council logo board banner

Findings of the Wisconsin Pilot for the

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring (ITFM)

Water Quality

Wisconsin Water Resources Coordination Project

 

Prepared through the cooperative efforts of the the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management and the United States Geological Survey

 

Funding was provided by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and the United States Geological Survey, Wisconsin District

December, 1994

THE WISCONSIN WATER RESOURCES COORDINATION PROJECT TEAM (WWRCP)

1994

Elizabeth Jester-Fellows, ITFM Chair

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters

Nancy Lopez, ITFM Vice-Chair

United States Geological Survey, Headquarters

Herb Brass, Data Collection and Methods Task Group, Co-Chair

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality

Russ Sherer, Data Collection and Methods Task Group, Co-Chair

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality

Bruce J. Baker

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Hal Kibby

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Monitoring Assessment Program Region X

Jeff Gagler

United States Environmental Protection Agency

Region V

Duane H. Schuettpelz

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Warren Gebert

United States Geological Survey

Tom Bainbridge

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Charlie Peters

National Water Quality Assessment Program

Joseph Ball

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Dale Robertson

United States Geological Survey

Phil Kammerer

United States Geological Survey

Gail M. Epping

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A personal thanks to some of the people who made this effort possible through the contributions of time, information, effort and cooperation, we are gratefully thankful. The following people made this effort complete with their contributions: George Bowman and Bob Schuknecht of the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene, Jerry Diamond of Tetra Tech Inc., Jim Amrhein, Steve Galarneau, Mary Gansberg, Kenneth D. Genskow, Meg Turville-Heitz, Greg Hill, Lee Liebenstein, John Lyons, Richard D. Margerum, John Masterson, Jo Mercurio, Mike Meyer, Bob Paulson, Mark Sesing, Mike Sorge, Jeff Shure, Carol Tiegs, Danielle Valvasorri, David Webb and Steve Westenbroek of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, and Herb Garn, Dan Olson, Kevin Richards and Tom Wittwer of the Wisconsin District United States Geological Survey. Many individuals contributed to this effort by providing information, contributing ideas and reviewing report contents. Their help is appreciated. A special "Thanks" to Paul Rasmussen, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Research for his invaluable consultation and effort.

PREFACE

This final report is submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in partial fulfillment of the requirements in a 1993 grant (Grant# Wi930406-103-N66505XX) The U.S. Geological Survey under contract with the WDNR, have contributed extensively to the project.

DISCLAIMER

This report does not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Mention of trad names of commercial products does not constitute endorsement of recommendation for use.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 1

WISCONSIN WATER RESOURCES COORDINATION PROJECT 2

HISTORY OF WWRCP 3

PILOT OBJECTIVES

SUMMARY OF METHOD COMPARABILITY STUDY

PURPOSE OF REPORT 3

EXISTING PROGRAMS

THE EVOLUTION OF USGS

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES MONITORING PROGRAM

INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS THROUGHOUT WISCONSIN 9

WATER QUALITY DATABASES 6

ONGOING USGS/WDNR COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES 11

RESULTS

fUNDING, LOGISTICS, COOPERATION, FIELD RESULTS BRIEFLY, DISCUSS BULLET SOLUTIONS (RATHER THAN PROBLEMS),

SUGGESTIONS

Reflections/working together section, introduce topic with a quote, respond with a bullet solution, include team building brief discussion, communication (decrease size and refer to gathering for rivers and other examples of efforts that are working)

PLANS

PART OF LOOKING AHEAD

PROGRAM MONITORING OBJECTIVES 5

FUNDING 7

REFLECTIONS 13

COORDINATION MECHANISMS 15

COMMUNICATION 15

A GATHERING FOR THE RIVERS...A MESSAGE WORTH HEARING! 17

GOOD EXAMPLES TO FOLLOW! 19

LOOKING AHEAD 20

TECHNICAL REPORT

A Comparison of Water-Quality Sample Collection Methods used by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 24

FINAL NOTE 35

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT 36

APPENDIX A

Original Terms of Reference for the WWRCP 37

GLOSSARY 41

REFERENCES 43

INTRODUCTION

"Effective environmental monitoring is essential to understanding, managing, and protecting the quality of the water resources of the United States. Monitoring is a key factor to improving natural resource and ecosystem decision-making that will maintain sustainable ecosystems, protect human health, and support a healthy economy. Limited resources demand that agencies engaged in environmental monitoring conduct their operations as effectively and efficiently as possible. The job is too big to be accomplished by any one agency. Resources and data must be shared wherever feasible (Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, 1994)."

The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) is a partnership between Federal, State, and interstate agencies to improve water-quality monitoring nationwide. The ITFM, chaired by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and vice-chaired by the United States Geological Survey (USGS), is part of the implementation of a 1991 Office of Management and Budget directive to strengthen coordination for water information nationwide. The USGS has lead responsibility for the Water Information Coordination Program, and other Federal agencies are active participants. Members of the ITFM currently include 10 Federal agencies, and 10 State, Interstate and Tribal agencies. Over 140 agency representatives serve on the ITFM's eight working groups:

Framework Task Group

Environmental Indicators Task Group

Data Collection Methods Task Group

Data Management and Information Sharing Task Group

Assessment and Reporting Task Group

Ground Water Focus Group

Monitoring Cost Work Group

National Survey Work Group

According to the ITFM (1992), our Nation has "spent more than $500 billion on water-pollution abatement since the 1970's," yet "we are unable to adequately document the effectiveness of these investments in achieving the objectives of the Clean Water Act and other Federal and State legislation related to water quality. This problem has led to a general consensus that Federal and State agencies need better water quality information to effectively manage and to evaluate the impacts of past or present water pollution control efforts on the Nation's fresh surface-water, coastal-water, and ground-water resources. This need for better information has led numerous groups to call for greater coordination, consistency, and collaboration among Federal, State, and local agencies engaged in water-quality monitoring activities."

Key recommendations from the ITFM will be implemented in the Wisconsin Water Resources Coordination Project (WWRCP) . These specific recommmendations are 1) to implement a performance-based methods system (PBMS) to achieve both comparable data and more flexible use of monitoring methods, 2) to work with representatives from all levels of government and the private sector to improve water-quality monitoring at national, interstate, State and Tribal, and watershed levels, 3) to build upon existing collaborative mechanisms, establish and maintain teams comprised of monitonring organizations to implement the strategy within State and Tribal jurisdictions and at the interstate level, as necessary and 4) to agree on a core set of widely useful key physical, chemical, and biological indicators that would support interstate and national aggregations of comparable information for assessments.

WISCONSIN WATER RESOURCES COORDINATION PROJECT

The overall recommendation of the ITFM is to assure that water quality monitoring programs are conducted in an integrated manner so that better information is available to effectively manage and evaluate the quality of the nation's waters. In 1992, Wisconsin offered to sponsor a "pilot" project for statewide implementation of the recommendations of the ITFM. The State's integration capabilities allowed for an ideal opportunity to carry out such an effort.

The pilot, hereafter referred to as the Wisconsin Water Resources Coordination Project (WWRCP), involves the United States EPA's Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) and the USGS Wisconsin District Office. The project was funded through the contributions of EMAP, WDNR and USGS Wisconsin District Office. Other organizations (e.g., other federal, state and local agencies, Indian tribes or organizations, volunteer citizen groups) who express interest in coordinating water quality monitoring activities have also been invited to participate.

The ITFM First Year Report (1992), which serves as the basis for this effort, states that one task is "...to conduct a series of demonstration projects to test out the proposed coordination concepts, and involve others who monitor water resources--local governments, industry, and public interest and volunteer groups." The WWRCP is one of the demonstration projects set out to test some of the proposed ITFM concept. The established mission for the WWRCP as recorded in the original Terms of Reference is "...to develop and implement a plan to coordinate and, where possible, integrate water resources monitoring and assessment in the State..." and, to "... evaluate the effectiveness of various institutional mechanisms for accomplishing effective coordination and integration." We anticipate that the WWRCP will serve as a model for coordinating monitoring activities in other states and regions.

The WWRCP seeks to "...achieve effective, integrated data collection, interpretation, and presentation of water information...to provide a basis for more informed decision-making." The various objectives of the WWRCP include coordinating monitoring activities and programs, developing the means to have USGS and other agencies data included in the state's biennial 305(b) Report to Congress, determining the comparability of monitoring and laboratory procedures between agencies and planning the future establishment of an ITFM structure in Wisconsin. The scope of the Pilot effort was limited to those priority issues that were concurred upon by all WWRCP members. The Original Terms of Reference (Appendix A) outlines the original scope of the pilot, which will remain as future objectives upon permanent establishment of the WWRCP.

Considerable integration and coordination of water quality monitoring has been a hallmark of the WDNR/USGS programs for many years, and USEPA and WDNR have worked together in a more regulatory setting for years. The WWRCP serves to enhance these partnerships, incorporate other agencies and provide a model for future efforts at the state and national level. Outlined in Appendix B are several examples of cooperative efforts in the state.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

The purpose of this report is to exemplify institutional and technical areas of interagency cooperation and weaknesses in coordination. This report documents coordination activities during the pilot phase of the WWRCP and evaluates the effectiveness of the project in achieving its objectives. The WWRCP has been designed to achieve five principal tasks: (1) coordinate present and planned water resources monitoring programs and activities within the state and integrate participating agency activities to the extent possible given their different mission responsibilities; (2) identify interagency commonalities in monitoring objectives, activities, and methods; (3) compare existing water quality monitoring methods; (4) investigate the potential for common information systems and recommend whether or not a common system should be implemented in the state; and (5) identify areas needing improvement to more effectively implement an ITFM framework in Wisconsin. It is our hope that this document will provide a starting point for other groups planning on implementing the ITFM strategy. If, through sharing our experiences, we can provide information to others that will allow their implementation process to eliminate some of the roadblocks along the way, we will have accomplished a great deal.

HISTORY OF WWRCP

The establishment of the WWRCP in November, 1992 began with a meeting involving representatives of the four principal agencies involved in the ITFM Wisconsin effort, USEPA (EMAP Program, Region V, Headquarters), USGS, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the WDNR. This initial meeting resulted in the development of a "Charter" or Terms of Reference which has served as the template for the subsequent work. The four parties were the intended signatories to the Terms of Reference. Official signatories are WDNR and USGS, Wisconsin District.

From the Original Terms of Reference the following project objectives were outlined:

I. Coordinate present and planned water resources monitoring programs and activities within the State to integrate participating agency activities to the extent possible given their different mission responsibilities. Specific coordination tasks include:

A. Identify common monitoring objectives and activities to meet those objectives.

B. Develop QA/QC guidelines.

C. Identify core environmental indicators to address biological, water column, sediment and other compartments of the aquatic ecosystem.

D. Evaluate the various field and laboratory methods currently in use by various agencies.

E. Investigate and promote comparable field and laboratory methods.

F. Develop common station selection criteria and coordination of station selection.

G. Enhance sharing of, review needs for and promote the development of required ancillary data.

H. Initiate the use of common information systems to the extent possible(compare NWIS and STORET updates).

I. Promote development and standardization of data analysis and information reporting techniques.

J. Promote coordination of ongoing field activities during 1993 and implement joint sampling activities for future years.

II. Establish a framework to incorporate all appropriate water quality monitoring information into the 1996 Wisconsin 305(b) report and which:

A.Builds upon the Wisconsin 305(b) report of 1994.

B. Uses new guidelines developed jointly by the participating agencies.

C. Includes data collected by all participating agencies.

D. Includes joint analysis and interpretation of the data used in the report.

E. Establish an integrated "reference condition" monitoring program.

F. Prepare a report that documents coordination activities during the pilot phase of the project and that evaluates the effectiveness of the project in achieving the above objectives.The goal of the WWRCP is to achieve effective, integrated data collection, interpretation, and presentation of water information in the State of Wisconsin to provide a basis for informed decision-making.

The original one-year duration of the pilot (as outlined in Appendix A) was lengthened, through member consensus, to two years to adequately cover the field monitoring objectives of the pilot and to account for the changes in scope due to the mentioned delays and changes in level of member participation. The lack of participation from the FWS was due to an already saturated staff workload and the reassignment of staff to the National Biological Survey (NBS). Their membership on the committee continued throughout the project, though communication was limited to meeting minutes and conference calls.

In January, 1993 the WWRCP Committee met to outline their impressions of the major questions to be answered by the Pilot. The common key elements in the purpose of the Pilot that emerged were:

1) the need for a process or structure to properly assess water quality

2) the need for commitment to a long-term institutional framework

3) to address the need for appropriate tools for implementation

4) to address the reality of costs needed for appropriate monitoring and

5) to provide a framework for improving communication and coordination efforts between agencies.

FUNDING

Considerable discussion at the initial meeting centered on the issue of funding to carry out this effort. The USEPA EMAP program volunteered to provide support by contributing $100,000. All parties agreed that the most logical use of this funding was to provide support for a state-level WWRCP coordinator to oversee and implement the goals and objectives as expressed in the Terms of Reference. In addition, the USGS-Office of Water Data Coordination provided $23,000 to the Wisconsin District to help support District activities, and the USGS Wisconsin District contributed an additional $19,000 to the project. Similar levels of support in the form of staff and laboratory support was provided by the WDNR.

In the months following, communication continued through conference calls and additional meetings. In July of 1993 a study plan was developed to provide statistical reliability and monitoring sites were reselected to assure the project's sampling study objectives could be met. All this was accomplished through the cooperative efforts of several staff, with expertise in differing areas, from the WDNR, University of Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (SLOH), and USGS Wisconsin District staff. During the process several new contacts were made, sharing of expertise took place and development of a great deal of mutual respect and understanding began.

SAMPLE-COLLECTION METHOD COMPARISON SUMMARY

The USGS and the WDNR monitor the quality of Wisconsin's streams. Sample collection and processing protocols differ between agencies, and samples are analyzed by different laboratories. Data comparability is an issue to data users who may wish to combine or exchange data, but the degree to which differences in protocols affect results of water-quality moinitoring is unknown. The primary objective of this study was to evalutate differences in results of water-quality monitoring caused by differences in sample-collection methods, flow-integrated sampling (USGS) and grab sampling (WDNR), were compared for three streams and for a range of flow conditions. Constituents used for the comparison were dissolved orthophosphorus, total phosphorus, dissolved chloride, and suspended sediment/total suspended solids. Each stream was sampled four times: twice at stable base flow and twice at high flow. Concurrent samples were collected by each of the two sample-collection methods. The effects of between-agnecy differences in sample processing and analytical procedures on results of water-quality analyses were removed by splitting all samples between laboratories and evaluating sample-collection methods independently using the results from each laboratory. The split for each laboratory was further split into triplicate samples to evaluate laboratory precision. Laboratories used in the study were the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL). USGS Iowa District sediment laboratory, and the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (SLOH).

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired student t-tests were used to test for significant differnces (p=0.05) in constituent concentrations between sampling methods and between laboratories for constituents analyzed by comparable laboratory methods. Concentrations of total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, and dissolved chloride did not differ significantlybetween sampling methods in either base-flow or high-flow samples. Concentrations of suspended sediment and total suspended solids did not differ significantly between sampling methods in base-flow samples, but there were significant differences, concentrations of suspended sediment and total suspended solids were lower in grab samples collected on the same day were not significant for either sampling method. Differences in concentrations of dissolved orthophosphorus between samples filtered in the field and samples filtered in the laboratory were not significant.

Differences in concentrations of total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, and dissolved chloride between

Sample collection method comparisons began in August at three stream sites and one lake site. The sites were sampled again in October and at high flow in the spring and summer of 1994. The description of the comparison study is outlined in the attached "A Comparison of Water-Quality Sample Collection Methods Used by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources" document.

EXISTING PROGRAMS

THE EVOLUTION OF USGS INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS THROUGHOUT WISCONSIN

Water Resources partnerships in the State of Wisconsin are many. Partners involved in a myriad of projects include NOAA/Wisconsin Coastal Management Program, Wisconsin Adopt an Eagle Nest Program, Great Lakes Protection Fund, National Park Service (NPS), University of Minnesota, University of Wisconsin, Ohio EPA, Michigan DNR, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, U.S. FWS, U.S.D.A. Forest Service, WDNR: Bureaus of Research, Wildlife Management, Endangered Resources, Fisheries Management, Water Resources Management, and Wastewater Management, the Sigurd Olson Institute, NBS, National Fisheries Contaminant Research Center, Great Lakes National Program Office, International Joint Commission, St. Louis Riverwatch, Lake Superior Forum (Citizen Advisory Committee), Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, and many, many more. Appendix B lists just some of the cooperative efforts in Wisconsin involving some of these organizations.

MONITORING PROGRAMS

Historically, Wisconsin's water quality monitoring programs have met program objectives by emphasizing compliance monitoring, conventional pollutants, and point sources of pollution. Monitoring needs have changed in the past decades and are currently not met through traditional monitoring programs. A greater emphasis upon nonpoint source pollutants, ecosystem conditions and contamination by toxic substances, is needed and must be addressed with current programs. Although, the WDNR has attempted to capture these needs in the current programs, the first program components to be targeted in cutbacks are the ones needing greater emphasis. In identifying the various program objectives, it is then possible to identify common and conflicting goals that may be coordinated to provide an integrated monitoring effort statewide.

As a starting point for the WWRCP, each program was asked to bring to the table established program monitoring objectives to define areas of concurrence and discord in order to appropriately determine how to best design the study to meet the needs of all groups involved, to the greatest possible extent. The following objectives were outlined by the corresponding programs:

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: The Department of Natural Resources serves as the central unit of state government to protect, maintain and improve the quality and uses of the waters of the state. To meet this responsibility if tis necessary to know the quality of water, and to identify problems and their causes. A major goal and objective of the Bureau of Water Resources Management is to monitor the quality of the state's waters to respond to the needs of management and regulatory reponsibilities. Information gathered through monitoring efforts will aid the program in educating and increasing public awareness about the environment and the stresses it faces. The Water Resources Management Program goal is to devote at least 35% of the total program staff resources in the field office to monitor and assess the quality of the state's surface waters. Basic monitoring objectives are to:

. assess conditions, uses and trends, and identify problems

. assess problems, and identify source and management needs

. evaluate effectiveness of management actions

USGS-NAWQA: The charge to the USGS is to provide a nationally consistent description of current water-quality conditions for a large part of the Nation's water resources. Define long-term trends (or lack of trends) in water quality. Identify, describe, and explain, as possible, the major factors that affect observed water-quality factors and trends.

Activities for surface water component for each NAWQA study area:

1. fixed station sampling - indicator and integrator sites

2. synoptic sampling

3. studies of selected stream reaches

Activities for groundwater component for each NAQWA study area:

1. regional sampling

2. land-use sampling

3. transect sampling

US EPA - EMAP: The Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program employ the following tasks:

. Estimate the current status, trend, and changes in selected indicators of the condition of the Nation's ecological resources on a regional basis with known confidence.

. Estimate the geographic coverage and extent of the Nation's ecological resources.

During these initial meetings WWRCP participants discussed minimum monitoring information requirements to assure adequate sample information to improve data sharing capabilities. The following chart outlines the minimum data elements originally outlined by the WWRCP and the data elements in the Final ITFM Report as recommended by the Data Management and Information Sharing Task Group. The ITFM listed 23 minimum data elements (Draft, 1995 ITFM Report) that "users would most likely use to qualify a query for water-quality data from any agency's data system." The minimum data elements will vary from program to program depending on their data management capabilities and program function.

MINIMUM DATA ELEMENTS

WWRCP

ITFM

constituent

constituent

sample matrix

site name

method: collection, handling, analysis, evaluated

site number

manifest system

site type

value measured: ratio, unit, concentratioin

FIPS county code

longitude

FIPS state code

latitude

latitude

date

longitude

time

aquifer name (GW)

climatic conditions

ecoregion code

collecting organization

USEPA river reach code (SW)

data quality indicators: precision, bias, detection limits

hydrologic unit code

water-body name

water-body type

habitat type

well depth (GW)

collection start date

collection end date

collection organization

sample depth

sample medium code

taxonomic key

It is apparent that each program has varying needs and resources and that these recommendations should be adjusted to be appropriate for each program. To best integrate the participating monitoring programs, the WWRCP Committee, through cooperative agreement, recommends the following information components to be collected by monitoring programs to the greatest extent possible. This is a comprehensive list and should be taken as the "ideal monitoring program":

A. BIOLOGY

1. fish species and relative abundance

2. macroinvertebrate species and relative abundance

3. endangered and threatened species of fish and macroinvertebrates

4. mussels species and abundance

5. other biological communities

6. fish tissue contaminants

B. AQUATIC HABITAT

1. watershed and banks

2. flow/volume/depth/gradient

3. substrate

4. cover

C. WATER AND SEDIMENT QUALITY

1. total and dissolved P, N, TSS, pH, hardness, alkalinity, conductivity, chloride and dissolved organic C

2. toxic substances

3. chronic and acute toxicity

4. DO, temperature

REFERENCE SITES (joe -read for accuracy please!)

Establishing an integrated "reference condition" monitoring program has been an objective of the WDNR for ......(time frame).... In addition, reference condition monitoring has been a major point of discussion for the WWRCP Committee and felt it was practical to adopt the same objective and to integrate the WDNR's effort into the Pilot project.

The various groups represented in WWRCP exchanged definitions of terms, program objectives and criteria for selecting reference sites. The most notable difference was the individual program definitions of "reference sites".

REFERENCE SITE DEFINITION BY AGENCY

AGENCY

DEFINITION

WDNR

A stream or stream reach that fully meets its use potential in terms of biology, habitat, and water quality.

USGS-NAWQA

An area relatively unimpacted by anthropogenic activities. Although these sites will be influenced by local geology, they serve as indicators of atmospheric inputs.

EMAP

The expected least impacted conditions for lakes and streams.

Even after extensive discussions about the meaning of "reference sites", it was clear that a common definition had not been established. People often tended to use their definition when discussing the topic in subsequent meetings. Addressing reference site issues as a possible pilot objective was discussed, but how to do this was never resolved. Future efforts of the WWRCP will include resolving this conflict.

"For cost-effective biological assessment of rivers and streams," USEPA recommends "the rapid bioassessment protocols, which advocate an integrated assessment, comparing habitat and biological measures with empirically defined reference conditions. Reference conditions are established through systematic monitoring of actual sites that represent the natural range of variation in "least disturbed" water chemistry, habitat and biological condition. Of these three components of ecological integrity, ambient water quality may be the most difficult to characterize because of the complex array of chemical constituents (natural and otherwise) that affect it. As additional information is obtained from systematic monitoring of potentially impacted and site-specific control sites, the predictive power of the observed relationship is enhanced. Once the relationship between habitat and biological potential is understood, water quality impacts can be objectively discriminated from habitat effects and control efforts can be focused on the most important sources of impairment.(USEPA, 1989)" Therefore, the WWRCP also recommends that states incorporate Reference Condition Monitoring into their existing programs to be most effective in achieving management goals. Wisconsin's DNR is currently working towards that goal.

WATER QUALITY DATABASES

Easy accessibility to the data collected through monitoring efforts is imperative for effective decision-making and efficient use of resources. Each agency has collected substantial amounts of water quality data through a variety of programs. Unfortunately, the data is stored in many databases. The WDNR stores much of their data in the Water Quality Data Storage and Retrieval database (STORET), but there is much information stored on personal computers or in other less-accessible systems. Much of these data are potentially important to a variety of organizations and projects. If all of the data are stored in STORET, there may be logistical and space problems, however it seems sensible to provide a linkage to the databases storing these data.

All data collected by the USGS, except those collected for a few research projects, are stored in the National Water Information System (NWIS). Both NWIS and STORET are in the process of being updated. WWRCP is looking into opportunities to ensure that all data are being used to the fullest potential and to promote increased accessibility to the information collected. WWRCP is planning the setup of a clearinghouse of statewide water quality monitoring programs and projects. The clearinghouse would provide information such as program objectives, parameters collected and contact people. The clearinghouse, possibly in the form of an electronic bulletin board, will make this information accessible to a greater number of people.

The WWRCP recommends extensive collaboration among the NWIS and STORET revision committees. This collaboration should focus on linkage capabilities and maintain a great deal of communication between the two workgroups to ensure comparability among NWIS and STORET revisions to the greatest extent possible.

RESULTS

The WWRCP was funded and guided primarily as an ongoing effort with the involved agencies. In January 1993, EPA's EMAP program provided funding to the WWRCP for a position to coordinate and document the effort. Some conflicts have undoubtedly resulted from this Pilot effort and are documented below. These are expected and should be considered important learning experiences for better planning in future efforts.

PROJECT CONSTRAINTS:

. Few significant runoff events to adequately address high-flow sampling situations.

. Rain events were often short term, intense rains that were difficult to predict and catch at the peak runoff stages.

. Large distance to project sites from project team home office location.

. Coordinating schedules to capture the best high-flow samplign times among all groups involved.

. NAWQA personnel were doing concurrent high-flow sampling studies and needed to sample for those studies at the same times in different parts of the state.

. Sampling equipment not working properly.

. Slow laboratory turn-around time.

. Getting all the appropriate decision-makers at meetings.

. Long hiring process for coordinator position.

. Lack of funding and time to complete technical report in a timely fashion.

. Delay in ammendment response from EPA-EMAP

. A large portion of the money will be used for USGS Washington Office Technical Service Charge.

Had the money been directly sent to WDNR, much of the overhead money could have been used in other, more productive ways. Existing administrative systems are not flexible enough to accommodate cooperative agreements between agencies and with outside partners. Previous experiences between the WDNR and USGS in implementing projects and activities and sharing of funding and resources have not met with impediments to effective cooperation. However, as more parties begin to participate, and the funding of activities becomes more complex, the ability to coordinate and share becomes more difficult, but not impossible. The WWRCP continues to look for opportunities to make coordination more feasible and effective and to reach the point where coordination is a routine and customary activity of agencies involved in water quality monitoring in the State of Wisconsin. If this goal is to be met, agency infrastructure must be modified. Unfortunately, such efforts are usually limited to cooperative efforts between specific programs or staffs of the agencies involved. Other parts of those organizations do not always share the same level of commitment to interagency cooperative projects. In order for the ITFM to be successful, nationally or on a state-wide basis, not only must there be technical and programmatic coordination, the desire to cooperate must be endorsed by the entire organization or those parts of an organization which have decision-making responsibilities. It is recommended that cooperative agreements are established through written contracts outlining the specifics of the various partners' responsibilities.

If ITFM efforts are supported at the national level, then flexibility at that level is needed to insure success. Pilot studies are designed to answer specific questions and try new initiatives without making a long-term commitment until the strategies are proven successful or having potential to be successful. This will require that we implement those portions of the ITFM framework which require flexibility to adjust strategies to meet the project goals. Streamlining administrative and other processes is essential for timely and effective cooperative efforts. As this report will verify, the benefits of implementing an ITFM approach at the state level have far outweighed the costs and should be given ample opportunity to prove its potential.

The enthusiasm of the original Pilot partners has extended to a new expanding list of WWRCP participants. As more budgets are facing cutbacks, it is apparent that this appoach needs to be taken quickly to accommodate the growing interest of new partners. As the constituency continues to grow, we are faced with a greater coordination effort needing increased logistical management. The first Pilot effort faced numerous logistical roadblocks that were overcome. Learning from these experiences takes additional staff time and program funds. The Pilot experiences will hopefully pave the road for other states looking to implement ITFM recommendations and provide the insights needed to avoid some of the encountered obstacles.

ONGOING COOPERATIVE ACTIVITIES

As noted above, the WDNR and USGS have, for many years, cooperated in conducting monitoring programs. To date, approximately 64% of the work efforts of the USGS Wisconsin District are cooperative projects which involve funding support by WDNR or other state or local agencies. Specific examples of this funding include state support for USGS stream gaging programs, a significant USGS effort to assist the State in monitoring the impacts of nonpoint sources, carrying out monitoring initiatives related to implementation of Great Lakes programs, and support for implementation of the state's lake management program. WDNR has also participated actively in the development and implementation of the NAWQA program through participation on the liaison committee, providing information for retrospective assessment, and assisting in selecting monitoring stations. Each year a Summary Report is written entitled the Cooperative Water-Resources Investigations between the U.S. Geological Survey and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. The investigations involve diverse aspects of research, resource surveys and water quality monitoring projects. The report is available through the U.S.G.S. Wisconsin District Office, Water Resources Division, 6417 Normandy Lane, Madison, Wisconsin 53719.

1995 PROGRAM CHANGES

At the time of this report, state and federal agencies are under fire and are being required to provide stronger evidence of program effectiveness and justification of the cost to run these programs. The USGS is facing major financial support cutbacks and the WDNR will also face budget and staff reductions. The WDNR support of the USGS gaging stations will be eliminated in the 1995-97 State Budget, creating a large gap in monitoring information needed for the new required justification. In response to these changes, both agencies have once again joined forces and co-sponsored a June 1995 "Symposium on Streamflow and Water-Quality Monitoring in Wisconsin." The objectives of the meeting are to review the current surface water monitoring efforts, improve data availability and sharing, improve coordination and cooperation among statewide monitoring activities, and improve efficiency while minimizing duplication of efforts.

Advantages of the USGS and WDNR partnership are many. The willingness of staff to contribute their expertise, shared workload and costs, common goals, and tight timelines are just a few of the noted advantages. People who have worked on more than one cooperative project often felt very much at ease with the process, while first-time cooperators seemed more frustrated at the logistical and bureaucratic roadblocks. In more than one case, teaming with a regulated operation to reach water quality goals was a means of compromise to eliminate a fine due to a regulatory violation. Cooperation between the regulator and violator had a greater environmentally advantageous impact than would the benefits of a fine. An example of this concept, which is gaining more attention both at the national level and in Wisconsin, is the ambient/compliance monitoring interface (For more information on this issue contact...). Partners must agree on making a commitment from the beginning and placing project importance at the same priority level to insure successful and equitable cooperation. Some key factors of cooperative projects noted from the Pilot effort are:

. prioritizing project commitment

. involving all staff levels in objective and goal development

. joint agency decision-making

. open communication contributed by all partners

. sufficient management representation at all meetings

. compromise

In summary, it is apparent that planning and coordination are key factors to successfully implement an interagency cooperative effort. All players must see the importance of building a working group that integrates several areas of expertise. The individual expertise must be brought forth by promoting cooperation within the team. Successful efforts require a great deal of organization and should employ a full-time coordinator. WWRCP recommends that each state or each appropriate regional organizational entity be comprised of a Coordinating Committee that includes representatives form each cooperator, various individuals with diverse areas of expertise and a coordinator to provide organizational strength. In addition, it would be suggested that members of partnerships, such as this, take training in effective group dynamics or team building.

COMMUNICATION

Communication is an integral component to any water quality monitoring program, or for that matter to any type of environmental management program. Public demand for environmental improvement is ever-increasing, and concern has arisen out of political battles over key environmental issues. What is more important to our future? Is it today's economic competition or tomorrow's ecological survival? Are economics and ecology compatible or conflicting? Must we compromise the health of the environment in which we live, the water we drink or the air we breathe, for the sake of keeping our economy strong? Protecting the environment is a large task and everybody has a role to play. It is our common goal to obtain a comfortable, healthy living environment for our citizens. It is essential to maintain healthy ecosystems for all living organisms if we are to survive and prosper. Our health relies on the health of all organisms because of the interconnectedness and dependence of each living organism upon all other living organisms. The role state governments play is an important one, in which they must employ the help of local and tribal governments, ad hoc environmental groups, businesses, interest groups and private citizens. The causes of environmental degradation are many as are the solutions. One problem is that even when we can isolate the cause of pollution, the solutions are often unknown. In order to employ everybody's help, we need to clearly communicate the importance of involving everybody in a united effort.

The institutional framework of governmental agencies often hamper efforts to coordinate programs with similar and consistent goals. Integrating such efforts would achieve better understanding and communication among governing bodies of our natural resources. Integrated projects are only as good as the team that's assembled to carry them out. It is important to gain full commitment by all participants. There is a great need for understanding and commitment. There is a great need for a revision to the institutional framework of governmental agencies to allow for better communication and facilitation of integrated projects. Below is a revised list of guidelines for each committed participant (Born and Margerum, 1993).

Become familiar with the ITFM concept by attending meetings/workshops in ITFM related skills, such as:

. group process

. organizational skills

. coordination and conflict resolution mechanisms, and

. continuous quality improvement

A goal-orientation focussed group will:

. approach issues from the perspective of the goals for the resource

. look for common goals among participants

. try to solve problems rather that raise them

. take off bureau, agency or professional "hat"

. keep an open mind towards other people and ideas

. look for creative or innovative solutions

. consider the perspectives of others

. encourage involvement with others

. be willing to share information and decision-making power, and

. point out conflicts, but look for "win-win" solutions.

Ongoing Efforts for Collaboration will:

. identify new issues and different contexts

. narrow range of actions to manageable level

. approach issues from the perspective of the goals for the resource

. continue processes for exchanging information

. facilitate joint efforts to collect data or analyze information

. develop procedures to resolve differences

. provide mechanisms to examine and address new issues that arise, and

. promote periodic review of implementation actions to examine progress.

(Source: Born and Margerum, 1993)

Consensus among teammembers to address or implement an integrated approach rather than a single-issue or single-agency approach is necessary, yet often difficult. Working efforts inlcude A Gathering for the Rivers, The Forest Accord, the Fox River Coalition, and the Upper Mississippi River Basin Association all summarized in APPENDIX D.

The aquatic resources now available to us for recreational, agricultural, consumptive and aesthetic purposes are not the same as those available a century ago and are not the same as what will be available a century into our future. The impacts forced upon our stream, rivers, wetlands and lakes by human beings have changed the structure of these systems. Comprehensive planning shared among governing agencies is needed to insure human impact is minimal and short-lived. Successful projects should be publicized through inter- and intra-departmental publications and forums. The budgetary process of all programs must emphasize integration (Born and Margerum, 1993).

To reiterate, WWRCP recommends that integrated projects employ the help of all important stakeholders, clearly and frequently communicate information about critical situations needing immediate attention, and continually maintain a high profile to increase support. Shared comprehensive planning by a fully committed team is essential. The team must incorporate integration in all aspects of the program, including budgets.

PLANS

Much has been learned from our experience with the Pilot effort. It brought about many new ideas and fostered many new relationships. The Pilot's success not only lies in what we have learned and can pass on to others, but also in the optimistic future of the Wisconsin Water Resources Coordination Project. This effort has highly motivated the participants to move forward and has inspired many new initiatives. Most importantly it has strengthened the current partnership between WDNR and USGS, and the beginning of enthusiastic dialogue with the U.S.D.A. Forest Service in Wisconsin. A long and active partnership with the Forest Service is envisioned. In addition to the Forest Service, a number of other groups have confirmed their support for another WWRCP effort. Among these groups are Ohio EPA, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control, National Park Service, Minnesota DNR, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin, and Michigan DNR, just to name a few.

*****Gail Work on!

This increased trust that has developed between WDNR and USGS has prompted a new initiative to concurrently evaluate the two ambient monitoring programs within the agencies. The USGS' NASQAN stations have been discontinued in the State of Wisconsin. The USGS Wisconsin District suggested the joint evaluation of the NASQAN data in Wisconsin in conjunction with the WDNR's Fixed-station Monitoring data. WDNR is also proposing to evaluate their program and sees a perfect opportunity in this invitation to participate in a joint data analysis effort. This is only the beginning of the ITFM strategy implementation in Wisconsin.

Another Pilot initiative proposed is a 1995 Surface Water Monitoring Conference. This conference will further promote the ITFM strategy among all statewide constituents. The conference will provide a forum for greater communication within and between agencies, and greater awareness of monitoring efforts statewide. Objectives of the conference are 1) to address whether current monitoring programs are adequately addressing surface-water quality problems in the state, 2) to provide an opportunity to coordinate monitoring activities to meet statewide objectives, 3) to foster sharing of monitoring resources and results, 4) to maximize institutional capabilities and minimize duplication and overlap of efforts, and 5) to increase intra-departmental communication about statewide monitoring projects within the WDNR.

Anticipated outcomes of such a conference are 1) an inventory of current monitoring projects and programs for use by all groups, 2) provide an opportunity to discuss the 305(b) report to Congress as a cooperative task among all agencies, with the WDNR taking the lead. The conference will facilitate development of a framework to incorporate all water quality monitoring data collected in the state into the 305(b) report. The framework will also address the interface between ambient and compliance monitoring in Wisconsin.

In conjunction with the WDNR's Geographical Information System staff, a needs assessment will be conducted for all surface-water monitoring groups in the state. Once this information is collected it will be reviewed and shared with data management personnel to provide a basis for developing a plan to address these needs for reporting purposes.

A database comparison can be performed to evaluate methods to effectively implement the use of common information systems to the greatest extent possible. This effort will be done cooperatively with the WDNR's Geographical Information Systems (GIS) program, and in conjunction with using GIS capabilities to create water quality data layers needed for an integrated reference site selection program. GIS can also be utilized to develop a clearinghouse of water quality monitoring project information statewide.

The WWRCP team has sent a proposal to the Environmental Technology Initiative for funding a second phase of the Pilot. A performance-based approach is proposed for characterizing and comparing existing water quality sampling methods and for promoting and encouraging, more efficient technologies in the future. Critical performance criteria will be defined and evaluated for commonly used sample collection methods, in-situ measurements, nutrient prelaboratory methods, and benthic macroinvertebrate collection and analysis methods. Resulting performance criteria will enable an objective comparison of different methods resulting in greater potential data sharing among monitoring programs, more accurate and comprehensive assessments of status and trends, and reduced redundancy in monitoring efforts. The proposal includes establishing a plan to implement a reference condition monitoring program to better assess the surface water quality in the state. As method comparability is determined, existing data generated from groups using comparable methods can be utilized to establish coordinated reference sites statewide. Part of this effort needs to be an evaluation of historical data.

These are just a few of the WWRCP efforts that will take place in the coming months if funding becomes available. The WWRCP team is clearly committed to institutionalizing an ITFM approach in Wisconsin. So much has been gained from the WWRCP experience, especially in regards to cooperative efforts, both logistically and technically. The technical knowledge gained has already influenced the way staff view collaboration and the data collected through such endeavors. The comparability issue is not a new one, but it has not been adequately addressed among Wisconsin's agencies until now. The information acquired will be very influential in future management decisions. However, the most valuable achievement by far, has been the development of new partnerships and the strengthening of old ones. If WWRCP receives funding for the future, so much more can be accomplished. Even without this funding a road has been paved to foster collaboration among the current participants. Several different organizations have shown interest in future efforts of the WWRCP, many of whom heard of the WWRCP through word of mouth or through state-wide conferences. This interest continues to grow. With the obvious interest and commitment in the state of Wisconsin to support an ITFM approach, the future looks bright for a more integrated water quality program under the leadership of the Wisconsin Water Resources Coordination Project. For status reports of the Wisconsin Water Resources Coordination Project contact the USGS, 6417 Normandy Lane or the WDNR at 101 S. Webster, Box 7921, both in Madison, Wisconsin.

TECHNICAL REPORT

A Comparison of Water-Quality

Sample Collection Methods Used by

the U.S. Geological Survey and

the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

Prepared through

the cooperative efforts of the

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,

Bureau of Water Resources Management and the

United States Geological Survey

Funding was provided by the

United States Environmental Protection Agency,

Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources,

and the United States Geological Survey, Wisconsin District

December, 1994

CONTENTS

PREFACE 25

INTRODUCTION 26

Purpose and scope of study 26

Purpose and scope of report 27

STUDY DESIGN 27

Selection of constituents 28

Selection of sites 28

Sampling 28

METHODS 29

Sample collection 29

Sample processing 30

Laboratory methods 30

Data analysis 30

RESULTS 31

Comparisons among and within monitoring programs 31

Comparisons between and within laboratories 31

CONCLUSIONS 32

Sample collection protocols 32

Sample processing and analysis protocols 32

FINAL NOTE 33

PREFACE

Since the 1977 passing of the Clean Water Act, it has been a goal of the EPA to determine the status of the nation's waters. Although wastewater treatment technology has been improving over the years it has created a somewhat "false" sense of security. Despite the technological improvements, we continue to face great water quality concerns. The recent outbreak of Cryptosporidium spp. in Milwaukee, Wisconsin brought about the necessary concern about the true security of new technology and reality of human error. Continual dredging of PCB's and other persistent contaminants from the bottom sediments of our rivers bring about the realization of the impact of our past practices on the quality of our surface waters. The importance of water quality is becoming more important to more people and the state and federal governments will continue to be held accountable for its protection. With an increase in responsibilities and a decrease in funding, all agencies need to make better use of the dollars spent on monitoring water quality. One approach becoming more and more common is through cooperative efforts and through the sharing of existing and current data from other agencies rather than collecting the same data with internal staff. Taking this approach brings about several concerns. One of these concerns is the comparability of data from external sources. If these sources use different laboratories, how can we compare that data with internally collected data? Are laboratories performing to expectations and are the staff collecting the samples adequately trained. Assuming laboratories and field staff are meeting expectations, are the methods employed by the cooperating agencies resulting in comparable data? This last question is one the WWRCP strives to address and answer to the best of our ability.

One of the objectives of the WWRCP is to "evaluate the various field and laboratory methods currently in use by various agencies". In response to this objective, the USGS and the WDNR have undertaken an evaluation of field techniques for the routine collection of water quality samples. This component of the WWRCP was designed to identify differences in sample collection and handling, and analytical procedures between agencies that are actively monitoring water quality in Wisconsin. Surface water data from three stream test sites and one lake test site were evaluated to identify any result variations due to sample collection protocols. Involved in this part of the project were the principal programs in water-quality monitoring in Wisconsin: the Department of Natural Resources (WDNR), the United States Geological Survey's (USGS) National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) and National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) and the USGS Wisconsin District Lake Monitoring Program.

This project, entitled A Comparison of Water-Quality Sample Collection Methods used by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, resulted in the conclusions outlined in this report.

A COMPARISON OF WATER-QUALITY SAMPLE COLLECTION METHODS USED BY THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AND THE WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) both have programs that monitor water quality at fixed sites on Wisconsin's streams and lakes. Sample collection and processing protocols used by the programs differ, and samples are analyzed by different laboratories. The degree to which these differences in protocols affect the results is unknown, and has contributed to duplication of efforts and reluctance to share data. Data comparability is an issue at both agencies and to other present and potential data users who may wish to combine or exchange data. The focus of this study is to evaluate data comparability between USGS and WDNR so as to identify opportunities to share data, enhance cross program integration and greatly expand the database available to all data users in Wisconsin.

Purpose and scope of study

The primary objective of this study is to evaluate between-agency differences in water-quality monitoring results caused by differences in sample collection methods. To accomplish this objective, it was also necessary to investigate other comparability issues, such as laboratory precision, laboratory comparability, and sample processing and preservation. These issues were examined only to the extent necessary to accomplish the primary objective.

Sample-collection methods were compared at sites on three rivers and one lake for selected constituents over a limited range of hydrologic conditions. The intent of the study was to evaluate sample-collection methods rather than water quality-conditions at particular sites.

River monitoring programs and protocols included in the comparison are the USGS' National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) and National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) and the WDNR's river sampling programs. Two basic sample-collection methods, flow-integrated sampling and grab sampling, were compared. Both USGS programs collect flow-integrated samples, and the WDNR collects grab samples. Field measurements of water temperature, pH, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen concentration were made when samples were collected.

Lake monitoring programs and protocols included the WDNR and USGS Wisconsin District lake monitoring programs. Both programs use similar sampling methods and collect grab samples at discrete depths in a lake. Water temperature, pH, specific conductance, and dissolved oxygen concentration depth profiles were measured at the time of sample collection.

Purpose and scope of report

The purpose of ths report is to present a general overview of sample collection and processing methods used by USGS and WDNR, the study design, and conclusions reached to date. Conclusions reported here are drawn from the results of laboratory analyses of samples collected from streams. Analysis of laboratory results for lake samples and data for field measurements has not been completed.

STUDY DESIGN

Many factors can contribute to apparent differences in water-quality measurements. In order to identify differences due specifically to sample-collection methods, these other factors must be identified and either measured or eliminated. USGS and WDNR monitoring programs use different analytical laboratories and follow different protocols for field processing, preserving, and shipping samples. The USGS preserves and filters samples for dissolved constituents in the field. All samples, except those for analysis for suspended-sediment concentration, are shipped to the USGS National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Denver, Colorado. Samples for suspended-sediment concentration analysis are shipped to the USGS Iowa District sediment laboratory in Iowa City, Iowa. The WDNR preserves samples in the field and either ships or hand-delivers them to the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (SLOH) in Madison, Wisconsin. Samples for dissolved constituents are filtered in the laboratory prior to analysis. Protocols for preserving nutrient samples also differ between agencies. Analytical methods are "comparable" between agencies for most constituents measured, but differ for others. Within-laboratory precision and accuracy could differ between laboratories.

The effect of between-agency differences in sample processing and analytical procedures on monitoring results was removed for the purposes of this study by splitting all samples between laboratories. Samples for each laboratory were processed according to the respective standard protocols used by each agency for routine samples. The effects of sample-collection method on monitoring results was evaluated independently using the results from each laboratory. Within-lab analytical precision was evaluated by splitting the samples submitted to each laboratory into triplicates. Laboratory accuracy was not evaluated in this study, thus any differences between laboratories reported herein are relative differences rather than absolute differences from a true value.

The effect of the point of sample filtration (field versus laboratory) on monitoring results was evaluated for selected constituents for samples submitted to SLOH.

Selection of constituents

The constituents evaluated in this study were selected based on their inclusion in agency monitoring programs and their usefulness as surrogates to represent the behavior of other broader groups of constituents. The constituents chosen for river samples were total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, dissolved chloride, and suspended sediment/total suspended solids. The constituents chosen for lake samples were total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, and chlorophyll a. For rivers, the greatest expected differences in results due to differences in sampling methods were for samples containing large amounts of suspended material. Total phosphorus and suspended sediment/total suspended solids are surrogates for constituents associated with suspended material in rivers. Dissolved chloride is a surrogate for conservative dissolved constituents. Dissolved orthophosphorus is of common interest because of its importance as a plant nutrient. For lakes, chlorophyll a concentration is used as measure of algal production. The effect of point of filtration on monitoring results was tested for dissolved orthophosphorus and chlorophyll a.

Selection of sites

Priority in site selection was given to sites that were included in the routine monitoring programs of the participants and where the water was expected to contain measurable (detectable) concentrations of the specific constituents under all sampling conditions. Additional criteria for selecting river sites were representation of a variety of hydrologic settings and capability of producing substantial amounts of suspended material at high flow.

The three rivers sampled during this study were the Milwaukee River at Milwaukee, the Manitowoc River at Manitowoc, and the Wolf River At New London. Lake samples were collected from Little Green Lake near Markesan.

Sampling

Each of the rivers was sampled four times--twice under stable low-flow conditions and twice at high flow. For the purpose of this study, high flow was defined as a condition when surface runoff was entering the river, and concentrations of suspended material in the water appeared to be higher than at low flow. Low-flow samples were collected in August and October, 1993, and high-flow samples were collected in April-July, 1994.

During each low-flow sampling, field teams representing each of the three monitoring programs collected a series of three consecutive concurrent samples using their standard sample-collection protocols. Each of the resulting nine samples was then split between laboratories and then further split into triplicate samples. All samples were processed according to the standard protocols for the receiving laboratory. The concurrent samples were collected to measure the variabilty in results between teams caused by differences in sampling methods. The consecutive samples were collected to measure the variability in results for a team repeating the same procedure under assumed stable water-quality conditions in the river.

During each high-flow sampling, each of the three field teams collected a single concurrent sample which was split and processed in the same manner as the low-flow samples. Consecutive samples were not collected because the assumption of stable water-quality conditions through the sample-collection period was not valid under high-flow conditions when water-quality conditions may change rapidly.

Lake samples were collected in August 1993 and April 1994. Each of the two field teams collected three consecutive concurrent samples from adjacent boats. Concurrent samples were collected to measure the variability in results between teams using similar sampling methods. The consecutive samples were collected to measure the combined variability due to a single team repeating the same procedure and temporal and spatial changes in lake-water quality that took place during the sample-collection period. Sample splitting and processing was done according to the protocols employed for river samples.

METHODS

Details of the methods used for routine sample collection and processing are documented in publications and operating procedures of the participants. The intent here is to provide a general description of the methods as employed in the field for this study.

Sample collection

Flow-integrated sampling is used to collect a composite water sample in a stream cross section such that the dissolved and suspended material in the sample is in proportion to water flow in the cross section. The flow-integrated sampling technique employed by USGS in this study is known as the equal width increment/equal transit rate (EWI) method. In this method, an isokinetic sampling device (a sampler that allows water to enter without changing its velocity relative to the stream) is lowered and raised at a uniform transit rate through equally-spaced verticals in the stream cross section. Samples were collected either by wading with hand-held samplers or from a bridge using a crane-mounted sampler, depending on river stage and flow conditions. The number of verticals employed differed between sites and between sampling teams.

Grab sampling involves dipping a sample from one or more points in a stream cross section. Grab sampling techniques employed by WDNR in this study were consistent at each site, but differed between sites, and ranged from wading and dipping samples at one to three points to sampling from a bridge at a single point using a Van Dorn-type sampler.

Lake-water samples were collected by both agencies at a depth of 1.5 feet below the lake surface using Van Dorn-type samplers.

Sample processing

Sample splitting was done using a cone splitter routinely employed by the NAWQA program. Splits are accomplished by pouring a sample through the splitter, which splits the sample into 10 equal volumes. Successive splits of water from the initial split are done as needed to fill sample bottles directly or provide water for field filtration. Sample bottles for suspended sediment/total suspended solids, total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus (SLOH only), dissolved chloride (SLOH only), and chlorophyll analyses were filled directly from the splitter.

Samples for dissolved chloride and dissolved orthophosphorus analyses by NWQL were filtered in the field. Extra samples were also filtered in the field and sent to SLOH for chlorophyll and dissolved orthophosphorus analyses to evaluate the effect of point of filtration.

Nutrient and chlorophyll samples were iced following processing. All phosphorus samples sent to NWQL were preserved with mercuric chloride. Total phosphorus samples sent to SLOH were preserved with sulfuric acid; dissolved orthophosphorus samples were not preserved.

Laboratory methods

Analytical methods used by NWQL and SLOH for total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, and dissolved chloride analyses are considered comparable methods, so analytical results for these constituents can be compared between laboratories in addition to comparing sampling methods. Analytical methods employed by SLOH for chlorophyll a and total suspended solids differ from those employed by NWQL for chlorophyll a and by the USGS Iowa sediment laboratory for suspended sediment concentration. Because of this, analytical results for these constituents can be used only to evaluate differences between sampling methods and cannot be used for between-lab comparisons.

Data analysis

Multivariate statistical techniques, primarily analysis of variance (ANOVA) and paired student t-tests, were employed to test for significant differences (p=0.05) in concentrations among monitoring programs for each constituent, and between laboratories for constituents analyzed by comparable laboratory methods. The statistical comparisons included:

1. Comparison of concentrations of each constituent among monitoring programs as a function of streamflow conditions (i.e., low flow versus high flow).

2. Comparison of consecutive samples collected on the same day under low-flow conditions to determine within-program variability.

3. Comparison of dissolved orthophosphorus concentrations between samples filtered in the field and samples filtered in the laboratory.

4. Comparison of concentrations between laboratories and quantification of within-laboratory variability.

RESULTS

Comparisons among and within monitoring programs

No significant differences among monitoring programs were detected for total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, and dissolved chloride concentrations for either high flow or low flow conditions using data from either SLOH or NWQL. There were no significant differences among monitoring programs for total suspended solids or suspended sediment concentrations for low-flow conditions, but there were significant differences for some samples at high flow. Where there were significant differences, grab-sample concentrations were lower than flow-integrated sample concentrations. There were no significant differences in total suspended solids or suspended sediment concentrations between teams for flow-integrated samples for either high or low flow conditions.

There were no significant concentration differences among sequential samples collected on the same day during low-flow conditions for any of the monitoring programs.

There was no significant difference in dissolved orthophosphorus concentrations in paired samples that differed only in point of filtration (field versus laboratory).

Comparisons between and within laboratories

Within-laboratory variation for each constituent was estimated from the variance among the three replicates sent to each laboratory for each sample. Differences in variance were compared between laboratories using paired student t-tests and a split-plot ANOVA. The variance in total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, and dissolved chloride concentrations were significantly higher for NWQL than for SLOH. Variance for these constituents was fairly uniform for each laboratory over the range of concentrations encountered. Variance was much higher for suspended sediment concentrations from the Iowa District sediment laboratory than for total suspended solids concentrations from SLOH.

A consistent statistical difference between laboratories was found for total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, and dissolved chloride concentrations. Concentrations from the SLOH were higher than those from NWQL for all three constituents. The differences were approximately 0.025 mg/L (milligrams per liter) for total phosphorus concentrations up to about 0.30 mg/L, 0.004 mg/L for dissolved orthophosphorus concentrations up to about 0.14 mg/L, and 1.7 mg/L for dissolved chloride concentrations up to about 60 mg/L.

CONCLUSIONS

Sample collection protocols

1. There were no significant differences between monitoring programs for total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, or dissolved chloride concentrations for sampling conditions encountered in this study.

2. There were significant differences between monitoring programs in both total suspended solids and suspended sediment concentrations for some high flow samples. Where there were differences, concentrations were higher in flow-integrated samples than in grab samples.

3. There were no significant concentration differences among consecutive samples collected on the same day for any of the field teams.

In summary, for the sampling conditions encountered in this study, sample collection method (flow-integrated versus grab sample) does not appear to affect monitoring results for dissolved constituents as represented by chloride and orthophosphorus, or for constituents associated to some degree with suspended material as represented by total phosphorus. Sample collection method does appear to affect monitoring results for direct measures of suspended material as represented by total suspended solids concentration and suspended sediment concentration.

Sample processing and analysis protocols

1. There were statistically significant differences between laboratories for concentrations of total phosphorus, dissolved orthophosphorus, and chloride concentration.

2. There were no significant differences in dissolved orthophosphorus concentrations between samples filtered in the field and samples filtered in the laboratory.

3. There generally were significant differences between total suspended solids (SLOH) and suspended sediment (USGS Iowa District sediment laboratory) concentrations for samples split between laboratories. Suspended sediment concentrations were generally higher and more variable across triplicate samples than total suspended solids concentrations.

In summary, for the constituents measured and the range of concentrations encountered in this study, there were statistically significant differences in monitoring results for samples split between laboratories and analyzed by comparable analytical methods. Differences include both effects of laboratory performance and effects of sample processing between the time of collection and receipt by the laboratory. Sample processing and analytical methods for total suspended solid and suspended sediment concentration measurements were not comparable and do not yield comparable results.

FINAL NOTE

From a technical viewpoint this Pilot Project suggests that different monitoring procedures, so long as those procedures are conducted in a quality assured way, can yield similar results. It demonstrates that a performance based methods system as recommended by the ITFM can work. Our findings are one of the first steps toward integrating different agencies programs, feeling comfortable about sharing and using other agencies' data, and greatly reducing duplication of work. The net result of this effort is the potential to save time and money and at the same time, do a better job managing our environment. These are the goals of ITFM.

From an institutional viewpoint, equally important as the technical issues, this Pilot Project has shown that different agencies can work together to achieve mutual environmental goals. Recognition of the benefits of pooling resources and scientific talent will hopefully lead to developing lines of communication and administrative structures necessary to fully achieve ITFM goals. This clearly demonstrates that government operations can be "reinvented" and made more efficient without sacrificing the quality of data needed for sound decision-making.

The successes of the WWRCP were a direct result of National direction provided by ITFM. Future efforts will only be productive if 1) Federal leadership and guidance is provided to the States through the National Monitoring Council, 2) Federal funding is provided to sponsonring state agencies and 3) coordination mechanisms continue to evolve. To the extent that the these items are adequately addressed, the level of State and Regional participation will continue to grow.

ACRONYMS USED IN THIS REPORT

EMAP Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program

FHCS Forest Habitat Classification System

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GIS Geographical Information System

GLNPO Great Lakes National Program Office

ITFM Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality

MPCA Minnesota Pollution Control Agency

NASQAN National Stream Quality Accounting Network

NAWQA National Water Quality Assessment

NBS National Biological Survey

NPS National Park Service

NWIS National Water Information System

NWQL National Water Quality Laboratory

PBMS Performance Based Method System

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control

SLOH Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene

STORET Water Quality Data Storage and Retrieval System

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

WDNR Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources

WWRCP Wisconsin Water Resources Coordination Project

APPENDIX A

WISCONSIN WATER RESOURCES

COORDINATION PROJECT

A Pilot Project Implementing the Recommendations

of the

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality-ITFM

Original Terms of Reference

III. MISSION, AUTHORITY AND SCOPE

IV. Mission: The mission of the Wisconsin Water Resources Coordination Project(WWRCP) is to develop and implement a plan to coordinate and, where possible, integrate water resources monitoring and assessment in the State of Wisconsin. During its pilot phase, the project will evaluate the effectiveness of various institutional mechanisms for accomplishing effective coordination and integration. It is anticipated that the pilot phase will serve as a model for coordination activities in other states and regions.

V. Authority: Establishment of the WWRCP is part of the strategic plan of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality(ITFM), Interagency Committee on Water Data, Water Information Coordination Program. The ITFM strategy calls for the formation of regional coordination committees to carry out the objectives of coordination. These terms of reference establish a coordination committee and cover the operations of the WWRCP during its pilot phase. Participation on the WWRCP is voluntary.

VI. Scope: The pilot phase of the project will be in effect for one year commencing January 1, 1993. The scope of the pilot phase will be focused on the collection and assessment of water quality monitoring information and related ancillary information needed to assess water quality. Certain objectives listed below will be the focus of the pilot phase, but it is the intent of the participating agencies that the coordinating mechanisms established during the pilot phase of the project will become permanent and will be applied to all types of water resources information collection activities in the State of Wisconsin. An assessment will be made after the first year to determine future activities of the project.

VII. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

VIII. Goal: The goal of the WWRCP is to achieve effective, integrated data collection, interpretation, and presentation of water information in the State of Wisconsin to provide a basis for informed decision-making.

A. Objectives: The objectives of the project include the following:

1. Coordinate present and planned water resources monitoring programs and activities within the State to integrate participating agency activities to the extent possible given their different mission responsibilities. Specific coordination tasks include:

a. Identify common monitoring objectives and activities to meet those objectives.

b. Develop QA/QC guidelines.

c. Identify core environmental indicators to address biological, water column, sediment and other compartments of the aquatic ecosystem.

d. Evaluate the various field and laboratory methods currently in use by various agencies.

e. Investigate and promote comparable field and laboratory methods.

f. Develop common station selection criteria and coordination of station selection.

g. Enhance sharing of, review needs for and promote the development of required ancillary data.

h. Initiate the use of common information systems to the extent possible(compare NWIS and STORET updates).

i. Promote development and standardization of data analysis and information reporting techniques.

j. Promote coordination of ongoing field activities during 1993 and implement joint sampling activities for future years.

2. Establish a framework to incorporate all appropriate water quality monitoring information into the 1996 Wisconsin 305(b) report and which:

a. Builds upon the Wisconsin 305(b) report of 1994.

b. Uses new guidelines developed jointly by the participating agencies.

c. Includes data collected by all participating agencies.

d. Includes joint analysis and interpretation of the data used in the report.

3. Establish an integrated "reference condition" monitoring program.

4. Prepare a report that documents coordination activities during the pilot phase of the project and that evaluates the effectiveness of the project in achieving the above objectives.The goal of the WWRCP is to achieve effective, integrated data collection, interpretation, and presentation of water information in the State of Wisconsin to provide a basis for informed decision-making.

IX. COORDINATION COMMITTEE

A. Purpose: A coordination committee is established to provide leadership and oversight to the project and to assure that this project conforms with the general recommendations set forth in Appendix A of the 1993 ITFM Report.

B. Membership: Membership on the coordination committee during this pilot project shall be as follows:

1. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(Region 5 and EMAP Program).

3. U.S. Geological Survey(Wisconsin District Office and the National Water Quality Assessment program).

4. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Region 3).

Other organizations(e.g., other federal, state and local agencies, Indian tribes or organizations, volunteer citizen groups) who express interest in coordination of water quality monitoring may participate as members of the coordination committee, as appropriate.

C. Officers: The Coordination Committee shall be chaired by a representative of the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources(Bruce Baker). Vice-chairs shall be a representative of the U.S. Geological Survey(Warren Gebert) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(Jeff Gagler). The chair facilitates meetings of the participating agency representatives and is assisted in this task by the vice-chairs. The chair also will appoint an executive secretary for the Committee.

X. PROCEDURES

The project shall use the following procedures in accomplishing it mission.

A. Meetings: Meetings of the Coordination Committee shall be held at the call of the chair or at the request of one or more participating agencies and shall be convened in facilities designated by the chair in consultation with the members. Agencies shall designate representatives and alternates(to attend when the designated representative is not available) who fully represent the member organization . Meetings shall be held with sufficient frequency to assure that the objectives listed above are achieved. The Coordination Committee shall meet no less than quarterly and as necessary for project working groups.

B. Working Groups: The chair may establish working groups as necessary to address specific topics and accomplish the work of the project.

C. Decision-making: Decisions and recommendations of the committee and its working groups shall be by consensus of the members. If the members are unable to reach agreement, the issue, and documentation of differing views, shall be forwarded to the ITFM Executive Committee.

D. Outreach: The activities of the project shall be communicated to other organizations as needed to inform them of the effort and to obtain information needed to achieve the goals and objectives of this project.

XI. DOCUMENTATION

A. Agenda and Minutes: Agenda and minutes of the Coordination Committee meetings shall be prepared by the executive secretary and distributed to committee members in a timely manner.

B. Working Group Reports: Working groups shall prepare reports and decision documents as needed for use by the full Coordination Committee.

C. Report: A report on the results the project and the Coordination Committee's operations will be prepared by December 1993. This report shall describe:

1. The current status of water quality monitoring in the State of Wisconsin and initial recommendations for improvements of monitoring activities.

2. Mechanisms developed for coordination of water quality monitoring activities and their effectiveness in achieving the objectives listed above.

3. Progress made towards achieving the objectives listed above.

4. Recommendations for the continuation and/or revision of coordination procedures.

APPENDIX B

INTERAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS THROUGHOUT WISCONSIN

GREAT LAKE PROTECTION FUND:

Cooperators:

NOAA/Wisconsin Coastal Management Program

Wisconsin Adopt and Eagle Nest Program

Great Lakes Protection Fund

NPS (Pilot Study)

University of Minnesota

University of Wisconsin

Ohio DNR (Protocol)

Michigan DNR (Protocol)

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

U.S.D.A. Forest Service

WDNR, Bureaus of Research, Wildlife Mgmt. and Endangered Resources

INLAND LAKE SUSTAINABILITY

Cooperators:

Sigurd Olson Institute

WDNR Bureau of Research

GREEN BAY MASS-BALANCE

Cooperators:

WDNR, Bureau of Water Resources Management

EPA

USGS

MANITOWOC RIVER PCB RECONNAISSANCE

Cooperators:

USGS - flows, event sampling

WDNR - sediment sampling and poling(depth of sediment)

GREAT LAKES TRIBUTARY MONITORING

LAKE MICHIGAN MASS-BALANCE

Cooperators:

EPA

USGS

State of Michigan

WDNR

MICHIGAN ENHANCED MONITORING PROJECT

Cooperators:

EPA

WDNR, Bureaus of Water Resources Mgmt and Air Management

LAKE SUPERIOR - ST. LOUIS RIVER

Cooperators:

EPA

USGS

WDNR

MPCA

FISH ADVISORY PROGRAM(1990)

Cooperators:

Great Lakes National Program Organization

All Great Lakes States

CEDAR CREEK/MILWAUKEE RIVER

Cooperators:

WDNR

Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District

USGS

VERTICAL SEDIMENT CONTAMINATION ANALYSIS DUE TO 1993 FLOOD

Cooperators:

MPCA

WDNR

THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION, BIOAVAILABILITY, AND POTENTIAL TOXICITY OF SEDIMENT-ASSOCIATED CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN IN THE UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER, FOLLOWING THE FLOOD OF 1993, BY ANALYSIS OF HEXAGENIA MAYFLIES

Cooperators:

WDNR

NBS

National Fisheries Contaminant Research Center

ST. CROIX RIVER BASIN WORKGROUP

Cooperators:

NPS

NBS

WDNR

MPCA

Minnesota DNR

USGS

MN-WI Boundary Area Commission

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER CONSERVATION COMMITTEE

Iowa

Minnesota

Wisconsin

Illinois

Missouri

BINATIONAL PROGRAM (Includes the Lake Superior LaMP)

GLNPO

IJC

NPS

USGS

EPA

USDA Forest Service

WDNR

Minnesota DNR and PCA

Ontario Ministry of the Environment

Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources

Environment Canada

Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans

Dept. of Health and Welfare

St. Louis Riverwatch

Lake Superior Forum

LAKE MICHIGAN LaMP

Michigan DNR

Indiana DNR

Illinois DNR

WDNR

USACE

GLNPO

IJC

NPS

USGS

EPA

USDA Forest Service

LAKE WINNEBAGO AND TRIBUTARIES COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

Cooperators:

WDNR

Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Counties

Community Advisory Committee

UPPER WISCONSIN RIVER

Cooperators:

WDNR

NPS

Federal Energy and Regulatory Commission

Public Service Commission

Remedial Action Plans

FOX RIVER COALITION

Cooperators:

Counties

Municipalities

Sewerage Treatment Operations

Industry

Environmental Advisory Groups

State government

CRYPTOSPORIDIUM SURVEILLANCE STUDY

Cooperators:

WDNR

SLOH

Dept. of Health and Social Services, Division of Health

City of Milwaukee

21 Statewide Municipal Surface Water Filtration Plants

6 Wastewater Treatment Plants

University of Wisconsin - Stevens Point

Wildlife Disease Laboratory - FWS

For more information on the above efforts contact the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management WR/2, Box 7921 Madison, Wisconsin 53707-7921.

APPENDIX C

COORDINATION MECHANISMS

Literature on effective coordination mechanisms was extensively reviewed. Following is a list of coordination mechanisms outlined in a study by Margerum (1994):

Tools for Communicating

Type 1: Data Exchange

1. Information and data sharing procedures

2. Common database or data gathering

3. Joint planning

4. Joint models or jointly used geographical information systems

5. Regular communication mechanisms (e.g. newsletters, electronic bulletin boards)

Type 2: One-on-one consultation

6. Informal communication

7. Co-location of personnel or creation of common jurisdictional boundaries

Type 3: Group Communication

8. Scheduled meetings

9. Coordinating committees

10. Joint staffing or joint staff work groups

Type 4: Special techniques for communicating analysis and interpretation

 

11. Joint review of plans

12. Formal review or clearance procedures

13. Joint budgeting process

Type 5: Information

14. Reports, policy papers, and other written information summaries

15. Plans (projects, programs, policy, other)

Tools for Resolving Conflict

1. Interpersonal or inter-group communication (first approach to decision making)

2. Negotiation/bargaining within the group

3. Additional research or analysis

4. Appeal to a third party or higher authority

5. Bypass or work around conflict

(This list does not include those items originally listed which are not pertinent to the project)

(modified after Margerum, 1994)

APPENDIX D

WORKING PARTNERSHIPS

The following examples of Cooperative efforts within the state that have not had the opportunity to benefit from the ITFM strategy. Instead, they have implemented their programs by applying the similar concepts proposed by the ITFM.

A GATHERING FOR THE RIVERS... A MESSAGE WORTH HEARING!

Approximately 150 people representing a variety of statewide river stakeholders attended an October 1994 conference in Manitowoc, Wisconsin entitled A Gathering for the Rivers. Sponsored by the University of Wisconsin - Extension: Cooperative Extension, WDNR, The River Alliance of Wisconsin, and the NPS, representation included agency staff, farmers, conservationists, consultants, industry, power companies, academia, native americans, grass-roots organizations, community advisory committees, watershed associations, municipalities, recreation, and the list goes on. Participants broke out into multi-stakeholder groups to identify the issues and critical factors that impact Wisconsin River Resources, They compiled a list of high priority resource issues and barriers to dealing with those issues and then sought solutions to the critical factors identified. A few of the key themes for the high priority barriers included Inter/Intra Governmental Coordination, Information/Data Bases/Inventories, and the Political Process. Below is a list of barriers and solutions that reflects the actual verbiage used by the participants within the previously mentioned themes (Epping, 1994).

It is important to note that requests to attend the conference totaled over 500. A conference with an interest of this magnitude should be acknowledged. The recommendations from the conference must not be taken lightly. Without these groups acting as advocates for the Rivers of Wisconsin, governmental agencies, whose charge it is to protect our rivers, would be overwhelmed. Government must look to all stakeholders as cooperative partners in achieving environmental goals. The participants demanded that governmental agencies look at alternative options for addressing the issues of concern. Conferences, such as this, provide an opportunity for all stakeholders to become aware of the viewpoints of others. Knowing the different perspectives is essential for proper decision-making. Often different stakeholders have opposing viewpoints that counteract each others efforts. Informed decisions are those that take into consideration all viewpoints building a stronger unified approach rather that employing several opposing viewpoints. The resulting discussion topics from the conference mimic many of the WWRCP goals and objectives, strengthening the summon for greater interagency program coordination and integration. The formal establishment of the WWRCP would provide a vehicle for such coordination and integration in Wisconsin, and is therefore a recommendation of the WWRCP Team.

HIGH PRIORITY BARRIERS

Inter/Intra Governmental Coordination

. lack of consensus in and between agencies

. differing missions, priorities and philosophies among agencies

. proliferation of government agencies with program authority

. lack of communication mechanisms

. lack of binding intergovernmental agreements for watershed enforcement

. lack of watershed authority

. jurisdictional confusion

Information/Data Bases/Inventories

. lack of inventory

. lack of physical and biological data

Political Process

. lack of political will

. political pressure leading to compromise in agencies

SOLUTION CATEGORIES

Stewardship / Personal Values / Ethics

. Promote Landowner and Community Awareness

. Bring People to the River - clean-ups, river walks, adopt-a-stream projects etc...

. Increase State Role in Local River Community

. Improve Funding Options

. Hold an open Conference

. Review Statewide Institutions to Determine Existing Efforts

Inter / Intra Governmental Coordination

. Expand the Priority Watershed Model

. Public Encouragement of Governmental Coordination

. Encourage more public involvement as a Public Policy Directive

. Improve Communication

. Statewide River Systems Policy

. Leadership - identify stakeholders

Information / Data Bases / Monitoring

. Inventory Existing Information - determine where it is

. Development of Supplemental Databases for Low Order Streams

. Increase Biological Monitoring

. Ensure Information Access to Stakeholders and Public

. Group Information by Watershed Systems

Long-Term Vision / System View

. Local Group Missions and Empowerment

. Catalysts for Change

. Long-Term Commitment from Stakeholders

Funding

. Short and Long Term - Better Use of Existing Sources and Simplify Grant Procedures

. Eliminate Overlapping and/or Conflicting Programs

. Audit Funding Sources / Sinks for Effectiveness

. Develop New Funding Sources

. Encourage Volunteerism

. Develop Statewide Leadership Council with a Specific Funding Committee

(Epping, 1994)

WISCONSIN FOREST ACCORD

A 1992 workshop identified a lack of common ecological language as one of the major barriers to effective communication among land managers. The Wisconsin Forest Accord is an agreement of understanding among Wisconsin land managers to adopt a common language, labeled the Forest Habitat Classification System (FHCS), to "characterize the ecological potential of the state's forests." The Accord doesn't prevent existing agency systems, but it calls for a linkage between these systems and FHCS. The Accord is a good example of interagency cooperation that has been successful. We need to look to successful projects for guidance and advice on how to implement such projects and learn from their mistakes (Lucas, 1994).

FOX RIVER COALITION

The Fox River Coalition is a model of regional cooperation between counties, municipalities, sewerage treatment operations, industry, environmental advisory groups and state government. It deals with an environmental issue that has current and long term impacts to human health, fish, wildlife, recreation, navigation and beneficial uses of the Lower Fox River. The Coalition's goal is "To develop a process for private/public participation in determining clean up levels, cost-effective methods, funding mechanisms and timetables for contaminated sediment remediation in the Lower Fox River." (Mercurio, n.d.)

UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ASSOCIATION

The Upper Mississippi River Basin Association was formed in 1982 by the Governors of the five states of the Upper Mississippi River Basin (Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and Wisconsin) following the dissolution of the joint federal/state Upper Mississippi River Basin Commission. The Association provides a forum for discussion and collective action on water resources issues facing the region. In addition to the gubernatorial representatives from each state, there are federal advisory members from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Transportation, and Environmental Protection Agency. Funded through state dues, the Association's activities span a broad range, including coordinating a federally-authorized habitat restoration and resource monitoring program, developing a spill response plan, and coordinating state perspectives on floodplain management and water quality issues.

(Source: Upper Mississippi River Basin Association, 1994)

GLOSSARY

Accuracy: A measure of the degree of conformity of a value generated by a specific procedure to the assumed or accepted true value, and includes both precision and bias.

Comparability: A measure of the confidence with which one data set can be compared to another.

Composite sample: A combination of two or more samples selected to represent the population of interest.

Detection: The ability to determine the presence of a chemical compound, generally at a specified value of concentration.

Dissolved matter: The matter, exclusive of gases, which is dispersed in water to give a single homogeneous liquid phase. Material that passes through a 0.45 micrometer membrane filter.

Flow integrated sample: A sample obtained by collecting an aliquot volume in proportion to the rate of flow of the stream sampled.

Grab sample: A sample obtained from dipping a bottle or Van Dorn-type sampler to collect water from one or more points in a stream cross sectoin.

Method: An assemblage of measurement techniques and the order in which they are used.

Monitoring: A type of sample or sampling program designed to determine baseline conditions and/or time trends.

pH: The negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity in an aqueous solution, or, the logarithm of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion activity.

Performance Based Method System: A system that permits the use of any appropriate method that demonstrates ability to meet established performance criteria and complies with specified data-quality needs. Performance criteria such as precision, bias, sensitivity, and detection limit must be designated and a method validation process documented.

Precision : The degree of agreement of repeated measurements of the same parameter expressed quantitatively as the standard deviation computed from the results of a series of controlled determinations. (The measured values may differ from the true value and still be precise.)

Replicate: A repetition of sampling or analysis. It is the general case for which duplicate is the special case consisting of two samples or measurements, triplicate consists of three measurements, etc.

Sample: Groups of units or portions of material, taken from a larger collection of units or quantity of material, that provide information to be used for judging the quality of the total collection or entire material as a basis for action.

Sampling: Obtaining a representative portion of the material concerned.

Sediment: Fragmental material, both mineral and organic, that is in suspension or is being transported by the water mass or has been deposited on the bottom of the aquatic environment.

Specific Conductance: The reciprocal of the resistance in ohms measured between opposite faces of a centimeter cube of an aqueous solution at a specified temperature.

Standard Operating Procedure (SOP): A written document which details an operation, analysis or action whose mechanisms are thoroughly prescribed and which is commonly accepted as the method for performing certain routine or repetitive tasks.

Water Quality: The kinds and amounts of matter dissolved and suspended in natural waters, the physical characteristics of the waters, and the ecological relationships between aquatic organisms and the environment.

REFERENCES

Born, Stephen M. and Richard D. Margerum. 1993. Integrated Environmental Management: Improving the Practice in Wisconsin. The Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin.

Epping, Gail M. 1994. Personal Notes from A Gathering for the Rivers Conference. October 28 - 19, 1994.

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. 1992. Ambient Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States: First Year Review, Evaluation, and Recommendations. United States Geological Survey: Washington, D.C.

Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. 1994. Water-Quality Monitoring in the United States - 1993 Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality. United States Geological Survey: Washington, D.C.

Liebenstein, Lee. Bureau of Water Resources Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. September, 1994. Personal Communication.

Lucas, Patty, Ed. 1994. Classification System Provides a Common Language for Forest Resource Managers, Natural Resources Report, Vol. 5, No. 4. School of Natural Resources, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin: Madison, WI.

Margerum, Richard D. (Forthcoming). Integrated Environmental Management: Building Theory From Practice. Ph.D. Dissertation: University of Wisconsin - Madison.

Mercurio, J. (no date). The Fox River Coalition/For Contaminated Sediment Remediation, fact sheet. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI.

Osborne and Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing Government. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co: Redding, MA.

Upper Mississippi River Basin Association. 1994. Proposal for Flood-Related Water Quality Monitoring. St. Paul, MN.

U.S. Geological Survey and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. 1994. A Summary of Cooperative Water Resources Investigations. U.S. Geological Survey: Denver, CO.

Ward, Janice R. and Albert Harr, Eds. 1990. Methods for Collection and Processing of Surface-Water and Bed-Material Samples for Physical and Chemical Analysis. Open-File Report 90-140. U.S. Geological Survey: Denver, CO.

Westenbroek, Steve. Bureau of Water Resources Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. September, 1994. Personal Communication.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Standards. 1994. Field Procedures Manual, Revision 3. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management. November, 1992. Surface Water Monitoring Strategy for the Bureau of Water Resources Management, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources: Madison, WI.


 
http://acw.gov/methods/

Last Update: November 3, 2016