i

EPA841-R-97-006

May 1997

• Information Transfer Series, No. 3 •

Monitoring Consortiums

A cost-effective means to enhancing

watershed data collection and analysis

Assessment and Watershed Protection Division

Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503F)

401 M Street, SW

Washington, DC 20460

Cover - The beneficial result of a monitoring consortium: more than double the

buying power of monitoring dollars for the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring

Project in the Triangle J region of North Carolina.
ii
iii

FOREWORD

The watershed approach has changed the way

that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) and other federal, tribal and state agencies

formerly managed water resources programs. We

now generally recognize that the critical

environmental issues facing society are so

intertwined that a comprehensive, ecosystembased and community-based approach is needed.

We also recognize that solving environmental

problems depends increasingly on local

governments and local citizens. Thus, the need to

integrate across traditional water program areas

(e.g., flood control, wastewater treatment,

nonpoint source pollution control) and to

cooperate across levels of government (federal,

state, tribal, local) and across public and private

sectors is leading toward a watershed approach.

Public and private organizations, academic

institutions, and citizens and their governments in

thousands of communities across the nation are

forming partnerships and learning new ways to

manage their watersheds together. These groups

seek guidance and examples of watershed

approach success stories after which to model

their own activities. The EPA Office of Water

established the Watershed Academy to help

address these needs by providing training for

watershed managers based on local, state, tribal,

and federal experiences in implementing

watershed approaches throughout the past

decade.

The Watershed Academy provides technical

watershed information and outreach through live

training courses, the Internet, and published

documents. The Academy offers live training

courses on the basics of watershed man-agement

and maintains a training catalogue concerning

where to obtain more advanced training. An

Internet distance learning program called

Academy 2000 is being developed to help serve

the training needs of those who cannot attend the

live courses. The Watershed Academy also

provides watershed approach reference materials,

such as this document, through the Watershed

Academy Information Transfer Series.

This document, number 3 in the Series,

addresses coordination in watershed monitoring.

Monitoring is absolutely essential to track overall

watershed health and detect changes in any

valued features or functions, but monitoring costs

are often a limiting factor. As demonstrated in the

document’s four case studies, consortiums can

stretch the monitoring dollar, improve cooperation

among partners, and increase sharing of expertise

as well as expenses of data collection and

management.

The Information Transfer Series titles include:

no. 1: Watershed protection: a project focus

(EPA841-R-95-003)

no. 2: Watershed protection: a statewide

approach (EPA841-R-95-004)

no. 3: Monitoring consortiums: A costeffective means to enhancing

watershed data collection and analysis

(EPA841-R-97-006)

no. 4: Land cover digital data directory for

the United States (EPA841-B-97-005)

no. 5: Designing an information management

system for watersheds (EPA841-R-97-

005)

no. 6: Information management and

communications support for the

watershed approach in the Pacific

Northwest (EPA841-R-97-004)

no. 7: Watershed Academy catalogue of

watershed training opportunities

(EPA841-D-97-001)
iv

This document was prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Water

under partial support from each of two EPA contracts: EPA Contract 68-C3-0303 with Tetra

Tech, Inc. and EPA Contract 68-C4-0051 with The Cadmus Group, Inc. Kimberly Brewer and

Trevor Clements of Tetra Tech, Inc. and Audrey Beach of The Cadmus Group, Inc. are the

document’s primary authors, and Douglas J. Norton of the EPA Office of Water is the project

manager.

Notice

This document has been subjected to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency review and has

been approved for publication. Publication does not signify that the contents necessarily

reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or of any other

organization represented in this document. Mention of trade names does not constitute

endorsement or recommendation for use.

This report should be cited as:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997. Monitoring consortiums: A cost-effective means

to enhancing watershed data collection and analysis. EPA841-R-97-006. Office of Water

(4503F), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 37 pp.

To obtain a copy free of charge, contact:

National Center for Environmental Publications and Information (NCEPI)

Phone: (513) 489-8190

Fax: (513) 489-8695

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

at:

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

CASE STUDY 1: REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO

ESTUARY..................................................................................................................................3

BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................................3

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING....................................................................................................................3

CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION............................................................................................................3

BENEFITS...........................................................................................................................................6

DATA PROCEDURES.........................................................................................................................6

COST ..................................................................................................................................................8

CHALLENGES................................................................................................................................... 10

PROGRAM EVALUATION................................................................................................................. 10

CASE STUDY 2: TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT.................. 11

BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 11

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING.................................................................................................................. 11

CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 11

BENEFITS......................................................................................................................................... 13

DATA PROCEDURES....................................................................................................................... 16

COST ................................................................................................................................................ 17

CHALLENGES................................................................................................................................... 17

PROGRAM EVALUATION................................................................................................................. 18

CASE STUDY 3: THE LOWER NEUSE BASIN ASSOCIATION.............................................. 19

BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 19

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING.................................................................................................................. 19

CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 19

BENEFITS......................................................................................................................................... 20

DATA PROCEDURES....................................................................................................................... 21

COST ................................................................................................................................................ 21

CHALLENGES................................................................................................................................... 22

PROGRAM EVALUATION................................................................................................................. 23

CASE STUDY 4: MID-ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS ASSESSMENT.............................................. 24

BACKGROUND................................................................................................................................. 24

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING.................................................................................................................. 24

CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................................... 24

BENEFITS......................................................................................................................................... 26

DATA PROCEDURES....................................................................................................................... 27

COST ................................................................................................................................................ 28

CHALLENGES................................................................................................................................... 28
vi

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

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUILDING AND MAINTAINING STRONG MONITORING

CONSORTIUMS....................................................................................................................... 30

SUGGESTED MILESTONES AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES............................................................... 30

CONCLUSION................................................................................................................................... 33

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

LIST OF FIGURES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Recently, many watershed and ecosystem

management approaches have placed renewed

emphasis on strategic, coordinated monit-oring.

Coordinated monitoring is essential to assessing

the overall condition of our water resources and

evaluating how well we are maintaining the

quality needed for its intended use; developing

goals and priorities for restoring and protecting

environmental sys-tems; and developing

integrated management strategies.

Numerous monitoring partnerships, or consortiums, have been formed in the last decade to

meet the need for coordinated monitoring. This

document presents four different case studies to

demonstrate how consortiums can be tailored to

fit available resources, geographic areas of

concern, diverse par-ticipants, and goals. Each

case study details where and how each

partnership was formed; organization structure

and responsibilities; monitoring goals and

objectives; benefits to consortium participants;

data management procedures; cost of the

monitoring program; obstacles overcome, with

advice for avoiding pitfalls; and methods of

program evaluation.

Although the purposes and structures of the

monitoring consortiums varied, key to each

consortium was the pooling of funds, exp-ertise,

and capital to meet the needs of its members.

The success of this leveraging of resources

shows that monitoring consortiums can be a

cost-effective means to enhancing watershed

data collection and analysis.

WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

1

INTRODUCTION

Many environmental resource managers are

turning to an ecosystem-based approach to

restore and protect our natural resources.

Integrating a wide range of technical expertise,

regulatory and nonregulatory authorities, and

strategic implementation is critical to the success

of an ecosystem approach to management,

including statewide watershed management

frameworks and watershed protection projects.

Increasingly limited program resources have

intensified the need for coordinated management

and for decision-making focused on priority environmental concerns. Well defined priorities

depend on solid assessment of good information,

which, in turn, depends on well designed monitoring programs. Therefore, many watershed management approaches have placed renewed

emphasis on strategic, coordinated monitoring.

In recent years, numerous monitoring partnerships, or consortiums, have been formed. Their

purposes vary from water supply protection to

coordinated, whole-basin wastewater discharge

management to ecosystem assessment. Pooling

funds, expertise, and capital is essential for each

consortium to monitor a watershed or ecosystem

in a way that meets the needs of all partners

within the group.

Monitoring consortiums are flexible tools. We present four case studies to demonstrate how

consortiums can be tailored to fit available resources, geographic area of concern, diverse participants, and goals. We document why each

consortium was formed and the "nuts and bolts" of

organizing and maintaining them.

The San Francisco Estuary Project:

Regulatory incentive for coordinated NPDESpermit compliance that monitors and supports strategic basin planning through comprehensive water-column and sediment monitoring over a large geographic area.

The Triangle Area Water Supply

Monitoring Project: Supplemental,

voluntary monitoring of water supply intake

areas and their tributaries over a small

geographic area with the overall goal of

protecting public health.

The Lower Neuse Association: Regulatory

incentive for coordinated NPDES-permit

compliance that monitors and supports strategic planning as a component of North

Carolina's basinwide management approach

over a mid-sized geographic area.

The Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment:

Comprehensive, integrated monitoring to

support federal, state, and local strategic

planning for ecosystem management over a

very large geographic area.

The four case studies detail where and how each

partnership was formed; organizational structure

and responsibilities; monitoring goals and objectives; benefits to consortium participants; data

procedures; cost of the monitoring program;

WHAT DOES THE COORDINATION OF

STRATEGIC MONITORING ALLOW FOR?

Identifying water quality/ecosystem stressors

Quantifying problems

Identifying key resources in need of protection

Estimating risk to waterbodies

Evaluating attainment of designated uses

Developing environmental goals and objec -

tives, including site-specific standards

Assigning priorities

Developing management strategies

Evaluating the success of implementa tion

Identifying trends toward improvement or

degradation

Knowing the condition of the waterbody or

ecosystem
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

2

obstacles overcome, with advice for avoiding

pitfalls; and method of program evaluation.

In the early 1990s, the Intergovernmental Task

Force for Monitoring (ITFM), comprising representatives from multiple state and federal agencies,

recognized the importance of effectively coordinating efforts and developed ten

recommendations for collaborative, integrated

monitoring. Using recommendations from ITFM

and the monitoring consortiums, the final section

provides a step-by-step list for forming and

maintaining strong monitoring partnerships.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

3

CASE STUDY 1

REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY

BACKGROUND

Before a monitoring consortium was formed for

the San Francisco Estuary, users and dischargers

in the watershed did not coordinate monitoring

efforts. A vast amount of water quality information

was collected in the bay at an estimated annual

cost of $16 million, but each party had its own

focus and reporting format, and data were of

limited use to decision-makers (Mumley 1995).

The Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) was implemented in 1993 to coordinate NPDES-permit

compliance monitoring and comprehensive watercolumn, sediment, and biota (tissue) monitoring in

support of strategic basinwide planning. The state

required that permittees participate in the strategic

regional monitoring program and strongly

encouraged the consortium approach. Consortium

participants, including permitted dischargers and

dredgers, have found that the cooperative effort is

more cost effective than operating individually and

has generated greater quality and quantity of data.

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The San Francisco Bay-Delta

on the Pacific Coast of central

California includes the South

Bay, Central Bay, San Pablo

Bay, Carquinez Strait, Suisun

Bay, and lower portions of the

Sacramento and San Joaquin

Rivers in the area known as

the Delta. Figure 1 shows RMP

sampling station locations. The

bays and delta combine to

form the West Coast's largest

estuary, containing about

5 million acre-feet of water at

mean tide and encompassing

roughly 1600 mi2. The estuary

drains more than 40 percent of

California (60,000 mi2) and

contains 34 subwatersheds.

The drainage area crosses

multiple political jurisdictions,

including 12 counties.

CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION

HOW WAS THE CONSORTIUM FORMED?

The San Francisco Regional Water Quality

Control Board initiated a regional monitoring

program in 1989 primarily to provide "cost

effective, coordinated regional monitoring and

surveillance to evaluate the effectiveness of its

water quality control program" (RMP 1993b). The

board began conducting pilot studies the same

year to develop a long-term multimedia

monitoring program for the Bay Protection and

Toxic Cleanup Program, EPA-funded Bay-Delta

Project and Basin Planning Program. A

conceptual monitoring plan was developed based

on input from numerous policy makers, resource

managers, scientists, and representatives of

public and private interest groups. When initiating

the program, the Board took advantage of existing

studies and organizations to demonstrate the need

for and benefits of a more coordinated, strategic

San Francisco

Estuary

Sampling Locations

W ater

Sediment

Bivalve Tissues

FIGURE 1. RMP STUDY AREA WITHIN THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY.
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

4

approach, including the San Francisco Estuary

Project (SFEP), Bay Area Dischargers' Authority,

and San Francisco Estuarine Institute (SFEI).

In October 1991, SFEI hosted a Regional Monitoring Workshop where participants reached consensus on the need for a coordinated, regional monitoring program. The board then obtained grants

for pilot studies in 1991–1992 that demonstrated

the ability to generate high-quality, useful data for

decision-makers. Based on workshop consensus

and pilot studies, the board adopted a resolution in

April 1992 that endorsed the Regional Monitoring

Program (RMP) in concept and instructed the

board's Executive Officer to begin

implementation.

The Executive Officer wrote letters to each

NPDES permittee and dredger requesting

technical reports and listing parameters that would

have to be monitored. Letters stated that strategic

monitoring and reporting could be conducted

either individually or collectively, but encouraged

the group to design a collective approach. The

Executive Officer discussed the concept of a

strategic, coordinated monitoring program with

key dischargers to obtain their buy-in (Mumley

1995).

The Board offered monitoring easements on

current permits, where feasible, to minimize the

overall monitoring cost. At the end of negotiations,

some financial sponsors of the project were

allowed to use strategic monitoring data in lieu of

some conventional ambient monitoring

requirements. For instance, reviewing historic pH,

dissolved oxygen (DO), and nutrient data

indicated that these parameters were no longer a

concern and could be waived for certain

permittees. (These dischargers still collect some

ambient monitoring data as required by their

permits.)

Permittees and dredgers also presented the

following additional concerns and program design

requirements during negotiations. Facilities had

been spending a lot of money on monitoring, yet

data were of limited value. They wanted better

data for decision-making. Publicly owned

treatment works (POTWs) believed that better

data would show that they were not the big

problem generally perceived by others. Sufficient

higher-quality data would allow more timely

decisions on the need for dredging. Generally,

private dischargers anticipated less benefit from

the program than did POTWs but were

cooperative. The Bay Area Dischargers' Authority,

however, did identify concrete potential benefits

for each permit group. In summary, the board

required strategic monitoring/reporting,

encouraged a cooperative monitoring approach,

provided flexibility in permitting, and involved the

whole group early in the program design and

decision-making process (Mumley 1995).

HOW IS THE CONSORTIUM ORGANIZED?

After negotiations, the first formal step in the formation of the consortium was the creation of a

strategic monitoring plan that specified responsibilities of involved parties. The organizational

chart provides an overview of the structure and

mechanisms for accountability (Figure 2). The

board is ultimately responsible for the regulatory

structure, for selecting permittees that must

participate in the regional monitoring program,

notifying them of their responsibilities, and

organizing the financial structure of the project.

RMP is currently managed and administered by

SFEI through a Memorandum of Understanding

(MOU) with the San Francisco Regional Water

Quality Control Board. The board's basin plan and

NPDES permits govern the water quality of and

dischargers to the estuary. RMP monitors

compliance with objectives set forth in the basin

plan. The institute is an objective party that

ensures fair treatment of participants by the board

and that the monitoring plan is implemented in a

technically sound manner (Carlin 1994/1995).
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

5

The institute staffs two committees to oversee implementation of the RMP: The Steering

Committee and the Technical Program Review

Committee. Both committees are composed of

representatives from sponsoring dischargers; the

board, and SFEI. In addition to these working

advisory committees, the institute consults with its

Board of Directors regarding monitoring goals and

objectives and program evaluation.

WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSORTIUM?

RMP was designed to help implement the

strategic monitoring objectives of the Board's

Basin Planning Program, the San Francisco

Estuary Project, and the Bay Protection and Toxic

Cleanup Program, including the following (RMP

1993b):

1. Obtain high-quality, baseline data on concentrations of toxic, and potentially toxic

trace elements and organic contaminants

in the water and sediments of the estuary.

2. Determine seasonal and annual trends in

water chemistry in the estuary.

3. Determine whether water-column chemical quality and sediment quality in the estuary complies with objectives set forth in

the Board's basin plan.

4. Provide a data base on water-column

chemical quality and sediment quality in

the estuary that is compatible with data

REPRESENTATIVES OF

FINANCIAL S PONSORS

Participants include permitted

dischargers and dredgers

SAN F RANCISCO ESTUARINE I NSTITUTE ' S

REGIONAL M ONITORING P ROGRAM

Responsible for study plan

implementation and

cost-effective expenditure

SAN F RANCISCO REGIONAL W ATER

QUALITY C ONTROL B OARD

Responsible for regulatory

structure, selecting and notifying

permittees that must participate in

the RMP, organizing the financial

structure, approving study plan,

and approving the final report in a

public meeting

Funding Regulatory

Authority

MOU

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

STEERING COMMITTEE

Ensure communication among sponsors,

the board, and SFEI

Plan and provide input into RMP

implementation

Provide feedback on effective use of the

information that is gathered

TECHNICAL

PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE

Develop annual work plans and special

studies based on guidance from the

Steering Committee and Regional Board

Review data and reports produced by

RMP
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

6

collected in ongoing studies, including, but

not limited to, the following areas: wasteload allocation studies and models, sediment quality, in-bay dredged material disposal, enhancement of the Interagency

Ecological Study Program's (IESP's)

water quality and species productivity

studies, local biomonitoring programs, and

state and federal mussel watch programs.

HOW IS THE CONSORTIUM IMPLEMENTED?

Representatives from financial sponsors, along

with the board, formally oversee RMP

implementation. In 1993, the first year of program

implementation, RMP was financially sponsored

by 46 federal agencies, local special districts, and

private companies that held permits for discharge

to the estuary. The list grew to 62 financial

sponsors in 1994: 34 municipal dischargers, 11

industrial dischargers, 9 stormwater dischargers, 7

dredgers, and 1 cooling-water discharger.

Representatives coordinate with a larger group of

public resource agencies. A key monitoring partner is IESP, a consortium that conducts research

on fisheries, water quality, and fish facilities as

well as manages a special project called the Delta

Outflow/SF Bay Study, which conducts compliance monitoring for their water rights permit in the

Central Valley. Their annual project budget is

approximately $10 million. IESP's focus on issues

pertaining to the Delta of the San Joaquin and

Sacramento Rivers complements SFEI's efforts

well.

BENEFITS

After two years of implementation, members

identified the following benefits of strategic, coordinated monitoring:

Better understanding of the areas and

pollutants of greatest concern

Higher quality and consistency of data

Consistent data format across the estuary

Greater cooperation among stakeholders

Discovery of problems not previously

identified (such as PCBs)

Cost savings for small operations

Permittee leveraging 1

DATA PROCEDURES

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

RMP data are transferred electronically to the

SFEI data base in various spreadsheet forms. All

project participants, including laboratories, have

standard operating procedures (SOPs) and

maintain quality assurance/quality control

(QA/QC) records. The QA Program Plan details

 

1

In 1995, for example, through COE annual cost-sharing funds of

$250,000 and a USGS cooperative agreement of $40,000 per year,

permittees paid $1,710,000 for a project valued at $2 million. This

calculation excludes university research funds and data contributed by

other organizations, so the estimate is conservative. Generally, the

leveraging factor has declined as the annual program budget has

increased.

RESOURCE AGENCIES INVOLVED IN

THE SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY PROJECT

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)

California State Water Resources Control

Board

San Francisco Regional Water Quality

Control Board

Central Valley Regional Water Quality

Control Board

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)

Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS)

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

U.S. Bureau of Land Reclamation (BLR)

Parks and preserves (including East Bay

Regional Park District, San Francisco and

San Pablo Bay Wildlife Refuges, and the

Golden Gate National Recreation Area)

City and county governments

Resource conservation districts

Port authorities

Academic research facilities (including the

University of California at Berkeley, Santa

Cruz, and Davis)

Numerous interest groups (ranging from

industrial to conservationist)
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

7

procedures for sampling and analysis. RMP

subcontractors who collect data generate data

sets in a standardized format. Data sets are first

sent to Applied Marine Sciences (AMS), the

contractor in charge of coordinating the sampling

program and assuring data quality. After QA/QC,

AMS sends data sets to SFEI where they will be

uploaded to the Oracle Relational Data Base

Management System for the Sun operating

system. Oracle is the primary platform for the

project's data management system.

SFEI performs statistical analyses using the PC

version of SAS, a computerized statistical analysis

system. Spatial and geographic analyses will be

performed using GIS ARC/INFO and Geographic

Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) on

the Sun workstation. Toxicity data will be analyzed

using the program Toxics.

According to project staff, creating a user-friendly

data management system was a high priority. The

data base will be available to RMP members, educators, researchers, policy makers, and the

general public. The vision for the data

management system is a menu-driven interface

that enables key word searches by general topic,

parameter measured or analyzed, region, and

time frame. The estuary data base will be

searchable by specific geographic reference (e.g.,

latitude-longitude) or general location. Because

different users will require different levels of

information, the system will ultimately generate

three levels of information: (1) unprocessed data,

(2) general program summary, and (3) data summaries.

DATA COLLECTION

Monitoring activities are coordinated with other

monitoring programs on the bay, including

USGS's bay modeling and primary productivity

studies; mussel watch studies sponsored by

NOAA and the state; Bay Protection and Toxic

Cleanup Program; and many other private,

municipal, state, and federal programs. After

considering historical data and results of pilot

projects, the Board selected 16 stations to be

monitored, all of which will be analyzed for

chemical constituents and sediments. Fewer stations will be targeted for biological and toxicity

data; to the greatest extent possible, stations

designated for biological and toxicity evaluation

will overlap with stations monitored for chemicals

and sediment.

Months for seasonal sampling were selected

based on an idealized hydrograph for the estuary.

The RMP has four general types of monitoring

programs: biological, chemical, physical/conventional, and sediment, all of which are highlighted

below.

1993

1994

1995

1996

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

Leveraging Factor

FIGURE 3. ANNUAL LEVERAGING FACTORS

FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO RMP.

[*=RMP ANNUAL BUDGET DIVIDED BY PERMITTEE COST]
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

8

Biological: Bioaccumulation studies of

trace elements and organic contaminants

in bivalve tissues are conducted at 11 predetermined stations.

Chemical: Trace elements and organic

contaminants in the water column will be

monitored at 16 stations three times a

year. Organic contaminants will be

analyzed based on the particulate fraction

of the filtered sample of water. Trace

elements monitored include As, Cd, Cr,

Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Se, Ag, and Zn. The

program also measures five petroleum

compounds, fourteen polynuclear

aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), nine

SOCs, PCBs, DDT, and chlordane.

Water-column toxicity will be measured at

8 stations three times a year, and in-depth

chronic toxicity tests are conducted on a

fish, invertebrate, and algal species.

Physical and Conventional Parameters:

Whenever chemical and trace metal samples are taken, physical and conventional

parameters are also measured: salinity,

temperature, conductivity, DO, chlorophyll-a, TSS, dissolved organic carbon,

pH, and nutrients.

Sediment: Sediment is sampled at all 16

stations during the wet and dry periods.

Parameters tested include sediment

quality, trace elements, and organic

contaminants. To enhance interpretation

of metal concentrations in sediments, the

program will examine the relationships of

four trace elements (Cu, Hg, Ni, and Se),

three trace organics (PAHs, PCBs, and

pesticides), and different contaminants.

Frozen duplicate samples will be kept for

possible future analysis.

DATA ANALYSIS

Before establishing RMP procedures, the San

Francisco Estuary Project inventoried and

evaluated existing monitoring efforts and data sets

to identify and remedy data gaps, redundancies,

and incompatible procedures. The QA Program

Plan details procedures for RMP sampling and

analysis. The Regional Monitoring Strategy

recommends a performance-based monitoring

system, where different methods for measuring

the same constituents are allowed provided that

results are comparable. To resolve questions

about compatibility of methods, field samples are

collected, split, and then sent to laboratories for

analysis to determine whether differences in data

are due to sampling procedures. Methods used to

date yield comparable data.

In 1993, SFEI contracted with AMS in Livermore,

CA, for field collection and data analysis. Subcontractors include Marine Research Specialists in

Soquel, CA; University of California-Santa Cruz's

Institute of Marine Sciences in Santa Cruz, CA;

University of California-Berkeley's Trace Organics

Laboratory in Richmond, CA; Brooks-Rand, Ltd.,

in Seattle, WA; and S.R. Hansen and Associates

in Concord, CA.

USE OF DATA

Participants have identified numerous uses for

data gathered by the consortium, including:

Determining use support status

Offsetting ambient monitoring requirements

Analyzing trends

Calibrating models

Establishing priorities

Educating/conducting outreach2

COST

To pay for collective monitoring and analysis, the

state divided dischargers into five categories and

allocated costs to each category based on

 

2 Data are currently incorporated into technical reports. The

centerpiece of the institute's outreach effort will be an annual State of

the Estuary Report, including an assessment of the es tuary's

condition, trends in water quality, the status of aquatic populations,

and description of human activities that affect the ecosystem. The

report will draw attention to resources at risk and identify immediate

and long-term monitoring and research needs. In addition, the

institute will use newsletters, periodic seminars and conferences, and

research reports to communi cate with a wide audience, ranging from

scientists and educa tors to policy-makers and the general public.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

9

the proportion of pollutants it discharges into the bay (Figure 5). The

state allowed each category to

determine how to fund its share.

RMP's budget has steadily increased

since the first year of implementation

in 1993 (Figure 4). (Note that

dischargers are still required to

monitor some parameters

individually, so costs shown in tables

do not reflect total costs of all

monitoring activities conducted in

the estuary.)

Board staff indicate that the budget

for baseline data collection (i.e., field

work and laboratory analysis) has remained stable, but costs have

increased for data management,

particularly QA, data interpretation,

pilot projects, and special studies (Carlin

1994/1995). Budget allocations for 1995 are

shown in the sidebar. Initially, QA and data

interpretation were the most underestimated costs

(Carlin 1994/1995). Staff indicated that increasing

cost is a challenge to maintaining the consortium.

1993

1994

1995

1996

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

Thousands of Dollars

FIGURE 4. ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE SAN FRANCISCO RMP.

M unicipal

Industrial

Stormwater

Cooling W ater

Dredging

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Percentage of Project Cost

1995

1994

1993

FIGURE 5. COST ALLOCATION BY DISCHARGER CATEGORY.

 Program Area

1995 Budget

Allocation

 Data collection 1,100,000

 Data interpretation/data

 management*

400,000

 Pilot projects 200,000

 Special studies 300,000

 Total 2,000,000

 * Includes overall project management
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

10

CHALLENGES

Staff identified key challenges to forming the consortium. First, because monitoring data have been

of little use in the past for assessing problems and

making decisions, many potential partners did not

value monitoring. The Board addressed this skepticism during negotiations by working with key representatives from each group to identify concrete

potential benefits of a strategic, coordinated

monitoring program and ways to offset program

costs. The Board also designed and conducted

pilot studies to demonstrate the ability to produce

high-quality, useful data for decision-makers.

Through meetings, workshops, and conferences,

the Board and Institute used this information to

achieve buy-in early in the process. Second, the

Board demonstrated that permittees could meet

many regulatory objectives within the RMP (e.g.,

determining use support status). Finally, equitable

distribution of program cost across different

groups was (and continues to be) a challenge to

the board. For instance, POTW permittees have a

collective annual O&M budget of $500 million,

whereas stormwater permittees have an annual

O&M budget of $5 million. If each group were to

contribute $1 million, budget impacts would be

unequitable. The Board assesses each group a

percentage of program cost, and the group itself

(e.g., all POTWs) determines a fair way to

allocate cost among individual permittees within

the group.

Staff also identified four ways to address the challenges to maintaining a strong consortium: effectively communicate the value of the project, be

cost effective, ensure data collection and interpretation are technically sound, and use findings of

the program in making decisions (Mumley 1995;

Carlin 1994/1995).

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The RMP was designed as a long-term monitoring

program, and will be comprehensively evaluated

and updated after 5 years of monitoring. The RMP

has short- and long-term evaluation processes:

annual program assessments and a five-year

comprehensive assessment. Monitoring goals and

objectives are evaluated annually by SFEI, based

on decisions from its seven-member Board of

Directors and input from its working advisory

panels. The Scientific Advisory Panel includes

researchers from universities, agencies, and other

private or public research organizations and is

responsible for reviewing the Institute's annual

workplan and assisting in the production of the

Institute's annual report. A Policy Panel was

formed to advise the Scientific Advisory Panel

and Board of Directors on research and

monitoring needs, resource management

questions, and policy implications of scientific

findings. This panel is composed of representatives from local, state, and federal governmental

agencies that have stake in regulating uses of the

estuary.

SOURCES

Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). 1993b. San

Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program

Plan. September.

Mumley, Tom. 1995. Personal communication

with staff San Francisco Bay Regional Water

Quality Control Board.

Carlin, Michael. 1994/1995. Personal communication with staff San Francisco Bay Regional

Water Quality Control Board.

RMP. 1993a. San Francisco Estuary Project Regional Monitoring Strategy. March.

San Francisco Estuary Project Status and Assessment of Selected Monitoring Programs in the San

Francisco Estuary. March 1992.

Aquatic Habitat Institute (AHI). 1988. Inventory of

Priority Datasets Relating to the San Francisco

Estuary. May.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

11

CASE STUDY 2

TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT

BACKGROUND

The Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring

Project (TAWSMP) began in 1988 as a

supplemental, voluntary monitoring program for

drinking water source protection. The project

conducts chemical, physical, and sediment

sampling at 34 stations, both at water supply

intake areas and their tributaries throughout the

Triangle J Region. Primary objectives of the project are to conduct spatial and temporal water

quality trend analyses and pollutant loading

studies, better understand the role of sediments in

trapping and transporting SOCs, and evaluate the

condition of the source water.

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Triangle J Region encompasses 3320 mi2

and includes six counties of North Carolina within

the upper Neuse and Cape Fear Basins in the

Piedmont Province: Chatham, Durham, Johnston,

Lee, Orange, and Wake (Figure 6). Nearly 80

percent of the households in this region depend on

public drinking water supplies, and most of the

13 supplies for the Triangle Area are drawn from

the region’s streams and reservoirs.

CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION

HOW WAS THE CONSORTIUM FORMED?

Two major federal, multipurpose reservoirs were

built in the early 1980s, Jordan Lake and Falls

Lake, with a combined estimated drinking water

safe-yield of 160 million gallons per day (MGD).

Because these lakes were built in the midst of an

urbanized area, potential users raised questions

about the types and quantities of SOCs

discharged upstream and how potential

contaminants might impact the quality of these

drinking water supplies (Brewer and Childress

1994). At the same time, with rapid urbanization

across the region in the early and mid-1980s and

the associated increase in nonpoint source runoff

and point source industrial and municipal

wastewater discharges, interest grew in protecting

the region’s surface water supplies (Brewer and

Childress 1994).

The Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG)

sponsored the 1987 World Class Region Conference, which was attended by approximately

500 local elected officials, business leaders, environmentalists, and other citizens of the region.

Participants' request for a Triangle Area Water

Supply Monitoring Project added legitimacy and

impetus to a project idea that had been discussed

for several years. Potential cost savings of such a

project provided even greater impetus.

Heightened interest in the quality of drinking water

supply sources led several local governments to

begin their own supplementary monitoring

programs at a combined annual cost of hundreds

of thousands of dollars.

TJCOG formed a task force comprised of key city

managers and public utility directors to design the

project. This group relies heavily on advisors from

universities, North Carolina's Division of Environmental Management (DEM), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). During project design,

task force members focused on seven questions

(Brewer and Childress 1994):

1. Who is interested in designing and participating in a monitoring program?

2. What are the objectives of the monitoring

program?

3. Which parameters should be monitored?

4. Where should the project monitor?

5. How often do we need to monitor to detect

trends?

6. Who will conduct field work, laboratory

analysis, and data interpretation?

7. What are the costs, and how will we finance the project?
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

12

HOW IS THE CONSORTIUM ORGANIZED?

Local governments in the region signed letters of

interest in forming a monitoring project through

interlocal agreement. Then, a task force designed

the project, drafted by-laws for project

governance, and negotiated a draft interlocal

agreement. Local governments entered into a

Phase I monitoring project contract/agreement for

three years, with the understanding that meeting

project objectives would require many additional

years of monitoring, and 3- to 4-year phases were

appropriate for major data interpretation studies

and for monitoring program evaluation (Brewer

1989–1995).

Participating local governments appointed staff

representatives to the project Steering Committee,

which makes technical, financial, and administrative recommendations to participating local

entities (Figure 7). Non-voting resource advisors

from DEM, USGS, and local universities also

participate on the Steering Committee. Officially,

committee chair persons are elected annually;

generally, every 2 years the Steering Committee

selects a new Chair and Vice Chair and appoints a

new Technical Subcommittee Chair to expand and

renew opportunities for leadership among all

representatives (Brewer 1989–1995).

Through interlocal agreement, the project is cosponsored by 11 city and county governments.

The USGS and local governments share the cost

of the monitoring program through cooperative

agreement. USGS operates 18 sites in the water

quality monitoring network and all 13 stream

discharge gages, conducts laboratory analysis and

quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC), and

interprets data from all water quality and stream

discharge sites. To complete the network, DEM

supplies data from 12 sites in its ambient

monitoring program and collects additional

samples for USGS laboratory analysis.

Participating local governments contract with

TJCOG as the project manager to (1) coordinate

sample collection, analysis, and data-reporting

among technical contractors and DEM; (2) provide

day-to-day oversight of technical contracts;

(3) maintain financial records, including collecting

funds and paying contractors; (4) maintain records

to ensure compliance with state statutes; (5) provide staff support to the project Steering Committee; and (6) conduct project outreach, including

annual reports, press releases, and public

Research Triangle

Park Area, NC

Study Area

Urbanized Area

Sampling Station

County Boundary

Waterbody

FIGURE 6. MONITORING SITES FOR TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

13

presentations. Additionally and importantly, participants view TJCOG as a neutral manager

providing a neutral meeting place (Brewer 1989–

1995).

WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSORTIUM?

TAWSMP has two overall goals: (1) improve understanding and awareness about the quality of

the region’s drinking water supplies (including

intake areas and tributaries) and (2) minimize

monitoring costs (TAWSMP 1989, 1991, and

1995). The primary and secondary objectives

developed in support of these goals are listed in

the side bar (TAWSMP 1989, 1991, and 1995).

HOW IS THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTED?

Monitoring began in October 1988. Initially, the

project focused on EPA’s priority pollutant list and

conventional parameters (TAWSMP 1989, 1991,

and 1995). Prior to the start of sampling, a statistical review of existing data collected in the study

area indicated that many additional years of monitoring may be required to be confident of project

conclusions concerning changes in water quality

(Reckhow et al. 1989). Local participants view the

project as long-term, with monitoring frequency

varying from 3–12 times per year, depending on

the sampling location and parameters. The state’s

ambient monitoring stations and parameters are

incorporated into program design to avoid

duplicating efforts.

BENEFITS

The Steering Committee reports the following

benefits (Kalb 1995, Brewer 1989–1995):

• Pinpointing Problems More Quickly: The

project has not yet detected a major problem, but problems can develop quickly in

rapidly developing urbanized areas. The

annual monitoring program allows local

governments to pinpoint and address

problems in the Triangle more quickly.

Also, one of the project’s primary objectives has been to determine the concentration of contaminants in the region’s

water supplies.

TRIANGLE A REA W ATER S UPPLY

M ONITORING P ROJECT C ONSORTIUM

11 city and county governments

plus OWASA

A DVISORS : USGS,

Universities, DEM

STEERING

COMMITTEE

DATA C OLLECTION

AND A NALYSIS

USGS (cost-share)

DEM (leveraged)

Appoint

PROJECT

M ANAGEMENT

TJCOG

Contract

Cooperative

Agreement

FIGURE 7. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART FOR THE TRIANGLE AREA WATER SUPPLY MONITORING PROJECT.
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

14

• Preventing Water Treatment Problems:

Federal regulations generally do not require monitoring untreated water. Though

a local utility may identify contaminants in

treated water, it will not detect contaminants until they have already become a

problem. By tracking the quality of the

water supply source, the project helps prevent treatment problems.

• Establishing Long-Term Trends: Through

annual monitoring, the project has begun

to gather enough data to conduct trend

analyses. Building on this data base

through continued monitoring will allow

frequent assessment of trends.

• Responding Flexibly to Emerging Issues:

Annual monitoring has allowed the project

to deal with emerging concerns in a flexible and timely manner. Monitoring includes special pesticide studies and Cryptosporidium and Giardia monitoring.

• Sharing Costs, Expertise, and Analysis

with USGS: Through the cooperative

agreement described above, USGS

equally matches the project’s monitoring

costs and conducts field sampling,

laboratory analysis, and data

interpretation. The Steering Committee

believes USGS’s QA/QC as well as its

independent, unbiased analysis is key to

the credibility of the project.

• Helping to Protect Major Resources at a

Low Cost: Although this supplementary

monitoring program has been operational

during a time of very limited program resources, the Steering Committee stresses,

and most local governing boards concur,

that the project cost is small relative to the

value of the water resources being monitored.

• Leveraging Resources: Through USGS

cooperative agreement and DEM ambient

monitoring contributions, the local governments pay $231,733 for a project valued at $543,094—a local government leveraging factor of 2.34 (Figure 8). Also,

because multiple governments share

interest in individual sites, the consortium

cost to each local government is lower

than each would pay to maintain its own

monitoring program. The resource

leveraging factor varies for each

jurisdiction depending on its size and the

number of monitoring stations associated

with a jurisdiction’s intake and other inlake and tributary sites.

PRIMARY PROJECT OBJECTIVES

• Develop and maintain a data base for SOCs

to determine their concentration in Triangle

Area water supplies

• Supplement existing data on nutrients, major

ions, and trace elements as a basis for

measuring long-term water quality trends

SECONDARY PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Phases I and II

• Provide a basis for measuring shorter-term,

but long-lasting, changes due to large-scale

management practices in the watershed,

such as the phosphate detergent ban and

treatment plant upgrades

• Document overall spatial differences among

water supplies within the region, especially

differences between smaller upland sources,

large multipurpose reservoirs, and run-ofthe-river supplies

• Provide additional tributary loading and inlake data that can be used for predictive

models

• Help determine the role of stream sediments

in transporting or removing SOCs in the

water column

Phase III

• Develop a coordinated data base for state,

local, and USGS data

• Report results of the monitoring program to

citizens
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

15

For instance, OWASA is a mid-sized

water supplier, with a direct interest in 9 of

the 30 water quality monitoring sites and 4

of the 13 stream gaging sites. Most sites

of direct interest to OWASA are also of

direct interest to other local governments

and USGS. The monitoring, analysis, and

management costs of these sites is about

$164,000 per year, and OWASA is only

assessed about $23,000—a leveraging

factor of 7 (Figure 9). Another example is

the region’s largest water supplier, the

City of Raleigh. There are 13 water quality

monitoring sites and 7 stream gaging

stations in Falls Lake and its tributaries,

with a total estimated value of $247,639.

The City of Raleigh pays $96,394—a leveraging factor of 2.5.

The USGS benefits from

the program’s joint water

resource investigation and

cost sharing; the comprehensive, long-term nature of

the study that allows for

trend analysis and

interpretive work; and the

focus on emerging issues

such as Cryptosporidium

and Giardia. USGS’s

cooperative cost share is

$211,361—a federal leveraging factor of 2.57.

These leveraging factors

include only the monitoring

cost associated with a

jurisdiction’s intake and its

other in-lake and tributary

sites (i.e., related drainage

area). These factors could

be seen as conservative

estimates, because there

are indirect benefits from

monitoring in other basins,

such as being able to

compare data from similar

run-of-the-river intakes or

similar small lake intakes.

The structure of allocating

cost by percent of water

produced generally yields

larger leveraging factors for

smaller jurisdictions than for

larger jurisdictions.

DEM is also able to

leverage resources through

the program. Before the

monitoring project began,

Total

Value Local

Cost

0

200

400

600

Thousands of Dollars

Estimated project cost/

value: $543,000

Cost for local

participants: $231,733

Local government

leveraging factor: 2.34

FIGURE 8. TAWSMP ANNUAL RESOURCE LEVERAGING.

Thousands of Dollars

Total Value

to OWASA Total Cost

to OWASA

0

50

100

150

200 Leveraging with:

• U SGS

• NC DEM

• O ther local members

FIGURE 9. OWASA RESOURCE LEVERAGING IN TAWSMP.

Agency

Example Leveraging

Factors (1995)

Local governments 2.34

City of Raleigh 2.50

USGS 2.57

OWASA 7.00
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

16

the state conducted intensive monitoring

of Falls and Jordan Lakes. The division is

now able to refocus its program resources

and mainly contributes tributary ambient

monitoring data to the project. DEM also

uses project data in its basinwide

management planning for the Neuse and

Cape Fear River basins.

DATA PROCEDURES

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

TJCOG, as project manager, coordinates and

helps design data base management, maintains

all project records, distributes information, and is

the central contact. USGS built and maintains a

project data base for its sites and retrieves data

from STORET for DEM’s 12 project sites. USGS

also has a combined data base for all sites. In

response to the Steering Committee request for

easy, user-friendly access to project data, USGS

recently developed an Excel spreadsheet format

for each site that holds all observations for each

site as well as generates summary statistics of

most interest to local participants. Data will be

loaded, then updated annually. During Phase III of

the project, local compliance monitoring data will

be incorporated into this spreadsheet format.

USGS works with the Project Steering Committee

to develop annual reports to local governments,

data reports, interpretive reports, and summary

updates of special studies.

DATA COLLECTION

The project monitors sites near water supply intakes, other port

ions of lakes, lake tributaries, and near river intake

areas. Several upland tributaries are relatively

unimpacted and serve as control sites. There are

about 30 water quality sites (the number of sites

slightly varies from phase to phase) and

13 stream gaging sites. The project's regional,

long-term design enables data to be interpreted

for detection of spatial trends in water (e.g., how

the water quality changes as it moves downstream

or down lake). Areas below wastewater treatment

plants and urban areas can be compared, water

quality of the intake areas in small reservoirs can

be compared to large reservoirs, and loading from

different tributaries can be measured. In addition

to this routine monitoring, the project also

conducts special studies, such as analysis of

pesticides, storm events, pollutant loading, and

Cryptosporidium and Giardia.

The monitoring program has been amended

based on findings to rotate monitoring parameters

(such as dropping VOCs in Phase II and cycling

them back in Phase III), to drop sites that are so

close to each other that they yield nearly identical

data, and to reduce frequencies of monitoring.

These amendments allow the project to add other

constituents of concern, conduct special studies,

and minimize project cost (Brewer 1989–1995).

Two agencies, USGS and DEM, collect samples

and conduct laboratory analysis. They conduct

tests, as needed, to determine whether different

sampling and analytical techniques caused differences in data, and, if so, how to reconcile protocols. For instance, USGS and DEM have basic

differences in field sampling methods: DEM grabs

samples from mid-stream, and USGS does depthintegrated samples from multiple points in the

cross-section. DEM generally samples during

base flow, whereas USGS samples during baseflow and high-flow events. Both agencies collected

samples at the same sites (using their respective

methods), split the samples, and traded. Each

sent its split sample to its own laboratory.

Analyses revealed no significant differences in

base-flow data. There would likely be more

variability in the data using the two methods

during high-flow events; because only USGS

targets high-flow samples, however, this

difference in field sampling methods has thus far

not posed a problem (Childress 1995).

Also, for some parameters, USGS and DEM have

different detection limits. USGS, which maintains

and interprets the project data base, notes the

different detection limits in its data reports. Differences have not posed a problem for the project to

date since both agencies generally measured no

detects for these parameters. While USGS, DEM,

and the Steering Committee informally agreed to

performance-based protocols in 1988, only in the

second phase did USGS formally document and

report DEM's and USGS's respective protocols for

the project. This delay, along with changes in key

personnel, led to unnecessary errors in sample

collection and analysis (Brewer 1989–1995).
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

17

DATA ANALYSIS

Currently, water samples are quantitatively analyzed for 8 major ions, 11 nutrients, 10 physical

properties (including chlorophyll-a and b), 15 metals and trace elements, 133 volatile and semivolatile organic compounds, and 15 inorganic constituents. In addition, a qualitative analysis of organic compounds is conducted at about half of the

sites by scanning with a gas

chromatography/flame ionization detector. When

significant organic compounds are detected,

samples are re-analyzed by gas

chromatography/mass spectrometry and a library

search of more then 40,000 SOCs to identify the

compound. Qualitative analysis does not measure

the amount or concentration of the compounds,

but does provide a snapshot of "molecular litter"

present in the water column.

USE OF DATA

Data are used by the Steering Committee to meet

project objectives, particularly evaluating the condition of drinking water supply source waters and

analyzing spatial and temporal trends. The

Steering Committee has focused and reported on

technical, factual issues to date rather than on

land-use management and policy issues. Local

governments, however, use project data to

evaluate wastewater and water treatment plant

operational policies and procedures, identify

nonpoint source problems, and research the need

for watershed protection measures (Brewer 1989–

1995).

COST

Through cooperative agreement with the Project

Steering Committee, USGS conducts field work,

laboratory analysis, and data interpretation.

Generally, USGS’s technical cost are about

$422,722 per year; USGS pays one-half of the

technical service cost. Through interlocal agreement, participating local governments pay the

remaining one-half of the technical service cost,

plus TJCOG's project management cost of

$20,372 per year. Overall project costs have been

held constant or reduced since 1988. During

Phases I and II, project costs were allocated to

local governments based on each member’s

percentage of the total membership’s water

production. In Phase III, costs will be held

constant for all members, except for the largest

member whose cost and sites were reduced. The

project estimates that the value of the DEM

ambient monitoring data is about $100,000. The

total estimated cost of the monitoring project is

therefore $543,094 per year.

CHALLENGES

TAWSMP encountered the following obstacles in

implementing and maintaining the consortium:

1. Revised Safe Drinking Water Act requirements increased monitoring costs, thereby

reducing funds available for supplemental

monitoring.

2. Raw water monitoring data could not be

used in lieu of additional requirements for

treated monitoring data.

3. Because no major drinking water

problems have yet been detected, some

ask, "Why continue monitoring?" Two

small local participants have withdrawn

from the project for this reason.

4. Individual costs not commensurate with

individual benefits or with one-member

one-vote governance structure.

Two smaller participants decided not to participate

in Phase III for reasons 1, 2, and 3. The City of

Raleigh, the largest participant, decided not to

participate in Phase III for all four reasons. Nine

participants have signed the Phase III interlocal

agreement for an additional 5 years of monitoring

(Brewer 1989–1995).

Agency and

Cost Category 1995 Cost

USGS: Technical Services $211, 361

Local Governments:

 Technical Services

 Project Management

$211,361

$20,372

DEM: Technical Services $100,000

TOTAL PROJECT COST $543,094
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

18

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Since its inception in 1988, the monitoring project

has periodically evaluated alternative sampling

plans for achieving project objectives while minimizing project cost. The monitoring program is

evaluated on annual and triennial cycles. The

interlocal agreement expires and is renegotiated

every 3 to 4 years. Each year the project reports

findings and, at the end of each phase, produces

a major data interpretive report. Resource

advisors review and comment on these reports.

During the last year of each phase, the Project

Steering Committee comprehensively evaluates

the program in light of project findings, comments

from resource advisors regarding program needs,

and resources available. Essentially, everything is

put on the table for evaluation, including the

project’s goals and objectives, design of the

routine monitoring program, special studies

needed, technical contracts, and the local share

formulae. The Steering Committee then negotiates a 3- to 4-year project proposal, outlines

amendments to the existing program, and

forwards the proposed interlocal agreements to

local governing boards for their consideration.

Each year, the program also annually evaluates

emerging issues or concerns; new special studies

or constituents are added as funding becomes

available or as current monitoring can be

reconfigured to redirect resources. The underlying

goal of program evaluation is to maintain a project

design that allows the Steering Committee to

evaluate conditions and detect long-term water

quality trends.

SOURCES

Brewer, Kimberly. 1989–1995. Experience of

author and monitoring project manager.

Brewer, Kimberly, and Carolyn Childress. 1994.

Design and Preliminary Results of the Triangle

Area Water Supply Monitoring Project, North

Carolina. Journal N.C. Section AWWA & WPCA,

Volume LXIX.

Childress, Carolyn. 1995. Personal communication with C. Childress, Hydrologist, USGS

manager for Triangle Area Water Quality

Investigation.

Kalb, Kathryn. January–July 1995. Personal communication with K. Kalb, Chair Triangle Area

Water Supply Monitoring Project Steering

Committee and Committee correspondence.

Reckhow, Kenneth, et al. 1989. Design of the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Program.

Duke University, Durham, NC. Page 90.

Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project

(TAWSMP) Interlocal Agreements. 1988, 1991,

and 1995.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

19

CASE STUDY 3

THE LOWER NEUSE BASIN ASSOCIATION

BACKGROUND

In 1992, the state targeted the Neuse Basin as its

first basinwide water quality management study

area. During the basin planning and assessment

stages, DEM reviewed the NPDES compliance

monitoring data and the state's ambient

monitoring data, and concluded that the state and

permittees could generate more useful, costeffective, higher quality data. In 1994, major

NPDES dischargers in the Basin formed a

monitoring corporation, the Lower Neuse Basin

Association. The association signed a related

Memorandum of Agreement with the state's

Division of Environmental Management.

Monitoring began in July 1994 with the primary

objectives of determining the effectiveness of

state-established TMDLs and better understanding

the CBOD/DO relationship in the river and the

relative contributions and impact of nutrient

loading.

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Lower Neuse Basin is the area draining into

the Neuse River below Falls Lake Dam in the

Piedmont Province to the tidal waters in the

Coastal Province of North Carolina (Figure 10).

Comprising 4807 mi2, the basin is predominantly

forested and agricultural along its 185-mi course.

The Lower Neuse, which includes 15 counties, is

important for the state’s economy from its

headwaters in the commercial, industrial,

institutional center in Raleigh, through its

ubiquitous farms, to its recreational boating,

fishing, commercial fishing, and shellfish

harvesting waters at the coast (NCDEHNR 1992).

CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION

HOW WAS THE CONSORTIUM FORMED?

In 1992, the state targeted the Neuse Basin as its

first basin-wide water quality management study

area.3 During the basin planning and assessment

 

3

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

sensitive water and tightened phosphorus limits for permitted

wastewater dischargers as well as sharing the cost of imple menting

stages, North Carolina's Division of Environmental

Management (DEM) reviewed NPDEScompliance monitoring data and state ambient

monitoring data and concluded that through a

more flexible, basin-oriented monitoring design,

all parties could generate more useful, costeffective, higher-quality information. Through two

of its regional offices, DEM staff initiated talks with

some of the larger wastewater dischargers about a

coordinated, strategic monitoring program that

would replace the routine NPDES compliance

monitoring (Crisp 1995).

HOW IS THE CONSORTIUM ORGANIZED?

The largest discharger, the City of Raleigh,

assumed the lead role in recruiting and organizing

others. In 1994, the largest dischargers in the

Lower Neuse River Basin formed a monitoring

corporation, the Lower Neuse Basin Association,

and opened membership to local governments

holding NPDES wastewater discharge permits and

public and private entities holding NPDES

wastewater discharge permits for 1 MGD or

greater. Twenty-three dischargers joined. DEM

designed the association’s monitoring program,

then both signed a Memorandum of Agreement

(MOA) (LNBA 1995).

WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSORTIUM?

The governing mission of the Lower Neuse Basin

Association is to preserve the waters of the Lower

Neuse River through innovative and cost-effective

pollution reduction strategies by:

1. Forming a coalition of local governments,

public and private agencies, and other

interested and affected communities,

organizations, businesses, and individuals

 

agricultural BMPs. In addition to nutrients, the basin also regularly

exceeds DO standards, primarily due to biologi cal oxygen-demanding

waste from point source discharges. There are 256 permitted

discharge facilities in the Lower Neuse Basin, 24 major discharges

(i.e., permitted flow greater than 1 MGD) and 232 minor (permitted

flow less than 1 MGD). Major dischargers constitute about 85% of

the total permitted flow, though less than 10% of the number of

facilities (NCDEHNR 1992).
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

20

to secure and pool financial resources and

expertise;

2. Collecting and analyzing information and

data; and developing, evaluating, and

implementing strategies to reduce,

control, and manage pollutant discharge;

3. Providing accurate technical,

management, regulatory, and legal

recommendations regarding the

implementation of strategies and

appropriate effluent limitations on

discharges into the lower portion of the

Neuse River.

HOW IS THE CONSORTIUM IMPLEMENTED?

DEM established the monitoring sites, parameters,

and sampling frequencies. The Association

implements the monitoring program through its

annual workplan and MOA with the states.

Monitoring began July 1994. The program

integrates in-stream monitoring requirements in

NPDES permits with the basinwide water quality

management strategy that was being

implemented in North Carolina (LNBA 1995).

BENEFITS

The Lower Neuse Basin Association and DEM

have identified the following benefits of the

coordinated monitoring program:

• The state and Association can now

conduct special studies that otherwise

would not have been possible, including

evaluating TMDLs, the relative

contributions and impacts of nutrient

loading, the impacts of point versus

nonpoint sources, and model verification.

• Establishing uniform standard operating

procedures and contracting with one

certified environmental firm yields higherquality, more reliable data.

• The state designed a monitoring program

that was flexible and basin-oriented and

that provides useful information for

evaluating point and nonpoint source

contributions, for describing tributary and

mainstem water quality relationships, and

for verifying wasteload allocation models.

M unicipality

Neuse River Basin

Study Area

Neuse River

FIGURE 10. STUDY AREA FOR THE LOWER NEUSE BASIN ASSOCIATION.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

21

• The monitoring consortium yields

substantial annual cost savings for

its members.

• One of the greatest benefits is that

dischargers are building and maintaining

strong working relationships among

themselves and with DEM to better

understand and protect the water quality

of the Neuse River.

DATA PROCEDURES

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

All monitoring data are compiled and stored in a

consistent format in STORET. The MOA

stipulates that the Lower Neuse Basin Association

is responsible for coordinating the collection of

water quality data, entering data into STORET

within 3 months of its collection, and archiving

data sheets for 10 years.

DATA COLLECTION

Monitoring is conducted at 42 sites, generally

below the wastewater discharges of association

members. Water samples are analyzed for

• Field parameters: temperature, DO,

conductivity

• Nutrients: total phosphorus, total nitrogen,

ammonia, total Kjedahl nitrogen, and NO x

• Chlorophyll-a

• Turbidity and TSS

• pH

• Metals: Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cn, Fe, Fb, Hg, Ni, Zn

• Long-term BOD

• Fecal coliform

• Flow

DATA ANALYSIS

The Association contracts with a certified

laboratory to conduct field work and analysis. The

MOA requires the association to retain a firm

competent to perform the monitoring activities and

use a laboratory appropriately certified for

required analyses (i.e., certified by the state using

EPA-approved procedures).

USE OF DATA

The MOA reflects joint interests of dischargers

and the state in strategic monitoring data,

including the following uses:

• Evaluate the effectiveness of established

total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)

throughout the Neuse River Basin

• Evaluate the impacts of point and

nonpoint sources

• Quantify relative contributions and

impacts of nutrient loading to the Neuse

• Further describe the relationship between

carbonaceous biochemical oxygen

demand (CBOD) and dissolved oxygen

(DO) in the Neuse River and its larger

tributaries, including verification of the

QUAL2E model.

COST

Seasonal sampling for the Lower Neuse Basin

Parameter Site

Summer (May–

September)

Winter

(October–April)

Field parameters All sites Bi-weekly Monthly

Nutrients All sites Monthly Monthly

Chlorophyll-a Selected sites Monthly Monthly

Turbidity Selected sites Monthly Monthly

Metals Selected sites Monthly Monthly

Fecal coliform All sites Monthly Monthly

Long-term BOD Selected sites June, July, and August

Cost Comparison for 1993 and 1995

 Range of

Permitted Flow

(MGD)

Average Net

Annual Savings

Number of

Reporting

Members

0.1–1 $11,707 3

>1–4 $4,600 8

>4–6 $77 2

10–20 $17,021 2

>20–30 $19,133 1

>60 $5,000 1
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

22

The annual Association budget is $132,000:

$82,000 for in-stream monitoring, $6,000 for

administration, and $44,000 for consultation.

Through association by-laws, costs are allocated

to each member based on its percentage of the

association’s total permitted flow. A 1995 survey

of association members revealed that the

strategic monitoring program yields a substantial

annual cost savings. Based on information

submitted by 19 of the 23 members that

responded to the survey, annual net savings was

$130,319 (i.e., total annual monitoring cost before

strategic monitoring minus total annual cost of the

association's monitoring program equals net

annual savings) 4.

The pattern of cost savings from survey

responses suggest a net savings for all 23

members of more than $165,000 and an

overall monitoring cost savings factor

greater than 2 (i.e., an estimated preassociation annual monitoring cost of

$297,000 compared to annual association

cost of $132,000) (Figure 11).

Although all participants save, dischargers

with a permitted flow of 10 to 30 MGD

save the most (Figure 12). Absolute

savings for smaller dischargers have very

different budgetary impacts than for the

larger. For instance, the smallest

dischargers have a current average annual

monitoring budget of $246 and an average

annual savings of $11,707—a cost savings

factor of almost 50. While mid-sized

dischargers have a greater net annual

savings than smaller dischargers ($17,021

per year compared to $11,707), their

current average annual monitoring budget

is $51,064—a cost savings factor of 1.33.

CHALLENGES

When state and local officials began

discussing the consortium, there were no

neutral parties at the table, and there were

 

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

monitoring program in 1995 from the total annual moni toring cost in

1993 (before strategic monitoring). Cost com parisons from 1993 to

1995 were not adjusted for inflation. As sociation staff also indicated

that estimates of cost savings were conservative.

questions about the advisability of the state or a

single discharger leading the effort (NCDEHNR

1992). Although Raleigh, the largest discharger in

the basin, began organizing the association, the

city made concerted efforts to have different

members assume future leadership positions. For

instance, as working committees were formed,

chair people were selected from representatives

of different dischargers to strengthen commitment

early in the process and ensure that no single

organization dominated the process.

The second significant issue was determining who

should be responsible for designing the

association’s monitoring program. The state

initially wanted the association to draft monitoring

goals and objectives and send them to DEM for

Thousands of Dollars

0

100

200

300

Before

LNBA LNBA

Current annual

budget: $132,000

Net annual savings

for participants:

$165,000

Cost savings factor:

Greater than 2.0

FIGURE 11. LNBA ANNUAL COST SAVINGS. 10 to 20 20 to 30 >600.1 to 1 1 to 4 4 to 6

0

5

10

15

20

Flow (MGD)

Thousands of Dollars

FIGURE 12. LNBA ANNUAL SAVINGS

IN DOLLARS BY PERMITTED FLOW.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

23

comment and approval. The association wanted

DEM to design the program. After a prolonged

impasse, the state did design the program, which

became part of the state-association MOA (LNBA

1995; NCDEHNR 1992).

PROGRAM EVALUATION

The MOA is effective from 1994-1999, the same

period of the initial Neuse Basin Water Quality

Plan. The association must submit to the state an

annual notice of compliance or non-compliance

with MOA requirements. Additionally, the

association meets once annually to review

notices, reports, proposed workplans, and

budgets. When the state completes its second

basin management cycle, monitoring design and

requirements in the MOA will be reassessed. The

current agreement may be modified to simply

substitute parameters or change sampling

frequencies at any time by consent of both parties.

SOURCES

Crisp, Dale. 1995. Personal communication with

the City of Raleigh Utilities Department and

Project Manager. June and August.

Lower Neuse Basin Association (LNBA). 1995.

Instream Monitoring Savings Survey.

Lower Neuse Basin Association Budget FY95-96

and Dues.

Lower Neuse Basin Association. By-Laws.

Memorandum of Agreement between North

Carolina's Division of Environmental Management

and the Lower Neuse Basin Association.

North Carolina Department of Environment,

Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).

1992. Neuse Basin Water Quality Management

Plan.
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

24

CASE STUDY 4

MID-ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS ASSESSMENT

BACKGROUND

EPA's Region III led the design of the MidAtlantic Highlands Assessment as part of the

agency's shift to geographic-based

environmental planning. Stakeholders

participating in the program include four federal

agencies, water resource agencies in four

states, and numerous local and regional

agencies. The assessment evaluates changes

in four diagnostic categories: chemistry,

hydrology, physical habitat, and biology.

Information will be for strategic planning and

also to assess ecological conditions, locate

sensitive areas, and prioritize needs for

additional research.

GEOGRAPHIC SETTING

The Mid-Atlantic Highlands are composed of

65,000 mi2 of oak-hickory forests and upland

areas and contain six major watersheds in

Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, and West

Virginia. The Highlands comprise 55 percent of

EPA Region III and include six ecoregions: the

Western Allegheny Plateau, the Northern

Appalachian Plateau and Uplands, the Central

Appalachian Ridges and Valleys, and the Blue

Ridge Mountains (Figure 13). All these areas are

of rich environmental and aesthetic value and are

also stressed by internal and external forces

(EPA). For instance, the Highlands receive the

highest rates of acidic deposition in the United

States, with 8 percent of its streams becoming

chronically acidic. The Highlands are also

impacted by erosion, siltation, and acid mine

drainage attributable to coal mining. Construction

of new resort communities and general population

growth are also taxing these natural systems (EPA

).

CONSORTIUM DESCRIPTION

HOW WAS THE CONSORTIUM FORMED?

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, EPA began

developing geographic-based plans, such as the

Chesapeake Bay’s comprehensive monitoring

projects, to address problems. The impetus for the

Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment (MAHA)

project was EPA Region III's belief that a shift

from technology- and media-based regulations to

strategic monitoring, planning, and management

of large ecosystems would make environmental

protection and restoration more effective (EPA ).

MAHA provides support to EPA Region III and

states for strategic planning. The monitoring

program, which is based on EMAP's probabilitybased sampling design, targets point sources and

both overland and atmospheric nonpoint sources

of pollution.

HOW IS THE CONSORTIUM ORGANIZED?

EPA led the design of the Mid-Atlantic Highlands

Assessment and, by 1993, was working with state

environmental protection and water quality

agencies in four states plus dozens of local and

regional agencies to implement the monitoring

program. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)are

working with EPA to evaluate how their monitoring

activities could be integrated into the assessment

(EPA). Integral to the MAHA approach is

extensive internal and interagency cooperation

and data sharing (Figure 14). The EPA Region III

Environmental Services Division administers the

project, including coordinating with cooperators on

FIGURE 13. STUDY AREA FOR THE MIDATLANTIC HIGHLANDS ASSESSMENT.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

25

the project design and logistics planning. The

Division provides in-kind administrative and

technical services. The EPA Office of Research

and Development's EMAP staff fund, contract,

and coordinate the scientific, technical, and

information services as well as coordinate the

activities/meetings of the field teams. Project

cooperation in field sampling teams include state

water pollution control staff from Maryland,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, as well

as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These

cooperators as well as other local and federal

government agencies, and universities, assisted in

protocol design and data analysis.

WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF THE CONSORTIUM?

MAHA's overall program goal is to provide support

for EPA Region III and state strategic planning.

MAHA was not originally designed as part of a

state strategic monitoring program, but EPA staff

indicate that one long-term objective of the

program is to use assessment results in the design

of future state monitoring programs (Preston

1995). Participants identified three additional

program objectives: (1) assess the current

ecological condition of the mid-Atlantic Highlands

and its component ecoregions and states,

(2) locate sensitive areas in need of special

protection or restoration, and (3) prioritize needs

for additional investigation into causes and

consequences of pollution (DeMoss).

HOW IS MAHA IMPLEMENTED?

MAHA participants developed five basic steps to

their approach (Figure15) (MAHA 1994):

Step 1: Define major regional environmental management questions.

Step 2: Establish biological criteria (i.e.,

indicators) for unpolluted reference (or

control) conditions within streams of specific subecoregions to provide a baseline

of what expectations should be. Carefully

define ecoregions that share biological

criteria.

PROJECT T ECHNICAL C OORDINATOR

EPA Office of Research and Development

EMAP Program Staff

Provides budget for technical, scientific, and information

management services

Coordinates cooperator field team activities and meetings

Manages contractural field work and lab analysis

Manages project data

Produces project reports

PROJECT C OOPERATORS

State water pollution control staff from Maryland,

Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Assist EPA staff and contractors in protocol

development, fieldwork, and data analysis

Other agenices such as USGS and local governments contributed to sampling protocol design

PROJECT A DMINISTRATOR

EPA Region III

Environmental Services Division

Coordinated project design and logistics

planning with cooperators

Provides in-kind administrative and technical

services

FIGURE 14. EXTENSIVE COOPERATION AND DATA SHARING ARE CRITICAL TO MAHA’S SUCCESS.
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

26

Step 3: Monitor indicators derived in Step

2 at approximately 215 probability-based

sites across the Highlands. Sites are

selected using EMAP's fixed sampling

grid to provide unbiased results with

known confidence for given geographic

areas. Each year, over a four-year period,

MAHA randomly selects new sites and a

subset of previously sampled monitoring

sites to increase the accuracy of temporal

and geographical statistical analysis

(DeMoss).

Step 4: Produce an integrated assessment

of biological conditions and diversity for

streams and rivers in the mid-Atlantic

Highlands.

Step 5: Combine the assessment of

streams and rivers with similar

assessments of major forest types and

agricultural systems and with analyses of

land-use patterns and other landscape

and human impact measures; develop a

comprehensive, integrated report on

environmental conditions for the large

ecosystem and major subcategories (such

as specific states, forest types,

ecoregions, or other designations). Region

III is working with EMAP–Landscape

Characterization to develop data on

regional land cover.

BENEFITS

MAHA participants have identified the following

benefits of coordinating and integrating monitoring

activities:

Conducting special studies that otherwise

would not have been possible if not for the

probability based sampling design,

Leveraging resources for monitoring sites

that are important to multiple agencies to

allow broader and more intensive

monitoring, and

Building and maintaining strong working

relationships.

Step 1. Define major environmental issues/questions

Step 2. Establish indicators from reference sites

Step 3. Monitor indicators at selected sampling sites

Step 4. Produce integrated assessment of biological conditions/diversity

Step 5. Integrate waterbody assessment into a comprehensive assessment

Year 1

Year 4

FIGURE 15. MAHA'S FIVE-STEP APPROACH.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

27

DATA PROCEDURES

INFORMATION MANAGEMENT

The field teams enter data into field computers

then ship data and samples to lab contractors. All

datasets are sent to the EMAP staff at EPA for

storage and analysis using a SAS database. Data

QA/QC is completed by the EMAP staff. Datasets

structures were designed by each indicator team

but the datasets had to be compatible with the

centralized SAS database.

DATA COLLECTION

In 1993, MAHA monitored a total of 246 wadable

stream sites (EPA):

65 surface water demonstration sites

selected using EMAP's probability-based

sampling sites,

31 reference sites (unimpacted areas),

46 regional sites, and

104 acidic deposition sites.

Monitoring parameters included benthic

organisms, macroinvertebrates, fish samples,

physical habitat condition, and physical and

chemical water quality components. The

monitoring period was from mid-April to late June

(EPA). MAHA also coordinated monitoring at

45 sites for forest conditions. In 1994, monitoring

included 296 wadable stream sites, forest health

monitoring at 120 sites, and 1200 National

Agricultural Statistical Survey sites (EPA). The

monitoring frequency and duration was designed

to support an assessment of current conditions,

rather than trend analysis (Preston 1995). The

staff hopes that possible future monitoring cycles

will generate sufficient data for trend analysis.

MAHA also includes landscape ecology—the

study of the influence of landscape patterns on the

flow of water, energy, nutrients, and biota (EPA).

To generate an accurate picture of land use/land

cover of the Highlands, EPA, FWS, USGS, and

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) formed a partnership with

the National Data Center at USGS to develop

comprehensive land-characteristic data from

satellite imagery for the entire United States.

Land-cover mapping for the MAHA region is

estimated to be complete in 1996 (EPA). At that

time, stream biological conditions and landscape

conditions can be compared at different watershed

scales and overlaid with numerous coverages

such as point source discharges. Therefore EPA

will have georeferenced formats for both a

representative sample of stream segments and

the watersheds that influence them. This model

can be used by others as they move toward

watershed-based management.

The field crews include a team of four

investigators (including staff from EPA Region III

state water pollution control agencies, FWS, and

contractors) which conducts 6- to 8-hour site

visits. Project investigators also attend an annual

training session on SOP documentation.

MAHA adopted EMAP's sampling protocols for

benthic surveys, chemical analysis, fish

community sampling, and physical habitat

assessment. An EMAP team of representatives

from EPA, USGS, state water pollution control

agencies, and FWS jointly reviewed each

agency’s protocols and negotiated uniform

procedures for each of the above areas. The

review team selected EPA’s procedures for

benthic macroinvertebrate surveys and chemical

analysis and USGS's NAQWA procedures for fish

community sampling. Because physical habitat

assessment was not standardized, the team

contracted with a consultant to develop

assessment procedures that were incorporated

into the sampling SOPs. The manual adopted by

MAHA also includes standardized procedures for

sample preservation.

DATA ANALYSIS

EMAP contracted with laboratories for the MAHA

project previously used by EMAP for other

projects, including a university contract for

chemical analysis, a private laboratory for

macroinvertebrate sampling and analysis, and the

Smithsonian for fish community. EMAP used an

interagency team, the same procedure used to

negotiate field sampling protocols, to establish

and document SOPs and QA/QC for laboratory

analysis.

Laboratories send MAHA data to EMAP staff for

second-level QA/QC. Data are currently being

interpreted jointly by EMAP and EPA Region III

staff. The strategy is to develop strawman
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

28

assessments to be sent out for interagency peer

review and comment. MAHA staff indicated that

additional time and planning are needed for the

data analysis/interpretation stage.

USE OF DATA

MAHA uses data to develop stressor indicators.

Stressors are characteristics of the environment

that are suspected to worsen the condition of the

ecological resource; they can be natural or human

induced (EPA). MAHA uses reference conditions

to evaluate alterations in four diagnostic

categories that comprise the full range of impacts

to aquatic systems (EPA):

Chemical alterations, including pollution

by nutrients, metals, and organic

compounds. They can be classified by

contaminant source categories: point

source, overland non-point source, and

atmospheric point and nonpoint sources.

Hydrologic alterations, including the timing, amount, and path of flow.

Physical habitat alterations, including

changes in habitat complexity, substrate

size, bank stability, and riparian vegetation.

Biological alterations, including the introduction of exotic species (both plant and

animal), overstocking and overharvesting

of fish, and loss of plant and animal species.

Assessments are intended to support strategic

planning efforts; also, some states have

committed to using assessments to (EPA):

Rank problems according to severity and

focus future field assessment work on

areas with the worst problems to measure

the effectiveness of remediation efforts.

Identify problems with toxics for special

control programs.

Select waters to be protected from any

further degradation.

Establish instream goals for clean-up activities and calculate appropriate permit

limits.

Evaluate the effectiveness of water

quality criteria or best management

practices.

COST

Scientific and information management services

are funded through EPA ORD's EMAP budget at a

cost of $1.4 million per year. EPA Region III

provides in-kind administrative services at an

estimated cost of $300,000 per year, bringing the

total annual project cost to $1.7 million currently.

This is an in-house EPA leverage factor of 1.2 and

does not include the in-kind contributions from

other agencies.

CHALLENGES

MAHA staff identified obstacles EPA faced in

forming the consortium. First, each state and federal agency had its own procedures. To obtain

buy-in for adopting EMAP's uniform procedures

for field sampling and laboratory analysis for the

data collection period, EPA Region III

demonstrated that:

Existing monitoring objectives could be

met using the new, uniform protocols

New protocols would not automatically be

mandated in the future by EPA (Due to

the experimental nature of the project in

which EMAP protocols were essentially

being implemented for the first time,

protocols would be evaluated and refined,

as needed, after project completion.)

The monitoring design could save the

states money in the future

Second, an ongoing challenge to the MAHA

project is communicating the value of the project

to multiple agencies and how it might help meet

their diverse objectives. Staff sees this as not only

a challenge in effective communication, but also

to a sustained leadership. From the earliest

discussions, EPA Region III assumed the

leadership, or champion, role. Staff indicated that

other partners had previously viewed EPA as a

narrowly focused regulator (Preston 1995). MAHA

partners accepted and appreciated EPA's new role

of neutral organizer of holistic resource

assessment, but some individuals and landowners
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

29

believed EPA would turn MAHA into an

enforcement action.

MAHA also identified major obstacles to implementing or continuing the project. First, the logistical challenge was significantly underestimated, including obtaining landowner permission for sampling, a narrow window for sampling requiring 6

crews in the field at a time, and all equipment and

supplies assembled and conveniently dropped for

the teams. Running the project smoothly required

detailed advanced planning. For highest

efficiency, similar projects should (Preston 1995):

Identify all sampling sites 9 months in advance

Identify all landowners of sampling sites

and requested access permission 6

months in advance

Have all logistical information in hand,

including equipment and supplies needed,

3 months in advance

Getting landowner approval to enter property required a great deal of research, mailing, follow-up,

and local site visits. After increased media

attention about the Endangered Species Act, a

number of land owners refused site access.

Dropping these sites has the potential to bias

results. MAHA staff advised overcoming this

limitation by identifying a local, part-time

cooperator who can go to the courthouse to

identify the landowners and make initial contact

with landowners.

Thorough planning is needed for the data interpretation and analysis phase (Preston 1995). In retrospect, the staff believes each phase needs equal

attention upfront. MAHA staff believes that

planning for the data collection phase and, in

retrospect, that MAHA would have benefited from

more upfront planning for data interpretation. One

way that MAHA/ORD-EMAP staff are dealing with

the quandry of a tremendous amount of data and

limited assessment/evaluation resources is to

distribute strawman assessment documents for

wide peer review to state and regional experts.

PROGRAM EVALUATION

MAHA staff indicate the program will be evaluated

in 1996–1997 upon completion of field sampling

and an interpretation of the 1993–1994 data

(Preston 1995).

SOURCES

EPA. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment—The

Application of Environmental Assessment to the

Management of Ecosystems.

MAHA. 1994. Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment—Monitoring and Assessment

Conference. February.

Jones, DeMoss, et al. Mid-Atlantic Highlands

Assessment: Comprehensive Environmental

Assessment for Strategic Planning in the MidAtlantic Highlands of the United States. A Paper

for the 25th International Symposium on Remote

Sensing and Environmental Change.

Preston, R. August 6, 1995. Personal communication with EPA Region III Biological

Sciences Coordinator.
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

30

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUILDING AND

MAINTAINING STRONG MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

In the early 1990s, the Intergovernmental Task

Force for Monitoring, comprising representatives

from multiple state and federal agencies, recognized the importance of effectively coordinating

efforts and developed recommendations for collaborative, integrated monitoring (Appendix A).

Additionally, staff from the four consortium case

studies were asked, "What would you advise other

groups that would like to set up a consortium,

particularly insights on obstacles they may face,

how to overcome them, and keys to success?"

Several common themes on pitfalls and

successes emerged from our study.

Recommendations from ITFM and the consortium

suggest a ten-step process for building a strong

monitoring consortium (Figure 16). Below are suggested milestones and guiding principles for each

of the ten steps. Generally, the list conveys a

progression of actions; many steps, however, will

be conducted concurrently, and all actions are

interrelated.

SUGGESTED MILESTONES AND GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

STEP 1: EXPLORE NEED FOR AND BENEFITS OF

STRATEGIC, COORDINATED MONITORING

• Identify key managers and permit holders in

the study area (e.g., estuary drainage area,

water supply watershed, and whole river basin)

and determine whether sense of need is

shared.

• Identify at least one expected benefit for each

partner (e.g., the state, local governments, and

industrial dischargers).

• Host discussions in a neutral meeting place

using a neutral facilitator (if possi ble).

STEP 2: ESTABLISH LEADERSHIP (WHO WILL

CHAMPION THE CAUSE?)

• If initial discussions with key players indicate

an interest in coordinated monitoring, identify

which agency or organization will assume the

primary leadership role.

STEP 1: EXPLORE NEED FOR AND BENEFITS OF

STRATEGIC, COORDINATED MONITORING

STEP 2: ESTABLISH LEADERSHIP (WHO WILL

CHAMPION THE CAUSE?)

STEP 3: ESTABLISH CONSENSUS ON NEED FOR COORDINATED MONITORING

STEP 4: DESIGN THE MONITORING PROGRAM

STEP 5: PLAN HOW TO INTERPRET DATA AND REPORT

FINDINGS

STEP 6: DESIGN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

STEP 7: ESTIMATE COST AND ACQUIRE FUNDING

STEP 8: DRAFT CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS

STEP 9: DEVELOP GOVERNANCE AGREEMENTS AND

STRUCTURES

STEP 10: DEVELOP A TIMELINE AND METHOD FOR

EVALUATING THE PROJECT

FIGURE 16. STEPS TO BUILDING A STRONG

MONITORING CONSORTIUM.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

31

• Identify an objective, neutral organization to

lead recruiting, organizing, and educating

potential partners and facilitating the process (if

possible).

• Establish a plan for contacting partners in the

watershed and exploring monitoring strategies.

• To the extent possible, tap leadership in existing organizations, associations, and forums.

• Spread leadership mantle over potential partners (for example, by speaking at existing

forums in the watershed, working on task

forces, and chairing task forces.

• Engage a representative of each potential

partner in the design and decision-making

process.

STEP 3: ESTABLISH CONSENSUS ON NEED FOR COORDINATED MONITORING

• After laying initial groundwork, establish a

broad-based consensus through a neutral

forum on the need for and general purposes of

the monitoring program. Use an existing forum

for consensus building, if possible.

• For NPDES permit holders ensure that the

coordinated monitoring program helps meet, or

offsets, regulatory requirements (to the extent

possible).

• Communicate specific expected benefits to

each partner group, including potential cost

savings and resource leveraging.

• Obtain buy-in or authority to develop recommendations on specific monitoring goals and

objectives, monitoring design, project budget

and cost allocations, project governance and

management, and project evaluation.

• Establish a timeline and a task force for developing and reporting recommendations.

• The Task Force completes Step 4-10.

STEP 4: DESIGN THE MONITORING PROGRAM

• Draft specific monitoring goals and objectives

to guide program design. If the monitoring

program is a component of a watershed

management framework, monitoring goals

should reflect needs and priorities for longterm, baseline assessment as well as shorterterm, strategic assessment.

• Design the monitoring program for the flexibility and continuity to measure long-term trends;

regularly evaluate the monitoring program to

ensure that the project meets goals and

objectives cost effectively and adequately addresses emerging issues and priority concerns.

• Review and evaluate historical monitoring data

and protocols for the study area.

• Identify others who may participate in coordinated monitoring and assessment, including representatives from all levels of

government, the private sector, universities,

and regulatory and voluntary monitoring

programs.

• Design program to take advantage of historical

and existing monitoring programs of other

agencies and overall capabilities and resources

of consortium members; avoid duplicating

efforts.

• Select monitoring parameters, sites, and

frequencies consistent with monitoring goals

and objectives.

• Establish flow measurement sites as well as

reference sites to aid in water quality data

interpretation and assessment.

• Using a performance-based monitoring approach, establish field sampling, laboratory,

and QA/QC protocols that are compatible and

yield comparable data.

• Where there are uncertainties about compatibility of protocols, incorporate tests into first

year workplan (and subsequent years as

needed) to determine compatibility, and

institute changes in protocols in a timely way.

• Jointly choose/design data interpretation

methods and indicators to measure progress in

meeting monitoring goals (related to Step 5 -

Interpreting and Reporting Data). Make sure

monitoring design supports index measurement

and other assessment tools.

• Conduct pilot studies as needed.
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

32

• Document monitoring design, protocols, and

participants’ responsibilities in a manual of

standard operating procedures.

• Determine who will do field work, and lab

analysis.

• Develop annual cost estimates for the monitoring program, including field work, lab

analysis, and QA/QC.

STEP 5: PLAN HOW TO INTERPRET DATA AND REPORT

FINDINGS

• Outline methods and types of data interpretation (e.g., water quality trend analysis,

pollutant loading, and general conditions)

consistent with project goals and objectives.

Because the monitoring design must support

index measurement and other assessment

tools, the planning process for monitoring

design and data interpretation should be

integrated and concurrent.

• Determine audience for project reporting and

develop effective and appropriate formats for

each audience.

• Jointly select environmental indicators to

measure progress in meeting monitoring goals.

Make sure monitoring design supports index

measurement and other assessment tools.

• Develop communication plan for regularly

scheduled data interpretation and report on

project findings.

• Develop mechanism for tracking benefits, including documenting cost savings, for the

consortium collectively and for members

individually. Report benefits with other project

findings.

• Determine who will interpret data and produce

reports.

• Estimate annual cost for interpreting data and

reporting results to consortium members and

the general public.5

 

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

annual project budget. MAHA is currently inter preting data, but

project staff did not develop a detailed workplan and budget for this

component; in hindsight staff believe they should have devoted equal

resources to data collection and data in terpretation phases.

STEP 6: DESIGN THE DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

• Implement a performance-based monitoring

system to obtain comparable data and achieve

more flexible use of monitoring and laboratory

analysis methods.

• Jointly develop standard names, definitions,

and formats for each data element. Produce a

cross-referencing code list and data dictionary,

as needed.

• Jointly establish QA/QC procedures for data

review, entry, verification, etc.

• Document methods, protocols, and QA/QC

procedures in a standard operating procedures

manual.

• Record metadata (e.g., data sources and

quality).

• Using standard programs, make data available

to project participants and other interested

groups.

• Have central, automated library for all updated

files and reports.

• Determine who will manage project data.

• Develop annual cost estimates for managing

data, including retrieving data from cooperating

agencies and conducting QA/QC of overall

database.

STEP 7: ESTIMATE COST AND ACQUIRE FUNDING

• Add cost estimates from Steps 4-6.

• Estimate project administration/management

cost (at a minimum of 5% of total technical

budget).

• Identify funding sources for project monitoring

and administration, including likely cost-share

cooperative agreements; grants; and federal,

state, and local governments.

• Propose annual project budget detailing cost

and major revenue sources for the first phase

of the project, which is generally 3-5 years.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

33

STEP 8: DRAFT CONTRACTS/AGREEMENTS

• Draft contracts, memoranda of agreement,

cooperative agreements, a manual of standard

operating procedures, and other mechanisms

for formalizing technical and administrative

roles and responsibilities of consortium

participants.

STEP 9: DEVELOP GOVERNANCE AGREEMENTS AND

STRUCTURES

• Include representatives of potential partners

early in the project design.

• Convene a subcommittee with policy and

technical representatives to draft proposed

project by-laws establishing roles, functions,

and membership as well as methods of

appointment and voting rules for the project’s

steering committee.

• Develop criteria for allocating project costs

among and within member groups.

• Develop a subcommittee with policy and

technical representatives to draft proposed

project incorporation agreement, interlocal

agreement, memoranda of agreement, or other

instrument to formalize the purpose, goals, and

objectives of the monitoring consortium;

responsibilities of members; duration of the

project; and project budget, method of

allocating costs, and member dues. Send draft

agreement to potential partners for ratification.

(They should receive it 4-6 months before new

fiscal year to include project dues early in

budget process.)

• Retain a project manager considered by all

task force members to be neutral and objective

(if possible).

STEP 10: DEVELOP A TIMELINE AND METHOD FOR

EVALUATING THE PROJECT

• The measures for project evaluation are its

stated goals and objectives.

• Generally, the project should be comprehensively evaluated every 3 to 5 years. This

should also be the duration for memoranda of

agreements and other contracts.

• The project should be adjusted annually, as

needed, to meet emerging issues or concerns.

• Project evaluation should include benefits to

consortium members.

• After evaluation, proposed changes in the project workplan, goals and objectives for the next

phase, as well as cost should be clearly

explained and defended.

• New contracts agreements should be drafted

and forwarded to consortium members to

reflect results of project evalu ation.

• Experience indicates that this process—from

early explorations to initial field sampling—will

take at least 1 year, but more often 2 years, to

fully implement.

CONCLUSION

Many environmental resource managers are

turning to a watershed-based approach to restore

and protect our natural resources. Key to this

approach is management that integrates a wide

range of technical expertise, regulatory and nonregulatory authorities, and strategic

implementation. Increasingly limited program

resources intensify the need for strategic,

coordinated management and for decision-making

that remains focused on priority environmental

concerns.

In the last decade, groups have successfully used

monitoring partnerships to address many different

problems and monitoring objectives as well as waterbodies and ecosystems of varying geographic

scales. Moreover, they have saved money in the

process. Purposes of monitoring programs vary

from water supply protection to coordinated,

whole-basin wastewater discharge management to

ecosystem assessment. Although the case studies

highlighted some differences in the approach to

setting up and maintaining a consortium, several

common themes on program pitfalls and

successes, and a ten-step process for building and

maintaining a strong monitoring consortium

emerged.
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

34

Watershed management is a continuing cycle of

identifying, prioritizing, and mitigating key watershed issues. Well-defined watershed priorities depend on solid assessment of good information;

good information depends on well-designed monitoring. Public and private agencies should design

a strategic, coordinated monitoring program as a

cycle within the larger cycle of watershed

activities.

TOP TEN LESSONS LEARNED

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

• Take advantage of existing organizations (particularly key leaders), current and historical

monitoring programs to establish a strong foundation.

• Design a coordinated monitoring program that meets the collective and individual needs of the

participants. For example, to the extent possible, ensure that the monitoring helps the regulated

partners help meet or offset permit monitoring require ments.

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

leadership mantle.

• Design the monitoring program for continuity (so you can measure long-term trends) and flexibility

(so you are adequately addressing emerging issues and priority concerns).

• Using a performance-based approach, design field sampling, lab analysis, or data management

with flexibility and compati bility as your guiding principles.

• Adequately plan and budget for data collection, management, and interpretation. Quality assurance

and quality control is essential for long-term program credibility.

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

• Regularly evaluate the monitoring program to make sure you are meeting the project’s goals and

objectives cost effectively and that you are adequately addressing emerg ing issues.

• Value the project’s unquantifiable asset: the good working relationship you are building with

consortium partners.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

35

APPENDIX A

MAJOR ITFM RECOMMENDATIONS

A. MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT PROGRAM DESIGN

• Design water-quality monitoring programs to measure progress in meeting clearly stated goals

for aquatic resources.

• Public and private organizations should develop and/or evaluate their monitoring programs using

the framework fro monitoring recommended in this report.

• Gather and evaluate existing information using geographic information systems to portray water

resources conditions and the River Reach File 3 codes to georeference water bodies.

• Adopt flexible monitoring program designs tailored to the conditions, uses, and goals for water

resources in specific areas.

B. ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

• Jointly choose specific environmental indicators to measure progress toward water quality goals,

including State standards for designated uses.

• Use the multimetric approach to characterize biological integrity.

• Agree on a core set of widely physical, chemical, and biological indicators that support interstate

and national aggregations of comparable information for assessments.

C. COMPARABLE METHODS AND DATA

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

• Implement a performance-based monitoring methods system (PMBS) to achieve both

comparable data and more flexible use of monitoring methods.

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

assessments.

D. DATA STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL

• Automate useful information .

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

applications.

• Use standard data sets, communications, and access systems when they are available.
NO. 3 MONITORING CONSORTIUMS

36

E. INTERPRETATION, ASSESSMENT, AND REPORTING

• Regularly interpret, assess, and report measurements and raw data for use by the public and

decision-makers. Do not simply collect data.

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

• Seek a change in the Clean Water Act to alter the reporting period identified in section 305(b)

from every 2 years to every 5 years.

F. TRAINING

• Promote training at all levels of government to transfer technology and to facilitate comparable

and scientifically sound methods and data.

G. VOLUNTEER MONITORING

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

government.

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

programs.

H. EVALUATION

• Organizations should regularly evaluate the monitoring programs and resulting information to

ensure that they are meeting management goals and to adjust the programs as requirements

change.

• Nationwide evaluations of water-quality monitoring activities similar to the ITFM effort should be

conducted every 5 years.

I. INSTITUTIONAL COLLABORATION

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

• Establish a National Water Quality Monitoring Council with broad representation to develop

guidelines for use nationwide, to foster technology transfer, and to coordinate planning and

resource sharing.

• Building on existing collaborative mechanisms, establish and maintain teams comprised of

monitoring organizations to implement the strategy within State and Tribal jurisdictions and at the

interstate level, as necessary.

• Link national ambient water-quality assessment programs.
WATERSHED ACADEMY INFORMATION TRANSFER SERIES

37

J. PILOT STUDIES AND PLANNING

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

• Carefully plan and coordinate efforts to implement the ITFM recommendations. In particular,

special care must be taken to ensure that attempts to implement aspects of the strategy using

available monitoring resources do not adversely impact existing monitoring that now supports

critical objectives.