|
Discussion Group Summary
Approach to Research Topics
Each group (Habitats of Concern, Chemicals
of Concern, Biological Criteria/ Ecosystems, and Whole Effluent
Toxicity) discussed issues and priorities based on each previous
session starting from the four candidate issue tables appearing
in the WQRP Work Plan (shown on pages 9 -12 in this document).
In Session 1, each group reviewed all four of the tables to narrow
down the issues related to their group. In Session 2, each group
further refined and prioritized the issue they identified in
Session 1. In Session 3, each group came to general conclusions
regarding research related to high priority issues discussed
in Session 2.
Objectives and Products
Session 1: Review Candidate Issues
Objective: To develop four
separate lists, one list specific to each discussion group, from
the existing four tables contained in the "Candidate Research
Issues"
papers. Each group will develop its own list for use throughout
the conference. Each list should focus on each specific discussion
group (Habitats of Concern, Chemicals of Concern, Biological
Criteria/Ecosystems, Whole Effluent Toxicity), but the selection
of projects/issues/descriptions to be included on each list may
be from any of the tables in the
"Candidate Research Issues" section or identified verbally
by conference participants.
Questions: Are there issues
on the draft list that are not valid research issues (e.g., regulatory,
scientific, environmental, economic)? Please state the issue.
Why? Does anyone disagree or is there another opinion on this
issue?
Are there any issues on the list that should
be refined, modified, or changed for better application to the
project goals? Identify the issue and the change. Does anyone
disagree or have another opinion?
Are there any issues that can be consolidated
into one proposal or concept? If so, why, and please explain.
Request suggested language for consolidating issues. Any comments
or objections?
Are there any issues that could contribute to
the database needed for arid West water quality standards that
are not on the list? Please state the issue. Why should it be
added? What is the justification for adding the issue? Does anyone
disagree? Is there another opinion on this issue?
Final Question: Is the group generally
satisfied with this list as a starting place for Session 2? Further
discussion and refinement can take place in the longer afternoon
session.
Product: Four separate refined
lists, one specific to each discussion group that identifies
projects/issues/descriptions relevant to each discussion group.
These lists will be completed by the moderator, tech support,
and note taker for each group during the lunch break. Each list
will be word processed and photocopied for distribution at each
discussion group during Session 2. Overheads of the refined lists
will be produced for use in Session 2.
Session 2: Prioritization of Research Issues
Objective: Prioritize (High,
Moderate, or Low) each project/issue/description contained on
each group specific list developed in Session 1.
Questions: What are some of
the pros and cons of this issue? (Moderator refers to issue on
screen)
How important is it relative to the project
goal of new water quality criteria?
THE CATEGORIES ARE: HIGH, MODERATE, AND LOW.
- Each issue will be placed in one of these categories.
Can this issue be addressed in the three-year
timeframe of this project? If not, what is a reasonable timeframe?
Will the results of this research have a local,
regional or national benefit? If so, what region or state will
benefit most? Least?
How will research related to this issue contribute
to filling current water quality data gaps?
Does anyone know whether EPA, any university,
state agency, or anyone else is currently doing research on this
issue? If so, who and where?
Final Question: Is the group generally
satisfied with our prioritization of research issues accomplished
in this session? It will then be reported to the General Session
tomorrow.
Product: Four separate prioritized
lists. Rearrange the list from Session 1 list into three categories
- High, Moderate, and Low. The prioritized list will be completed
by the moderator, tech support, note taker for each group during
the evening. Each list will be word processed and photocopied
for distribution at each discussion group during Session 3. Overheads
of the refined lists will be produced for use in Session 3.
Session 3: Application and Implementation of Research
Objective: Clarify the path
to establishing new criteria, especially for the high priority
projects/issues/descriptions. Define how the research from each
project will establish new criteria. Address the application
and implementation of research results including setting new
criteria, feasibility, goals, timeframes, constraints, eliminating
barriers, streamlining regulatory change, etc.
Questions: What should be the
relationship between water quality research and setting new criteria?
At what point do we have enough research or
data to support new standards for ephemeral and/or effluent-dependent
streams?
If the priority research issues are funded and
research is completed in a reasonable timeframe, what process
should be followed to propose and implement new criteria? What
should be EPA's role?
What are the opportunities for and constraints
of regulatory reform?
How would you measure the success of this project
or what is a reasonable measure of success?
Final Question: Is the group generally
satisfied with their statements about implementation issues and
their approach to resolving them?
Product: Record discussions
generated in the following format: 1) Project/issue/ description,
2) discussion, and 3) consensus. These discussions of high priority
research projects will be summarized and presented by each moderator
during the final general session and distributed to the Regulatory
Working Group (RWG).
Habitats of Concern
Discussion Group
Habitat Concerns by David L. Wegner, M.S. and E. Linwood Smith,
Ph.D.
Introduction
The thoughts expressed here today are based on
over twenty years of field and administrative experience in studying,
coordinating and applying scientific principles to the management
and evaluation of ecosystems throughout the Southwest. Management
of information, a well-defined monitoring program and the development
of appropriate metrics for evaluation. Ecosystems in the Southwest
are dynamic and require innovative and applied approaches if we
are to successfully evaluate changes and opportunities for restoration
and better management.
Ecosystems in the Southwest - Unique and Imperiled
Ecosystems of the Southwest are unique and in
peril. Without extensive forethought, planning, design, and protection,
the remaining remnants will not be retained and maintained. Environmental
change has always been a reality, and it is continuous. Wind, water,
rain, geological activity, and the ecosystem itself defined change
in the Southwest. These forces are active everywhere, and at variable
scales in space and time. Changes initiated by human development
and action respond at different time and spatial scales than those
driven by the environment. Today man for the most part has become
the principal driver of change in the Southwest. Human influences
are massive, they are incessant, and they can impact large areas
of the region and globe.
Human caused changes may be positive, neutral,
or negative. The challenge faced by developers, managers, scientists,
and the citizens is to detect and interpret change and to distinguish
among the alternatives for management and protection. Detection
and treatment of changes that have negative consequences are priority
one, and should be done while avoiding wasting resources and time.
Human interactions increase ecological risks. These risks range
from toxic spills and excessive nutrient releases in agricultural
runoff to destruction and fragmentation of natural habitats and
the introduction of nonnative species.
Habitat Variables That Define Variability
Degradation of water resources has always been
a concern of human society. Declines in the quality and quantity
of water, and habitats has continued in spite of massive regulatory
attention to the inadequacies of existing programs. Reduced water
quality, reduced fishery potential, degraded physical habitats,
and increased point and non-point pollution continues to restrict
and limit the environment. The majority of water resource programs
concentrate on human health rather than a broad array of natural
and biological resource issues and as a consequence many water
resource problems persist.
As human populations and inherent technology increase, impacts
continue to exponentially impact the environment:
- Production of domestic and industrial effluents
- Erosion following alterations of landscapes by agriculture
and urbanization
- Alteration of stream channels and lake margins through dams,
channelization, drainage, irrigation, and filling of wetlands
- Diversion and flow alteration
- Ground water extraction
- Overharvest of biological resources
- Increases in toxic chemicals from point and nonpoint sources
- Impacts to the watersheds
- Increase in exotic species
To assess this wider array of environmental concerns,
an approach must be utilized that takes into consideration the
dynamic nature of the environment and the species it supports.
Additionally, an understanding of the ecosystem drivers needs to
be developed.
To define the variability of an ecosystem, it
is important to recognize what accurately reflects the habitat
and response of the ecosystem. Historically the focus has been
on water quality criteria and/or individual species of plants,
animals, or fish as indicators of an ecosystem. Today a broader,
integrated, array of habitat variables must be taken into consideration
in order to evaluate ecosystem response.
Several Federal and State agencies are now calling
for evaluation and implementation of programs of direct biological
and habitat monitoring. If properly applied and heeded, these programs
will do much to instill a new philosophy and provide momentum for
shifting perspectives from waiting and watching to restoring and
maintaining. Clearly the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L.
92-500) indicate that additional elements need to be evaluated,
including:
- Inclusion of biological criteria in WQ standards program
- Restructuring existing monitoring programs to document the
impact of regulatory programs
- Evaluation and control of nonpoint pollution
- Coordination of chemical sampling with biological sampling
- Ecological Risk Assessment
- Incorporation of good science @ at all levels of water resource
policy
- Adoption of narrative biological criteria into state water
quality standards
Standards, Trends or Indices -- Which One for Which Situation?
The evaluation of impacts of development and water
use on aquatic and terrestrial systems has historically been focused
on '"what changes have been seen" by the local agencies
and resource management groups. Little scientifically collected
data or analysis has been available to assess changes. The three
most common indicators are:
Standards: -- These are typically chemical levels
established to reflect thresholds where biological activity is
threatened or impaired. These are the legally established rules
consisting of two parts, designated uses, and criteria. Typically
they are individual constituent standards and do not reflect ecosystem
response.
Trends: -- Trends are based on a more substantial
database and reflect response of an ecosystem component (e.g.,
a species, habitat) over time. There are spatial and temporal applications.
Indices: -- These are the latest application of
ecosystem response and are typically a combination of factors which
together "indicate" the response of the ecosystem of
the impacts. Indices are developed from consolidated information
and can reflect local, regional and global perspectives.
Traditional approaches to ecosystem monitoring
using standards and trends have not worked well. Widespread use
of single-species bioassays, complicated models and impact-statement
studies have been unsuccessful at predicting the effects of man's
impacts and stress on biological and physical systems. This can
be attributed to: (1) failure to incorporate concern for biotic
impairment; (2) based solely on local interests and short time
lines; and (3) limited understanding of the consequences of inadequate
protection on the integrity of the ecosystems. This lack of interdisciplinary
breadth and especially the lack of grounding in scientific and
biological theory and practice restricts the development of sound
water and resource management policy and monitoring. A need exists
to account for the dynamic nature of ecosystems and the variability
of population and communities.
Ecosystem Integrity - Seeking Understanding Through System Response
In response to the passage of P.L. 92-500 (The
Clean Water Act Amendments) in 1973, EPA convened multiple workshops
to discuss how to measure the "integrity" of water. The
concepts put forth in those discussions led to the development
of more refined applications to the environment. The first step
was the development of a definition of ecosystem health which states "a
biological system...can be considered healthy when its inherent
potential is realized, its condition is stable, its capacity for
self-repair when perturbed is preserved, and minimal external support
for management is needed" (Karr, 1986). Biological Integrity
then becomes
"the ability to support and maintain a balanced, integrated,
adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity,
and functional organization comparable to that of natural habitat
of the region" (Karr and Dudley, 1981).
These definitions establish broad ecosystem and
biological goals to replace the narrowly defined chemical criteria.
Their use depends upon development of biological criteria based
on ecological principles. Success at incorporating biotic and ecological
integrity into resource management depends on appropriate, cost-effective
procedures to measure biotic impairment.
Development of an "Index of Biological Integrity" (Karr
et.al. 1986) includes an array of indicators combined into one
or more simple indexes that are used to detect ecosystem degradation
and allows for determination if improvements will likely result
from management actions. Projects and plans should be evaluated
in relation to whether they will aid in the maintenance or improvement
of the biological integrity of a system.
How Do We Decide What Programs Or Studies Are Best?
Ecosystem Effectiveness
The evaluation of the specific types of studies
and restoration activities to support must be measured with a template
as to what will be effective in the short and long-term perspective
of the resources and the objectives of the resource management
programs. A clear delineation of program objectives and needs must
be used to evaluate each and every program. Some of the key elements
that need to be considered in the review include:
- Clear and concise statement of goals and objectives
- Where does it fit on the ecosystem grid of need?
- Is it basic research for all to gain from or is it specific
to a question?
- Short-term or long-term timeline?
- Where and how will the data be used?
- Can it be integrated with other projects?
- Does it fit the criteria for biological indicators?
- Peer review process?
- Permit requirements?
- Criteria for evaluation - ecosystem integrity or criteria evaluation?
- Data base available for GIS applications?
Overall the proposals must fit a prioritized need.
A clear outline of specific ecosystem gaps and needs must be completed
before additional research or studies are initiated. Without an
assessment and prioritization of need, it will be impossible to
evaluate one proposal's value against another.
Summary
A great deal of effort has gone on since the Clean
Water Act and other environmental legislation began to guide development
and management of the aquatic and terrestrial resources. In the
Southwest we are faced with a serious problem in evaluation of
the environmental concerns because we live in a very dynamic and
ever-changing ecosystem that has historically been defined by the
extremes rather than the means. Our monitoring and resource management
activities must reflect the stochastic variability of our environment
and the unique opportunities and challenges that are presented
to us. Modification and adoption of traditional approaches are
necessary if we are to achieve a complete understanding and protection
of our resources. Utilizing indices of biological and ecosystem
integrity is but one tool to assist us in that effort.
Habitat Group Meeting Notes
Sessions 1 and 2:
The application of habitat criteria to arid streams,
particularly effluent-dependent streams of the arid West, was the
subject of Session 1. Dave Wegner, President and Principal Scientist
for Ecosystem Management International, Flagstaff, Arizona, moderated
the session. The Habitats of Concern topic was added to the conference
late in the conference planning process. As a result, the group
did not have a clearly defined agenda or list of topics to discuss
as did the other groups. Rather, the very general and widely variable
discussion topic of "habitats of concern" was the habitat
group's only focal point. In order to try to compensate, the moderator
for Sessions 1 and 2 attempted to lead the discussion group through
the list of potential topics to be discussed at the other working
sessions -- the objective being that of identifying issues wherein
habitats per se could be tied to the other conference topics.
Owing to the eclectic nature of the discussion
group and the very broad topic area, discussions were wide-ranging
and often out of focus. Topics discussed ranged from United States-Mexico
border water issues to limits on population growth and the impacts
of population growth on sustainability. Interspersed among generalized
discussions of essentially global or national issues were fairly
focused interchanges on such specific topics as developing protocols
for implementing hardness-dependent metals criteria in waters characterized
by CaCO3 in excess of 400mg/l, and creation of relational databases
for consolidation and transfer of information.
In all, the group discussed, at least briefly,
more than 60 topics, and was still discussing a divergent array
of topics into Session 3. Some of the issues discussed are as follows:
- Chemicals and compounds of specific concern
to arid West agencies and regulators;
- Implications of chemicals and compounds on
species of concern;
- Implications of dissolved oxygen, selenium,
and organics;
- List pollutants and locations presenting special
compliance problems for dischargers;
- Development of criteria for habitats and species
in ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams in the arid West;
- Development of criteria for chemicals not
currently included in national criteria documents;
- Quantification of the influence of hardness,
alkalinity, and total organic carbon on metals toxicity;
- Development of protocols for hardness-dependent
metals criteria ;
- Demonstration of analytical or other rational
approaches to apply water quality standards to stormwater flows;
- Development of alternative methods for managing
and regulating stormwater discharges;
- Development of protocols for evaluating flows
in ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams for TMDL, mixing
zones, and effluent limitations;
- Site specific water quality standards for
effluent-dependent streams (EDWs);
- Mixing zones;
- Water chemistry changes over time;
- Sediment impacts;
- A list of terrestrial and aquatic indicator
species in ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams is needed;
- Ecological requirements of indicator species
need to be identified;
- Food chains of important arid West species,
including T & E species, need to be evaluated;
- Endangered Species Act impacts on water quality
standards, bioaccumulation, and man-made aquatic systems;
- Identification of interspecies relationships
and functional relationships between food chains and ecological
components;
- There is a need to include federal, state,
and tribal concerns;
- The net ecological benefit of reuse and recharge
programs in ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams in the arid
West to be investigated;
- Discuss and identify ecological benefits of
discharges;
- Development of measurable decision criteria
for use attainability questions in ephemeral and effluent-dependent
streams - what use is attainable? what conditions fully protect
a use? and what data are needed to set site-specific standards;
- Investigation of the issues involved in applying
the biological integrity concept to ephemeral and effluent-dependent
ecosystems in the arid West;
- Protection of habitats/uses through minimizing
discharge;
- Development of hydrology criteria to define
minimum flow;
- Investigation of the toxicity of metals and
ammonia to salt-tolerant plant species;
- The need to include organics in toxicity evaluations;
- Development of an "effluent-created ecosystem" use
definition that includes physical, biological, and chemical characteristics
of such arid West ecosystems;
- Development of arid West protocols for evaluating
economic impacts of implementation of use attainability standards;
- Evaluation of daily cycling impacts as related
to habitats;
- Reuse criteria and standards for arid West
ecosystems need to be reviewed;
- Development of protocols for evaluating net
ecological benefits to promote beneficial reuse of treated wastewater;
- Effluent reuse, water rights/ownership issues
need to be reviewed;
- Determination of the best use of effluent
as a water resource;
- Development of data on actual biological systems
needs to assess the feasibility of developing wildlife criteria
(e.g.,wildlife criteria for mercury);
- Species examined need to include plants, vertebrates,
and invertebrates;
- The regeneration potential and considerations
for endangered species needs to be evaluated;
- Development of whole effluent toxicity (WET)
test evaluations as it relates to T&E species;
- Modification of protocols for biomonitoring
to allow ceriodaphs/fatheads to be more tolerant of western waters;
- Support of studies to determine the Method
Detection Level (MDL) and Practical Quantification Level (PQL);
- Determination of WET testing variability compliance;
- Investigation of the relationship between
ammonia toxicity, pH, and temperature;
- Determination of the appropriate use of biomonitoring
and WET testing in ephemeral and effluent-dependent ecosystems;
- WET should be habitat oriented and related
to field conditions;
- How can field toxicity be measured? Should
it be measured at the end of pipe or downstream?
- Ecotype variation in response to toxic chemicals
could be evaluated;
- Evaluation of options for modifying effluent
constituents;
- Methods relationships as related to regulations
and alternative method options can be explored;
- Defining the limits and impacts of population
growth on sustainability;
- Is sustainability variable among geographic
regions of the arid West?
- How can habitat information be translated
and passed on to regulators?
- What are the economic values of ecosystems?
- What are the issues and trade-offs related
to habitat conversion? What are the impacts to terrestrial species?
- Existing levels and conditions must be examined
within a historical context;
- Investigation of impacts of stream flow fluctuations
on habitats --
- Floodplains no longer available for restoration
of form and function
- Dams, diversions, discharge, and groundwater
depletions issues in the arid West;
- Dilution and sedimentation impacts;
- How to manage for cyclic and/or stable flows;
- How are habitats distributed across arid landscapes?
- Link groundwater and surface water elements
to habitat and ecosystem population concerns;
- What are the values or detriments of adding
water to an arid area?
- Border issues related to water flowing into
the U.S. from Mexico;
- Where and how do constructed wetlands and
habitats fit into the picture?
- What are the values of constructed habitats,
spatial extent, gradients, and transition zones?
- Evaluation of historical biological studies
and subsequent impacts. Is there a point where gains are limited?
- Development of a relational database for consolidation
of information --
- Transfer and integrate information;
- Assess trends in habitat changes-antecedent
trends,
- Conditions, and previous studies must be understood.
Session 3: Prioritization of Habitats of Concern Candidate Issues
3 Prioritization of Habitats of Concern Candidate Issues Prioritization
of Habitats of Concern Candidate Issues
Session 3 was moderated by Dr. E. Linwood Smith,
Director of Biological Resources for Dames & Moore, Inc., Tucson,
Arizona. Despite the variety of topics discussed in Sessions 1
and 2, the Habitats of Concern group did identify four key areas
of concern and associated research needs. The prioritization of
these key areas of concern is noted below:
1. Identify the types of habitats that presently exist or could
exist below discharge points.
High Priority Research/Research/Study Topics
- Survey effluent-dependent riparian systems
throughout the West to obtain information relative to system
composition and health.
- Identify what factors should be considered
in making decisions about the designated uses of effluent-dependent
streams.
- Identify the limiting factors for biological
communities in effluent-dependent systems that have been either
created or sustained by discharge. For example, are limitations
related to water quality or some physical component of the
system such as soil type?
Moderate to Low Priority Research/Research/Study Topics
- Conduct a functional comparison of direct
discharge to a stream versus discharge to a constructed wetland
with ultimate discharge from the wetland to a stream.
- Identify the habitat or ecosystem values
contributed by each component of an arid, effluent-dependent
stream (e.g., values contributed by effluent, values contributed
by vegetation supported by the effluent).
2. Quantify and analyze the community structure as a function
of habitat and ecosystem function.
High Priority Research/Research/Study Topics
- Conduct surveys of effluent-dependent riparian
systems to obtain data on:
- Wildlife and floristic species diversity
- Presence or absence of important, expected
species
- Identify interspecies relationships
- Categorize effluent-dependent systems throughout
the arid West
- Elevation and geographic setting
- Riparian system health and biodiversity
- Water quality and water supply (source)
- Identify any other biological factors that
should be included
- Identify representative habitat locations
throughout the arid West
- Develop a list of terrestrial and aquatic
indicator species that are characteristic of effluent-dependent
and ephemeral streams that are not currently included in national
criteria documents.
- Develop expanded lists of species of plants,
vertebrates, and invertebrates that are characteristic of effluent-dominated
and ephemeral streams.
- Identify life history requirements of species
and how those relate to effluent-dependent and ephemeral streams.
- Evaluate the effects of daily cycling impacts
on habitats and species
- Evaluate food chains within important arid
West wildlife species that occur in association with effluent-dependent
and ephemeral streams.
- Special emphasis should be placed on threatened
and/or endangered species.
- Identify any impacts on water quality standards
that might result from an understanding of food chain relationships
(e.g., are important species at risk by virtue of foraging
on insects or plants growing in effluent-dependent waters?)
- Identify functional relationships between
food chains and other ecological components of effluent-dependent
and ephemeral streams.
- Investigate the net ecological benefit of
reuse and recharge programs in ephemeral and effluent-dependent
streams.
- Develop an "effluent-created ecosystem" definition
for effluent-dependent and ephemeral streams. The definition
should include the biological, chemical, and
- physical characteristics typifying these
environments throughout the arid West.
- Define protocols that are appropriate for
developing criteria for ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams.
- Develop methods for evaluating the economic
impacts of standards
- implementation for use in use attainability
analyses.
High to Moderate Priority Research/Research/Study Topics
- Obtain quantitative information on the importance
to downstream reaches of primary and secondary productivity
within ephemeral streams that are effluent-dependent.
- Develop criteria for habitats and species
in effluent-dependent and ephemeral streams in the arid West.
Develop criteria for those chemicals not currently included
in national criteria documents (especially metals, pesticides,
and ammonia).
- Investigate the issues involved in applying
the biological integrity concept to ephemeral and effluent-dependent
ecosystems of the arid West.
Moderate Priority Research/Research/Study Topics
- Obtain the necessary data on actual biological
systems that could be used to assess the feasibility of developing
criteria for wildlife.
Moderate to Low Priority Research/Research/Study Topics
- Define the role of ephemeral streams in
overall watershed water quality as it relates to the temporal
variation in the storage and release of contaminants and/or
sediments throughout the year.
- There is a need to better characterize how
different types of groundwater regimes support riparian habitats.
- Review reuse criteria and standards for
arid West ecosystems.
- Develop protocols for evaluating net environmental
benefits
- Review effluent reuse, water rights/ownership
issues
- Determine best use of effluent as a water
resource
- Evaluate ecotypic variation as a function
of toxic effluent constituents.
Low Priority Research/Research/Study Topics
- Study the toxicity of metals, organics,
and ammonia on important salt-tolerant plant species.
3. Evaluate policy concerns and relationships of habitats impacted
by discharges.
High Priority Research/Study Topics
- Develop measurable decision criteria for
use attainability questions in ephemeral and effluent-dependent
ecosystems. What level of use is attainable? What conditions
fully protect a use, and what data are needed to set site-specific
criteria?
- What factors, e.g., political, social, legal,
or economic, will most influence decision-making.
- How can technical information be translated
to decision-makers?
Moderate Priority Research/Study Topics
- Evaluate alternatives to discharging effluent
and impacts thereof.
- Obtain better information on evapotranspiration
in order to make better decisions on the value of plants.
Low Priority Research/Study Topic
- Determine what types of ecological/economic models are available
and appropriate.
4. Determine the relationship of water quality to the support
of habitat.
High Priority Research/Study Topics
- What are the assimilative capacities of stream
beds with respect to pollutants? Can downstream recovery zones
be identified?
- Evaluate the water quality needs of indigenous
and threatened or endangered species.
- Identify chemicals and compounds of specific
concern to arid West agencies and regulators.
- Specific chemicals and compounds should
include ammonia, arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, diazanon,
zinc, mercury, molybdenum, phthalates, silver, dissolved oxygen,
selenium, and organics.
- Determine implications of the presence of
these constituents on species of concern.
- Identify pollutants and localities that
present special problems for dischargers (e.g., areas with
naturally occurring high levels of selenium or arsenic).
- Elucidate the influence of hardness, alkalinity,
and total organic carbon on the toxicity of metals and the
ultimate effect on habitats, and aquatic and wildlife species
in ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams.
- Develop protocols for implementing hardness-dependent
metals criteria in waters above 400 mg/l CaCO3.
- Determine the nature of impacts associated
with sediment load in ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams.
- Evaluate riparian habitat regeneration potential
and the implications for endangered species.
Moderate Priority Research/Study Topics
- Evaluate long term downstream impacts of
specific contaminants including chlorine.
- Identify alternative, low-cost technologies
that could be used to meet water quality goals, especially
for small, rural communities.
- Develop rational approaches for addressing
water quality standards in stormwater flows.
- Determine the relationship between minimizing
discharge requirements and protection of habitats and designated
uses.
- Develop methods for evaluating TMDL and
mixing zone effects in ephemeral and effluent-dependent streams.
- Evaluate the appropriateness of biomonitoring
and WET testing in ephemeral and effluent-dependent ecosystems.
Low Priority Research/Study Topics
- Conduct studies to determine the Method Detection
Level (MDL) and Practical Quantification Level (PQL)
Habitat Group Participants
| Name |
Organization |
Phone |
| Anton, Edward |
Water Rights, California Water
Resources Control Board |
916-657-1359 |
| Bradley, Michael |
Ph.D., Hydrology and Water Resources,
Univ. of AZ |
520-6243815 |
| Cheng, Ing-Yih |
Division Mgr, Environmental. Monitoring,
City of Los Angeles |
310-524-1160 |
| Curley, Ed |
Program Mgr. Pima County Wastewater
Management,Tucson |
520-740-6638 |
| Danos, Val |
Program Mgr. AZ Municipal Water
Users Assn, Phoenix |
602-248-8482 |
| Flores, Kesner |
WEPA Director, Cortina Indian
Rancheria, Citrus Hts, CA |
916-473-3318 |
| Harris, Mary Ellen |
Env Specialist, Eastern Municipal
Water District, S.Jacinto,CA |
909-925-7676 |
| Kimpel, Michele |
Environmental Engineer, City of
Nogales, Arizona |
520-287-6571, x 205 |
| Korte, Nic |
Env. Restoration, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, CO |
970-248-6210 |
| Kuhlman, Catherine |
EPA Region 9, Assoc Dir, Water
- San Francisco, CA |
415-744-2001 |
| Lavaty, Ann |
EPA, Region 7, WQS Coordinator.,
Kansas City, KA |
913-551-7370 |
| Lopes, Vicente |
Watershed Management, Univ.of
Arizona, Tucson |
520-621-9389 |
| Marra, Ralph |
Hydrologist, Tucson Water, City
of Tucson |
520-791-2689 |
| Marron, Ken |
CEO, Marron & Associates,
Inc, Albuquerque, NM |
505-898-8848 |
| Mays, S. Lynn |
Vice President, Malcolm Pirnie,
Inc,, Houston, TX |
713-840-1511 |
| McConnell, Bob |
Monitor Unit, Colorado Water Quality
Control Division, Denver |
303-692-3578 |
| Meehan, Wes |
Hydrologist-Water Resources, U.S.Geological
Survey Tucson |
520-670-6671, x 292 |
| Nutongla, Nat |
Water Resources Program Dir, Hopi
Tribe, Kykotsmovi, AZ |
520-734-9307 |
| Osborn, Iralenee |
WQ Program Coord, Blackfeet Environmental
Office-Montana |
406-338-7421 |
| Paez, Tony |
Director of Transportation, City
of Tucson |
520-791-4371 |
| Pontius, Dale |
Consultant, Pearce, AZ |
520-824-3469 |
| Rackley, Ira |
Vice President, Kennedy/Jenks
Consultants, Reno, NV |
702-827-7900 |
| Smith, Linwood |
Dames & Moore, Inc. Director,
Biological Resources-Tucson |
520-529-1141 |
| Stearns, Danielle |
Dames & Moore, Environmental.
Planner, Tucson |
520-529-1141 |
| Stephenson, Larry |
Mgr-Non-Point Source Unit,AZ Dept.
of Environmental Quality |
602-207-4508 |
| Stiles, Eric |
Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
Denver, CO |
303-236-8384, x 284 |
| Stitzer, Linda |
AZ Dept. of Water Resources, Tucson,
AZ |
520-770-3315 |
| Tellman, Barbara |
Sr. Research Specialist, Water
Research Center, Univ. of AZ |
520-792-9804 |
| Urbonas, Ben |
Chief,Planning S.Platte River,Urban
Drainage & Flood Control |
303-455-6277 |
| Wahl, Rex |
Sr.Environmental Planner, Entranco,
Denver, CO |
602-264-1228 |
| Wegner, David |
President and Principal Scientist,
EMI, Inc., Flagstaff, Arizona |
520-779-5350 |
| Wolinsky, Gary |
Environmental Scientist, EPA,
Region 9, San Francisco, CA |
415-744-1978 |
Top of Page / Previous
Page / Next Page / Table
of Contents
|
