Region III Activities to Implement National Vision to Improve Water Quality

Monitoring

National Water Quality Monitoring Council

August 20, 2003

2

Water Quality Monitoring

The Best of Times, The Worst of Times

Crisis = Opportunity

3

National Vision for Future Water Quality Monitoring Programs

U.S. and States are getting the best return on federal and state monitoring investments

By maximizing partnerships, and

Using best monitoring tools to answer key questions at national, regional, state and local scales

Effectively targeting water quality actions to maximize benefits and social cost savings

4

National Vision Formed by Recent Critiques of Programs

General Accounting Office, 2000EPA and States cannot make statistically valid inferences about water quality and lack data to support management decisions

National Research Council, 2001 A uniform, consistent approach to ambient monitoring and data collection is necessary to support core water quality programs

National Academy of Public Administration, 2002Improved water quality monitoring information is necessary to help states make more effective use of limited resources

Heinz Center Report, 2002There is inadequate data for national reporting on fresh water, coastal and ocean water quality indicators.

Draft State of the Environment Report, 2003No current way to develop a national picture of water quality

5

Status of Water Quality Monitoring

Current monitoring and assessment approaches are limited:

Focus on targeted monitoring

Assess limited percentage state waters and water body types (19% rivers and streams, 43% lakes, 36% estuaries, 4% wetlands)

Generally not comparable across states

Limited utility for state by state or national assessment

Inefficient allocation of resources

6

The Problem - Inadequate Water Quality Information for Decisions

About one-third of U.S. waters were assessed under 305b for states’ 2000 reports

Only about half of these assessments are based on current, site-specific monitoring information.Most monitoring is not done in a way that allows for statistically valid assessments of conditions in unmonitored waters.

GAO found only six states reported that they have a majority of the data they need to assess whether their waters meet water quality standards

7

Impacts of Inadequate Information

Incomplete and unreliable assessments of water quality

Incorrect lists of impaired waters

Weak technical basis for establishment of TMDLs and pollution controls

Ineffective evaluation of water programs

Inefficient resource allocation

8

Strategy for Achieving the Vision

Strengthen state programsInvest in state/tribal programs through grants and technical support

Use multiple monitoring tools Support full range of decisions for all water body types

Expand accessibility and use of dataEncourage standardization of methods and reportingImprove communication of water quality results

Promote PartnershipsCollaborate to maximize use of monitoring resources

9

Strengthen State Programs

Comprehensive state strategies by FY05This is the primary focus of Regional efforts

$100M shortfall for state monitoring

Better planning and targeting needed

Technical assistance

10

Overview of Region III Programs

Good State Programs

Chesapeake Bay Program

Estuary Programs

Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment

New Water Protection Division Team

11

Overview of Region III Programs

Generally already fairly strong in use of multiple monitoring tools and use of biological indicators

Long history of participation in efforts with OW and ORD to advance water quality monitoring and assessment

305(b) consistency workgroup

Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment

Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment

National Coastal Assessment

12

Overview of Region III Programs

Long History of Collaboration and Partnerships

Chesapeake Bay Program

Thru Formation of State Monitoring Councils in Maryland and Virginia

Mid-Atlantic Wetlands (monitoring) Workgroup

13

Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment

An integrated monitoring and assessment program in the Mid-Atlantic Region that:

provides a safe and healthy environment for humans and other living thingssupports the regulatory needs (305b report, 303d listing, development of TMDLs, etc.)Supports non-regulatory needs (zoning, land-use planning, conservation acquisition, etc.)functions at multiple scales (regional, state, county, watershed, etc.)

14

Region III Priorities

Determine Current Status of State Water Quality Monitoring Programs

Build on Existing State Programs to Develop Comprehensive Strategies for Ambient Monitoring of all Waterbody Types

Integrate Ongoing Monitoring Programs

Improve Data Management and Expand Access

Implement New Organization

15

Region III Priority - Focus on State Program Upgrades

A primary goal is to assist in the upgrade of state monitoring programs that will be fully implemented by 2014 to assess all waterbody types for all designated uses by incorporating the ten elements from EPA Guidance issued in March 2003 entitled ‘Elements of a State Water Monitoring Program’.

16

Overview of Elements GuidanceThe guidance better defines what the elements of an state water monitoring program should be, and provides a framework for upgrading state water monitoring programs over time. It serves as a tool to promote consistent Regional assessments of state programs and to guide EPA determinations of whether a state water quality monitoring program meets CWA objectives. Http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguid. html

17

Overview of Elements GuidanceThe 10 Elements Include:

• Monitoring program strategy• Monitoring objectives• Monitoring design• Core indicators of water quality• Quality assurance• Data management• Data analysis and assessment (CALM)• Reporting• Program evaluation• General support and infrastructure

18

Region III Approach for Assessing State Programs

Joint EPA and State Effort

Identifies Strengths, Weakness, Challenges

Identifies and Prioritizes Goals/Milestones – thru 10 year Implementation Schedule

Identifies Resources Needs and Collaborations

19

Region III Approach for Assessing State Programs

Questionnaire for Information Gathering

Discussions with State Water Monitoring Program Managers and Staff – including Basin Commissions

Assessing Program Status in Relation to CWA Goals

20

Proposed Schedule

Information Gathering – Summer/Fall 2003Draft Monitoring Strategy by Winter/Spring 2004Final Monitoring Strategy by 10/1/04Begin Implementation in FY2005 based on resources and prioritiesAnnual Review of progress towards goals and annual milestones

21

Accessibility and Use of DataRegional effort to expand use of STORET among statesUSGS and EPA have signed an agreement to enhance public access and data comparability between NWIS and STORETWATERSGIS Coverage and Contextual Data

National Hydrography DatasetLand coverNPDES and other source locations

22

Region III WPD Reorganization

Monitoring and Assessment Team

Consolidate Water Quality Programs

Estuary Programs Moved to WPD

Expand Outreach Efforts to Enhance Partnerships

23

Region III WPD Reorganization

Office of Watersheds

Watershed Restoration Branch

Monitoring and Assessment Team

- Larry Merrill, Acting Team Leader

- 215-814-5452

- merrill.larry@epa.gov