GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 782 
A METHODOLOGY FOR POST--EIS 

(ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT) MONITORING 

BY LINDA GRAVES MARCUS 

GEOLOGY SURVEY CIRCULAR 782 

1979 
United States Department of the Interior 

CECIL D. ANDRUS, Secretary 

Geological Survey 

H. William Menard, Director 

Libr~ry of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data 

Marcus, Linda Graves. , 

A methodology for post-EIS (environmental impact statement) monitoring. 

(Geological Survey circular ; 782) 

Bibliography: p. ' 

1. Environmental impact statements. I. Title. 

logical Survey. Circular ; 782. 

QE75.C5 no. 782 [TD194.5] 557.3'08s 

II. Series: United States. Geo· 

[363.6] 78-19202 

Free on application to Branch of Distribution, U.S. Geological Survey 

1200 South Eads Street, Arlington, Va. 22202 
CONTENTS 

Page 

Abstract ----------------------------------------- 1 

Introduction ------------------------------------- 1 

Value of post-EIS monitoring ___ ------------ 2 

Impact documentatiqn _______ ------------ 2 

Impact warning ------------------------ 2 

Impact control --------------~------------ 2 

Existing comprehensive EIS monitoring , 

systems ----------------------------------- 2 

Institute for Environmental Studies, 

University of Wisconsin ---·------------ 2 

North Dakota Regional Environmental 

Assessment Program (REAP) ----·--...,-- 3 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ·----- 3 

Method of investigation --------------------- 3 

To the users of this . report · ------------------ 4 

Acknowledgments ----------------------------- 4 

Idaho case study --------------------------------- 4 

Background --------------------------------- 4 

Monitoring workshop ---------------- ------- 4 

Purpose --------------------------------- 5 

Participants ---------------------- ------- 5 

Approach ------------------------- ------- 5 

Results from the workshop ---------------- 5 

Step 1. Prediction of impacts 5 

Step 2. Monitoring objectives ------- 8 

Page 

Step 3. Impacts selected for 

monitoring ----------------------- 9 

Step 4. Data needs ----------------- 9 

Step 5. Data availability ·----------- 9 

Post-workshop analyses and synthesis --------- 11 

Activity I impact matrices . ----------------- 14 

Data-needs table ------------------------- 14 

Activity/impact schedule ----------------- 14 

Status of monitoring programs ----------- 26 

Refinement of monitoring methodology ·--- 26 

Monitoring methodology ------------------------- 26 

Introduction --------------------------------- 26 

Focus of monitoring methodology ·--------- 27 

Method of description ------------------- 27 

Phase I. Development of a monitoring system 

Considerations for developing a 

monitoring system --------------------- 27 

Description of methodology, Phase I ·----- 28 

Phase II. Implementation and operation of 

a monitoring system ----------------------- 28 

Considerations for implementing and 

operating a monitoring system ·------- 28 

Description of methodology, Phase II ______ 28 

Summary and conclusions ----------------------- 39 

Summary ------------------------------------ 39 

Conclusions ---------------------------------- 39 

References cited ---------------------·----------- 39 

ILLUSTRATIONS 

[Plates are in pocket] 

PLATE 1. Monitoring methodology flow chart: Phase I. 

Development of a monitoring system. 

2. M-onitoring methodology flow chart: Phase II. 

Implementation and operation of a monitoring system 

Page 

FIGURE 1. Activity /impact schedule --------------------------------------------- 25 

2. Assumed total production of phosphate in southeastern Idaho 

through 1999 ----------------------------------------------------- 26 

Ill 
TABLES 

Page 

TABLE 1. Summary of impacts predicted in the EIS ____ .:. ------------------------ 5 

2. Example of a monitoring objectives worksheet ------------------------- 8 

3. Example of compilation of data-needs worksheets ----------------------- 10 

4. Example of compilation of data-availability worksheets ----------------- 11 

5. Activity/impact matrix: mining phosphate ore ------------------------- 12 

6. Activity ;impact matrix: processing phosphate ore -------------------- 13 

7. Monitoring data needs ·---------------------------------------------- 15 

8. Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodqlogy: 

Phase I. Development of a monitoring system ------------~-------- 29 

9. Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: 

Phase II. Implementation and operation of a monitoring system ----- 36 

IV 
A Methodology for Post-EIS 

{Environmental Impact Statement} 

Monitoring 

By Linda Graves Marcus 

ABSTRACT 

A methodology for monitoring the impacts predicted in environmental impact statements (EIS's) was 

developed using the EIS on phosphate development i~ 

southeastern Idaho as a case study. A monitoring system based on this methodology: (1) coordinates a comprehensive, intergovernmental monitoring effort; (2) 

documents the major impacts that result, thereby improving the accuracy of impact predictions in future 

EIS's; (3) helps agencies control impacts by warning 

them when critical impact levels are reached and by 

providing feedback on the success of mitigating measures; and (4) limits monitoring data to the essential 

information that agencies need to carry out their regulatory and environmental protection responsibilities. 

The methodology is presented as flow charts accompanied by tables that describe the objectives, tasks, 

and products for each work element in the flow chart. 

INTRODUCTION 

This report describes a methodology for 

monitoring the impacts predicted in environmental impact statements (EIS's). Environmental impact statements describe the impacts 

anticipated from major Federal actions,1 but 

provision generally is not made as a part of the 

NEP A process to determine if the predicted 

impacts are ·accurately assessed or if unanticipated impacts occur. This report sets forth a 

strategy for monitoring impacts caused by 

major Federal actions as a means of verifying 

and improving the accuracy of EIS predictions 

and for controlling levels of impact. 

1 As defined by NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969), any Federal action that will significantly impact the 

human environment. Types of "actions" described in the act are 

described In the "Code of Federal Regulations" (Office of the 

Federal Register, 1977). 

1 

Monitoring is not presently provided for or 

explicitly required under NEP A. However, section 101.6 of the act states that "it is the continuing responsibility of the Federal Government to use all practical means * * * to coordinate Federal plans, functions, programs, 

and resources to the end that the nation may 

* * * Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, 

productive, and esthetically and culturally 

pleasing surroundings." Further, a memoran-

. dum from the Assistant Solicitor-Minerals to 

the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey 

(July 10, 1975) indicated that several statutes 

(including NEPA), regulations, and executive 

orders implicitly require environmental monitoring. However, a clear directive as to what 

conditions or actions require environmental 

monitoring does not exist. 

In 1976 the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ), the agency responsible for carrying 

out NEP A and setting guidelines for EIS 

preparation, sponsored a "sub-task force on 

post-EIS ecological impact assessment and 

monitoring." The task force recommended the 

following for inclusion in the CEQ environmental impact statement guidelines: 

Agencies which produce Environmental Impact 

Statements must establish a continuing program of 

post-EIS follow-up of ecological predictions for projects or programs within major EIS categories. Such 

follow-up, or monitoring, will both insure that appropriate and practical adjustments will be made during 

the life of the project and that insight gained can be 

applied to improvement of future. ecological predictions. (Written commun., Kevin T. Mullen, December 

1976.) 
Kevin T. Mullen, then Executive Director of 

the Federal Committee on Ecology, CEQ, indicated a strong likelihood of this recom·mendation being implemented as a CEQ guideline 

(oral commun., December 1976). 

Post-EIS monitoring has not been implemented for several reasons: 

1. NEP A does not specifically require it, and 

CEQ has not yet promulgated guidelines requiring monitoring to fulfill the intent of 

NEPA. 

2. Agencies are concerned that monitoring 

would require the diversion of funds and personnel from existing agency programs. 

3. Institutional arrangements do not presently exist for implementing interagency, intergovernmental monitoring which includes 

both collection of monitoring data and control 

of impacts. 

VALUE OF POST-EIS MONITORING · 

IMPACT DOCUMENTATION 

In many cases, Federal agencies preparing 

environmental impact statements need documentation of the impacts that result from a 

proposed Federal action to predict more accurately the impacts associated _with similar 

Federal actions. For example, increased mineral resource development has resulted in the 

preparation by the U.S. Geological Survey of a 

number of EIS's for mining and reclamation 

plans. EIS's prepared on future mineral resource development actions in the same geographic areas would greatly benefit from documentation of the impacts that actually resulted from previous actions. Lease stipulations 

to reduce impacts would also benefit from documentation of ir_npact. 

IMPACT WARNING 

A monitoring system could warn agencies of 

unanticipated adverse impacts or sudden 

changes in impact trends and could provide immediate warning whenever an impact indicator 

approaches a critical level. Some possible approaches for defining critical levels could be defined in terms of carrying capacity, threshold 

levels, or regulation and enforcement standards. 

IMPACT CONTROL 

Agencies at all levels of government collectively have substantial potential to control the 

timing, location, and level of impacts. These 

2 

controls basically fall under the following categories: ( 1) decisionmaking-for example, determination of what limits will be placed on the 

. activities causing the impact, establishment of 

new fiscal policies, implementation of potential 

mitigating measures, and management of environmental resources; (2) planning-for example, planning development of community 

infrastructures, planning the location and type 

of land-use change, a.nd planning for multipleuse development of re~ 1urces ; and ( 3) regulation and enforcement- -for example, enforcement of the terms of lining and reclamation 

plans, enforcement of air- and water-quality 

standards, and development of impact reduction or prevention regulations. 

Agencies will require timely environmental 

data obtained through monitoring to properly 

control impacts. 

In addition to providing individual agencies 

with the necessary information for responding 

to impacts, a cooperative, intergovernmental 

monitoring system would facilitate the accomplishment of appropriate response measures. 

"Whereas an individual agency may be s~ewhat limited in the range of its mandated re--

sponses to a given impact a comprehensive 

monitoring program may increase the capacity 

of appropriate agencies to respond to impacts 

by alerting all concerned agencies to a problem 

and summoning their collective prerogatives 

to the problem (s) at hand" (Rockefeller 

Foundation, 1976). Many impacts affect several 

different aspects of the environment and fall 

under more than one governmental jurisdiction. 

An intergovernmental monitoring system increases the options available for reducing impacts and encourages cooperative implementation of solutions. 

EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE EIS 

MONITORING SYSTEMS 

Only a small number of comprehensive interdisciplinary monitoring systems are known 

to the author. These systems represent initiatives by a university research institute, by a 

State legislature, and by a Federal regulatory 

agency. 

INSTITUTE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, 

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN 

A study to monitor and document the impact 

of a coal-fired electric power generating plant 

has been conducted at the University of Wis-
consin since 1971. The objectives of the study 

are: (1) documentation of the environmental, 

economic, and social changes caused by the 

construction and operation of the plant; (2) 

accumulation of data and information to improve decisions governing the location, construction, and operation of such plants by environmental regulatory and protection agencies; (3) designing and testing cost-effective 

techniques for accurate impact assessment ; and 

( 4) testing the effectiveness of environmental 

protection practices (Institute for Environmenal Studies, 1976, p. 14). Data collection 

was be~un prior to plant construction and has 

continued on a regular basis. Results are stored 

in a computerized data system for retrieval by 

study groups. A major effort is underway to 

integrate and generalize the results from individual research groups. Research results are 

also being used to develop an impact prediction 

capability and for developing powerplant siting 

criteria. 

NORTH DAKOTA REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (REAP) 

REAP was funded by the North Dakota 

Legislature in 1975 to provide data and 

analyses for the legislature and other decisionmakers. The program has been provided $2 

million from a special trust fund created from 

the collection of coal severance taxes. The computerized data base being developed by REAP 

will contain environmental and socioeconomic 

information for the State. Contemplated uses 

of the system include monitoring. Monitoring 

data will be used to identify trends resulting 

from development activity, to verify impact 

predictions, and to make decisions on future 

resource development activities. Input for the 

data base is provided by State agencies that are 

already collecting data for their own program 

needs. Or, if the data are not being collected, 

responsibility for their collection is assigned to 

agencies whose responsibilities are most closely 

related to the data needed. REAP will assist the 

agencies in obtaining necessary resources to 

collect the data. REAP is also arranging for 

access to Federal computerized data bases. 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 

requires industry to perform "environmental 

surveillance" of each nuclear power station. 

8 

Monitoring requirements are set forth in ·the 

technical specifications of the license. Data to 

be collected are based on the impacts predicted · 

in the EIS. Baseline data acquisition is required 

prior to plant construction. 

The scope of data to be acquired is broad. 

"The program should cover elements of the 

ecosystem for which a causal relationship between plant operation and adverse change is 

established or strongly suggested" (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975, p. 7). 

An interesting component of the monitoring 

program is "report levels." Report levels are 

warning notices of impending unacceptable environmental stress. They are set at a level 

above the normal fluctuations of a given parameter, but low enough to permit remedial action 

to be taken before significant or irreversible 

damage has occurred. Report levels are also 

assessed against "limiting conditions" for operation. Limiting conditions are conditions of 

plant operation designed to prevent adverse 

environmental impact. Corrective action to be 

taken in case limiting conditions are exceeded 

is specified. The report levels and limiting conditions are mechanisms for triggering appropriate responses to environmental problems as 

they develop. 

There has been some criticism of the monitoring requirements by industry. The criticism 

centers mainly on the amount of data that 

must be collected, the cost, and the data's utility 

(pers. commun. with representative of the 

Atomic Industrial Forum, January 1977). NRC 

is taking steps to respond to these problems. 

The amount ·of data collection required has 

been reduced as greater understanding has developed as to which data are most useful as 

impact indicators. 

METHOD OF INVESTIGATION 

The monitoring system described in this 

report developed from a case study of the needs 

for monitoring the impacts described in the 

"Final Environmental Impact Statement: DevelopmEmt of Phosphate Resources in Southeastern Idaho" (U.S. Geological Survey, 1977). 

This area was selected because future additional resource development and processing are 

likely due to the ·growing need for phosphate 

and the magnitude of the phosphate deposits 

in the area and because sufficient lead time 

existed for development of a . monitoring sys-
tern prior to the anticipated expansion of phosphate activities. Also, many government agencies in the area had already recognized a need 

for monitoring data in order to carry out their 

responsibilities in the control and mitigation of 

impacts associated with phosphate development. 

Two subprojects, the results of which are to 

be published elsewhere, were conducted concurrently with the case study to demonstrate 

the applicability of remote-sensing techniques 

for acquiring monitoring data. David M. Carneggie and Christopher S. Holm '. of the U.S. 

Geological Survey investigated the use of several analytical approaches for monitoring stripmining activities . and resultant changes in 

vegetation and wildlife habitat. Dan.iel B. Gallagher of the U.S. Geological Survey demonstrated the use of aerial photography for monitoring land-use change. 

TO THE USERS OF THIS REPORT 

The report is directed at environmental professionals involved in EIS preparation and 

Federal, State, and local agencies responsible 

for dealing with the impacts that result from 

Federal actions. The methodology in this report 

for developing comprehensive post-EIS monitoring systems is without precedent and should 

therefore be regarded as a preliminary effort. 

The author hopes that this methodology will 

encourage others to investigate the design and 

operation of comprehensive monitoring systems and will benefit agencies interested in 

developing such systems. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Many individuals and agencies contributed 

to the development of the monitoring methodology described in this report. R. Kenneth Stolz 

of the Executive Office of the Governor of 

Idaho participated· in the development of the 

methodology, co-led the workshop, and coordinated State participation and review. David 

M. Carneggie, Daniel B. Gallagher, and Christopher S. Holm of the U.S. Geological Survey 

provided insights developed from their remotesensing subprojects. The following agencies 

participated in a workshop to define a monitoring system for the Idaho phosphate resource 

development area, provided descriptions of 

existing and proposed monitoring efforts, and 

reviewed this report: U.S. Geological Survey, 

U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish 

4 

and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. 

Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Environmental 

Protectioli Agency, Idaho Executive Office of 

the Governor, Idaho Department of Fish and 

Game, Idaho Department of Health and W elfare, Idaho Department of Water Resources, 

Idaho Department of Lands, Idaho Department 

of Agriculture, Idaho Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Idaho Public Utilities Commission, 

Idaho Department of Employment, Idaho State 

Historical Society, and the Southeast Idaho 

Council of Governments. 

IDAHO CASE STUDY 

BACKGROUND • 

Phosphate has been mined in southeastern 

Idaho since 1945. In 197 4, 6.3 million short tons 

(MMT) of phosphate rock were mined. If mining plans submitted to the Secretary of the Interior are approved, production resulting from 

proposed Federal lease actions and from the 

operating mines on Federal lands could reach 

15 MMT per year by 2000. This expansion of 

mining would be accompanied by an increase in 

the capacity of phosphate processing plants, 

expansion of transportation and utility networks, and growth in population. As such expansion depends upon several major Federal 

actions that would have a significant effect op. 

the natural and cultural environments of the 

area, an environmental impact statement 

( EIS) was prepared by a Federal interagency 

task force. The EIS described significant impacts that would result from an expansion of 

phosphate mining and processing and the measures that could be taken to minimize or prevent 

environmental degradation. These measures include special lease stipulations, management 

practices, reclamation techniques, enforcement 

of regulations, and planning for population 

growth. Such measures will involve many public agencies whose success in carrying out 

protective measures will depend in part upon 

the availability of information necessary for 

decisionmaking, planning, and regulation enforcement. 

MONITORING WORKSHOP 

Recognizing the need for Federal, State, and 

local agencies to contribute to the design and 

inception of a comprehensive impact monitoring program, the U.S. Geological Survey held a 

workshop in Boise, Idaho, March 1976. The 

State of Idaho was contacted and agreed to 
participate in the workshop. Federal agencies 

were invited to the workshop by the U.S. Geological Survey; State and local agencies were 

invited by the State. 

PURPOSE 

The purpose of the workshop was to design 

an optimum monitoring system for measuring 

the impact of phosphate development in southeastern Idaho. An optimum monitoring system 

was defined as one in which data collection is 

limited to the minimum number of essential 

quantitative indicators that would enable 

agencies to direct, · control, mitigate, and for 

prevent impacts. This definition of an optimum 

monitoring system contrasts with other monitoring systems that attempt to document all 

environmental changes. 

PARTICIPANTS 

The workshop was co-led by Linda Marcus 

of the U.S. Geological Survey and R. Kenneth 

Stolz of the State's Division of Budget, Policy 

Planning, and Coordination. The U.S. Department of the Interior, the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the State of · Idaho, and the 

Southeast Idaho Council of Governments were 

represented at the workshop. 

APPROACH 

Prior to the workshop a handout entitled 

"Proposed Methodology for Monitoring Impacts of Phosphate Development" was sent to 

participants. This paper described the basic 

assumptions for a monitoring system that the 

U.S. Geological Survey believed to be desirable 

and the steps that should be followed in the 

development of a monitoring system. Included 

were the assumptions that: (1) an optimum 

monitoring system limits qata collection to 

the minimum number of data types that are 

essential; (2) the frequency of data collection, 

number of monitoring stations, and level of 

detail or scale should be reduced to the most 

economical and efficient system possible ; and 

(3) a data need should be justifiable on the 

basis of its practical value to agencies in 

decisionmaking, planning, and regulation and 

enforcement. 

The methodology to be tested at the workshop was limited to a procedure for designing 

a monitoring system; it consisted of the 

following steps: 

Step i.-Predict the potential impacts. 

(This step was accomplished by the EIS task 

force prior to the workshop.) 

Step 2.-Define the objectives of the monitoring system. 

Step 3.-Select key impacts that should be 

monitored. 

Step #.-,-Determine data needs for each impact to be monitored ; determine data needs for 

measuring the activities causing the impact. 

Step · 5.-Determine data availability and 

identify data gaps in existing data collection 

efforts. 

The steps were carried out primarily 

through the use of worksheets and matrices. 

RESULTS FROM THE WORKSHOP 

STEP 1. PREDICTION OF IMPACTS 

Most of the impacts likely to occur had 

already been assessed by the interagency task 

force prior to the workshop. Many agencies 

represented at the workshop had been involved 

in preparation or review of the predicted impacts described in the draft EIS and, therefore, most participants were knowledgeable 

of the impacts of increased phosphate development. The impact(s) and activity(ies) causing the impact are identified for each environmental parameter. 

TABLE 1.-Summary of impacts predicted in the EIS 

[Activity causing impact is given in parentheses when not known if activity will occur] 

Environmental parameter Impact 

Geology and minerals ------------ Mineral consumption and loss: 

Consumption of 25-38% of 

phosphate reserves in area ; 

consumption of other minerals. 

Resources made ·unrecoverable or 

recovery inhibited. 

5 

Activity causing impact 

Extraction of ore. 

Backfilling or reclamation over 

unmined resources. 
TABLE 1.-Summary of impacts predicted in the EIS-Continued 

[Activity causing impact is gi-ven in parentheses when not known if activity will occur] 

Environmental parameter 

Land surface --------------------

Soils ----------------------------

Surface-water supply -----------

Ground-water supply ------------

Water quality ------------------

Water use ----------------------

Air quality ----------------------

1Vegetation ----------------------

Wildlife 

Impact 

Land surface disturbance. 

Increased erosion. 

Soil loss -and soil mixing. 

Lowered soil productivity. 

Localized soil contamination. 

Changes in water flow patterns such 

as decreased infiltration and 

increased overland flow, increased 

velocities, increased erosion of 

streambeds and banks, reduction 

or increase in amount of flow. 

Localized change in ground-water 

recharge and discharge 

relationships. 

Localized water level lowering. 

Increased sediment yield, especially 

during spring runoff. 

Chemical contamination. 

Radiation release. 

Eutrophication from increased 

nitrogen and phosphorus levels. 

Increased water consumption by 

municipalities and industries. 

Chemical contaminants: 

,S02, particulates, trace elements. 

Fluorine; fluorosis in livestock. 

Particulates (fugitive dust). 

Radiation release. 

Removal, disturbance of vegetation. 

Change in vegetation. 

Localized chemical contamination. 

Fugitive dust deposited, reduction in 

plant vigor. 

Loss of habitat, displacement. 

Decreased productivity. 

Big game: disruption of migration 

routes, loss or disturbance of 

calving areas, and critical winter 

habitat. 

Increased roadkills. 

6 

Activity causin·g impact 

Excavation of mine pit. 

Waste dump storage. 

Grading for roads, buildings, etc. 

Reclamation. 

Offsite housing construction, 

roadbuilding, etc. 

Removal of overburden, scalping 

site. 

Emissions from :processing facilities. 

Same as activities under "Land 

surface," plus: 

Scalping site. 

Construction of transportation 

network. 

Excavation of mine pit. 

Backfilling. 

Waste storage. 

Water consumption for phosphate 

processing. 

Excavation of mine pit. 

Backfilling or reclamation. 

Scalping site. 

Construction of roads and facilities. 

Extraction of ore. 

Processing of ore. 

Extraction of ore. 

Employment of workers/population 

growth. 

Phosphate processing. 

(Hydroelectric energy production 

expansion.) 

Phosphate processing. 

Emissions from settling ponds. 

Extraction and hauling of or~, 

waste dumps. 

Same as "Land surface." 

Revegetation/reclamation, land 

surface disturbance, land-use 

change. 

Same as "Air quality." 

Mining activities, scalping site, 

railroad, and roadbuilding. 

Excavation of mine pit and 

resultant highwall. 

1V ehicular movement, transportation 

of people and materials. · 
TABLE 1.-Summary of impacts predicted in the EIS-Continued 

[Activity causing impact is 'given in parentheses when not known if activity wm occur] 

Environmental parameter Impact 

Threatened and endangered Peregrine falcon: abandonment of 

species. existing nesting sites. 

Whooping crane: loss of potential 

habitat. 

Fisheries ------------------------ Pollution of habitat by sediment, 

toxic substances, and airborne 

materials. 

Reduction of fishery populations. 

Land use ------------------------ Land-use change: 

Socioeconomic __________________ ....: 

Transportation and 

utilities. 

Recreation 

Archeologic and 

historic values. 

Increases in industrial, 

transportation, utilities, 

residential, and commercial 

land uses. 

Decreases in rangeland, 

agricultural land, natural 

areas. 

Increased barren lands and/or 

reclaimed lands. 

Population growth. 

Increased housing demand. 

Increased demand for public 

facilities and services. 

Increased fiscal government costs. 

Increased traffic volume. 

Accelerated deterioration of 

roadways. 

Expansion of transportation and 

utility networks. 

Increased demand for power for 

phosphate processing, for light 

industry, for commercial growth, 

and for residential growth. 

Reduced quality of outdoor 

recreation: dust, odor, smoke, 

noise, air pollution, visual 

degradation, land surface 

'"' disturbance, and loss of wildlife 

habitat. 

Increased demand and decreased 

opportunity for outdoor 

recreation experiences. 

Reduction in hunting and fishing 

opportunity. 

Greater access to remote areas, loss 

of natural phenomena and 

secluded character. 

Damage, destruction of petroglyphs. 

Destruction of historic visual 

character of cultural resources. 

Increased vandalism. 

7 

Activity causing impact 

Mining activities: replacement of 

habitat of prey species and 

disturbance during nesting and 

courtship periods in early spring 

and late winter. 

Mining and associated activities. 

Mining activities. 

Processing activities. 

Construction of transportation 

networks. 

Mining activities. 

Processing activities. 

Expansion of transportation and 

utility networks. 

Employment of workers/population 

growth. 

Employment of workers for mining 

and • processing operations (and 

induced population growth). 

Transportation of people and 

materials for mining and 

processing. 

Employment of workers (and 

induced population growth). 

Mining and processing activities. 

Transportation and utility networks. 

Employment · of workers (and 

induced population growth). 

Excavation of mine pit. 

Construction of haul roads and 

railroads. 

Construction of processing plant. 

Employment of workers. (and 

induced population gtowth). 
TABLE 1.-Summary of impacts predicted in the EIS-Continued 

[Activity causing impact is given in parentheses when not known if activity will occur] 

Environmental parameter Impact Activity causing impact 

Aesthetic values ---------------- Localized degradation and 

alteration of visual character. 

All mining and processing 

activities. 

Degradation of clean air, clear 

water. 

Introduction of more industrial, 

commercial, and urban elements. 

Reduction in area of predominantly 

rural or natural character. 

Increase in area of disturbed or 

barren land. 

STEP 2. MONITORING OBJECTIVES 

Participants were asked to complete a worksheet prior to the workshop which asked for 

the following information: (1) a description 

of · the agency's areas of concern that pertain 

to phosphate operations; (2) their objectives 

for monitoring (what a monitoring program 

should provide) ; and (3) the use and value 

of monitoring information (what decisions 

monitoring infor:mation would help them make, 

how it would help them plan, what regulation 

it woud help them enforce) . Agency representatives presented this information at the workshop. Table 2 is an example of a monitoring 

objectives worksheet. (The complete set of 

worksheets may be obtained from: U.S. Geological Survey, 760 National Center, Reston~ 

VA 22092.) 

TABLE 2. Example of a monitoring objectives worksheet 

[The source of information is given in parentheses below the agency name. Data in the last column were given In response to 

the question, "How would your agency use monitoring information?" D=declslonmaklng; P=plannlng; R=regulatlon and en· 

forcement; O=other, specify] 

Agency 

U.S. Department 

of Agriculture, 

Soil Conservation 

Service. 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency. 

, U.S. Geological 

Survey, 

Conservation 

Division, 

Pocatello, Idaho. 

Areas of concern 

Erosion and sedimentation problems and vegetative restoration 

of strip-mined areas and spoils. 

Land use changes industrial and 

urban-related to minin~r activities. 

All activities which have direct 

and/ or indirect impacts on air 

and water quality, solid wastes, 

radiation, and applicable re~rU· 

lations. 

. Supervision of mining operations 

on Federal mineral leases, including review and approval of ininin~r operations to insure s&fe 

and efficient operations, protection of the environment, maximum efficient recovery of the 

phosphate resource, compliance 

with all applicable laws and 

re~rUlations, and correct royalty 

payments to the United States 

or' Indian lessors. 

Objectives 

Identify land-use changes associated with increased mining a~­

tivity. 

Identify active erosion and sedimentation areas. 

Identify deterioration of ve~retation. 

Provide a good baseline on the 

present activities (conditions?) 

prior to further expansions. 

Provide information which could 

enable the minin~r supervisor's 

office to better manage and supervise mining · operations on Federal land. Provide baseline environmental studies to evaluate 

impacts at a future date: 

Compare the level of impact that 

results with different methods of 

dump construction and reseeding 

techniques. 

Determine the extent to which 

different conditions reduce nonpoint pollution sources. 

Determine · long-term impact on 

water resources from nutrient 

loading, suspended sediment, 

radioactive contaminants, and 

heayy metals. 

8 

Use and value 

P. Information would be furnished 

to local conservation districts 

and county/ city planning and 

zoning agencies. Assist local 

landowners with plans to control soil erosion and sedimentation·. 

D. Whether to allow phosphate fertilizer proceSsing plant to be 

constructed pursuant to significant air quality deterioration regulations; sewer treatment plant expansions. 

P. Water (industrial) dischar~re 

permits. 

R. Si~rnitlcant air quality deterioration ; ambient air quality 

standards ; State water qual· 

ity and air re~rUlations. 

D. Evaluating impacts of proposed 

mining operations; 

R. 30 CFR 231, 43 CFR 23 (Code 

of Federal Regulations). 

0. Supervisin~r mineral lease developments. 
Several monitoring objectives were defined. 

Although differences of opinion were evident, 

the following primary objectives were supported by most of the participants. 

Baseline data.-At least eight agencies identified acquisition of baseline data as an objective of a monitoring system. It appears that 

many agencies feel they are greatly hindered in 

carrying out their responsibilities relating to 

phosphate development by the lack of baseline 

data. Baseline data in the context of a monitoring system are collected prior to the start of 

actions that cause the impacts. Baseline data 

provide a historic record of environmental conditions for comparison with impact 1Ewels.2 

Control and management of impacts.-The 

objective of responding to impacts as they occur, which is perhaps the most urgent need of a 

monitoring system, was strongly emphasized. 

Collectively, the agencies have considerable potential to control or regulate the level of impacts. However, agencies must obtain data that 

support their decisionmaking and obtain feedback over time as to the success of their decisions in order to further modify the impact 

of current and future phosphate activities. A 

monitoring program , that provides feedback 

when unfavorable environmental trends emerge 

would allow agencies to develop appropriate responses before critical situations develop. 

Warning of critical impact levels.-A properly designed system should indicate that a particular environmental parameter is approaching 

a critical threshold. Impact levels should be 

established that would trigger immediate notification of critical conditions. 

Documentation of impacts.-The objective of 

documenting actual impacts would have great 

utility by creating a permanent record of the 

magnitude and nature of the impacts of phosphate development. This knowledge would be 

invaluable for improving prediction in future 

EIS's. 

Model verification.-Documentation of impacts would provide the cause and effect data 

for empirical verification or validation of various predictive models of action/impact relationships. 

STEP 3. IMPACTS SELECTED FOR MONITORING 

Activity / impact matrices were used for considering the various impacts anticipated from 

2 A quantitative or qualitative evaluation cA an impact parameter. 

9 

increased phosphate production. It was intended that participants would use the matrices 

to identify which impacts should be monitored. 

However, the matrix format proved to be excessively time consuming within the constraints 

of a 2-day workshop and it was consequently 

abandoned. Instead, a list of impacts that 

should be considered for monitoring was gen .. 

erated by group discussion. Then, workshop 

participants ha:ving similar concerns and responsibilities divided into work groups. Each 

work group considered a set of impacts and 

revised them. These same work groups then 

generated the worksheets for steps 4 and 5. 

STEP 4. DATA NEEDS 

Each work group completed a data-needs 

worksheet for each impact that the group felt 

should be monitored. Table 3 is an example of a 

data..;needs worksheet. (The complete set of 

worksheets may be obtained from the U.S. 

Geological Survey.) The following information 

was requested: (1) quantitative indicator suitable for measuring the impact; (2) alternative 

indicators that may also be acceptable; (3) 

recommended collection frequency of the data; 

( 4) minimum acceptable collection frequency; 

(5) recommended format, such as maps, tables, 

text; (6) level of detail or accuracy; (7) location(s) and geographic area where data should 

be collected; (8) potential methods of collection; and (9) value or justification for collecting the data. 

STEP 5. DATA AVAILABILITY 

Work groups filled out data-availability worksheets to determine if the data presently being 

collected are acceptable for the monitoring 

system in terms of frequency of collection. 

Table 4 is an example of a data-availability 

worksheet. (The complete set of worksheets 

may be obtained from the U.S. Geological 

Survey.) 

It appears that many of .the data needs could 

be met within existing data-collection efforts. 

Inadequacies occur primarily in the frequency 

of collection and location or geographic area. 

Generally, data-collection sites were not located specifically to measure the impacts of 

phosphate mining and processing. Likewise, 

the frequency and timing of data collection may 

not have been established to obtain data when 

there is the greatest likelihood of phosphaterelated impacts occurring (for example, during 
Impact 

1. Land 

surface 

disturbance: 

Topographic 

change. 

Moving 

dirt. 

2. Geology 

and 

minerals: 

Nonrenewable 

resource 

eonsump. 

tion. 

3. Soils. 

Indicator 

(alternative 

indicators) 

Acreage 

disturbed 

and 

location: 

a. Roads 

b. Pits 

e. Dump 

d. Plants 

e. Watercontrol 

struetures--

ditches, 

dams, 

ponds? 

(Leneth of 

disturbanee.) 

Tons of ore 

and % 

P205 or 

% P plus 

other 

elements. 

1. Acreage 

of soils 

disturbed 

by exploration, 

mining 

and 

processing, 

and by 

secondary 

natural 

erosion. 

2. Erosion 

loss, ton 

per acre--

on natural 

soils and 

"soils" (unconsolidated 

debris) of 

dumps, etc. 

8. Trace 

element 

and 

radioactive 

concentrations of 

soil surface 

near 

proeessine 

plants. 

4. Acres retopsoiled 

(acres 

salvaged, 

acres 

spread). 

TABLE 3.-Exannple of compilation of data-needs worksheet 

Collection 

frequency 

(min. 

acceptable 

frequency) 

Once per 

year. 

(Once per 

year.) 

Monthly. 

(Monthly.) 

Annually. 

(Once per 

8-5 years.) 

Format 

Map and 

table. 

Same as 

company 

production 

report. 

Maps and 

tables. 

Level of 

detail, 

accuracy 

±5% and 

std. map 

accuracy. 

± 1 ton. 

±1% 

±5%. 

Location 

and 

geographic 

area 

(Entire EIS 

study 

area) land 

surface 

disturbed 

by 

phosphate 

exploration, 

mining, 

processing, 

and 

expanded 

population. 

All 

phosphate. 

producing 

areas 

(leases 

and 

patented 

land). 

Areas 

directly 

disturbed 

by mining 

and 

processing 

and 

surrounding 

impacted 

areas. 

1 AUTHOR'S NOTE : No information supplied by work groups. 

10 

Potential 

methods 

of 

collection Value 1 

1. Air 

photos 

(reclamation 

probably 

needs 

to be 

monitored 

on the 

ground). 

2. Satellite 

data, 

company 

and other 

agencies 

data. 

Company 

production 

reports 

and 

interviews. 

Air photos 

(large 

seale) and 

surface 

mapping/ 

testine; 

company 

information. For 

radiationscintillometer. 
TABLE 4.-Example of compilation of data-availability worksheets 

Impact 

indicator 

Land 

surface 

disturbance 

acreage. 

Tons of 

phosphate 

mined. 

Acreage 

of soil 

disturbance ; 

erosion 

loss; 

trace 

element 

and 

radioactive 

concentrations of 

soil 

surface 

near 

processing 

plants; 

acreage 

retopsoiled. 

Vegetation 

type 

Period 

collected 

?-1976 

1916-76 

Not being collected 

1975. 

Agency 

U.S. Geological 

Survey, 

U.S. Geological 

Survey. 

Co-op 

project: 

Idaho, 

National 

Aeronautics 

and Space 

Admin., 

u.s. 

Geological 

Survey, 

u.s. 

Forest 

Service, 

Pacific 

NW Reg. 

Comm. 

Collection 

frequency 

Annually. 

Annually. 

Baseline. 

a major storm or spring runoff). Some addi- 1 

tional data need to be collected. 

POST-WORKSHOP ANALYSES AND SYNTHESIS 

The information generated at the workshop 

represents a valuable first cut at designing a 

monitoring system. Because the time available 

at the workshop permitted only brief reporting 

of the conclusions generated by the work groups, 

it was necessary to synthesize this information 

into a monitoring system after the workshop. 

The synthesis was conducted primarily by the 

11 

Format 

Maps, tables, 

narrative 

reports. 

Maps, tables, 

narrative 

reports. 

Maps, tables, 

summaries. 

Accuracy 

Unknown. 

Variable. 

90%+. 1-40 acre 

min. 

Location 

All Federal 

mineral 

leases. 

Federal 

mineral 

leases. 

SE Idaho. 

Method of 

collection 

Ground 

surveys, 

aircraft 

photography, annual 

operations 

report. 

Alternatives : 

satellite 

and highaltitude 

aircraft 

imagery. 

Annual 

operations 

report. 

Landsat 

analysis, 

small and 

medium 

scale 

aircraft 

imagery 

and 

ground 

sampling. 

author with the aid of workshop participants 

providing specific information and review of a 

preliminary draft of this report. Information 

supplied by participants after the . workshop 

included existing and proposed data-collection 

efforts, relevant research, and existing interagency institutional structures. This report incorporates review comments on the preliminary 

draft. 

The development of a monitoring system is 

an iterative process. A postworkshop iteration 

is presented that refines and integrates the 
....... 

~ 

.a.AD.a..i!i u.-n.vc,-,·vnIJI Jiwc; fliWiflrWG; J.r.n:lf:t:tt,g pnulSpnar,f!S fJTf!S 

[Key: 0-major impact likely to occur; e-impact should be monitored; •-reduction in impact; T-not known if impacts result] 

Phases of mining activity 

Exploration Construction Operation 

-! s:: s:: ., ~ " . 8. s:: ., .s Ill "' J tit ., a ., ::s tit .§ s:: ,.CI - s:: " s:: 

:§ 111 .e Ill " :: t ~:a ., Ill 

"Cl +> -

ii . ~ 0 ~ .i 8'0 Ill 

~ " ! .s i 111 "' Impacts t ~"Cl ~: t:.£1 tit l!l ~ ... l "Cl .. " 0 tog ~ ... ~ 111 Po s:: b " . s:: ~ t' " 111 •• Ill is= Ill ... Po 

~ s:: s:l 0 Po 

s:I!J ~ o a 0 0 ~ $ t.! u Ill " ~ f 1:,! Ill " " u •• ::s i+l b s:: :a] f) f ... Ill ... f Ill 111 ::s 8..! ~ 0 ~ e~"Cl 'u a-' $ "' p,,! 

:g~ 111 ... ~$ 'il .! j -a 111 ... .2 "Cl Po~ d''f Ill 

Po :; - ::s s::_s :; Po > ... 111 e t ~-! ~~ ri~ Ill Ill a -" Ill ... s:: $ Ill ~ > a ~ ~ a ... > ,.CI 0 11:1 r:ol 1=1 0 ~a = fll u fll ~ 11:1 ~ 2: 1=1 r:ol 

Phosphate consumption/loss • • Land surface disturbance/ soil loss 0 0 0 0 

Air quality: 

Fugitive dust • • • • • • • • • 

Water quality: • • • • • • Sediment yield increase ? 

Chemical contamination • ? 

Biological health reduction • • • • • • 

Water supply reduction 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Increase in water use • • Radiation release 0 • Wildlife: • • Endangered species population loss 0 

Roadkills and obstruction of migration 0 • • 0 • ·-, Displacement of resident species 0 0 0 

Aquatic: 

Fishkills, reduced species diversity 0 0 0 0 0 ? 0 ? 

Land use/land cover change 0 • • • • • • • 

Population growth • • Fiscal government co.sts/ revenues increase • • Quality of life deterioration • • Employment level changes • • Transportation and utility networks expansion 0 • • 0 0 • Archeologic site destruction -- -- • 

Decommissioning 

., 

" 

= :: t " ,.!II 

Po .! 

: !-:; ., 0 :: ~ s:: a Po Ill 

;;i: .. " -! s:l ... 

~ o.! s:l "Cl :::: Po 0 s:l Po 

Ill " ~ ai " 'a Gl u ~ ~ a ]-tJ ... >""' ::s Gl ... ~ " s:l ... ::s 0111 ~ &l fll p 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

0 0 

0 

• • 0 

• • • • 

0 
~ 

~ 

TABLE 6.-Acti11ity/impact matri:t: Processing phosphate ore [Key: 0-major impact likely to occur; e-impact should be monitored; 7-not known if impacts result] 

Phases of processing activity 

Construction Production 

1111 "CC i "CC 1111 & s:: ~ .§ • .a C) 1111 .! 

~ til i 1111 t -! ~ s:: 

:a ... j ~ .8 • s:: C) C) ~ .a 0 Qo 

... s:: • ~ 1111 ~ It • a s:: s::~ ..l:l s:: It 'a C) 

t]J t:.! Qo .!! ~ ~ .8 :! s::~oa ::s ~ 

~·~ ~ til 

= ... C) Qo s:: "CC Qo :!:! "CCC) 'a .Ill • :a ~~ S::,8 :::: ·; t 'S C) a ~a s 0 ,5 2' H Qo 

lXI r"' lXI s:: r"' 0 rn = 

Processed phosphate • Land surface disturbance/ soil loss 0 0 0 0 0 

Air quality: 

Fugitive dust 0 ? 0 0 0 

Chemical contamination 0 • Water quality: 

-------Sed-iment yield increase 0 0 0 0 0 

Chemical contamination • Water use increase 0 0 0 0 

Radiation release 0 0 • Vegetation/ soil contamination • • • Wildlife: • Roadkills and obstruction 

Aquatic life: • Fishkills, reduced species diversity. -'-

Land use/land cover change 0 0 0 0 • • Population growth • Fiscal government costs! revenues increase • Quality of life deterioration 

(housing, education, public safety, etc.) • 

Employment level changes 

Transportation and utility networks expansion • 0 0 0 0 

Energy demand increase 0 0 

1111 

:i 

3 1111 • t a ~ "CC C) s:: It 1:! • 

t,> C) 1111 

1: t 'a 

a ;~ r"' ~It 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 0 

0 
components of the monitoring system produced 

thus far. Additional iterations to be developed 

by the participating agencies are necessary 

prior to implementation of the monitoring system. 

Three products were generated from the 

workshop experience that illustrate the monitoring system: (1) an activity / impact matrix, 

(2) a data-needs table, and (3) a generalized 

activity/impact schedule. 

ACTIVITY/IMPACT MATRICES 

Although matrices were found to be cumbersome workshop tools, revised matrices are used 

because they concisely display the multiple relationships of activities and impacts. The matrices aid selection of the impacts that should 

be monitored because all activities contributing 

to a particular impact are identifiable, and, 

likewise, all impacts resulting from a particular activity are easily identifiable. The matrix 

is also a useful reference for eliminating overlap among impacts selected for monitoring and 

for selecting alternative impacts to monitor in 

those cases where collection of a particular 

type of data is not feasible. 

Activities and impacts are described for 

phosphate mining and processing (tables 5 and 

6). The activities are grouped by phases on the 

activity axis. For example, mining activities 

are grouped under exploration, construction, 

operation, and decommissioning phases. This 

grouping is useful for establishing a general 

time frame. Impacts are specifically identified 

on the impact axis. Selection of impacts to be 

monitored is done by circling impacts ( e is 

used in tables 5 and 6). Future iterations may 

alter the final selection of impacts to be monitored ; selection of impacts should be based on 

the methodology described in pages 26-38. 

DATA-NEEDS TABLE 

The data-needs table (table 7) is a modified 

version of the data-needs worksheets produced 

at the workshop. Changes were made to eliminate overlap of similar data types, to eliminate 

data that were not justifiable or pertinent to 

monitoring objectives, and to add additional 

description as needed. 

The information provided in the data-needs 

table for each impact to be monitored includes: 

(1) impact indicators-the parti~ular type of 

data that is measured to determine impact 

level ; (2) the timing of the impact-the rela14 

tionship of the timing of the impact to phases 

of the action ; (3) agency responsible for collection-agency (ies) that has responsibility for 

collecting the data because of its program responsibilities, or because the data are within 

its area of expertise; (4) location or site where 

data are to be measured; (5) collection frequency; (6) collection method; (7) use of data-a 

justification of how the monitoring data will 

assist agencies in controlling impacts to ensure 

that the type, frequency, location, and method 

of data collection will be suitable for enforcement of pertinent rules and regulations; and 

(8) remarks. The information in . this table is 

general; subsequent iterations can be expected 

to pinpoint data-collection sites and data-collection schedules. 

Monitoring data are used in the following 

ways. The data identify the type of impact that 

occurs, where the impact occurs, when the impact occurs and its duration, and the level of 

impact. These data can then be correlated with 

the type, level, location, and timing of the activities causing the impacts. It is not necessary 

to obtain data on every activity to establish 

correlation with impacts. A few indicators of 

the magnitude, timing, and location of the action may be sufficient. 

ACTIVITY I IMPACT SCHEDULE 

The activity / impact schedule relates the timing of activities and impacts. Figure 1 is an 

example of a generalized impact schedule for a 

mine and for a processing plant. Impacts are not 

necessarily limited to the duration of the activity causing the impact; impacts may persist 

after the activity causing the impact has 

ceased. This should be taken into account when 

the timespan of a monitoring system is decided. 

A schedule of the assumed production from 

mines in the EIS study area is presented in 

figure 2. An indication of the impact level likely 

to result can be obtained by relating the activity / impact schedule to a production level 

schedule. This enables the user of a monitoring 

system to predict when crit.ical impact levels 

are most likely to occur and to alert agencies to 

those time periods when impact control responses are most likely to be needed. 

Another use of the activity / impact schedule 

is to relate the schedules and production levels 
..... 

01 

Impacts and 

impact indicator(s) 

Phosphate 

consumption/ 

loss 

Timing of 

impact 

Mining: 

Operation 

and decomTons of ore and missioning 

percent P205 phases. 

mined. 

Estimate tons of 

ore no longer 

recoverable due to 

filling. 

Phosphate 

pr~essed 

Tons of 

phosphate ore 

processed. 

Land surface 

disturbance from 

minesites 

Acrea.ge and 

location of 

disturbance from 

mining: pits, 

dumps, access 

roads, railroads, 

clearcutting, and 

administrative 

maintenance areas. 

Processing: 

Operation 

phase. 

Mining: 

All phases. 

Agency responsible 

for collection 

U.S. Geological 

Survey, 

Conservation 

Division. 

u.s. 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency. 

U.S. Geological 

Survey; Bureau 

of Land 

Management; 

U.S. Forest 

Service. 

TABLE 7.-Monitoring data need8 

Location or site 

where data are 

to be measured 

Each minesite. 

Each 

processing plant. 

Minesites. 

Collection 

frequency 

Tons of ore 

mined: 

Monthly. 

Tons of ore 

made unre·-

coverable: 

Annually. 

Monthly. 

Annually. 

Collection 

method 

Tons of ore 

mined: Company reports 

to regulator. 

Tons of ore 

unrecoverable: 

Field study. 

Industry 

reports. 

Remote 

.sensing at 

1:24,000 scale. 

Use of data 

Regulation and 

enforcement: 

Enforce Mineral 

Leasing Act; 

determine amount 

of royalties due 

Federal and State 

Government. 

Planning: 

Plan and schedule 

future resource 

development. 

Other: Correlate 

level of mining 

activity with 

resultant impact 

levels; predict 

future impacts . 

Correlation of 

level of processing 

activity with level 

of air, water, soil, 

and vegetation 

contamination; 

value for future 

impact predictions. 

Regulation and 

e~nforcement: Enforce compliance 

with terms 

of lease and 

reclamation 

standards of 

surface management agency. 

Remarks 

Data may be 

confidential; 

obtain industry approval 

for public 

disclosure. 

Data may be 

confidential; 

obtain industry approval 

for public 

disclosure. 

Permits 

correlation of 

acreage 

disturbed, 

reclaimed, 

and level of 

sediment yield. 
t-' 

0) 

lmpacta and 

impact indieator(s) 

Land surface disturbance from minesites--:-Continued: 

Acreage and location of reclamation: 

Timiq of 

impact 

Acreage backfilled, recontoured, revegetated, 

returned to productive use. Length 

of time to reclaim. 

Vegetation/soU Processing: 

contamination Operation 

Concentration of phase. 

cadmium, chromium, fluorine, 

lithium, selenium, 

uranium, vanadium, and zinc in 

vegetation. 

Surface-water 

quality: sediment 

yield increase, 

chemical contaminants, biological 

health 

Sediment yield: 

flow, turbidity, 

nonfilterable 

solids, 

conductivity. 

Chemical contaminants: 

Temperature, 

dissolved oxygen, 

total potassium, 

NOa, pH, PO,, 

Mining and 

processing: 

All phases. 

TABLE 7 .-Monitoring data needs-Continued 

Aeency responsible 

for collection 

Idaho Department of Health 

and Welfare; 

Idaho Department of 

Agriculture. 

U.S. Geological 

Survey; U.S. 

Environmental 

Protection 

Agency; U.S. 

Forest Service; 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 

Idaho Department of ·Health 

and Welfare; 

Southeast Idaho 

Council of 

Governments. 

Location or site 

where data are 

to be measured 

Samples taken 

within 1 mile of 

processing plant. 

Downstream of 

minesites and 

processing 

plants; in 

reservoirs for 

eutrophication 

levels. 

Collection 

frequency 

Monthly 

during plant 

operation. 

Sediment 

yield: 2-3 

times during 

.runoff and 

bimonthly rest 

of year. 

Chemical 

contaminants: 

Once during 

runoff and 

bimonthly for 

all chemicals 

except for heavy 

metals to be 

collected during 

high and· :low: 

flow only. 

Collection 

method 

Field 

collection of 

vegetation 

samples. 

Field 

samples 

using 

standard 

methods and 

procedures. 

Use of data 

Regulation and 

enforcement: Enforce 

Idaho fluorine airquality standards 

(includes standards 

for concentration 

in vegetation) . 

Planning: A void 

contamination of 

rangeland and agricultural lands by 

site planning. 

Regulation and 

enforcement: 

~orce State and 

Federal waterquality standards, 

Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act, 

and other 

regulations for 

protection of 

aquatic resources. 

Decisionmaki:ng: 

Determine success 

of management 

policies and 

mitigating _ 

measures; identify 

Remarks 
~ 

--1 

Impacts and 

impact indicator(s) 

Timing of 

impact 

Chemical contaminamts-Continued: 

chemical oxygen 

demand; 

Hardness: Mg, SO,, 

F, alkalinity, K, total 

phosphate, Fe, 

Mn, As, Cd, Cr, 

Se, V, U, Z, Cu. 

Biological 

health: coliform, 

benthos species 

diversity, periphyton, eutrophication level (plankton 

PO,, NOa, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, 

chemical oxygen 

demand, dissolved 

oxygen), pH, conductivity, SO,, F, alkalinity, total phosphate. 

Water use by Processing: 

processing plants; 

municipal water 

use induced by 

phosphate 

development 

Construction 

and operation 

phases. 

Acre-feet;year 

of processing 

plant use. 

Annual population increase from 

phosphate 

development 

multiplied by 

average per capita 

water consumption. 

Mining: 

Construction 

and operation 

phases. 

TABLE 7.-Monitoring data needs-Continued 

Agency responsible 

for collection 

Idaho Department of Water 

Resources. 

Location or site 

where data are 

to be measured 

Processing 

plant use: 

Processing 

plants. 

Municipal 

water use: 

Areawide. 

Collection 

frequency 

Biological 

health: 

Coliform and 

benthos 

bimonthly, 

periphyton 

quarterly, and 

eutrophication level 

twice in 

summer. 

Annually. 

Collection 

method 

Water use 

by processing 

plants: 

Watermeter. 

Municipal 

water use: 

Statistical 

record of 

J)()pulation 

and per capita 

water 

consumption. 

Use of data 

Chemical contaminants-continued: 

need for additional waterquality controls 

and techniques. 

Develop appropriate waterquality standards. 

Planning: Site 

planning of future 

land uses and 

determination of 

allowable discharge levels. 

State 208 waterquality planning. 

Regulatif,Jn and 

enforcement: 

Enforcement of 

State water rights 

regulations. 

Decisionmaking: 

Allocation of 

water rights. 

Planning: Allocation of future 

water rights, 

planning municipal and industrial 

growth to limit 

water demand to 

available supply. 

Remarks 
....... 

(X) 

Impacts and 

impact indicator(s) 

Timing of 

impact 

Air quality: Mining: 

fugitive dust and Construction 

chemical and operation 

contamination. phases. 

Total suspended Proc~sing: 

particulate matter Production. 

in micrograms 

per cubic meter. 

Ambient fluoride 

in parts per 

million. 

Sulfur dioxide 

in parts per 

million. 

Radiation released 

in air and water 

Air: Gross 

alpha, Ra226, 

Th23o, Polllo. 

Water: Gross 

alpha, gross 

beta, Ra226• 

Processing: 

Operation 

phase. 

TABLE 7.-Monitoring data needs-Continued 

Agency responsible 

for collection 

M inesites·: 

U.S. Geological 

Survey (requires 

industry to 

collect the data) . 

Processing 

plants: Idaho 

Department of 

Health and 

Welfare Division 

of the Environment (data 

furnished to 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Idaho Dep·artment of Health 

and Welfare. 

Location or site 

where data are 

to be measured 

Total suspended particulate matter: 

M.inesite processing plants, 

transportation 

networks. 

Ambient fluoride: Processing 

plants. 

Sulfur dioxide: 

Processing 

plants. 

Air: Upwind 

and downwind 

of processing 

plants within 

%-mile radius; 

within processing plant. 

Water: Subsurface water 

under or near 

processing plants 

that could be 

affected by 

stockpiles or 

waste ponds. 

Collection 

frequency 

To·t·al 

suspernded 

pa.rticul;a.te 

matoor: 

Continuoushourly, recorded as 

average 24-

hour concentration. 

Ambient 

fluoride a.nd 

sulfur dioxide: 

Continuoushourly, recorded as 

aver·age 24-

hour concentration and 

as average 

3·-hour concentration. 

Quarterly 

initiaUy, 

revised as 

needed. 

Collection 

method 

Continuous 

instrumentation. 

Air: ? 

Water: 

TLD 

dosimeter. 

Use of data 

Regulation and 

enforcement: 

Enforce existing 

air-quality 

regulations. 

D ecisiornma.king: 

Determine attainable standards, 

develop new 

regulations; 

determine level 

of plant production that is 

feasible within 

standards. 

Plarnn.ing: 

Minimize pollution levels by 

site planning of 

future processing 

plants; evaluate 

potential new 

source construction. 

Regulation wnd 

enforcement: 

Enforce Idaho 

Radiation Control Regulations. 

Decision making: 

Make adjustments 

in radiation 

controls as needed. 

Remarks 
I-"" 

~ 

Impacts and 

impact indicator(s) 

Timing of 

impact 

Wildlife: degrada- All phases 

tion or loss of of mining 

endangered species and 

habitat; roadkill processing. 

and obstruction 

of migration 

routes; loss of 

resident species' 

habitat 

Carrying 

capacity and 

ac-reage of 

endangered species' 

wildlife habitat. 

Roadkills and 

numbe-r of dead 

animals along 

transportation 

networks and at 

bottom of highwalls, number of 

animals in 

traditional winter 

range areas. 

Acreage of wildlife ha.bitat 

replaced by 

vegetation 

categories: 

Conifers, hardwood, conifer/ 

hardwood mix, 

woodland, riparian, 

sagebrush, tall 

shrub, snowbank 

shrub, meadow, 

barren, strip 

mine, seeded 

pasture, cropland, 

and herbaceous. 

TABLE 7.-Monitoring data needs-Continued 

Agency responsible 

for collection 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 

Bureau of Land 

Management; 

U.S. Forest 

Service; Idaho 

Department of 

Fish and Game. 

Location or site 

where data are 

to be measured 

Study area, 

enda;nge:red 

species areas. 

Collection 

frequency 

Annually. 

Collection 

method 

Carrying 

capacity: 

Field 

examination. 

Ha.bitat 

acreage: 

Remote 

sensing at 

scale of 

1:24,000 with 

field verification checks. 

Roadkills, 

etc.: Statistical records 

of dead 

animals. found. 

Use qf data 

Regulation and 

enforcement: 

Enforce Endangered Species Act. 

Decisionmaking: 

Identify need for 

improvement in 

habitat quality 

and acreage. 

Determination 

of appropriate 

number of 

hunting permits. 

Development of 

management 

techniques. 

Structures for 

minimizing transportation and 

highwall-related 

accidents and 

f.or facilitating 

seasonal 

migratjon. 

Remarks 
~ 

lmpaets and 

impact indicator(s) 

Aquatic life 

quality 

See surface--

water quality: 

biological health. 

Land use/land 

cover change 

Location and 

acreage of existing land use/ 

land cover. 

Location and 

acreage of change. 

Classification by 

the following 

cate-gories: 

Timing of 

impact 

All phases 

mining and 

processing. 

· Residential; commercial 

and services; industrial, transportation, communications, and utilities; 

other urban or builtup land; cropland 

and pasture; other 

agricultural land; 

herbaceous rangeland; shrub and 

brush rangeland; 

mixed rangeland; 

deciduous forest 

land; evergreen 

forest land; streams 

and canals; lakes; 

reservoirs; for,. 

ested wetland; 

strip mines, 

quarries, and 

gravel pits; 

transitional areas. 

TABLE 7 .-Monitoring data neecl8-Continued 

Agency responsible 

for collection 

Southeast 

Idaho Council of 

Governments; 

Idaho Division 

of Budget, 

Policy Planning 

and Coordination; U.S. 

Forest Service; 

U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management. 

Location or site 

where data are 

to be measured 

Study areawide 

for all cate--

gories. 

Selected change 

areas for subcategories. 

Collection 

frequency 

Annually. 

Collection 

method 

Remote 

sensing at a 

scale of 

1:24,000 with 

field verification checks. 

Use of data 

Decisiornmaking: 

Determine need 

for zoning changes, 

develop new resource management policies as 

needed, reallocation of water 

rights, location of 

urban development, development 

of nonpoint ~urce 

pollution control 

strategies. 

Planning: Plan 

development of 

local infrastructures to 

meet human 

settlement patterns; plan 

development o.f 

parks and recrea-. 

tion; plan 

multiple-use 

development on 

Federal lands. 

Remarks 
1:..:1 

~ 

Impacts and 

impact indicator(s) 

Population growth 

Total population 

numbers by county. 

Annual growth 

rate of local 

communities. 

Quality of life 

deterioration 

Housing: Number of units; 

population. 

Education: 

number of 

teachers/pupils. 

Health: Number 

of doctors/population; number of 

hospital beds/ 

population. 

Public safety: . 

Crime, accident, 

and fire rates 

Welfare services: Number of 

welfare cases. 

Recreation: 

Number of recreation facilities/ 

population, acreage of developed 

open space/ 

population. 

Timing of 

impact 

Mining: 

Construction 

and operation 

phases. 

Processing: 

Construction 

and operation 

phases. 

All phases 

of mining and 

processing. 

TABLE 7.-Monitoring data needs-Continued 

Agency responsible 

for collection 

Department of 

Commerce, 

Bureau of the 

Census; Southeast Idaho 

Council of 

Governments. ' 

Local government agencies, 

Southeast Idaho 

Counc.il of 

Governments, 

and Idaho State 

agencies: Department of 

Health and Welfare, Law Enforcement 

Planning Commission, Bureau 

of State Planning and Community Affairs, 

Department of 

Education, State 

Parks and 

Recreation. 

Location or site 

where data are 

to be measured 

Study areawide. 

Study areawide. 

Collection 

frequency 

Annually. 

Annually. 

Collection 

method 

Census data 

and sampling. 

Agency 

records. 

Use of data 

Decision making: 

Determine need 

for population 

growth control 

strategies ; develop fiscal 

policies. 

P~ning: Expand infrastructure to meet 

population needs. 

Decisionmaking: 

Determine need 

for cap.ital improvements and ex-

. pansion of services, 

determine rev- . 

enues necessary 

to meet demands. 

PlaJnning: 

Schedule development of services, 

etc., to meet 

projected demand. 

Remarks 
~ 

Impacts and 

impact indicator(s) 

Fiscal government 

costs/revenues 

Total fi~cal government costs. 

Total revenues 

received. 

Employment 

level changes 

Number of 

workers employed by mining 

and processing 

companies. 

Unemployment 

rate. 

Timing of 

impact 

All phases 

of mining 

and 

processing. 

All phases 

of mining 

and 

processing. 

TABLE 7.-Monitoring data needs---continued 

Agency responsible 

for 'collection 

Local governments; Southeast 

Idaho Council 

of Governments. 

Idaho Department of Employment; U.S. 

Department of 

Labor. 

Location or site 

where data are 

to be measured 

Communities 

experiencing 

rapid population growth. 

Study areawide. 

Collection 

frequency 

Annually. 

Monthly. 

Collection 

method 

Fiscal 

records. 

Company 

records of 

number of 

employees on 

payroll (must 

obtain from " 

industry with 

permission to 

make public) . 

Unemployment records 

by county. 

Use of data 

Decisionmakmg: 

Balance costs and 

revenues by 

adjusting expenditures to tax 

rates and bonding 

capacity and vice 

versa. 

Planning: Integrate planning of 

infrastructure 

development and 

revenue acquisition. 

Decision making · 

Alert agencies to 

boom-bust conditions and need for 

changes in fiscal 

policies, expansion or contraction of service 

levels; need for 

soliciting additional job 

opportunities in 

community, obtaining funding 

for unemployment 

compensation. 

Planning: Plan 

for adapting to 

sudden shifts in 

number of jobs 

and unemployment 

level. 

Remarks 
~ 

~ 

Impacts and 

impact indicator(s) 

Increased traffic 

volume and 

expansion of 

transportation 

networks; 

demand for 

utilities and 

expansion of 

utility networks 

Acreage of 

transportation and 

utility networksSee Land use/land 

cover change. 

Traffic volume 

counts on network 

serving minesites 

and processing 

plants. 

Utility demand 

levels. 

Increased energy 

demand 

Kilowatt hours 

of electricity 

consumed. 

Tons of coal 

consumed. 

Cubic feet per 

minute of natural 

gas consumed. 

Gallons of fuel. 

Timing of 

impact 

Mining: 

Construction 

and operation 

phases. 

Processing: 

Construction 

and operation 

phases. 

Mining: 

Construction 

and operation 

phases. 

Processing: 

Construction 

and operation 

phases. 

TABLE 7.-Monitoring data needs-Continued 

Agency responsible 

for collection 

Idaho Transportation Department, Idaho 

Public Utilities 

Commission. 

Idaho Public 

Utility 

Commission. 

Location or site 

where data are 

to be measured 

Study areawide; traffic 

volume counts 

limited to networks serving 

minesites and 

processing 

plants. 

Processing 

plwnts: Electricity, coal, 

natural gas. 

Minesites and 

processing plam..ts: 

Fuel consumed 

transporting 

people and 

materials. 

Collection 

frequency 

Annually. 

Annually. 

Collection 

method 

Traffic 

volume 

counts. 

Utility 

records. 

Industry 

records (obtain permission for 

public 

disclosure) • 

Use of data 

Decisionmaking: 

Determine when 

traffic volumes 

could support 

mass transit, 

establish additional traffic control measures 

as needed. 

Planning: Expansion and 

upgrading of 

transportation and 

utility networks. 

Deci8ionmaking: 

Determine need 

f·or expansion 

of energy supply. 

Planning: Plan 

expansion of 

energy supply, 

developing strategies for conservation of available 

energy. 

Remarks 
Impacts and Timing of 

impact indicator(s) impact 

Archeologic site Mining: 

destruction Construction 

Number and and operation 

location of phases. 

archeologic sites. Processing: 

Number of Construction 

archeologic sites phase. 

destroyed. 

~ 

TABLE 7.-Monitori:ng data needs-Continued 

Agency responsible 

for collection 

U.S. Geological 

Survey, U.S. 

Forest Service, 

U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management, Idaho 

State Historical 

Society. 

Location or site 

where data are 

to be measured 

Minesites, railroads and haul 

roads, processing 

plants. 

Collection 

frequency 

Annually. 

Collection 

method 

Field 

reports. 

Use of data 

Regula.tion and 

enforcement: 

Enforce congressional acts 

and executive 

orders dealing 

with preservation 

of historic and 

archeologic sites 

and Idaho Sta~ 

Antiquities Act. 

Decisionmaking: 

Establish 

protection 

measures. 

Planning: Plan 

for ·compatible 

land-use development adjacent to 

valuable archeologic sites. 

Remarks 
Phases of 

. Phases of mining activity processing 

activity 

bll 

c 

·= c 0 c mpacts c C) ·u; 0 0 .. en ; c ; u c .E 0 0 u I! = ~ = ; ... E ... u 0 

- I! t; = en 0 a. c CD u c 'a 

>< 0 a. CD 0 e 1.1.1 (.) 0 Q (.) D. 

Phosphate consumption/loss 

Phosphate processed 

Land surface disturbance/soil loss 

Air quality: fugitive dust and chemical 

contamination 

Water quality: sediment yield increase, 

chemical contaminants, biological health 

reduction 

Water use increase: processing plants and 

municipalities 

Radiation release 

Vegetation/soil contamination 

Wildlife: adverse effects on population 

Aquatic life: fishkills, reduced species diversity 

Land use/land cover change 

Population growth 

Fiscal government costs/revenue increase 

Quality of life deterioration 

Employment level changes 

Transportation and utility networks expansion 

Energy demand increase 

Archeologic site destruction 

FIGURE !.-Activity /impact schedule: Phases of mining and processing activities during which impacts are most 

likely to occur. 

25 
15 

~ 14 w 

>- 13 

a: 

w 

r--15.0 -14.7 ~ -14:3 -

-13.5 

13.9 r- - 13.1 - _12.8 0.. 12 

(/) 

r- r--12.4 - 12.0 

~ 11 r- 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.5 11.6 - Iu 10 

a: r- • -

Iw 9 ~ 

r- -- - r-- 9.0 

u. 8 

0 

r- r-- 8.5 - 8.0 

(/) 7 

z 

0 6 ::::i 

~ 

r- - - r-- 7.0 

~ 

6.0 

6.5 -

~ 5 r-5.5 5.5 5.5 5.5 -

~ 4 

z r- -

0 3 F r- -

u 

::::> 2 

0 ~ . -

0 

a: r- - 0.. 

0 

76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85. 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 

YEAR 

FIGURE 2.-Assumed total production of phosphate in southeastern Idaho through 1999. [Data are for the following mines: Diamond Creek, Swan Lake Gulch, South Maybe Canyon, Champ, Mountain Fuel, ParisBloomington, Dry Valley, Husky No. 1, Henry, North Henry Continuation, Trail Creek, Caldwell Canyon, 

Blackfoot Bridge, Conda, North Trail, Middle Sulfur, Wooley Valley, Wooley Valley No. 3, Rasmussen 

Ridge. Data are adapted from table 1-1 from "Final Environmental Impact Statement; Development of 

Phosphate Resources in Southeastern Idaho" (U.S. Geological Survey, 1977) ]. 

of individual mines to their geographic location. This schedule can be used to indicate when 

the collective impact of mines in an area is 

likely to exceed critical impact levels. For 

example, the collective impact of mines that are 

contributing sediment to the same drainage 

basin area can be determined. 

STATUS OF MONITORING PROGRAMS 

Many agencies are presently initiating their 

own or interagency monitoring programs. 

Workshop participants who worked on watermonitoring data needs have established a work 

committee to develop a cooperative waterquality monitoring program, and several agencies are proceeding to adapt existing datacollection efforts to meet monitoring data needs. 

No institutional mechanism has been designated thus far to coordinate a comprehensive 

monitoring system. Continuing agency support 

and the EIS recommendation that an inter- · 

26 

agency monitoring program be established to 

mitigate impacts may result in the creation of 

an appropriate institutional mechanism. Mechanisms that have potential for coordinating a 

comprehensive monitoring program include: the 

A-95 clearinghouses, the State plan review 

process, and an organization of · several intergovernmental work groups and committees. 

REFINEMENT OF MONITORING METHODOLOGY 

The workshop enabled the author to evaluate 

basic premises and a proposed procedure for 

developing monitoring systems. It resulted in 

an expanded methodology for development and 

operation of monitoring systems described on 

the following pages. 

MONITORING METHODOLOGY 

INTRODUCTION 

The purpose of this methodology is to assist 

agencies in developing and operating optimum, 
intergovernmental monitoring systems. Monitoring systems have typically been very detailed, intensive data collection efforts. The 

reams of data produced then require considerable time for analysis. Data collection and 

analysis are too expensive and time consuming 

to be wasted on nonspecific and nonessential 

information. This methodology helps design 

optimum monitoring systems by requiring that 

all data needs be justified on the basis of value 

for sound decisionmaking, planning, and regulation and enforcement. The methodology also 

limits monitoring to selected major impacts and 

to impacts that agencies have authority and/ or 

responsibility to affect significantly. 

FOCUS OF MONITORING METHODOLOGY 

This methodology is responsive to the monitoring objectives of field level and national 

planning and decisionmaking. The primary focus of this methodology is on development of a 

monitoring system that improves agencies' 

capabilities to make informed and effective 

responses to the impacts resulting from major 

Federal actions ; thus, it meets the needs of 

those agencies directly responsible at a field 

level for substantially minimizing impacts. 

These agencies need data that will indicate in a 

timely fashion when agency intervention . is 

necessary to minimize an impact and that will 

provide feedback on the success of mitigating 

measures. 

A secondary focus is on the development of 

monitoring systems that document: (1) the 

type, magnitude, timing, duration, and location 

of impacts; and (2) the conditions, restrictions, 

and mitigating measures that are successful in 

controlling impacts. Monitoring data will help 

agencies at the national planning and decisionmaking level to determine what actions shall 

take place and under what conditions, because 

these data contribute to more accurate prediction of the impacts that may result from similar projects and of the conditions that will be 

effective in controlling impacts. The monitoring 

data for this level of concern can be most efficiently provided from a field-level monitoring 

system by simply ensuring that summary documentation of these data is transmitted annually 

and is accessible when needed. 

27 

METHOD OF DESCRIPTION 

The methodology has been divided into ·two 

phases ; Phase I. Development of a monitoring 

system, and Phase II. Implementation and 

operation of a monitoring system. Each phase 

is described by a flow chart and by a table that 

provides additional explanation. Each work element of the flow chart is numbered; the numbers refer to numbered descriptions on the 

table. Each work element is described by its 

objective, the tasks that accomplish it, and the 

end result or products. 

The methodology is designed to be flexible. 

Feedback loops on the flow chart indicate when 

iterations of some work elements may be necessary or desirable. For example, after a feasibility analysis of a proposed monitoring system 

is conducted, monitoring objectives and the 

successive work elements may require redefinition in order to achieve a feasible proposal. 

Changing circumstances such as changes in 

the action being monitored or new knowledge 

gained from the operation of a monitoring 

system will probably require changes in the 

system. The methodology can be applied at any 

point to make revisions in the design or operation of these monitoring systems. 

PHASE I. DEVELOPMENT OF A 

MONITORING SYSTEM 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR DEVELOPING A 

MONITORING SYSTEM 

The monitoring methodology presented incorporates several considerations. 

1. The relationship of an action to the resulting impacts.-Both the action and the impacts 

are ma;nifested by type, magnitude, timing 

(when and duration), and location. The multiple relationships between activities and im~ 

pacts are often complex; understanding these 

relationships and correlating the activities with 

related impacts is the key to controlling impacts. 

2. Agency authority, objectives.-Individual 

agencies have the authority and · expertise to 

respond to some impacts. Monitoring objectives 

should be defined that assist agencies in obtaining information useful for controlling or mitigating impacts. 

3. Data needs.-The particular data required 

to meet agencies' monitoring objectives can be 
described by type, frequency or timing of collection, location or site of measurement, and 

method of collection. In order to put these data 

in the context of the monitoring system, each 

data · type should be identified by the impact it 

monitors and by the timing of that impact. It 

is also important to ensure that . the various 

types of data collected can be interrelated. 

Standard data formats are necessary. 

4. Feasibility of data collection.-Data-collection feasibility is affected by available funding, personnel, and the extent to which datacollection needs can be met within existing 

collection efforts. If data needs cannot be met 

within these ~onstraints, 'then monitoring objectives and the corresponding data needs must 

be scaled do~nward. Feasibility constraints can 

be resolved in several ways: different types of 

data can be used to measure the impact, the 

number of measurements can be reduced by 

decreasing the frequency of collection or number of locations sampled, and the method of 

collection can be changed. However, any adjustments made in the . data needs must adequately 

reflect monitoring objectives. 

5. Need for flexibility.-The process of designing a monitoring system does not end when 

the system is implemented. Modification of the 

system is desirable as a better understanding 

is gained about how the environment is impacted, as circumstances change, and as agency 

authority to respond to impacts changes. 

6. Need for interagency participation.-All 

agencies that have program responsibilities for 

controlling or responding to impact levels 

should participate · in a common monitoring 

system. This sharing minimizes duplication of 

effort, ensures that the data collected meet the 

needs of the primary users, and that all in .. 

formation is available for solving problems. 

This last point is especially important because 

impacts are interrelated and, hence, should 

be addressed by multiagency expertise and 

authority. 

DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY, PHASE I 

Phase I of the monitoring methodology, 

which developed from the aforementioned developmental considerations and from the workshop, is depicted by a flow chart (see plate 1 

in pocket) and by explanatory table 8. 

PHASE II. IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION 

OF A MONITORING SYSTEM 

CONSIDERATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING AND 

OPERATING A MONITORING SYSTEM 

1. Institutional structure.-The participating 

agencies must agree to some interagency~ structure and overall responsibility in order to 

coordinate funding, data collection, data analysis, information sharing, and responses to problems. 

2. Data.-The data must be collected and 

analyzed. The magnitude, duration, and location 

of impacts can be correlated with the magnitude/ duration, and location of activities. The 

significance of the data should be considered: 

what trends are developing, what is the rate of 

. change, what critical impact levels have been 

reached, what impacts are related, are regulations and standards being met, and what is th~ 

degree of success for the mitigating measures. 

8. Agency responses.-The collective authority of all participating agencies permits many 

choices for (responding to unfavorable impacts. 

Agencies could cooperatively select the most 

effective response(s) from a total array Qf 

available agency powers and prerogatives. Some 

typical responses would be: planning for trends, 

contingency actions taken to alleviate emergency circumstances, enforcement of rules and 

regulations, changes in mitigating measures, 

and resource management decisions. 

4. Communication. - Communication mechanisms ensure that all participants are informed 

of changes in activities and impacts and that 

agency responses to problems are coordinated. 

Communication includes documentation of impacts, . data storage, and data retrieval. Data 

storage and retrieval could be a centralized · 

function, but centralized data storage may 

result in user disinterest. The use of data-flow 

techniques instead may be more effective in 

maintaining a vital system. 

DESCRIPTION OF METHODOLOGY, PHASE II 

Phase II of the methodology which developed 

from these considerations is depicted by flow 

chart (see plate 2 in pocket) and by explanatory 

table 9. 

28 
~ 

toO 

TABLE B.-Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: Phase I. Development of a Monitoring System 

[See plate 1 in pocket] 

Work element 

1. Define action 

2. Predict impacts 

3. Identify and define major impacts 

Objectives 

To determine type, scope, 

level, location, and timing of 

action(s) causing impacts. 

To determine type, magnitude, timing, and location of 

impacts resulting , from the 

action. 

To id~ntify impacts that 

should be monitored. 

Tasks necessary to 

achieve objectives 

1. Determine probable level of 

resource development, project 

market demands, formulate development schedule. 

2. Describe action by its activity 

components. (Understanding of 

the specific activities is needed for 

impact prediction and for impact 

modification.) 

3. Determine activities schedule. 

(Timing and duration of activities 

affects timing of impacts.) 

4. Determine location of action. 

1. Prepare environmental impact' 

statement. (EIS identifies impacts 

associated with each aspect of the 

environment and the activities 

causing the impact.) Predict impact magnitude, timing, and area 

to be affected. 

1. Identify impacts to be m9nitored on the basis of impact significance described in the EIS. 

Products or results 

Development level schedule, see figure 2. 

EIS description of impacts ; see table 1 and 

figure 1. 

Map delimiting boundaries of study area and' 

identifying location of activities and probable impact 

areas. 

List of impacts to be 

monitored or activity /impact matrix with impacts 

requiring monitoring identified. See tables 5 and 6. 
~ 

0 

TABLE B.-Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: Phase I. Development of a ,Monitoring System--Continued 

Work element 

4. Obtain participation of 

agencies 

5. Identify agencies' authority for controlling or mitigating impacts 

6. Define monitoring objectives 

Objectives 

To obtain participation of 

agencies in development of a 

monitoring system. 

To identify agency potential for responding to impacts 

through _ their decisionmaking, planning, regulation, and 

enforcement authority. 

To define monitoring objectives. 

Tasks necessary to 

achieve objectives 

1. Contact all agencies having 

pertinent program responsibilities 

in area to be impacted. 

2. Set up interagency meetings. 

1. Identify agencies' major areas 

of environmental concern. Determine for what aspects of the environment and for what type of 

impacts the agencies are responsible. (This focuses common areas 

of concern among agencies.) 

2. Identify individual agency 

basis of authority to control impacts through decisionmaking, 

planning, regulation, and enforcement. 

3. Identify additional agency authority necessary to integrate and 

coordinate the monitoring system. 

1. Define monitoring objectives 

in terms of major potential impacts 

and in terms of agency authority. 

(The scope of the monitoring objectives determines the scope of 

the monitoring system. A general 

objective espoused by · the author 

is that monitoring should be restricted to data collection that provides only that information necessary for carrying out impact reduction measures. Many of the 

major predicted impacts will be 

Products or results 

Interagency participation 

in the development of a 

monitoring system. 

List of agencies' areas of 

concern. 

List of potential agency 

decisionmaking, planning, 

regulation, and enforcement 

responses to impacts. 

Statement of objectives 

of monitoring system. 
eo 

1-' 

TABLE B.-Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: Phase I. Development of a Monitoring System-Continued 

Work element 

6. Define monitoring objectives-Continued 

7. Determine · data requirements 

Objectives 

To determine data needs 

for achieving monitoring objectives. (Reiterations of this 

element may be necessary, 

based on revision of monitoring objectives, testing, and 

evaluation of data usefulness. 

See feedback loops on plate 1, 

in pocket.) 

Tasks necessary to 

achieve objectives 

within the jurisdiction of a particular agency. However, agencies 

presently may have no authority 

for ameliorating some impacts. For 

such instances, agencies must determine whether their objectives 

will include monitoring some impacts that do not fall under the 

purview of their agency. Monitoring of such impacts may justify 

creation of appropriate control 

mechanisms in the future. However, agencies must not require a 

needlessly complex data collection 

effort.) 

1. Reevaluate impacts on the 

basis of monitoring objectives ; 

eliminate overlap in monitoring objectives and monitoring effort. 

(Some activities result in related 

environmental impacts. For example, ore extraction causes land 

surface disturbance, soil loss, and 

increased sediment yield. It may 

be sufficient to monitor only one 

of these impacts. 

2. Select impact indicator. (This 

is the parameter that must be 

monitored to assess the magnitude 

of an impact. Several parameters 

may be indicative of a particular 

impact. Any impact indicator 

should be selected on the basis of 

Products or results 

Des<:riptive list or table 

of monitoring requirements 

for each selected impact, including impact indicator, 

frequency and timing of 

collection, location of monitoring sites or areas, method of collection, and format. 
c:.o 

~ 

TABLE .8.-E:r:planation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: Phase I. Development of a Monitoring SyBtem-Continued 

Work element 

7. Determine data require-

. ments-Continued 

Objectives 

Tasks necessary to 

achieve objectives 

its utility for decisionmaking, 

planning, regulation and enforcement. However, it may be necessary to use an alternative indicator 

if the necessary data are already 

being collected or the cost of monitoring the preferred parameter is 

high.) 

3. Determine frequency and timing of data collection. (Frequency 

of data collection should be the 

minimum necessary for trend 

analysis, enforcement of regulations, and correlation of cause and 

effects. For some parameters the 

timing of ·data collection may be 

more important than the frequency level ; for example, collection of 

water-quality data during a major 

runoff event is more important 

than a precise data collection frequency. Timing of data collection 

should relate to the timing of activities causing the impact. Different phases of an action may produce different impacts that persist 

after an activity ceases.) 

4. Determine monitoring sites 

or collection areas. (These should 

be based on the location of the activities causing the impacts, predictions of areas most likely to be 

affected, and locations where inteProducts or results 
c:.c 

c:.c 

TABLE B.-Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: Phase I. Development of a Monitoring System-Continued 

Work element 

7. Determine data requirements--Continued 

8. Review data requirements in terms of monitoring 

objectives 

Objectives 

To ascertain that data needs 

defined in work .element 7 will 

fulfill monitoring objectives. 

Tasks necessary to 

achieve objectives 

grated measurements would assist 

in gaining comprehensive understanding.) 

5. Determine method of data collection. (Data can be collected in 

several ways. For example, vegetative~cover data can be collected 

by field collection methods or by 

remote-sensing techniques. Some 

factors to consider when selecting 

method of collection are: degree of 

accuracy, level of detail or scale, 

agency capability to use method, 

cost, and how well the method represents resultant impacts.) 

6. Determine data type and storage format. (Data format possibilities include statistical tables, 

charts, graphs, summaries, maps, 

map overlays, computer printouts, 

and graphics. Criteria for selecting 

suitable format include: easy and 

conv.enient access to data by all 

users, intelligibility, interrelatability among formats, and ease of 

updating.) 

7. Determine data analysis 

method. 

Products or results 

1. Review data needs for con- Revised list of data reformance with monitoring objec- quirements. 

tives. 

2. Revise data needs as necessary to meet monitoring objectives. 
co 

~ 

TABLE 8.-Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: Phase I. Development of a Monitoring System..--Continued 

Work element 

9. Determine data availability 

10. Conduct feasibility evaluation 

Objectives 

To determine extent to 

which data needs can be met 

under existing agency programs, and to define data 

gaps. 

To determine if proposed 

monitoring system is feasible 

within institutional, cost, 

funding, personnel, and time 

constraints. 

Tasks necessary to 

achieve objectives 

1. Identify what requirements 

are being met under existing programs, including frequency and 

timing of data collection, data collection location, accuracy, and 

method of collection. 

1. Determine cost, personnel, 

and time requirements for obtaining data. 

2. Determine agencies' capability 

for providing data. 

3. Determine whether proposed 

monitoring system is feasible. If 

so, work element 11 has been 

achieved. If not, work elements 1 

through 10 must be repeated at a 

reduced level. (There are several 

potential approaches for reducing 

the monitoring system to a feasible 

level : the scope of monitoring objectives can be reduced; alternative impact indicators can be 

selected ; the frequency of data 

collection can be reduced ; and alternative methods of data collection can be used.) 

Products or results 

Table relating data availability to data requirements 

and defining data gaps. 

Description of cost, personnel, and time requirements for obtaining data. 
co 

01 

TABLE B.-Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: Phase I. Development of a Monitoring Systemr-Continued 

Work element 

11. Define monitoring sysstem. (This is a decision 

point. At this point participating agencies have decided 

what objectives the monitoring system will achieve, what 

impacts will be monitored, 

and what data will be collected. The next phase is implementation and operation of 

the monitoring system.) 

Objectives 

Tasks necessary to 

achieve objectives Products or results 
~ 

C) 

TABLE 9.-Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: Phase II. Implementation and Operation of a Monitoring System 

[See plate 2 in pocket] 

Work element 

12. Implement monitoring system 

Objectives 

To implement the monitoring system. 

Tasks necessary to 

achieve objectives 

1. Review suitability of existing institutional entities for operation of monitoring 

system. (The institutional structure should 

be interdisciplinary and intergovernmental; it should include all agencies that have 

the authority to control impacts. A centralized administrative function should be 

included in the structure.) 

2. Create institutional structure or 

modify existing institutional structure as 

needed. 

3. Define agency and institutional entity 

functions and responsibilities. (Functions 

of individual agencies should include: collecting data pertinent to area of expertise 

and authority, analyzing data, transmission of data and analyses, funding of data 

collection, and cooperative funding of administration of monitoring system. A centralized administrative entity should have 

the following functions: setting data collection and data integratiorl standards, 

such as base map used for geographic reference; coordination of data flow; data 

analysis from an interdisciplinary perspective; change assessment; information 

access to participating agencies; notification of impact levels ; assessing critical 

impact levels and trends ; developing and 

impiementing mitigation responses ; preparing an annual summary report; soliciting funds for administering monitoring 

Products or results 
eo 

-:J 

TABLE 9.-Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: Phase II. Implementation and Operation of a Monitoring 

System-Continued 

Work element 

12. Implement monitortoring system-Continued 

13. Collect data 

14. Analyze data 

15. Evaluate impacts 

Objectives 

To collect data required 

for defined monitoring objectives. 

To determine the level, 

location, and duration of activities and impacts. 

To evaluate the significance of impact levels. 

Tasks necessary to 

achieve objectives 

system ; and assisting agencies obtain 

funding for data collection and for carrying out mitigating measures as needed.) 

4. Prepare formal written agreement of 

agency responsibilities ; obtain approval. 

5. Obtain needed funding. 

1. Collect data and submit results. 

1. Determine activity and impact levels. 

2. Define location of activities and impacts. 

3. Determine duration of activities and 

impacts. 

4. Correlate activity and impact data. 

1. Identify impact trends ; identify rate 

of change. (The rate at which an impact 

is increasing is significant because of the 

need to respond to impact trends in a timely fashion before critical impact levels are 

reached.) 

2. Identify impacts that have reached 

'critical impact levels. -(Critical impact 

levels requiring immediate notification of 

participants should be set for each impact 

being monitored.) · 

3. Identify impacts that have exceeded 

legal limits. 

Products or results 

Formal agreement 

among participating 

agencies establishing 

monitoring system. 

Funding arrangement 

for operation of the 

monitoring system. 

Data formatted for integrated storage/ 

retrieval. 

Analytical report of 

relationship of activities 

to impacts. 

Report(s) des~ribing 

impact trends, critical 

level impacts, impacts 

not in conformance with 

regulations and standards, and successful mitigating measures. 
to 

00 

TABLE 9.-Explanation of flow chart of monitoring methodology: Phase II. Implementation and Operation of a Monitoring 

System-Continued 

Work element 

15. Evaluate impactsContinued 

16. Response by regulatory or responsible agencies 

17. Document changes 

End products: 

Objectives 

To use agencies' decisionmaking, planning, regulation, and enforcement authorities to reduce and prevent impacts. 

To maintain record of (1) 

impact levels that result 

fro~ projects and (2) effectiveness of mitigating 

measures in reducing impact levels. 

Input to future EIS; reduction, control of impacts. 

Tasks necessary to 

achieve objectives 

4. Evaluate effectiveness of mitigating 

measures. 

1. Plan responses to impact trends. 

(Responses to unacceptable impacts can 

be directed at the activity causing the impact or at the impact itself. For example, 

surface mining causes destruction of wildlife habitat. WildJife habitat destruction 

can be mitigated by: (1) stopping or reducing the activity, e.g., reducing the area 

of land surface disturbance or converting 

from surface to underground mining, or 

(2) modifying the impact, e.g., developing 

wildlife habitat areas to replace destroyed 

habitat.) 

2. Respond to critical impact levels : stop 

or modify activities causing impact; treat 

impact~ 

3. Respond to nonconformance with 

regulations and standards through enforcement and prosecution. Develop additional regulations, standards, and legal 

authority as needed. 

4. Respond to evaluations of mitigating 

measures: revise, terminate, or add mitigating measures as appropriate. 

1. Prepare report. 

Products or results 

Plans for responding 

to impact trends. 

Implementation of actions that reduce impact 

levels. 

Enforcement of regulations and standards; 

establishment of additional legal constraints. 

Effective mitigating 

meei.sures. 

Annual summary report. 
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 

SUMMARY 

A methodology has been presented for developing, implementing, ahd operating optimum 

monitoring systems. The methodology enables 

monitoring systems to be designed on the basis 

of activity and impact characteristics, agencies' authority to respond to impacts, monitoring objectives, data availability, and feasibility 

to operate. The implementation and operation 

of monitoring systems is based upon functional 

work agreements among participating agencies, 

data collection, data analysis, data evaluation, 

documentation and communication of monitoring results, and agency responses to impact 

problems. 

The Southeast Idaho phosphate EIS was used 

as a case study for testing the methodology. 

At a workshop attended by more than 40 

agency representatives from Federal, state, 

and local government participants determined 

monitoring objectives, selected impacts to be 

monitored, identified data needs, and reviewed 

data availability. 

CONCLUSIONS 

Monitoring provides information useful for 

controlling impacts and also provides impact 

documentation that is useful for predicting the 

impacts in similar projects. As no one agency 

has the expertise to monitor all parameters, 

monitoring should be done as an interagency, 

intergovernmental effort. Primary users of 

monitoring data (that is, agencies functioning 

at a field level) commonly are the most appropriate data collectors and should therefore be 

actively involved in the development and operation of a monitoring system. In view of the 

overlapping concerns and responsibilities of 

many agencies, cooperative data collection (and 

funding) is appropriate. 

Some institutional arrangement (such as an 

interagency advisory panel, perhaps) should be 

developed to ensure that monitoring data and 

analyses are made available to all appropriate 

agencies in a timely manner without duplication 

of effort. Such an arrangement would facilitate 

a comprehensive and integrated picture of how 

environmental systems are impacted and enable 

agencies to coordinate their responses to impacts. A report summarizing these activities 

should be prepared annually. 

The ultimate value of a monitoring system is 

determined by the ewtent -to which it shapes 

future decisions on Federal actions, and the 

ewtent to which agencies effectively respond to 

impacts. 

REFERENCES CITED 

Institute for Environmental Studies, 1976, Documentation of environmental change related to the 

Columbia electric generating station: Madison, 

Univ. Wisconsin Institute for Environmental 

Studies Rept. 62, 135 p. 

Office of the Federal Register,· 1977, Code of Federal 

regulations: General Services Administration, 

title 40, chap. V, sec. 1500.1, p. 824. 

Rockefeller Foundation, 1976, The anatomy of an environment: New York, Rockefeller Foundation, 

Hudson Basin Project final rept., 192 p. 

U.S. Geological Survey, 1977, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement: Development of phosphate resources in Southeastern Idaho, 3 v. 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Standards Development, 1975, Environmental technical 

specifications for nuclear power plants: Washington, D.C., U.S. Nuclear Regulator.x Comm. Regulatory Guide 4.8, 22 p. 

"'f:I U.S. Government Printing Office: 1979--281-359/10 

39 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

.... 

,, 

1 2 3 

DEFINE PREDICT DEFINE 

-+-- -+--- MAJOR ACTION IMPACTS IMPACTS 

I I 

r--.1...--, r __ _l_ __ , ,, I Level I I llpe I 

I Activities I I agnitude I ..... .... Schedule Timing .... .... 

I location I I Location L...- ____ __. I L------.J .,, A~ .4~ 

4 5 6 7 8 

OBTAIN 

-+---

IDENTIFY 

~ 

DEFINE 

r-+--

DETERMINE DATA 

-+--

REVIEW 

PARTICIPATION AGENCY MONITORING REQUIREMENTS DATA 

OF AGENCIES AUTHORITY OBJECTIVES (IDEAL) REQUIREMENTS 

r-------1 r ____ .J.._ __ , , ___ .J._ ___ , 

r -,~act indicator - -1 I Decisionmaking I I Activity I Plannin~ 1 Frequ_ency; timing 1 

1 Regulation and 1 I Schedule of activity I LocatiOn 

l enforcement J I Location of activity I I Method of collection I 

------- L---------l L _Format~cale ___ J 

.... 

.... 

H, 

9 

DETERMINE 

-+-- DATA 

AVAILABILITY 

MONITORING METHODOLOGY FLOW CHART: 

.4~ 

... 

.... 

~~ 

10 

CONDUCT 

CIRCULAR 782 

PLATE 1 

"11 ' MONITORING 

r-+-- FEASIBILITY -+- SYSTEM 

EVALUATION DEFINED 

' / 

r---.1...---, 

I Cost I 

I Personnel I 

I Existing data I L..,_ _____ _J 

PHASE I. DEVELOPMENT OF A MONITORING SYSTEM 

Flow chart should be used with explanation provided in table 8. The 

solid numbered boxes correspond to the work elements listed in the table. 

Dashed boxes are annotations. The rounded box represents a decision 

point. 
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

12 13 

... IMPLEMENT 

.. MONITORING f-+- SYSTEM 

,. ____ _1 __ , 

1

1 

Institution structure I 

Functions I I Funding I 

L-------.,j 

..... 

.... 

~, 

COLLECT 

DATA f-+-

r------

Activities 

Level 

Duration 

Location 

.. 

A~ 

..... / "" ..... .... .... 

.0 A~ 

14 15 

ANALVZE ---+-- EVALUATE 

DATA IMPACTS f-+-

I 

I __ _l_ __ , 

Impacts 

Level 

Duration 

____ 

Location ___J 

I 

r- ___ j_ ___ , 

I Trends I 

I Critical levels I 

Regulations & standards I Mitigations I '--------~ 

17 DOCUMENT 

CHANGES .. (ANNUAL .. SUMMARY REPORT) 

~~ 

16 

RESPONSE BY ... GOVERNMENT ... AGENCIES 

I 

r--_1_--------------, 

I Plan for trends I 

I Stop, change action I 

Legal action: enforcement; new laws I Change, add mitigating measures I 

L--------------------1 

MONITORING METHODOLOGY FLOW CHART: 

PHASE II. IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION OF A MONITORING SYSTEM 

Flow chart should be used with explanation provided in table 9. The 

solid numbered boxes correspond to the work elements listed in the table. 

Dashed boxes are annotations. The rounded boxes represent end points. 

CIRCULAR 782 

PLATE 2 

/ 

INPUT 

TO 

FUTURE 

EIS 

' _/ 

/ 

""" 

REDUCTION, 

CONTROL OF 

IMPACTS