MINUTES
TRACE ELEMENT NATIONAL SYNTHESIS PLANNING TEAM (TENSPT)
OCTOBER 20-22, 1997
NATIONAL TRAINING CENTER, LAKEWOOD, COLORADO

Attending:

Bill Brumbaugh
Roger Fujii (by telephone)
Dennis Helsel
Art Horowitz
Mike Koterba
Jim Kuwabara
Rich Wanty
Denny Wentz
Bill Wilber

Day 1 (Monday, October 20):

Bill Wilber summarized the general NAWQA design and how synthesis teams fit into that structure. He emphasized that synthesis teams must address the third NAWQA objective -- implications for water and water-quality management agencies. The general objectives of national synthesis are to compare and contrast the various environmental settings across the country, and to develop and report conclusions that span several study units or the Nation.

Current trace element activities may not correspond with priorities that ultimately are established by the TENSPT and developed into a national synthesis. Prioritization of activities across all national synthesis teams will be done this winter.

Study unit activities to date:

NAWQA trace element publications are listed on the trace element web site . Several example publications were distributed to the planning team prior to the meeting. Eight of the 1991 study units sampled for a suite of trace elements in ground water; some sampled only for As and/or Rn. Less work is being done in the 1994 study units, though three (UCOL, KANA, and ALMN) have significant trace element issues related to mining and are measuring trace elements in several media. At least one 1994 study unit (LINJ) is concerned about trace elements related to urbanization. All 1994 study units have sampled bed sediment and tissue for trace elements, at least at the basic fixed sites.

QC:

Current analysis relative to QC issues is incomplete, but it appears that Cd and Zn may be general contamination problems. It was strongly recommended that the trace elements synthesis team follow the VOC synthesis team procedure of receiving data simultaneously with the study units as it comes back from the lab.

Day 2 (Tuesday, October 21):

The following issues were agreed to be of importance, with sub-issues listed under each.
I. Reference Concentrations
A. Compare with concentrations from urban, agricultural, and mined areas
B. Establish standards
C. Provide trace element speciation, as appropriate for environmental/human health
D. Distinctions among pristine/natural/background, minimally impacted, and current conditions are important

Discussion points (not necessarily agreed to by all):
* It's important to evaluate reference conditions in study units that have trace element issues. Other study units may not need to do any trace element work.
* The US should have done a geochemical survey across the Nation a long time ago. It's the major work and income source for Geological Survey of Great Britain.
* Hg should be considered in relation to atmospheric transport

II. Effects of Urbanization

A. Compare urban with other land uses -- conversion of agricultural to urban land
B. Compare point with nonpoint sources
C. Determine trends downstream from urban areas relative to urban growth
D. Evaluate effects of pre-treatment requirements on industry
E. Determine concentrations in new residential/commercial settings
F. Evaluate effects of detention ponds
G. Determine concentrations near drinking water intakes
H. Evaluate effects of energy production
I. Evaluate effects of sludge disposal -- contamination of ground water from sludge application

Discussion points (not necessarily agreed to by all):
* Energy production is one of the most important sources to urban areas.
* Look at upstream/downstream pairs rather than small, possibly atypical, urban landscapes.
* Bed sediment is an important sampling medium in urban areas. * Trace element concentrations are important in heavily fished urban reservoirs. Look at only Hg?
* Growth of new suburbs over recharge areas must be considered

III. Effects of Mining and Remediation

A. Determine extent of impacted resources
B. Prioritize impacts in relation to geology
C. Evaluate effectiveness of Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Has remediation worked?)
D. Determine trends from reservoir cores
E. Evaluate implications for potential future impacts
F. Evaluate implications for endocrine disruption
G. Determine concentrations prior to mining

Discussion points (not necessarily agreed to by all):
* Consider hard rock and coal together. Industrial minerals (sand and gravel, rutile, etc.) should be considered with regard to physical disturbance of watersheds (impacts of mining on hydrology and sediment transport).
* GD has production statistics and can tell which areas are being actively mined
* Smothering of fish by accumulation of colloidal Fe, Mn, Al on gills is an important issue
* Luoma article states that the size of mining disturbance in the US is equal in area to that of the State of Washington
* What is area of land affected by mining? How is it changing?
* Mining impacts on recreational and Federal lands are important

IV. Effects of Agriculture

A. Compare agricultural with other land uses (conversion of agricultural to urban land)
B. Determine contributions from pesticides and fertilizers that contain trace elements
C. Evaluate contributions due to secondary effects, e.g. irrigation return flows
D. Evaluate effects of sludge application

Discussion points (not necessarily agreed to by all):
* Concern is only with a limited suite of elements (As, Pb, Mn, Hg, U, Zn)
* A wider suite of elements needs to be considered for irrigation return flows (B, Se)
* Trace elements may be released from rocks as a result of application of agricultural chemicals

V. Regional Occurrence and Distribution of Mercury

A. Evaluate the importance of atmospheric sources
B. Integrate with ongoing USGS studies
C. Consider effects due to speciation
D. Consider publication of a retrospective analysis
E. Evaluate human health issues in relation to fish consumption

Discussion points (not necessarily agreed to by all):
* NADP/NTN is beginning to make Hg measurements in deposition
* USEPA has high volume air data
* Consider contributions from from coal fired power plants
* How do atmospheric fluxes compare to other sources?
* What are atmospheric contributions to remote areas, such as National Parks?
* Call Bob Lent in MA District regarding Hg symposium document
* We don't yet know the environmental setting factors controlling Hg concentrations
* Atmospheric concentrations are too costly and are not part of the NAWQA design. Evaluate from the literature, as was done for pesticides.

VI. Loads to Receiving Basins (estuaries/reservoirs)

A. Determine fluxes from coastal zone and large basins
B. Evaluate regional differences
C. Analyze trends from cores


Discussion points (not necessarily agreed to by all):
* This seems to be more of a study unit question than a national question
* How does this objective differ from that of the NASQAN Program?
* Can this be accomplished more efficiently by analyzing cores or water samples?

VII. Human Exposure from Consumption of Water and Fish

A. Determine occurrence in drinking water sources
B. Determine occurrence in fish tissue
C. Compare filtered and unfiltered surface water supplies

Discussion points (not necessarily agreed to by all):
* It's more important to evaluate ground water than surface water, as few know what's in individual supply wells, whereas public utilities monitor large surface water supplies.
* Do any agencies evaluate trace elements in fish from a national perspective, or is this issue left to the states? Is there a central source for acquiring existing data?
* Should fillets replace livers as the medium of choice, or should fillets be added and livers continue to be analyzed?
* The highest priority is near population centers.
* It may not be worth looking at fillets at a study unit scale because many states are doing much more than NAWQA ever could. Do we know what's being done by the states?
* In addition to knowing concentrations in fish, it's also important to know where no fish can live. What is the threshold of survival capability (acute toxicity level?) with dilution downstream of a source, for example.

VIII. Exposure to Predators From Food Sources

A. Determine concentrations in aquatic biota consumed by fish and semi-aquatic birds and mammals
B. Relate to regions with threatened species

Ten criteria were suggested as a way to prioritize the eight issues:
1. Does it address problems/needs of regional/national interest?
2. Does it have a clearly defined user/audience?
3. Is there a clearly definable product?
4. Is this a Federal responsibility?
5. Is it appropriate for the NAWQA Program to address this issue (as opposed to other programs/divisions)?
6. Can it be conducted within a study unit framework?
7. Is it important to conduct now? (Or, can it wait 10 years?)
8. Does it contribute to an information/data base of lasting value for addressing environmental issues?
9. Is it affordable (without compromising key components of the NAWQA Program)?
10. Will it enhance our ability to do future studies?

Day 3 (October 22, 1997):

It was decided that criteria 3 and 9 were not answerable at this stage of planning, and so they were deferred. The remaining eight criteria were used to judge the issues on a scale of 1=low/no and 2=high/yes by group consensus. The consensus ratings were:
Criterion: 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10
Issue
1. Reference 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
2. Urbanization 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3. Mining 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1
4. Agriculture 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 1
5. Hg ODA 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
6. Loads 1 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
7. Human exposure 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
8. Predator exposure 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2

The issues fell into two general categories: (1) Those with a reasonable number of 1's, and (2) Those with all or mostly 2's. The top five (all or mostly 2's) were determined to be most likely to be pursued by a trace element synthesis. These issues are:

1. Reference conditions
2. Urban effects
3. Mining effects
5. Occurrence and distribution of mercury
7. Human exposure

The three issues considered of lower priority were therefore:

4. Agricultural effects
6. Loads to receiving waters
8. Predator exposure

The latter issues were considered of lower priority because, at least for trace elements, they were seen as either (1) not being national issues, (2) not having a strong user or interest group, (3) not being within the traditional NAWQA purview, (4) not requiring immediate attention, and/or (5) less likely to result in spinoff NRP or District studies.

Each person on the planning team then ranked the top five issues in order of their perceived importance (1 being greatest importance). The rankings were summed.
Person: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sum
Issue
1. Reference 1 1 5 1 4 3 1 1 5 22
2. Urbanization 4 3 1 2 2 5 2 4 2 25
3. Mining 3 5 2 3 5 1 3 3 4 29
5. Mercury ODA 5 4 4 5 3 4 5 5 3 38
7. Human exposure 2 2 3 4 1 2 4 2 1 21

Human exposure, reference conditions, and urbanization were the consensus top issues (lowest scores: 21-25). Mining was a step lower in priority (score = 29), and mercury occurrence and distribution was another step lower (score = 38).

It is important to note that although mercury occurrence and distribution was designated as a separate issue, mercury will continue to be considered within each of the other issues. Interest in a separate regional mercury assessment developed mostly because of concerns regarding atmospheric transport and human health.

Subgroups were established to start development and planning for each of the five issues. Membership in the subgroups (listed in priority order) is:
1. Human exposure: Leader-Helsel; Group-Brumbaugh, Fujii, Koterba; Possible Resource People-Patterson
2. Reference conditions: Leader-Wentz; Group-Horowitz, Koterba, Kuwabara, Wanty; Possible Resource People-Gurtz, ESPT
3. Urbanization: Leader-VanMetre; Group-Fujii, Wentz; Possible Resource People-Lopes, Squillace, ESPT
4. Mining: Leader-Koterba; Group-Helsel, Horowitz, Kuwabara, Wanty; Possible Resource People-GD, Short
5. Mercury ODA: Leader-Krabbenhoft; Group-Brumbaugh, Kuwabara; Possible Resource People-Gaugh, Wiener
Action Items:

Revisions to charter to Wentz by 10/31 -- all
Draft minutes from TENSPT meeting to Wilber for discussion during next NLT conference call on 10/30 -- Helsel, Wentz
Distribute urban plan and reference site document to TENSPT -- Wilber
Template development to team leaders -- Wentz

Next meeting/call:

Conference call Nov. 21 at 1 pm EST
Next meeting set for week of Jan 5 in Menlo Park