# Presentation: 922713

## Methods and Data Comparability Board (“the Board”-- never “Bored”)

**Board Co-Chairs**
**Herb Brass, USEPA & Charlie Peters, USGS**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## How did there come to be a “Methods Board”?

**1992**

**1992****-- ITFM formed to respond to US OMB challenge to review and evaluate national water quality monitoring activities & develop of recommendations for improvement**

**1996**

**1996****--ITFM final report, recommending the formation of a permanent Monitoring Council and Methods Board**

**1997**

**1997****--NWQMC and MDCB chartered under Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).  Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) is the parent organization**

***True collaboration among programs is possible if there is both the technical and the institutional framework to promote data comparability to assure data of known quality***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## The Board is...

- A partnership of water quality experts from federal agencies, States, Tribes, municipalities, industry, and private organizations

- 5 delegates, 5 alternates from each of three sectors
- Workgroup members

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
The Board is FACA chartered

Voting and alternate delegates are equally represented among the three major sectors.  The Board is comprised of
15 voting delegates (5 each from the 3 sectors)
up to 15 alternates (5 each from the 3 sectors)
non-voting technical workgroup members

## How we work...

**How we work...**

- Meet 3-4 times a year, locations throughout U.S.
- Each meeting lasts 2-3 days; some people participate in person, others via phone
- Workgroup conference calls as needed throughout year

**Collegial, informal, and productive!**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Some interesting comments from Board members:
Why did I get involved with the Board
from Katherine--Because I was long involved with analysis of drinking water, and I work in a lab division that has traditionally been focussed on analysis of environmental samples - which are both the result of a professional interest/training in analytical chemistry 
Why do I stay involved?
From Katherine--for serendipity, synergism, controversy and provocation! 
What do I get out of it?
From Katherine--opportunities to respond to my lab's increased interest in analytical methods to evaluate human exposure and human health examples (NEMI, new technologies); interaction with aquatic biologists involved with macroinvertebrate analyses; development of analytical methods using current instrumentation for photosynthetic pigments (chlorophylls/carotenoids) in algae, aquatic and terrestrial vegetation, sediments, macroinvertebrates and other aquatic organisms, and eventually human specimens (serum; tissues) increased incentive to interact with more diverse groups involved with water quality assessment and water quality management in New York state 

## How we work...caught in the act!

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Mission of the Board

**Mission of the Board**

**Create a framework for collaboration and comparability among programs by...**

**identifying, examining, and recommending monitoring approaches that facilitate collaboration and yield comparable data and assessment results**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## The Board’sguiding principle

**Deliver products in the short term while thinking and planning strategically in the long term**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Accomplishments “across the Board”

**Because of its interdisciplinary membership, the Board has provided an opportunity to bridge the gap between water treatment for human consumption and natural water resources, as well as the gap between human and ecological health.**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Challenges “across the Board”

**Members are volunteers – not always able to participate or respond in a timely manner**

**Need for ground rules on how to operate under consensus**

**Limited resources-- of all kinds**

**Developing and implementing outreach and communication strategies**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## The Board’s Framework for Comparability

- There are 4 critical elements of the framework for methods and data comparability

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## The Board’s Framework for Comparability

- The Board’s workgroups develop and produce the projects/ products needed to address the key elements

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Getting to comparability

- The 4 elements are the steps or building blocks moving us toward the goal of comparability.
- Each of the Board’s workgroups is focused in one or more of these elements or steps
- Effective and innovative outreach is an overarching need for each workgroup

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## But wait...what about the impact of new technologies?

- different methods used at
- 	different times by
- 		different programs with
- 			different DQOs/MQOs...

**change is constant!**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Why are new technologies of interest to the Board?

- Improve data quality
- (increase specificity, sensitivity, precision, accuracy)
- Reduce cost of sampling and analysis
- (materials for sample collection and analysis; time in field; time of sample preparation and analysis; time to report results; labor)
-  increase data quantity (representativeness, 		completeness)  improve data quality
**Bottom line:  potential to improve protection of ecological and human health**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## The relationship of new technologies to the framework 

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## How do we achieve comparability in the face of new technologies?

**collaboration & partnerships are key**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Role of the Board with regardto new technologies

- Clearinghouse for analytical methods (NEMI)
- to recognize contributors, facilitate technology transfer, and support data comparability (without endorsement of specific methods)
- identify needs for new or improved monitoring techniques
- group and prioritize methods
- develop and promote guidelines to ensure methods and data comparability for priority methods

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Taken from the:
Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM).  The strategy for improving water quality monitoring in the United States.  with Terms of Reference - MDCB .  Technical Appendices H and I.  1995.

## The Board’s involvement with new technologies

- To date
- Biology Workgroup
- NEMI Phase I
- Future
- Biology Workgroup
- Nutrients Workgroup (NOAA, NIPH)
- NEMI Phase II
- General
- PBMS
- Accreditation Federal Labs (ACFLAB)
- Outreach
- Water Quality Data Elements (WQDE)

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Where are we going and how are we going to get there...

- develop and deliver products in the short term while thinking and planning strategically in the long term...

**use the framework and**
**workgroup structure to...**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI) Workgroup

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Why am I involved in Board and workgroup

## Mission of the NEMI Workgroup

***To allow rapid communication and comparison of critical parameters of methods for use with methods selection and/or methods modifications and data comparability***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Mission

## What is NEMI?

- NEMI is a web-based, searchable compendium containing method summaries of field and lab protocols

- physical

- chemical

- biological

- radiochemical

- microbiological

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
NEMI receives funding from USEPA and USGS
In-kind contributions from many sources—both public and private– in the form of methods information for incorporation into NEMI

## NEMI’s relationship to the framework

- NEMI database ensures that the consideration of field and measurement methods plays an active role in the planning and implementation phases of a program
- NEMI data fields include detection levels, bias, precision, and other QA/QC requirements necessary for documenting and reporting on data quality

***This information, in a like format, will make methods comparability for interagency use, as well as for use by the general public, quick and cost effective.****** ***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Relationship to framework
The MDCB steering committee provides feedback on NEMI (from other workgroups) via biweekly conference calls

## NEMI Workgroup members

**FEDERAL**
**DOE**
**USEPA**
**USGS**

**LOCAL/STATE/REGIONAL**
**DE River Basin Co**
**East Bay Municipal Utility District**
**NYS Department of Health**

**INSTITUTES/ORGANIZATIONS**
**AOAC International**
**Instant Reference Sources (contract support)**
**Standard Methods**
**ASTM**
**SUNY Albany, School of Public Health**

**BUSINESS/INDUSTRY**
**Merck & Co., Inc.**
**Montgomery Watson**
**Tetra Tech (contract support)**
**DynCorp (contract support)**

***It is critical to involve as many method entities as possible in the NEMI building process to insure adequate representation of available methods***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Overall strengths and weaknesses of workgroup representation
NEMI project responsibilities
Dan Sullivan (USGS) serves as Project Manager/Database Applications Development
James Boiani (DynCorp) provides method review and preparation

Charlie suggests adding a slide with the following, but it might be better left here to maintain consistency of slide show (easy to do either):
process being used to develop NEMI: 
Board provides oversight and develops funding; 
NEMI Workgroup develops general concept and provides general guidance; 
NEMI steering committee develops specific of database, provides specificoversight of implementation, and provides methods summaries; 
NEMI implementation team develops the on-line database (Dan Sullivan), reviewsand develops input to database (James Boiani and Larry Keith), develops andpromotes outreach plan (Larry Keith). 

## NEMI Workgroup  accomplishments

- Produced Phase I prototype of web-based methods database with over 100 different methods
- Developed business rules outlining how methods are summarized and catalogued
- Continued Phase II development

- Created high interest levels among many agencies– cited in recent GAO report
- Presenting a paper on NEMI at the AWWA meeting in November, 2001.

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Key accomplishments

## NEMI Workgroup challenges

**Obtaining methods from different organizations**

**Getting method sources to submit methods in NEMI format**

**Resolving proprietary/ copyright issues for some methods**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Key challenges, obstacles

## Where are we going?

- Complete Phase II NEMI with more methods (approximately 350 methods--chemical, immunoassay, microbiological, radiological), and provide public access

- Initiate Phase III NEMI with more methods including field and biological methods
- Expand NEMI to other matrices (e.g., soil)

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Where are we going?  1 year?  5 years?

## How do we get there?

- Work proactively with organizations that publish methods to encourage them to submit methods to NEMI.
- Find other agencies to work with us to contribute funds or in-kind contributions.

- With Outreach Workgroup, develop a strong program to promote NEMI.
- In Phase III expand method matrices beyond water to include solids, air, food, etc.

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Performance Based Systems (PBMS) Workgroup

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Why am I involved in Board and workgroup

## Mission of the PBMS Workgroup

***Define the dimensions of a performance-based system for field protocols (chemical, microbiological, and biological) and   laboratory analyses.  Prepare  guidance on implementing PBMS in both ambient and compliance monitoring.***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Mission

## What is PBMS?

- A performance based system permits the use of any scientifically appropriate method that demonstrates the ability to meet established performance criteria and complies with specified data quality needs or requirements

**Well-defined MQOs & DQOs**

**Adequate supply of reference materials for method validation**

**Validated or reference methods shown to meet specific MQOs**

**Adequate training in development of MQOs & validation of methods**

**For a performance based system to work, at least 5 darts have to hit the target...**

**Known performance characteristics**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## PBMS’s relationship to the framework

- The quality of data is related to the performance characteristics of the method used to collect the data.
- PBMS is directly related to the DQO Process and furthers the collection of appropriate quality data for different monitoring objectives.

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Relationship to framework
Workgroup provides recommendations on the type of performance characteristics that should be documented in a method.
Workgroup provides guidance on recommendations on how a performance-based system is defined and implemented; which furthers data of known quality and may improve comparability of data.

## PBMS Workgroup members

**FEDERAL**
**NOAA**
**US DOE**
**USEPA**
**USGS**

**LOCAL/STATE/REGIONAL**
**DE River Basin Co**
**East Bay Municipal Utility District**
**CA Department of Toxic Substances**
**Hampton Roads Sanitation District**

**INSTITUTES/ORGANIZATIONS**
**Instant Reference Sources**
**Standard Methods**
**ASTM**

**BUSINESS/INDUSTRY**
**Merck & Co., Inc.**
**American Chemistry Council**
**Hach Co.**
**Catalyst**
**Tetra Tech (contract support)**
**Montgomery Watson**

***Broad-based representation and expertise allowed workgroup to reach consensus on PBMS definition & challenges AND allowed group to successfully interact with other national efforts.***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Overall strengths and weaknesses of workgroup representation
Other national efforts include ELAB within NELAC and EPA OW
Are there any gaps in representation?

## PBMS Workgroup  accomplishments

**Reached consensus on conception and definition of PBMS (issue paper being published)**

- Developed and conducted pilot study addressing certain PBMS implementation issues.  Study involved federal, state, municipal, and private labs (submitting study to international journal)

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Key accomplishments

## PBMS Workgroup challenges

**PBMS is a challenging and emotional issue; difficult to effect change or obtain consensus among agencies**

**Pilots and other activities are needed to convince organizations that PBMS is workable**

**Pilots are needed to determine under which conditions PBMS will work**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Key challenges, obstacles

## Where are we going?

- Develop further pilots to address PBMS implementation issues
- Expand coordination with other organizations in implementing PBMS
- Provide usable DQO guidance and promote role of DQOs in water monitoring programs

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Where are we going?  1 year?  5 years?

## How do we get there?

- Bring in additional resources and partners to design and implement pilots
- Increase dialogue on PBMS between Board and other organizations

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Accreditation Workgroup

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Why am I involved in Board and workgroup

From Bart:
“I was invited to participate on the Board because of my work with NELAC; my particular area of interest is standards and accreditation for field measurement and sampling, which will the next focus of the Accreditation Workgroup”.

## Mission of the Accreditation Workgroup

***Develop and promote a Board position on laboratory accreditation and field certification. Coordinate with external accreditation standard-setting organizations (NELAC).***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Mission

## Why Accreditation?

- There has been the notion that “following the method” ensures accurate data.  A method is simply one key component of generating reliable data. Consider an analogy...two chefs, in two kitchens, using the same recipe...

**The same recipe in the hands of an inexperienced cook with less-than-terrific equipment is a riskier proposition.  **

**In the hands of a skilled, experienced cook, using fresh ingredients and with all the right equipment, a wonderful outcome will result.**

**Both cooks, however, may be following the same “method”.**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Additional explanatory slide

## Accreditation’s relationship to the framework

- Accreditation...
**encourages data sharing and use**
- promotes data consistency
- provides an independent objective assessment
- promotes uniform quality systems
- unifies certification requirements
- increases efficiency, potentially lowering costs
- promotes flexibility

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Relationship to framework

## Accreditation Workgroupmembers

**FEDERAL**
**USDOD (Navy)**
**USGS**
**USEPA**

**LOCAL/STATE/REGIONAL**
**CA EPA**
**AZ Department of Health**
**VA Department of Environmental Quality**

**INSTITUTES/ORGANIZATIONS**
**Standard Methods**

**BUSINESS/INDUSTRY**
**American Chemistry Council**
**Catalyst**
**Tetra Tech (contract support)**
**Montgomery Watson**

***the strength of the Accreditation Workgroup is its background in ambient water monitoring, which complements the NELAC emphasis on compliance.***** **

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Overall strengths and weaknesses of workgroup representation
Where are the gaps in representation????

## Accreditation Workgroup  accomplishments

- Coordination with NELAC and ELAB
- White Paper on the value of accreditation
- Issue Paper on the need for federal lab accreditation
**Diverse representation on the workgroup was key to achieving consensus on recommendations**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Key accomplishments

## Accreditation Workgroup challenges

**Finding a consensus on accreditation of federal labs and  field accreditation**

**Identifying key issues to take to NELAC & ELAB**

**Finding effective tactics for achieving objectives**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Key challenges, obstacles

## Where are we going?

- In 1 year...have clear objectives for field accreditation...

- ...which can be achieved in about 5 years.

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Where are we going?  1 year?  5 years?

## How do we get there?

- Establish a facile communication with NELAC and ELAB
- Gain participation in key NELAC committees.

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Where are we going?  1 year?  5 years?
Need to identify chair and co chair for committee

## Water Quality Data Elements (WQDE) Workgroup

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Mission of the WQDE Workgroup

***Develop and recommend a core set of data elements for reporting water quality monitoring results, to be voluntarily implemented, that would allow data to be  compared regardless of, but recognizing, the purpose of the monitoring activity***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## What is WQDE?

- A set of core water quality data elements (metadata)
- that will facilitate data sharing between organizations,
- allowing the non-collecting data user to assess the comparability of data collected by various entities

**Metadata**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## WQDE’s relationship to the framework

***Who ***collected and analyzed the data
***What*** data were collected
***When*** the data was collected and analyzed
***Where*** the data was collected
***Why*** the data was collected
***How*** the data was collected and analyzed

- WQDE is a list of “core metadata,”
- facilitating comparability assessments,
- which tell us:

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## WQDE Workgroup members

**FEDERAL**
**USEPA**
**USGS**
**USDOD (Navy)**

**LOCAL/STATE/REGIONAL**
**AZ Department of Health**
**NJ Geological Survey**
**VA Department of Environmental Quality**
**East Bay Municipal Utility District**
**DE River Basin Commission**
**Hampton Roads Sanitation District**
**FL Department of Environmental Protection**
**NJ Department of Environmental Quality**
**NY Department of Health**
**Washington State Department of Ecology**

**INSTITUTES/ORGANIZATIONS**
**Association of Public Health Labs**
**National Institute of Standards and Technology**
**CO State University**
**George Washington University**
**Hampton Roads Sanitation District**
**East Bay Municipal Utility Board**
**Standard Methods**
**National Water Research Institute**

**BUSINESS/INDUSTRY**
**Merck & Co., Inc.**

***NEED SOMETHING HERE***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
The workgroup will use NWQMC conference workshop and public meetings to solicit a wider response to the list of elements.

## WQDE Workgroup accomplishments

- Four public meetings were held on the Core Set of Water Quality Data Elements to get broader public input in Chicago, Denver, Washington, D.C., and the San Francisco Bay area!
- Held successful workshop at 2000 national monitoring conference in Austin.
- WQDE model was developed and presented to the EPA/State Environmental Data Standards Council for review in March 2001.
- Received ACWI endorsement in May 2001!

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## WQDE Workgroup challenges

**WQDE Workgroup challenges**

**Tackling the development of data elements for biology**

**Promoting broad use of the WQDEs through focused outreach strategies**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Develop and implement pilot tests to demonstrate use of WQDEs
Develop an outreach strategy to gain general acceptance of the chemical and microbiological elements
Develop WQDEs for field and biological methods

## Where are we going?

- Developing focused outreach strategies to gain general acceptance of WQDEs
- Developing and implementing pilot tests to demonstrate use of WQDEs
- Publicizing the WQDEs through state, national, public, private, and professional organizations--promoting voluntary implementation at all levels.
- Developing WQDEs for field and biological methods

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## How do we get there?

- Prepare report to demonstrate implementation successes during pilot testing
- Work with various organizations to gain acceptance of WQDEs
- Form a Board working group to develop the biology and field methods WQDE list

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Biology Methods Workgroup

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Mission of the Biology Methods Workgroup

***Identify, compile, and develop a framework for characterizing and comparing biological methods for water monitoring using: population assessments, molecular biomarkers, and toxicity assays.***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Mission

## Why a “Biology Methods” Workgroup?

- Wide interest in a framework for comparing biological methods, particularly field population (community methods)
- Biological methods create unique challenges in terms of defining method performance, data quality, and method comparability

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Biology Methods relationship to the framework

- Coordination and integration with the mission and activities of other workgroups (WQDE, NEMI, PBMS)
- Immunoassay, Microbiology, Community/population field methods, Toxicology
- Target the most important groups of analytes and the most rapidly developing new technologies, in response to information most needed for management of ecological and human health

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Relationship to framework
Products and interactions: 
preparation of method summaries for NEMI for immunoassays, which should become an issue for PBMS 
input on Nutrients issues (closely related to biological analytes, the potentially adverse effect of excess nutrients e.g. phytoplankton, periphyton, shift in macroinvertebrate distributions, etc) outreach on new technologies

## Biology Methods Workgroup members

**FEDERAL**
**USGS**
**USEPA**
**USFWS**
**USDA-NRCS**
**Environment Canada**

**LOCAL/STATE/REGIONAL**
**NY Department of Health**
**OH EPA**
**WI DNR**
**East Bay Municipal Utility District**
**Hampton Roads Sanitation District**
**FL DEP**
**MD DNR**
**Los Angeles County Sanitation District**
**DE River Basin Commission**
**Potomac River Interstate Commission**
**Chicago Metropolitan Water Reclamation District**
**Virginia DEQ**
**Denver Metro**

**BUSINESS/INDUSTRY**
**Idexx**
**Tetra Tech (contract support)**

**INSTITUTES/ORGANIZATIONS**
**UT State University**
**State University of KY**
**SUNY-Albany School of Health**

***Diverse membership - biologists and chemists; field and lab management; regulatory and non-regulatory concerns***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Overall strengths and weaknesses of workgroup representation

## Biology Methods Workgroup  accomplishments

- Attracted wide interest from monitoring community – Workgroup and Board increasingly viewed as coordination venue for a number of organizations

- Developed expert Focus Groups for specific types of common biological methods needing attention:  Field Population/Community Methods; whole organism toxicity
- Bringing in new technologies as a priority to the Methods Board:  e.g., DNA probes, immunoassays, new algal pigment methods

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Key accomplishments
Council and Board seen as coordination venue for a number of organizations:
WERF, EPA’s Biological Advisory Group, EPA’s Biocriteria Workgroup, NABS, ASTM

## Biology Methods Workgroup challenges

**Technical challenges in defining method performance – new territory; difficult to obtain consensus**

**Developing format for summarizing certain types of biological methods in NEMI has been a challenging process**

**Diverse analytes (whole organisms; microorganisms; molecular biomarkers), and diverse matrices (water, soil, biological)**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Key challenges, obstacles
diverse analytes (whole organisms; microorganisms; molecular biomarkers), and diverse matrices (water, soil, biological)
fundamental differences in precision and accuracy (e.g. methods ranging from quantitative, to qualitative, to screening presence/absence)
diverse analytical community (regulatory/nonregulatory; ecological vs. human health)
new technologies (published methods, innovative, and commercial methods)
Limited resources to conduct pilots. Given lack of resources, difficulty recruiting increased expertise and participation 

## Where are we going?

- Provide framework/guidance for organizations on how to derive performance characteristics for field population/community and tox methods

- Coordinate/conduct pilot studies to help define comparability of biological methods, particularly field biological assessment methods

- Coordinate, communicate, and promote new biological technologies that appear promising for water monitoring (ecological and human health)

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Where are we going?  1 year?  5 years?
Desired accomplishments--projects, membership
Active reviews and pilots of specific biological methods at all levels: whole organisms (populations/enumeration); biomarkers (molecular); responses/effects (toxicity) 
Short term Continued/increased participation from other federal agencies dealing with analytical methods applied to ecological systems - NOAA, NASA, Agriculture, Fish/Wildlife
Long term Increased expertise on state-of-the-art methods for human health assessment - NIEHS, CDC 

## How do we get there?

- Expanded activities in marine systems
- Need more resources – financial and expertise
- Especially need more partnerships among EPA, USGS, USFWS, USFS, USDA, NOAA and states

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Nutrient Methods Workgroup

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

## Mission of the Nutrients Workgroup

***Develop information to respond to the needs of the PBMS, NEMI, and WDQE Workgroups and respond to other nutrient methods issues***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Mission

## Why a “Nutrients” Workgroup

- Nutrient criteria and environmental issues regarding nutrients have high visibility.  Field sampling and lab analytical method issues are a factor.
- Nutrients are a major non-point TMDL pollutant
- The quality of nutrient methods being used is widely divergent.

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Example of high visibility nutrient reduction program
Chesapeake Bay nutrient strategy

## Nutrient’s relationship to the framework

- Nutrients in public eye and have special methodological issues in terms of data quality and comparability
- Workgroup is providing important input to both PBMS and NEMI
- Field sampling issues are a critical aspect of nutrient data

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Relationship to framework

## Nutrients Workgroupmembers

**FEDERAL**
**USEPA**
**USGS**

**LOCAL/STATE/REGIONAL**
**DE River Basin Commission**
**NYS Health Department**
**KY Department of Water**
**Hampton Roads Sanitation District**
**WI DNR**
**VA DEQ  **

**INSTITUTES/ORGANIZATIONS**
**ASTM**
**FL International University**
**Kent State University**
**SUNY-Albany School of Health**

**BUSINESS/INDUSTRY**
**Tetra Tech, Inc (contract support)**
**Merck & Co., Inc.**

***Healthy cross-section of members from federal, state, and academia...and they put up with Ed...***

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Overall strengths and weaknesses of workgroup representation
Where are the gaps in representation????

## Nutrients Workgroup accomplishments

- Produced technical report on nutrient comparability and compilation of performance information for different nutrient methods

- Developed White Paper regarding EPA draft nutrient criteria based on consensus of many organizations; submitted to EPA

- Broad-based representation including state, private, and federal organizations

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Key accomplishments

## Nutrients Workgroup challenges

**Nutrients Workgroup challenges**

**Marine/estuarine issues have not been addressed because of lack of expertise**

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Key challenges, obstacles

## Where are we going?

- Coordinate with EPA in providing appropriate DQOs and methods for nutrient compliance monitoring
- Perform and publish pilot studies addressing PBMS issues using nutrient field and lab methods
- Coordinate guidance/ recommendations on appropriate field and lab methods for nutrient analysis given DQOs
- Develop final draft of nutrient pilot paper

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)

**Notes:**
Where are we going?  1 year?  5 years?

## How do we get there?

- Resources – financial as well as expertise
- Need more participation from federal agencies:  NOAA, USDA, USFS, others

- MDCB overview

- October 11, 2001 (DRAFT 5)