# Presentation: 356790

## Progress Report

- State WQ Ambient Monitoring Program Assessment
- December 9, 2002

## Monitoring Project Goals

**Set a 2001 baseline**
**Identify key enhancements**
**Quantify costs and level of effort **
**Identify and share innovations**
**Identify barriers and challenges**
**Provide a common framework for presenting information**

**Notes:**
The purpose of the State WQ Ambient Monitoring project is to collect information from State about the current status of their Ambient Monitoring programs.  The information will be used to:

-Set a 2001 baseline for understanding state programs
-identify key enhancements to state monitoring programs
-quantify costs and level of effort for both current expenditures and resource needs
-identify and share innovations and efficiencies, and approaches for capacity building
-identify barriers and challenges encountered in administering monitoring programs
-provide a common framework for presenting information to decision-makers.

Further, information from the survey will be used to support activities and publications for the Year of Clean Water.

## Survey Status

**44 responses received to date **
**(39 states and 2 regional organizations.  Some states submitted more than one response.)**
**Summary report being drafted, available by end of December 2002 **

##  Respondents

- States Reporting Data (39)

- No Data Reported  (11)

##  Survey scope

**General information**
**Data collection**
**Data use and management **
**Volunteer monitoring**
**Current funding and staffing**
**Barriers/challenges **
**Needs/Capacity building**
**Innovations/Achievements**

**Notes:**
The questionnaire asked respondents to provide general information about their ambient water quality monitoring programs, and then asked more detailed questions in the areas of data collection, use and purposes of monitoring data, data management.  The survey also asked states to describe the volunteer monitoring programs in their states, and what level of support is being provided.

One section of the questionnaire asks states to indicate challenges and barriers to the efficient administration of state monitoring programs, from both federal and state perspectives.

Information was also collected about current spending on ambient programs, and resource needs.

Finally, states were asked to provide narrative information about their own success stories, what they’ve learned that they can share with other states, and achievements of their monitoring programs.

## What Components of State Ambient Monitoring Program are in place?

**Written Strategy**
**Quality Assurance Plans**
**Strategy reflects CWA objectives**
**Written monitoring designs**
**Core indicators designated**
**Data management centralized**
**Reports routinely produced**
**Programmatic evaluations routinely completed**

**Notes:**
The survey used the components of an adequate monitoring program as outlined in the draft CALM guidance, and asked states to indicate whether the component was present, and if so whether implemented or underdevelopment.

## Strategy Components

**What components are in place?**

**Notes:**
The chart shows that while many of the components have been implemented, some components are not implemented or under development.  (DNA indicates the some states did not answer or did not check this component).

The CALM guidance includes components for assessing the adequacy of a state’s monitoring program.  The funding requirements under 106(e) include a provision that states must have an adequate monitoring program before 106 funding can be awarded.  If the CALM guidance is used to determine the adequacy of a state’s monitoring program, then states not meeting the guidance may see reduced (or no) 106 funding.  

## Monitoring approaches and methods

|  | Fixed Station | Spec. Studies |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Rotating basin/region | 25
5 | 15
14 |
| Probabilistic | 8
6 | 12
2 |
| Tiered strategies | 15
3 | 13
9 |
| Other* | 10
2 | 5
7 |

**Notes:**
States were asked:  What monitoring approaches or methods are used in your monitoring program?  And to indicate whether the method was primary or secondary.  The chart shows the number responses that indicated the listed method as a primary method in green, and secondary in rose. 

A number of other approaches were reported by states, as shown on the next slide.

## Other methods

**Permanent stations/networks**
**Targeted monitoring**
**Site specific**
**Random sites**
**Census-based**

**Stream assessment**
**Beach/coastal sites**
**Exceptional water characterization**
**USGS sites**

**Notes:**
A number of other approaches and methods were listed by states. 

Responses indicate that states have taken several concurrent or overlaid approaches to monitoring, some approaches based on the parameter or pollutant of concern, others based on the specific monitoring priorities or strategies.

## Purposes and uses of data

**Notes:**
(Thanks to Chuck Spooner for providing this chart)

## Data storage

**How are data stored?**

**Notes:**
This chart shows the predominant method of storing data for the various types of data collected.  “Databases” includes both the national databases (such as STORET) and state databases.  “Excel” includes data kept in electronic spreadsheets.

While many states use electronic databases as the primary method for storing data, a surprising number cite paper files as their primary data storage method.

## Access to information

**How is information made available to the public?**

**Notes:**
This chart shows that information is primarily made available to the public as hard copy.  However, many states are moving to internet websites as their primary outlet for public information.  

## State requirements for monitoring

**Is monitoring required by state rule or statute?**

| Yes, all aspects | 6 |
| --- | --- |
| Some aspects | 20 |
| No | 15 |

**Notes:**
Interesting to note how many states do not have state monitoring requirements in state law or rule.  Assume that most states rely on federal law and regulations for monitoring authority.

## Data credibility laws

**Has your state adopted laws/rules governing data credibility?**

| Yes | 9 |
| --- | --- |
| No | 30 |

**Notes:**
Of the 39 states responding to the survey, 9 indicated that they had adopted laws or rule pertaining to data credibility.

## Volunteer Monitoring

**What state support is provided?**

| Written guidance | 31 |
| --- | --- |
| Workshops | 34 |
| On-line training | 15 |
| Certification | 13 |
| Equipment | 26 |
| Data management | 23 |
| Funding | 14 |

**Notes:**
Table indicates number of responses out of total of 44 for each line item

## Volunteer monitoring then and now

**Did your state support volunteer monitoring programs in 1972?**
**2 States responded “yes”**
**38 States/reg. Orgs responded “no”**

## Current funding 

**What is the current annual budget for state monitoring programs?**
**$138 million**

**Notes:**
The estimated current annual budget for all states is $138 million.  (This estimate includes all states.  Information from non-reporting states was estimated by extrapolation and by cross referencing with data from the State Water Quality Management Resource Analysis, also known as the Gap Analysis)

## Sources of funding

**Notes:**
The survey results showed that about 37% of the total monitoring program expenditures of $138 million came from federal sources, 45% from state appropriations, and 18% from fees and other sources.  The range of federal support varied greatly from state to state.  Some states reported that their programs were only about 5% federally funded, which others indicated that their monitoring program was nearly all funded from federal sources.  

## Resource Needs

**What resources would be needed if all ambient monitoring program objectives were met? **
**	****	****	****$304 Million**
**Funding gap:  $166 Million**

**Notes:**
This is a national estimate for all states.  Estimate was calculated using information reported in the survey, extrapolating for non-reporting states, and cross referencing data with information from the State Water Quality Management Resource Analysis (the Gap Analysis).

Subtracting the current budget level from the estimate of resource needs leaves a funding “gap” of roughly $166 million.

## Program Budgets

**Most states are working with less than half of the resources that they say they need.**
**States estimated needs conservatively (a “Chevy” program)**
**The recent Gap analysis supports the monitoring survey estimates. **

## Capacity Building 

**Top 5 areas of capacity building: **
**Staffing**
**Data management/analysis**
**Lab facilities and equipment**
**Training and staff development**
**Other:  revised standards, increased monitoring (esp wetlands), volunteer monitoring, pollutant source identification**

**Notes:**
Not in order of priority

## Barriers and Challenges

**Inadequate federal funding**
**Limited state resources**
**Restraints on use of funds**
**Reduced state funding**
**FTE caps**

**Hiring freezes**
**Inadequate lab facilities**
**Antiquated data management systems**
**Lack of IS support**
**State/fed data needs conflict**

**Notes:**
What are the barriers or impediments to the effectiveness of your ambient monitoring program?  The top ten answers are listed here (not in any order of priority).

## Observations from the Survey

**There is no standard format for describing these programs**
**Monitoring covers many information needs**
**States spend about $138 million annually on monitoring (37% Federal) but need about $300 million annually**
**There are interesting program innovations**

## Observations from the survey

**Many states are moving away from fixed sites toward special studies, targeted approaches, and biomonitoring.**
**Volunteer monitoring programs have gone from non-existent (1972) to active participants**
**Good for encouraging stewardship**
**Not so good for data gathering (QA/QC)**

## Collaboration Outside of State Monitoring Councils

**Alabama - Tech Meetings**
**Connecticut**
**ORSANCO, SRBC**
**Missouri – Biological**
**Washington Mon. Oversight Committee**
**Minnesota**

**“****Gulfwatch” to monitor toxics in the Gulf of Maine**** **
**Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channel Mon. Committee**
**Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watershed Monitoring**

## Next steps

**Draft summary report **
**Initial distribution to workgroup **
**Distribute report for membership comment**
**Issue final summary report**

## Thanks!

**Thanks to all the states and regional organizations that have responded!**

**FOR MORE INFO...**

**Contact Jan Renfroe, ASIWPCA Project Coordinator, j.renfroe@asiwpca.org**