantity data, which is collected by relatively few agencies with
reasonably good coordination, water-quality data are collected by
numerous federal, state, and local agencies with minimal coordination
(GAO, 2004). As a result, watershed managers often lack access to
critical information needed to make informed decisions. Among the
report's specific conclusions are:

-   many data collectors do not know who is collecting what data, as
    there is no centralized data clearinghouse;

-   data collectors use different collection procedures, leading to
    inconsistent levels of quality assurance and inconsistent collection
    of metadata; and

-   data are stored in different formats in different databases, making
    integration difficult.

The basic technical challenge before us is how to best apply modern
information technology to effectively link numerous, distributed
databases of variously formatted data. This will include determining
minimal standards for long-term archival and implementing the means by
which users discover data, determine its availability, and gain access
to the data in a useable format. An additional challenge is to approach
this implementation with sensitivity to the resources available to data
providers to create or enhance information technology.

This chapter reviews the status of existing water-quality data systems,
envisions the technology and strategy for the storage and sharing of
both data and metadata for the Network, and offers a list of strategic
events essential to the implementation of the recommendations.

**5.1 The State of Water Quality Data Systems in 2005**

A total of 173 monitoring programs from 5 regions of the U.S (Chesapeake
Bay, Delaware Bay, Gulf of Maine, Gulf of Mexico, and Pacific
Northwest), plus 4 Federal databases (NWISWeb, NAWQA Data Warehouse,
STORET, and Legacy STORET)) were used in this preliminary evaluation in
order to gauge the current status of water-quality data systems. These
programs include various types of data (chemistry, biology, spatial,
etc.), from various types of organizations (volunteer groups, non-profit
groups, and State and Federal agencies), collected by a variety of
methods (direct observation, sampling, continuous monitoring, remote
sensing) representing different environments found throughout the water
cycle. The evaluation was conducted to acquire information regarding
four categories: access method, search/retrieval capabilities, level of
metadata available, and archive method. A summary of the results of this
evaluation is presented in Table 5-1. A full description of how and why
this evaluation was made is found in [**Appendix
5-1**](../appendix/append5-1.doc).

**TABLE 5-1.** Summary of Water-Quality Data Systems Evaluation. Values
in italics are desired characteristics of a NMN access system.

  ----------------------------- ------------ ----------------------------- ------------
  **Evaluation Category**       **%**        **Evaluation Category**       **%**

  **Access Method**                          **Metadata level**             

  Unknown                       22.5         Unknown                       46.8

  Not available                 9.8          Undocumented                  4.6

  Hard copy only                2.3          Database level only           31.2

  Digital format                60.7         Partial compliance to ACWI    17.3
                                             standards                     

  ***Web services***            ***4.6***    ***Full compliance to ACWI    ***0.0***
                                             standards***                  

  **Search/Retrieval**                       **Archive method**             

  Unknown                       35.8         Unknown                       59.0

  Hidden/Restricted Access      6.4          At risk -- no formal          0.0
                                             procedures                    

  Portal to multiple databases  20.8         Preserved -- single location  30.1
                                             archival                      

  Search by Locations --        12.7         ***Redundancy -- multiple     ***11.0***
  Retrieve Data Summary                      locations***                  

  ***Search by Location --      ***24.3***                                 
  Retrieve Individual Values***                                            
  ----------------------------- ------------ ----------------------------- ------------

Some of the constraints of limitations on interpretation of any patterns
from the evaluation exercise include:

1.  Lists of data systems for each region do not represent a random
    sample, so no inferences beyond these systems should be inferred.

2.  Each region was evaluated by a different person, each with varying
    levels of IT expertise.

3.  "Unknown" generally implies information was not readily available by
    Internet-based search---it may be available from a contact person by
    phone or e-mail.

4.  The evaluation represents the current state of data systems;
    individual data systems may be in the process of evolving to
    different access methods, search and retrieval capabilities, etc.

None of the programs evaluated had all the capabilities desired for the
Network's access system. Further, the lack of information regarding
metadata and archival methods are potential impediments to developing
the Network's data access and retrieval systems. To fully engage
potential Network participants, it will be necessary to identify how
their existing data management systems could be modified to make them
compatible with the proposed Network data management system.

**5.2 Network Data Management, Access, and Retrieval**

Current models of data management and access systems have evolved from
reliance on transfer of whole, large data files and colossal,
centralized databases to include a complex mixture of large centralized
databases, commonly-architected distributed databases, and custom-built
stand-alone databases. As part of this data system evolution, many data
consumers have come to realize and appreciate the complexities involved
in integrating data from a number of disparate data sources. This
becomes especially apparent when the consumer retrieves data about a
particular watershed and the data is presented in a number of formats
from the various databases holding the data of interest. A related
challenge is that of wholesale transfer of data between partners with
incompatible databases.

The U.S. IOOS Data Management and Communications (DMAC) community is
developing web-based networking capabilities to meet needs specific to
the types of information they wish to exchange
(<http://dmac.ocean.us/dacsc/imp_plan.jsp>). It is desired that the
Network proposed in this report will link seamlessly with the IOOS. As
of January, 2006, the IOOS was considered to be too early in the
development stages to be part of the formal evaluation process; however,
the IOOS DMAC Plan (Hankin et al., 2005) discusses recommendations for
data transport, data discovery, metadata, and data archive, which map
approximately to this report's categories of data access and transfer,
search and retrieval, metadata, and archive, respectively.

**5.2.1 Data Access and Transfer**

The data-exchange model that fits the needs of the Network is "web
services". There are a number of technologies that can be classified as
a web service, but for our purposes "web service" can be defined as the
use of an internet protocol such as HyperText Transfer Protocol (HTTP),
and the use of eXtensible Markup Language (XML) for messaging to
facilitate machine-to-machine processing of data.  Data providers
publish catalogues of available web services in a standard format; these
are queried, and services are requested using standard protocols. These
services could include access authorization, data requests, or data
submittals. Overall, the objective is to design the web service
architecture so that web-based interfaces are available to all data
providers and consumers; and that the interfaces are generic, open, and
reusable from an interoperability standpoint. See [**Appendix
5-2**](../appendix/append5-2.doc) for working examples of web service
architecture.

Web services work more efficiently when requesting small, specific parts
of a database as opposed to large, general data retrievals. Web services
can occur in an interactive or recursive environment, where, for
example, a user may first request the identities of suitable monitoring
locations or sites in an area and then generate subsequent requests for
the data for each location or site. Therefore, data retrieval can be
thought of as a set of related web services rather than a monolithic
file transfer.

Nearly all water-data requests fall into one of four types:

-   find project plan information, e.g., purpose for sampling or
    proposed monitoring location;

-   find information about a monitoring location or site;

-   obtain data collected at a location or site; or

-   authenticate or pay for services.

In the future, water data will be exchanged among a network of partners,
with each partner providing or having access to a core set of web
services built upon standardized XML schemas. Common web services will
allow users to access the data of any of the partners in exactly the
same manner. See [**Appendix 5-3**](../appendix/append5-3.doc) for a
discussion of these core web services.

## 5.2.2 Search and Retrieval

When consumers wish to obtain data from a data source they generally
seek a subset of these data. It is a rare that a consumer fully
understands the implication of requesting, "Give me all your data".
Instead, if the consumer is offered the ability to search the database
and retrieve a subset, then they will neither be as likely to be
overwhelmed by the volume of data nor have to spend as much effort
searching through the response to find the results they seek. To the
extent that databases can be searched, there are different levels of
complexity available to the data consumer.

Portals are generally websites that contain references to other websites
that share a common interest. As an example, a portal for water quality
monitoring programs in a particular area may provide links to individual
data systems which the consumer may peruse. Similarly, some databases
are searchable only to the extent that the consumer can search through
project listings and find the project that collected the data of
interest, but then the consumer must download the entire dataset.

Many search and retrieval applications allow the consumer to discover
the existence of individual monitoring locations or sites and use those
locations or sites as a criterion to narrow the search for data. Besides
allowing for the consumer to use spatial criteria, many applications
also allow the consumer to select by temporal criteria, types of data
available (i.e., water vs. tissue data), groups of/individual monitored
constituents (i.e., chemical analyte, taxon), etc. Some applications
allow consumers to ask for data that meet statistical criteria, e.g.,
"Show me all nitrate concentrations greater than 10 mg/L". Some search
and retrieval applications allow consumers to search databases using
geospatial tools, or a combination of geospatial and tabular selection
tools.

Badly-formed searches initiated by unskilled users can place enormous
processing strains on a database. "Wizards" and search optimization
tools can help in this regard, but are not employed by all databases.
Hence, an interactive procedure by which the user gradually narrows the
scope of a search may be a more practical approach. Web services create
an ideal infrastructure for this type of search.

## 5.2.3 Archiving and availability

Most, but not all, data collecting organizations have procedures in
place to preserve data integrity and some level of continuity of
service. These procedures include password requirements, controlled
access to servers and databases, firewall establishment, anti-virus
software applications, and routine back-up, maintenance, and updates to
server and desktop systems. In the event of a catastrophic failure,
systems can be restored to service as permitted by hardware
availability; databases can be restored to an extent from back-up
copies. However, there is growing concern within the information
technology field that digital resources will not survive in usable
format in the future. As technology changes, digital information may
become unusable as storage media, hardware, and software changes. Format
migration and flexibility offers some strategies in overcoming some of
these challenges.

To provide for the highest level of availability, some organizations
protect their most critical information assets by redundantly
storing/archiving them in physically separate but equally accessible
locations. As an example, although the USGS Louisiana Science Center was
put out of action by Hurricane Katrina, operational gaging stations in
the affected area were able to continue transmitting data through a
"buddy site" at the USGS Minnesota Science Center. IOOS data will be
preserved in perpetuity at one or more designated archive centers. The
NOAA Oceanographic, Climatic, and Geophysical Data Centers (NODC, NCDC,
and NGDC, respectively) have been designated IOOS archive centers
(Hankin et al., 2005).

**5.3 Recommended Network Aproach**

There are many partnerships between and among the freshwater and marine
monitoring communities addressing the issues of data management and
access. Any implementation of these recommendations should take into
account existing relationships between partners, leverage tools
developed and lessons learned from these partnerships, and consider
impact to the variety of data providers and their resource limitations.
It is important to identify incremental steps to improve the current
situation en route to full implementation, and what assistance and
knowledge might already be available to meet these goals.

**5.3.1 Program coordination**

-   Network Data Management and Access recommendations should be
    evaluated, refined, and implemented by a dedicated cross-agency
    committee. This committee would establish and maintain data policy
    and standards, determine resource priorities, and collaborate with
    affiliated organizations. The Network Data Management and Access
    (DM&A) committee would evaluate and adopt recommended data policies
    and standards and develop new policies and standards as needed. The
    DM&A committee would communicate, collaborate, and coordinate with
    other groups involved in Network implementation and other data
    management organizations.

-   Data management and access activities and strategies should be
    coordinated between the Network and IOOS DMAC to ensure
    compatibility between IOOS and the Network[.]{.underline} In order
    to develop methods to exchange information between the Network and
    IOOS, a working relationship should be established between the two
    data management committees.

-   A common schema for describing planned or desired sampling
    activities is needed. This schema can be the basis for a web service
    that brings potential partners in contact with one another. Data
    exchange and display tools should be developed to facilitate
    coordination of monitoring activities. These would be most useful
    for planning purposes within existing monitoring partnerships. The
    Network should use this tool to plan and publish sampling
    activities, and make the tool available to other monitoring
    organizations for use.

    **5.3.2 Access and Transfer**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The Network should utilize web services to transmit and publish
    data, and develop tools that facilitate the flow of data from
    organizations that do not have sophisticated data management
    capabilities to those that do have the capacity to participate
    directly with web services, e.g., hosting a network node. While the
    use of web services is highly desirable, it can also be resource
    intensive. Development and maintenance of web services hardware,
    software, and expertise requires a substantial commitment of
    knowledge, time and money. These resources are not likely available
    to all monitoring organizations. There are solutions that allow a
    wider range of participation in web services. These solutions
    include the use of free or inexpensive node-client software that can
    submit and retrieve data from network nodes. Web interfaces
    presently allow for public search and retrieval from web services,
    similar interfaces should be developed to submit data to web
    services in a secure manner. Network partners should encourage and
    enable the development of such tools as to allow broad access to web
    services and conduct training in the usage of these tools in order
    to encourage their use.

-   EPA and state environmental agencies presently use the National
    Environmental Information Exchange Network (Exchange Network) and
    are working to develop and implement data exchanges specific to
    water quality monitoring data. (See
    [http://www.exchangenetwork.net](http://www.exchangenetwork.net/))
    Other organizations collecting water data should develop the
    capacity to participate in the Exchange Network and engage in
    defining web services to publish data. Organizations with available
    fiscal and staff resources should be encouraged to develop network
    nodes to interact directly with the Exchange Network. Organizations
    with available or planned capacity should work together to develop
    web services appropriate for exchanging and publishing Network data.
    The web services should be built upon metadata and data standards as
    described previously. In addition to developing web services, common
    vocabularies are needed to ensure consistent communication between
    partners. The Network should develop an Exchange Network Data Area
    Strategy (DAS) to engage partners, examine existing web services,
    and develop core web services. The DAS would also adopt or develop
    common vocabularies for units of measurement, taxonomy, substances,
    place names, and others as needed.

-   Reconcile differences of web service protocols between the Exchange
    Network and IOOS. The Exchange Network and IOOS DMAC web services
    have been developed from differing needs and perceptions about the
    uniqueness of the types of data exchanged. It is desired that the
    Network link seamlessly with IOOS. What is not known is the extent
    to which the types of monitoring data that can be exchanged across
    the two systems are similar or different. Apart from possible
    technical differences between the web services themselves and the
    data exchanged, there may be institutional limitations to how
    seamless the data exchange between the two systems can be. Two
    alternatives are presented to link these systems.

    [Alternative 1:]{.underline} It will be necessary to develop a data
    brokerage service to communicate between the Exchange Network and
    the IOOS DMAC web services. Information technology exists to develop
    a data brokerage, or a tool to translate from one web service
    language to another. The Network and IOOS DMAC should develop a data
    brokerage service between the two systems. To facilitate this data
    brokerage service, the Network and IOOS DMAC should ensure that
    similar core web services exist to access and transport data.

    [Alternative 2:]{.underline} Exchange Network and IOOS DMAC web
    services should be merged into a common web services architecture.
    This alternative would require the engagement of the Exchange
    Network and IOOS DMAC at a higher administrative level. Due to the
    sensitive nature of the necessary discussions and subsequent
    transformation of one or both systems, it is likely that this
    alternative would take an extended period of time to implement. Thus
    it would be prudent to employ Alternative 1 as a shorter-term
    solution until resolution of Alternative 2.

    **5.3.3 Search and Retrieval**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Web services developed to publish data relevant to the Network
    should allow for various capabilities to search and retrieve data.

-   Geospatial and tabular tools should allow data consumers to discover
    information related to monitoring projects, browse data summaries
    for monitoring locations, and download desired monitoring results.
    Development of these tools by Network partners and stakeholders is
    encouraged.

    **5.3.4 Archiving and Availability**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Because network information may be deemed as a critical asset to the
    nation's information infrastructure, data integrity must be assured.
    It is recommended that there be redundant archival of these data.
    Organizations with available fiscal and staff resources should
    consider implementing redundant data archival. Network participants
    should recommend or develop a redundant data archival for partners
    without resources necessary for redundant data archival. This data
    archival would employ web services for the flow of data from partner
    to archive, and for publishing from the archive as necessary.

Number range CHAPTER**Chapter 6 Network Implementation**

This chapter discusses six important issues that need to be addressed as
part of Network implementation:

-   Further develop some details of the Network design.

-   Describe a strategy for incorporating existing monitoring efforts
    into the Network.

-   Conduct a full inventory of ongoing monitoring that might meet
    Network requirements.

-   Develop metrics to track progress in Network implementation.

-   Plan for reports that will periodically document Network design
    issues, Network status, and present and interpret Network data.

-   Engage the monitoring community in Network implementation through a
    proactive effort to encourage cooperation, collaboration, and
    coordination.

Several possible models for Network management are described. The report
concludes with two recommendations: (1) designate a small interagency
program coordination staff to provide leadership and coordinate the next
steps of Network implementation and (2) develop regional pilot studies
as a way of addressing the issues listed above and moving the Network
forward. Finally, there is a brief list of the most important next steps
for Network implementation.

**6.1 Network Design Details**

A few design issues should be addressed before the Network can be fully
implemented. Most of these issues will require additional deliberations
among national technical experts and consultation with individuals who
are most knowledgeable about local resource conditions. The most
important of these issues, summarized here for completeness, are:

> 1\. Develop a list of specific analytes and environmental parameters
> that would serve as a set of core measurements for the Network. The
> most critical need is for consensus among experts about which
> synthetic organic chemicals will be monitored, inclusion of
> "contaminants of emerging concern," and the preferred approach for
> determining biological conditions.
>
> 2\. Conduct additional research to develop methods for including
> wetlands as a resource compartment, and incorporating existing or
> enhanced monitoring of coastal beaches, ground water, and atmospheric
> deposition.
>
> 3\. Develop methods performance requirements for field and analytical
> methods, metadata standards, and interoperability requirements for
> data systems.
>
> 4\. Select targeted sites for estuaries, nearshore marine waters,
> offshore marine waters, and the Great Lakes.
>
> 5\. Determine the level of ground water monitoring needed in specific
> coastal areas.

**6.2 Incorporating Existing Monitoring Programs**

To the extent possible, existing monitoring efforts should be
incorporated into the Network as a critical first step in
implementation. Some ongoing efforts will fully meet Network
requirements. The monitoring will be at the right place, the full suite
of Network constituents will be monitored, methods will be documented,
and there will be easy access to data. It is expected, however, that
relatively few monitoring programs will fully meet the Network
requirements and that most current monitoring programs will require
augmentation or enhancements. This raises a question as to what
incentive would be there for monitoring entities to enact such
augmentation or enhancement. In the absence of additional resources to
support the changes, the incentive is primarily the improved and
expanded context that the national Network can provide for examining
local and regional monitoring results.

The Network design is based on integration across geographic scales and
timeframes by assuring a continuum of observations in different resource
compartments, connectivity with flow and flux of materials from the
rivers, coastal watersheds, ground water and the atmosphere, and
quality-assured data. In addition, it offers explicit linkage between
observations and modeling (and underlying research) to enable
comprehensive assessments of water quality conditions in the U.S.
coastal waters and forecasting capabilities at different geographical
scales. Integration is the primary distinction between the proposed
Network and the existing array of narrowly focused or single-resource
monitoring programs. The proposed Network, with its data sources from a
variety of sampling approaches, including remote sensing, will provide a
broad spatial context and offer specific data to satisfy regional and
local information needs that are not being effectively met by the
current set of resource inventories, field surveys, and fixed-sites
monitoring networks. Specifically, the Network will offer: (1) broad
regional and national contexts for local and resource-specific
monitoring programs; (2) rationale for adding monitoring parameters or
expanding the sampling domain; and (3) data for addressing multiple
water quality and environmental issues, as well as interactive and
cumulative effects of different stressors on water quality. Pilot
studies will provide a means to assess the efficacy of the Network
design in incorporating regional and local monitoring programs and
delivering data to support regional and local water quality needs. Those
studies will also be designed to deliver new information to gain a much
improved understanding of coastal water quality based on relevant
physical and biogeochemical characteristics and processes.

In considering current monitoring networks, it is important to recognize
that many existing stations and data collection platforms will not
provide data for the national Network. This does not mean that they are
unimportant or should be redirected to address Network objectives. No
one network can provide all the data needed by the country. The proposed
Network is designed for specific purposes at a specific scale. There is
much additional monitoring, some of it already underway and some still
needed, that fulfills important purposes that are outside the scope of
the Network. This monitoring continues to be important. Because
additional effort will be required to either add new sites or add new
constituents or improve data systems to fully implement the proposed
Network, Federal agencies and other monitoring agencies will either need
to add resources or redirect existing efforts. Furthermore, it would not
be in the best interests of wise management of the Nation's water
resources for the Network to compete for scarce resources with ongoing
monitoring efforts; thus, full implementation will almost certainly
require additional resources.

**6.3 Inventory of Current Monitoring**

A more complete inventory of ongoing water quality monitoring is needed.
A preliminary inventory of monitoring to determine the function of data
systems was conducted as part of the Network design effort and reported
in chapter 5 of this report. This inventory of data systems included 173
monitoring programs in the Gulf of Maine, Delaware River Basin,
Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Northwest, as well as two large
national data systems---USGS and EPA. These programs are a subset of the
thousands of monitoring programs underway across the U.S. A full
inventory of ongoing efforts would be an extremely difficult task.
Fortunately, this task would become more feasible by focusing on
programs that are directly relevant to the Network's goals and its
spatial domain. For example, the inventory would not include monitoring
programs in small, interior watersheds. The inventory should include
federal, tribal, state, and local agencies, as well as the academic
community, volunteer monitors, and the private sector. One of the
advantages of conducting the inventory is that it will provide an
opportunity to begin a dialogue about the proposed Network with those
conducting ongoing monitoring. This dialogue may be fruitful in
improving the design for Network resource compartments that require
sites to be selected by local resource management agencies and other
experts.

**6.4 Metrics**

A set of metrics is needed to track progress in Network implementation.
The two preliminary steps needed to calculate metrics are described
above: design details and an inventory of current monitoring programs.
The comprehensive inventory of ongoing monitoring will establish the
part that is ongoing and, by difference, what is needed. For example,
the design calls for 15 sites located along the salinity gradient (or
targeted to address an important resource management issue or a
particular scientific question) in each estuary. Suppose the inventory
reveals that 5 of the 15 locations have existing monitoring that meets
Network data specifications and another 3 sites have some but not all of
the specifications. For that estuary and for that component of estuarine
monitoring, the Network would be more than 33% complete, depending on
how partial stations are counted. As another example, the Network design
for monitoring inland rivers calls for 258 sites within the conterminous
U.S. where streamflow and water chemistry are measured. Results of an
analysis of streamgages maintained by the USGS and its many partners
show that 197 streamgages (or 76 percent of the total needed) are
already in place. With a set of relatively simple and straightforward
metrics, such as those illustrated in these two examples, it will be
possible to track progress in Network implementation. Data collection
agencies, funding sources, and others interested in the success of the
Network could then evaluate decisions about where and what to monitor
based on how those decisions would affect the Network, among other
considerations.

**6.5 Network Products**

Six different products are envisioned for the Network:

-   The full details of the design of the Network intended for technical
    experts in various organizations. This is also needed to calculate
    metrics. As explained above, several important design features need
    further work. When this effort is completed, additional steps and
    the rationale for those steps should be documented in a report that
    will supplement this report by providing the design details.

-   Quality assurance and quality-control plans, Network metadata
    standards, and methods for data management and access should be
    documented.

-   Annual reports documenting progress in implementation of the
    Network.

-   Documentation of the availability and use of the Network data and
    associated metadata via the Internet.

-   Periodic summary reports documenting acquisition of the Network data
    by resource component, by IOOS Region, or for individual rivers,
    estuaries, or lake.

-   Listing of publications in the scientific literature based on
    analyses and reporting of the Network data.

-   Every 5 years, a summary of all data and interpretive reports from
    the Network for use by resource managers and policy makers.

**6.6 Communication, Coordination, and Collaboration**

There will need to be considerable communication, coordination, and
collaboration among all members of the monitoring community to implement
the Network design presented in this report. (See Markowitz and others
\[2003\] for a more complete discussion of the importance of
communication, coordination, and collaboration.) For simplicity,
hereafter, the term cooperation will be used to refer to all three of
these needs. Agreeing upon requirements for methods documentation,
quality assurance, metadata, and data systems requirements, as well as
the need to establish new sites and make changes in existing efforts,
will all require a high level of cooperation at both the regional and
national levels. This can occur through agency-to-agency contacts, but
is likely to be improved through participation in more broadly based
organizations that include multiple partners working together to achieve
mutually developed goals. Some of this work has already been started
through the formation of IOOS Regional Associations, state and regional
water quality monitoring councils, and other data exchange programs.
These will need to continue and be strengthened to achieve full
implementation of the Network. The National Water Quality Monitoring
Council and other advisory groups will also have a role in fostering and
promoting Network implementation.

The need for cooperation in implementing the national and regional
components of the Network can be illustrated at four different levels:
(1) planning the details, (2) setting standards and assuring the quality
of the monitoring undertaken, (3) providing for data storage and
analysis, and (4) preparing reports relevant to a core set of national
and regional management needs.

**Monitoring Details:** The Network design specifies resource components
and a core set of measurements. The design also anticipates the
possibility of adding stations and measurements, if necessary, or
changing or deleting them over time. In some cases, local experts will
need to specify exact locations for monitoring. Certain components of
the Network, such as ground water, will be monitored based on local
needs using the criteria described in the Network design. Other planning
activities include understanding the breadth of current activities,
setting goals and establishing metrics that summarize the degree of
implementation already underway, sharing plans for future activities
with others who might either contribute to or benefit from the work, and
negotiating sample locations, project timing, and joint cost-reducing
activities. Obviously, the scale of this planning must be able to adapt
to a variety of regional scales that are most relevant to
decisionmakers. For example, some Network activities will be focused on
an entire IOOS region while others will focus on a single estuary.

**Standards and quality assurance:** Measurement protocols and quality
assurance of data are essential for effective implementation of the
Network. This includes choosing and implementing comparable methods, as
well as activities that ensure that different participants are all
operating at a similar level of competence. These activities, essential
to the Network's administration, include such things as cooperative
audits, seeking accreditation for network laboratories, and split
sampling and parallel analysis at common stations. Quality assurance is
needed to ensure that the performance of new methods of sample
collection or chemical analysis can be related to past practices in
order to preserve the value of long-term data sets. As new technologies
are chosen for the network, it may be necessary to coordinate budget
planning to acquire new equipment for Network sampling systems and
laboratories.

**Data storage and access:** Expectations about data storage and use of
metadata are changing dramatically in the monitoring community. The
Network specifies a series of actions that are needed to provide access
to and facilitate use of water resource data. The Network partners will
need to participate in a continuing dialog to guide investments in data
infrastructure, staff training, and institutional practices.
Implementing provisions for data storage and access is arguably less
difficult now than in the past as new distributed data management
systems become readily available through better connected computing
networks. Hardware limitations have given way to software impediments to
communications. Such impediments can be overcome by using reference
lists and metadata standards.

**Data analysis and report preparation:** The types of products that the
Network will prepare were outlined in Section 6.5. Plans for periodic
reports of Network data serve three functions. Initially, the assembly
of data is done to ensure that the systems established for the
collection and retention of the data actually work, and that no
impediments or misunderstandings block the complex flow of data in the
Network. Analyses are also essential to understanding how sampling
procedures can be simplified in order to reduce the costs of monitoring.
This typically involves establishing statistical relationships between
parameters that are difficult to monitor with other more easily acquired
data. The third function is to convert the monitored data into
information about the condition of water quality and the factors that
affect it. This is often supplemented through modeling---a process that
extrapolates conditions in known circumstances to other areas, or at
other times that were not monitored. Organized Network data analysis is
not expected to supplant analyses made for project-level research or
management studies, but to ensure that those studies can be planned and
executed on a base of existing, useful data.

**6.7 Models for Network Management**

In the near term, this report recommends that the next steps towards
Network implementation should be coordinated by a small interagency
program staff. In the long term, as the Network is more fully
implemented, a different model may be appropriate. In any case, the
group or groups that coordinate Network monitoring activities must have
sufficient standing in their regions or nationally to bring monitoring
agencies together. Three types of institutional arrangements were
examined as models for Network coordination and management. It is
important to note that these models are not mutually exclusive and,
indeed, overlap to some extent. Nevertheless, they are sufficiently
different to be considered separately. The models are: (1) councils
patterned after existing national, state, and regional water monitoring
councils; (2) the evolving IOOS Regional Associations; and (3) the
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP). It is assumed that
whatever model for coordination is chosen, it must be formed and must
function at a geographic level appropriate to the size and complexity of
the issues being address. In most areas, the scale of the IOOS Regional
Associations may be appropriate; the Gulf of Maine is an example. In
others cases, important smaller areas nested within these regions may be
a focus of coordination. Massachusetts Bay within the Gulf of Maine or
Chesapeake Bay within the Mid Atlantic IOOS region are examples of this
more limited, but still extensive, geographic scale.

**6.7.1 National, State, and Regional Water Monitoring Councils**

Councils, at whatever scale, are groups of people who represent programs
with common interests nationally or within a region or state. Examples
of these councils include the National Water Quality Monitoring Council,
the New England Regional Monitoring Collaborative, and the Maryland
Water Monitoring Council. Councils can also be composed of individuals
who share a responsibility or an interest in a common water resource,
such as Lake Michigan. Monitoring Councils exist in seven states where
they actively coordinate monitoring by a large number of organizations
and citizens within their boundaries. (See
<http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/monitoring/regional_councils.html> for
links to many existing Councils). State monitoring councils are
particularly effective when the professionals in existing monitoring
programs realize that coordinated efforts yield better quality data and
more relevant information. Despite their utility, however, State water
monitoring councils are relatively rare; only seven states have formally
established them. At least two state councils are recognized in state
legislation, while others are established under the leadership of state
agencies. A few regional councils and resource-based organizations exist
and, at times, coordinate monitoring in much the same way as state
councils.

Active councils have succeeded in coordinating monitoring but, because
of their voluntary nature, have rarely planned or implemented new
monitoring. Instead, the individual programs represented on the council
are accepted as valuable for what they do, and they are encouraged to
work collaboratively in their states and to find new and better methods
for collecting and sharing data. These organizations are usually poorly
funded and lack the power to create or enforce standards of practice.
The Network, implemented in this setting, would need to be recognized as
something of common value that needs to be accommodated, supported, and
augmented by state, regional, and national councils. Agencies providing
funding for Network activities would need to use the councils to
establish procedures for planning and standards for data management and
access.

**6.7.2 IOOS Regional Associations**

Proposals for the implementation of the IOOS have included the formation
of 11 regional associations. The IOOS Regional Associations represent
the interest of those who use, depend, or study and manage coastal
environments and their resources in a region. As part of their role and
responsibilities, they are expected to (1) develop partnerships, as well
as a consortia of data, to provide to users from state and federal
agencies, private industry, nongovernmental organizations, and
academics, and (2) ensure continued and routine flow of data and
information that adapt to the needs of the user groups and timely
incorporation of new technologies and understanding based on those
needs. Each Regional Association must develop governance and business
plans and needs to be certified before being considered for federal
funding. Regional Associations are represented by a National Federation
of Regional Associations (NFRA) at the federal level
(<http://www.usnfra.org/>). Federal agencies, working through the
National Oceanographic Partnership Program and other mechanisms of
coordination would need to ensure that these regional associations have
a role in the implementation of the Network and have adequate resources
to be effective. If IOOS Regions were to have significant responsibility
for overall Network coordination, they would need to be augmented in
some way to be effective in coordinating Network monitoring of other
resource components, such as rivers, ground water, atmospheric
deposition, wetlands, and coastal beaches.

**6.7.3 National Atmospheric Deposition Program**

Another model for Network coordination is the National Atmospheric
Deposition Program (NADP) which oversees a network of over 200 stations
measuring atmospheric deposition. (See Appendix 3-5.) The NADP is
supported by federal funding from several agencies which are pooled to
sustain a central coordination office at a Land Grant University which
provides central services to network participants. Members qualify their
sites and practices with the central program and subsequently use its
services which are paid for through fees levied on each monitoring
station. The central services include laboratory analyses, data storage,
and data analysis, including extrapolating the results to unmonitored
areas. Federal and local members participate on technical and governing
committees that explore new technologies and procedures that keep the
networks relevant to users. A strong sense of ownership accompanies this
institution which has existed since 1978.

**6.8 Recommendations and Next Steps**

The Network design concepts presented in this report can best be tested
and refined through one or more pilot studies. Some of the next steps
for Network implementation, such as an inventory of ongoing monitoring,
resolution of certain design issues, establishment of performance
characteristics for methods, and involvement of the monitoring
community, will be addressed during the process of planning and
conducting the pilot studies. The recommended scale for these pilots is
either an IOOS region or subregion. To be consistent with the Network
design, the pilot studies should include all resource components. A
study that monitored only rivers and estuaries or only the nearshore
environment would not be appropriate for assessing the Network design
since the most important characteristics of the Network is connectivity
among resource components. Another important criterion for selection of
the pilot studies would be the willingness by different sectors of the
monitoring community to participate in the collaborative effort.

It is recommended that a small interagency program coordination staff,
with dedicated personnel, be formed to provide leadership and
coordination of the next steps of Network implementation. This program
coordination staff should help facilitate development of the pilot
studies, coordinate and track the next steps in Network design, develop
and track metrics, and document progress in Network implementation. A
dedicated staff is needed now because the level of effort required to
maintain momentum in Network implementation is beyond what can
reasonably be expected from the volunteers who designed the Network and
prepared this report. It is, however, appropriate for the Council and
its parent organization, ACWI, to have a continuing role in Network
implementation because these are the two organizations chosen to lead
the Network design effort and they have a vested interest in its
success. Therefore, it is recommended that program staff should
periodically report progress and seek guidance from the National Water
Quality Monitoring Council. Finally, because the Network is included in
the Administration's plan to address the recommendations of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy and because its implementation will need
support at the policy level, CEQ and NSTC (SWAQ and JSOST), the groups
that requested creation of the Network design, should have an ongoing
role in Network implementation.

**Next Steps:** Important steps for Network implementation that need
attention in the near term include:

1.  Designate an interagency program coordination staff.

2.  Select one or more pilot studies to begin Network implementation and
    test Network design concepts.

3.  Engage the monitoring community in dialogue about the Network to
    develop support for implementation.

4.  Further refine Network design details, such as the final list of
    core measurements, location of monitoring sites, and performance
    requirements for sampling protocols and analytical methods.

5.  Establish metadata standards and requirements for data systems.

6.  Conduct a full inventory of ongoing water quality monitoring efforts
    that might contribute to the Network.

7.  Develop a set of metrics.

8.  Identify resources needed by federal and nonfederal agencies for
    Network implementation and work to secure those resources.

**References:**

Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI). 2001. Resolution of the
Advisory Committee on Water Information Adopting the Data Elements for
Reporting Water Quality Results of Chemical and Microbiological
Analytes,
<http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/acwi2001/resolution_wqde01.html>

Alexander, R.B., Ludtke, A.S., Fitzgerald, K.K., and Schertz, T.L.,
1996, Data from selected U.S. Geological Survey National Stream
Water-Quality Monitoring Networks (WQN) on CD-ROM: U.S. Geological
Survey Open-File Report 96-337.

American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association,
Water for the Environment Foundation (APHA, AWWA, WEF). 1998a Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 20^th^ edition.
Editors: L. Clesceri, A. Greenberg, and A. Eaton; 1030D Data Quality
Objectives, APHA: Washington, D.C., p 1-18 to 1-20.

An Ocean Blueprint for the 21st Century Final Report of the U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy---Pre-Publication Copy, Washington, D.C.,
2004, ISBN#0--9759462--0--X, Chapter 26,
[http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prepub_report/welcome.html#final]{.underline}

Aquatic Resource Monitoring based on probability survey designs:

<http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/arm/>

Booth, S., and D. Zeller. 2005. Mercury, food webs, and marine mammals:
Implications of diet and climate change for human health. Environmental
Health Perspectives, 113: 521-526

Bricker, S.B., C.G. Clement, D.E. Pirhalla, S.P. Orlando, and D.R.G.
Farrow. 1999. National Eutrophication Assessment: Effects of Nutrient
Enrichment in the Nation's Estuaries. Special Projects Office and the
National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science, National Ocean Service,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Silver Spring, MD, 71 p

Cantillo, A. and G. Lauenstein. 1998. Performance-Based Quality
Assurance --- The NOAA National Status and Trends Program Experience.
Proceedings of the NWQMC National Monitoring Conference. USEPA,
Washington, DC. p. 63-74.

Chesapeake Bay Monitoring Program (CBMP). 1998. Split Sampling Project
for the Maryland and Virginia Plankton Monitoring Programs. Chesapeake
Bay Monitoring Program, Annapolis, MD.

Cohen, M., et al (17 authors). 2002. Modeling the Atmospheric Transport
and Deposition of PCDD/F to the Great Lakes. Environmental Science and
Technology, 36: 4831-4845

Danz, N.P., G.J. Niemi, R.R. Regal, T. Hollenhorst, L. B. Johnson, J.M.
Hanowksi, R.P. Axler, J.H. Ciborowski, T. Hrabik, V. J. Brady, J.R.
Kelly, J.C. Brazner, R.W. Howe, and G.E. Host. 2005b. Integrated
Measures of Anthropogenic Stress in the U.S. Great Lakes Basin.
Environmental Management (In press).

Danz, N.P., R.R. Regal, G.J. Niemi, V.J. Brady, T. Hollenhorst, L.
Johnson, G.E. Host, J. Hanowski, C. Johnston, T. Brown, J. Kingston, and
J.R. Kelly, 2005a. Environmentally Stratified Sampling Design for the
Development of Great Lake Environmental Indicators. Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment 102: p. 41-65.

Diamond, J., M. Barbour, J. Stribling. 1996. Characterizing and
Comparing Bioassessment Methods and Their Results: A Perspective. J. N.
Amer. Benthol. Soc. 15:713-727.

Environmental Laboratory (ELAB). 1998. Recommendations for
Implementation of PBMS. Draft Environmental Laboratory Advisory Board,
Washington, DC.

Federal Register. 1998. Federal Participation in the Development and Use
of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment
Activities. OMB Circular 119, Federal Register 63(33) p. 8546,
Washington, D.C.

Federal Register. 1997. Guidelines Establishing Test Procedures for
Analysis of Pollutants and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations;
Flexibility in Existing Test Procedures and Streamlined Proposal of New
Test Procedures. Vol. 62:14975-15049, Washington, DC.

Finlayson, Christy. 2003. Draft Inventory of Environmental Monitoring
Programs in the Gulf of Maine and Long Island Sound, Gulf of Maine
Council on the Marine Environment, Environmental Quality Monitoring
Committee, December 2003.

GAO. 2004. *Watershed management: Better coordination of data collection
efforts needed to support key decisions*. GAO-04-382. U.S. General
Accounting Office, Washington, DC.

Grumbly, T. 1994. Institutionalizing the Data Quality Objectives Process
for EM's Environmental Data Collection Activities. Memorandum September
7, 1994, United States Department of Energy, Washington, D.C.

H. John Heinz III Center. 2002. The State of the Nation's Ecosystems:
Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States.
The H. John Heinz III\
Center for Science, Economics, and the Environment, Washington, D.C.,
Cambridge University Press,
<http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems/index.htm>.

Hankin, S., and the DMAC Steering Committee. 2005. Data Management and
Communications Plan for Research and Operational Integrated Ocean
Observing Systems: I. Interoperable Data Discovery, Access, and
Archive*.* Ocean.US. Arlington, VA.
<http://www.dmac.ocean.us/dacsc/imp_plan.jsp>

ITFM. 1995a. The Strategy for Improving Water Quality Monitoring in the
U.S. Report #OFR95-742, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

ITFM. 1995b. Performance-based approach to water quality monitoring. In:
Strategy for Improving Water Quality Monitoring in the U.S., Appendix M,
Report #OFR95-742, Interagency Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality,
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA.

ITFM. 1995c. Performance-based approach to field water quality methods.
In: Strategy for Improving Water Quality Monitoring in the U.S..
Technical Appendix N. Report #OFR95-742, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
VA.

Lahlou, M., L. Shoemaker, S. Choudhury, E. Elmer, A. Hu, H. Manguerra,
and A. Parker. 1998. BASINS Version 2.0 User's Manual. Office of Water,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

Leatherbarrow, J.E., J.J. Oram, and J.A. Davis. 2005. A model of
long-term PCB fate and transport in San Francisco Bay, CA. Special
Report SFEI 388, San Francisco Estuary Institute, Oakland, CA, 74 p.

Leeworthy, Vernon R., J. M. Bowker, J.D. Hospital, and E. A. Stone,
Projected Participation in Marine Recreation: 2005 & 2010, U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service, Silver Spring, Maryland, March 2005.

Llanso, Roberto J., Kelly, Frederick S., Scott, Lisa C., 2004. Long Term
Benenthic Monitoring and Assessment Component, Level 1 Comprehensive
Report July 1984-December 2004. Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Monitoring
Program. Versar, Inc. Columbia MD.

Markowitz, Abby, Green, Linda T., and Laine, James, 2003, The 3 C's:
Communicate, Coordinate, Collaborate: Doing Together What We Can't Do
Alone, Water Resources Impact, v. 5, no. 5, p. 8-10.

Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient Task Force, 2004, A
Science Strategy to Support Management Decisions Related to Hypoxia in
the Northern Gulf of Mexico and Excess Nutrients in the Mississippi
River Basin: prepared by the Monitoring, Modeling, and Research
Workgroup of the Mississippi River/Gulf of Mexico Watershed Nutrient
Task Force, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1270, 58 p.

National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), 2002. Understanding
What States Need To Protect Water Quality. John J. Kirlin, Chair, Jesus
Garza, Robert C. Shinn, Jr., Academy Project Number 2001-001, December
2002.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2004. A
Monitoring Framework for the National Marine Sanctuary System, July 28,
2004, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, National Ocean Service, National Marine Sanctuary
Program,
[http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov](http://www.sanctuaries.noaa.gov/).

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1995.
Environmental Monitoring Directory, Marjorie C. Ernst, U.S. Department
of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Ocean Service, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management,
Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, October 1995.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1990. Estuaries
of the United States: Vital Statistics for a national Resource Base.
Strategic Assessment Branch, Ocean Assessments Division. Rockville, MD,
79 p

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1985. National
estuarine inventory: Data atlas, volume 1. Strategic Assessment Branch,
Ocean Assessments Division. Rockville, MD, 103 pp

National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Assessing the TMDL Approach to
Water Quality Management. Committee to Assess the Scientific Basis of
the Total Maximum Daily Load Approach to Water Pollution Reduction,
Water Science and Technology Board Division on Earth and Life Studies,
National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,
<http://www.nap.edu/books/0309075793/html/>.

National Research Council (NRC). 2000. Clean Coastal Waters:
Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution, National
Academy Press, Washington, DC, 405 p.

National Research Council (NRC). 1995. Finding the Forest in the Trees: 
The Challenge of Combining Diverse Environmental Data. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C.
<http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309050820/html/1.html>.

National Research Council (NRC). 1994, Priorities for Coastal Ecosystem
Science, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 106 p.

National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). 1998, Integrating the
Nation's Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A
Proposed Framework, Executive Office of the President, Washington, DC,
103 p.

Nitrogen Loading in Coastal Water Bodies: An Atmospheric Perspective,
2000, Richard A. Valigura, Richard B. Alexander, Mark S. Castro, Tilden
P. Meyes, Hans W. Paerl, Paul E. Stacey, and R. Eugene Turner, Editors,
American Geophysical Union Coastal and Estuarine Studies, American
Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C

Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). U.S. Congress. 1987. Wastes in
Marine Environments, OTA-O-334, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC, 313 p.

Olsen, A. R. and D. M. Robertson (2003). \"Monitoring Design.\" Water

Resources IMPACT 5(5): 14-16. - plus other papers on NWQMC

Monitoring Framework.

Olsen, A. R., J. Sedransk, et al. (1999). \"Statistical issues for
monitoring ecological and natural resources in the United States.\"
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 54(1): 1-45. - a review of some
existing monitoring programs in US.

"Remotely Monitoring Water Resources: An EPA/NASA Workshop",
EPA841-B-99-006, December 1999, USEPA -- Office of Water

Research Triangle Institute (RTI). 1995. Data Quality Objectives for the
Information Collection Rule. Submitted to USEPA, Contract 68D-40091.

Robinson, Keith W., et al., 2001, Water Quality in the New England
Coastal Basins, Maine, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island,
1999-2001, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1226.

Sasikumar, k, and P.P. Mujumdar. 1998. Fuzzy optimization model for
water quality management of a river system. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management, 124: 79-88.

Sheng, Y.P. 1990. Evolution of a three-dimensional curvilinear-grid
hydrodynamic model for estuaries, lakes and coastal waters: CH3D.
Estuarine and Coastal Modeling I, ASCE, 40-49

Smith, R.A., G.E. Schwarz, and R.B. Alexander. 1997. Regional
interpretation of water-quality monitoring data. Water Resources
Research, 33: 2781-2798.

Stevens, D. L., Jr. and A. R. Olsen (1999). \"Spatially restricted
surveys over time for aquatic resources.\" Journal of Agricultural,
Biological, and Environmental Statistics 4(4): 415-428.

Stevens, D. L., Jr. and A. R. Olsen (2003). \"Variance estimation for
spatially balanced samples of environmental resources.\" Environmetrics
14: 593-610.

Stevens, D. L., Jr. and A. R. Olsen (2004). \"Spatially-balanced
sampling of natural resources.\" Journal of American Statistical
Association, 99(465): 262-278.

Summers, J. Kevin, Greg Steyer, et. al. 2000. A Framework for an
Integrated and Comprehensive Monitoring Plan for the Estuaries of the
Gulf of Mexico. EPA/620/R-00/006. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Monitoring Subcommittee, Stennis Space
Center, MS. 84p. at <http://www.epa.gov/gmpo/mmrc/mmrc.html>.

U.S. Congress, 2001, Data Quality Act. PL 106-544, Sec. 515.

U.S. Department of Energy (USDOE). 2000. Guide for Developing Data
Quality Objective for Ecological Risk Assessment at DOE Oak Ridge
Operations Facilities. Report ES/ER/TM-185/R1. US Department of Energy,
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency USEPA (2004). National Coastal
Condition Report II. Washington, DC, USEPA, Office of Research and
Development/Office of Water: 286, ISBN EPA-620/R-03/002,
<http://www.epa.gov/owow/oceans/nccr2/>

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1992. Great Lakes
Monitoring and Research Strategy. U.S. EPA Report, EPA/620/R-92/001,
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, Office of Research and
Development, Washington DC 2048.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1994a. Guidance for the
Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G-4. Quality Assurance
Management Staff, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1994b. Methods for
Measuring the Toxicity and Bioaccumulation of Sediment Associated
Contaminants with Freshwater Invertebrates. EPA/600/R-94/024, Duluth,
MN.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 1996, Guidance for the
Data Quality Objectives Process. EPA QA/G4. EPA-600-R-96-055. Office of
Environmental Information, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998. Synopsis of
Clarifications to Certain Update III SW-846 Methods. July, 1998. Office
of Solid Waste, Washington, DC.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency/U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USEPA/USDA). 1998. Clean Water Action Plan: Restoring and Protecting
America's Waters. US Environmental Protection Agency, National Center
for Environmental Publications and Information, Cincinnati, OH.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2000e (August). Guidance
for the Data Quality Objectives Process (EPA QA/G-4), EPA/600/R-96/055.
Quality Assurance Management Staff, Office of Environmental Information.
US EPA: Washington DC.
<http://www.epa.gov/quality/qs-docs/g4-final.pdf>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003. Draft Report on the
Environment. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2004, Wadeable Streams
Assessment Field Operations Manual: Washington, D.C., Office of Water,
Report EPA841-B-04-004.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2005, National Coastal
Condition Report II ,EPA-620/R-03-002, Washington, D.C.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005a, Wadeable Streams
Assessment: The states assess the nation's streams: accessed on December
23, 2005 at <http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/wsa/>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005b, National Coastal
Assessment: accessed on December 23, 2005 at
<http://www.epa.gov/emap/nca/>.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2005. US Environmental
Protection Agency, National Coastal Condition Report II, Washington, D.C
EPA -620/R-03/002, 2005.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2006. Great Rivers
Ecosystems at <http://www.epa.gov/emap/greatriver/>.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), Washington, DC.
<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/rc00054.pdf>.

U.S General Accounting Office (GAO). 2000. Water Quality Key EPA And
State Decisions Limited By Inconsistent And Incomplete Data.
GAO/RCED-00-54.

U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). 2004. Watershed management: Better
coordination of data collection efforts needed to support key decisions.
GAO-04-382. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington,
DC.<http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04382.pdf>.

U.S. Geological Survey, 2005, NASQAN: National stream quality accounting
network: accessed on December 23, 2005 at
<http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan/>.

Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive Management of Renewable Resources.
MacMillan Publishing Company, Vancouver (Canada), 374 p.

Weiher, Rodney, and A. Sen., Economic Statistics for NOAA May 2005 (4th
ed.) , U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Washington, D.C., April 2005.

Windsor Solutions, Inc., 2003, Pacific Northwest Water Quality Data
Exchange: Data Exchange Templates and Directory Services Approach.
Windsor Solutions, Inc., 4000 Kruse Way Place Building 2, Suite 160,
Lake Oswego, OR 97035.

Yoder, C. and E. Rankin, 1995, Biological Criteria program development
and implementation in Ohio. In W. Davis and T.Simon (eds). Biological
Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource Planning and Decision
Making. Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI. p. 109-144.