# Presentation: 583605

## Region III Activities to Implement National Vision to Improve Water Quality Monitoring

- National Water Quality Monitoring Council
- August 20, 2003

**Notes:**
Pleased to represent Region III

Monitoring Coordinator – Eva Ammentorp

Purpose – to look ahead – describe a key Regional task underway

## Water Quality Monitoring

- The Best of Times, The Worst of Times
- Crisis = Opportunity

**Notes:**
Two cliches – Dickens and Eastern philosophy

Coming into responsibilities at an exciting time

FY2005 budget request

## 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

**Notes:**
Presentation pulls from several sources – this from EPA Headquarters – what has been outlined as our national goal.

Asked to discuss R3 work – need to place it in the context of national concerns.

## National Vision Formed by Recent Critiques of Programs

- General Accounting Office, 2000
- EPA 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, 2002
- Improved water quality monitoring information is necessary to help states make more effective use of limited resources
- Heinz Center Report, 2002
- There is inadequate data for national reporting on fresh water,  coastal and ocean water quality indicators.
- Draft State of the Environment Report, 2003
- No current way to develop a national picture of water quality

**Notes:**
States’ workload model estimating a gap of about $100 million in monitoring resources was supported by NAPA review.

shortcomings and serious deficiencies.  

incomplete and inconsistent data limit ability to make water quality management decisions that are grounded in scientific evidence.  

Do not have the ability to judge the merits of these reviews – R3 staff  - it’s not all that bad.

But they’re there.

## 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

**Notes:**
19% Rivers and streams are assessed
43% Lake (acres) assessed
36% Estuaries (sq miles) assessed
<4% Wetland (acres) assessed

Weak technical basis for establishment TMDLs and water quality-based NPDES permits
Incomplete inventory of water quality and identification of impaired or vulnerable waters
Ineffective evaluation of water programs 
Inefficient allocation of resources to solve problems and protect waters

## 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

**Notes:**
Section 305b calls for states to report on the extent that all waters meet WQS, yet current monitoring and assessment programs fail to achieve that goal.
For 2000 305(b) reports states assessed
19% of the nations river and stream miles
43% of lake, pond, and reservoirs acres
36% of estuarine square miles
8% of wetland acres 
6% of ocean shoreline miles
States reported that about half of assessments are based on recent ambient monitoring data.  The other assessments are based on qualitative evaluations including water quality modeling.
Key obstacle to achieving comprehensive assessment is that most state monitoring designs do not facilitate statistically valid inferences about all the waters or all designated uses.

Very few states have pulled together the resources and strategic vision needed to implement a monitoring program that fully serves water management program needs.

In process of compiling 2002 information – likely see an increase in waters assesses, but still many of the same problems and findings.

## 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

**Notes:**
Consequences are...
Incomplete inventory of water quality at state, regional or national level
Incorrect 303d lists of impaired waters
Weak technical basis for developing TMDLs and establishing point and nonpoint controls
Ineffective evaluation of the success of CWA programs
and
Overall, inefficient resource allocation

A summary from another Region
Been overwhelmed by the TMDL program and the listing process – data needs both for listing decisions and for the ability to remove a water form a 303(d) list.

Agency recently issued guidance for the 2004 process – we we’re hoping to avoid a listing cycle in 2004 but we have to proceed.

## Strategy for Achieving the Vision

- Strengthen state programs
- Invest 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 data
- Encourage standardization of methods and reporting
- Improve communication of water quality results
- Promote Partnerships
- Collaborate to maximize use of monitoring resources

**Notes:**
$4 million to get started on improved monitoring design
Grants to support state efforts to use multiple tools in long-term ambient monitoring and assessment frameworks, at appropriate geographic scales, to support all water quality management objectives.  
incorporation of a probability-survey as a cost effective starting point for states that do not implement designs that generate statistically-valid estimates of the condition of water resources. 

National Water Quality Monitoring Council
	established monitoring data standards for databases (including STORET and NWIS)

forward looking vision and a commitment for ongoing investment in monitoring of all water body types at appropriate scales

National and Regional joint response – how to work towards the national vision.
Our key focus will be to work with states and companion partners to strengthen monitoring programs.

## Strengthen State Programs

- Comprehensive state strategies by FY05
- This is the primary focus of Regional efforts
- $100M shortfall for state monitoring
- Better planning and targeting needed
- Technical assistance

**Notes:**
Begin to focus on this effort – discuss the guidance and Region III’s work.

First – a brief overview of where we are in R3

## Overview of Region III Programs

- Good State Programs
- Chesapeake Bay Program
- Estuary Programs
- Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment
- New Water Protection Division Team

**Notes:**
We’re not starting from zero – good programs, many significant efforts.

New organization – should pay dividends.

## 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

**Notes:**
Some of our highlights.

## 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

**Notes:**
CBP – major plus – tremendous amounts of data and has served as a model for partnerships.

Hear some information on wetlands work in the next presentation

## 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 things
- supports 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.)

**Notes:**
Another significant effort in the Region – ongoing work – recently issued a report on estuaries in the Mid Atlantic area.

## 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

**Notes:**
We’re still working on what we will be doing – gaining knowledge and experience – learning.

These are our current priorities.

We will involve many organizations in this effort – not just one on one EPA/state.

## 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’.

**Notes:**
Again – working with our state and interstate agencies will be the key task.

## Overview of Elements Guidance

- The 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

**Notes:**
Issued this past March – have sent on to states

## Overview of Elements Guidance

- The 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

**Notes:**
The 10 elements

## 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

## 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

**Notes:**
R3 actually had a jump start on some of this – did some preliminary work with PA 

## Proposed Schedule

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

**Notes:**
We are holding meetings and conference calls – about halfway through initial reviews.

Recognize need to involve other organizations in these reviews.

Hope to have all initial contacts made by end of September – work through FY2004 to upgrade/revise strategies. 

Be prepared to implement in FY2005

## Accessibility and Use of Data

- Regional effort to expand use of STORET among states
- USGS and EPA have signed an agreement to enhance public access and data comparability between NWIS and STORET
- WATERS
- GIS Coverage and Contextual Data
- National Hydrography Dataset
- Land cover
- NPDES and other source locations

**Notes:**
Value of USGS monitoring:

- Flow gauge network (which has been shrinking) provides critical information on the average and variation in stream flow.  This is crucial data for making sure that pollutant load calculations account for the variability in flow conditions. - The NAQWA studies generate powerful predictive information to help target monitoring and management priorities.

NAQWA study units are designed to characterize the relationships among land use patterns and water quality patterns.  EPA included a summary of the USGS analysis of the relationships among nutrient levels and dominant land use patterns in the 1998 305(b) report.  
SPARROW model predicts nutrient loadings to streams for every watershed across the country based on upstream sources and physical characteristics of watersheds.
Long term data from specific sites helped document pollutant reductions over time (for example reductions of lead in lake sediments).

Both internal and external focus – need to put information in the hands of those who need it.

Most immediate past role – a client – need to work to identify what is needed.  Also work with many partners on public access.

## Region III WPD Reorganization

- Monitoring and Assessment Team
- Consolidate Water Quality Programs
- Estuary Programs Moved to WPD
- Expand Outreach Efforts to Enhance Partnerships

**Notes:**
New team  - brought functions together – 305b estuaries, beaches – wetlands – no.

## 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

**Notes:**
My contact information.