# Presentation: 705094

##  CWA Section 106Monitoring Initiative 

- Presentation for
- New England Association of Environmental Biologists
- March 27, 2008

## Monitoring Initiative Drivers

- Critiques of state and EPA monitoring and reporting on water quality
- CWA 106 Workload model documents budget gap
- ASIWPCA reports that monitoring is first program cut
- Without adequate monitoring, we cannot address accountability for water resource protection and restoration

**Notes:**
Key Findings/Recommendations from Reports:
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 Report on the Environment, 2003
No current way to develop a national picture of water quality
Environmental Integrity Project, Flying Blind, 2004
    Basic CWA reporting requirements are not adequately met.	
Resources for the Future, 2004

## Drivers for Monitoring

- Clean Water Act 305(b)
- States must report on condition of all waters
- Specifically the extent that support healthy aquatic life and recreation in and on the water
- Section 303(d)
- States must submit prioritized list of waters that do not meet WQS and need a TMDL
- Develop and implement TMDL
- Other CWA programs
- Setting & refining Water Quality Standards
- Issuing and ensuring compliance with NPDES permits
- Managing NPS to meet WQS

**Notes:**
Section 305(b) ---
 “Each State shall prepare and submit to the Administrator . . . , and biennially thereafter, a report which shall include—
--A description of the water quality of all navigable waters in such State during the preceding year . . . .
--An analysis of the extent to which all navigable waters of such State provide for the protection and propagation of a balance population of shellfish, fish, and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water. . . .
--The Administrator shall transmit such State reports, together with an analysis thereof, to Congress . . . .  biennially thereafter.

Section 303(d)---
--Each State shall identify those waters within its boundaries for which the effluent limitations required . . . . .. . are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to such waters.
--Each State shall establish for the waters identified . . . . the total maximum daily load for those pollutants which the Administrator identifies under section 304(a)(b) as suitable for calculation.

## Limitations of Traditional State 305(b) Reports

- Nationally, a small portion of water resources are assessed
- Rivers and Streams – 19%
- Lakes and Reservoirs – 37%
- Bays and Estuaries – 35%
- Methods to define extent of water assessed vary
- Indicators, parameters, and sampling procedures vary
- Data not sufficient for assessments of water conditions beyond specific sites sampled

**Notes:**
Methods to define the geographic extent of impairment/non-impairment of a water body vary from state to state.
For example, some states extrapolate their assessment conclusions 25 miles upstream from the sampling site, while others cover a much smaller geographic area.

## Monitoring Initiative Objectives

- Strengthen State monitoring programs through developing and implementing monitoring strategies ($10 million)
- Implement strategies to fill water monitoring gaps
- Examples include data management, water quality standards development, probability designs
- Assess the condition of all of the Nation’s waters and changes over time ($8.5 million)

**Notes:**
-In response to critiques, workload model, ASIWPCA review of state programs, and our own recognition of the limitations of existing 305(b) reports and the vulnerability of the CWA programs without adequate data; EPA worked with states to define the elements of an adequate monitoring program and developed a budget initiative to address key monitoring gaps 1) strengthen state monitoring programs and 2) assess all waters
-EPA believes that it is adhering the House Report language.  States have flexibility to use these funds for state monitoring priorities.  House language does not preclude applying some of these funds to statistically representative monitoring.
-EPA is targeting the smaller portion of these funds for State and Tribal participation in statistical surveys to overcome years of critiques that monitoring data is from a small percentage of the Nation’s waters and cannot be compared across the Nation or over time.
-There is wide acceptance of the use of statistical surveys in reports on the Nation’s housing, labor, health, agriculture, and other sectors.
ASIWPCA’s 2002 Water Quality Monitoring Programs Survey found—
-States have about half the monitoring resources they need
-By coordinating efforts, sharing innovations, and standardizing monitoring methods among agencies and organizations, much more effective use can be made of data collected.
-Within in the realm of water quality programs, ambient monitoring activities have usually been the first to be cut when budgets are tight.
-Meetings and Briefings with Congress emphasized the need for state monitoring enhancements and statistically-valid reports
House Appropriations Committee Staff, May 2004 and March, 2005
-For FY 2005, Administration first requested and Congress appropriated additional 106 funds specifically directed to water quality monitoring to address these shortcomings

Total Section 106 Appropriations- 
FY04		$199,217,600 million
FY05		$208,320,000 million
FY06		$216,172,100 million or ? ($219,400.000 on table from Congressional Budget Report)
FY07		$216,172,100 million
FY08		
Monitoring Initiative, after rescissions
FY05
FY06		
FY07		$18,227,822
FY08		$18,211,400

## Enhancing State Monitoring Programs with Monitoring Initiative Funds 

- Developed State monitoring strategies
- Managing data systems to store and share data
- Increasing technical capabilities for assessing biological condition of waters
- Upgrading laboratories and analytical expertise
- Supporting development of nutrient criteria
- Adopting statistical survey design as a component of their monitoring network
- 30 States are currently doing so

**Notes:**
All states developed and are implementing state monitoring strategies, consistent with the guidance on the elements of a state monitoring program that EPA issued in 2003.

Each year states describe the gaps from their monitoring strategy that are being addressed through the monitoring initiative funds.  This slide lists some of the more common actions.

## Refinements to Monitoring Initiative Allocation

- President’s budget request
- Continuation of the $18.5 million set-aside within 106 grants for Monitoring Initiative to be used for statistically representative water monitoring
- Appropriation’s report language
- Use of these funds is not limited to only those monitoring activities that meet standards for statistically representative monitoring programs
- EPA plans to continue current allotment with performance–based component
- 5 additional States each year adopt statistical surveys into their monitoring programs
- For each State below target, 20% of capacity building funds will be redirected to States that are implementing statistical surveys

**Notes:**
Target was established based on negotiation with OMB 

EPA and ASIWPCA workgroup crafted flexible approach for state adoption of surveys tailored to state needs, supplemented by continued state participation in national surveys unless state survey is fully consistent with national design and protocols.  Our intent is to avoid reallocating any money by assisting states in the implementation of state-scale surveys according to their capability and priorities. The key feature of this negotiation is the definition of what it means to implement a state scale survey.  Here are the key elements:
1.  Statistical survey design provides condition estimates for a population of waters throughout the state based on an unbiased, representative sample of a subset of those waters:
a. Using national or state protocols;
b. Implemented in one year or over several years (eg., 10 sites a year for 5 years, rotating basin);
c. Condition estimates are +­ 10 percent at 90% confidence (consistent with EPA guidance on the elements of a state monitoring program);
d. Address at least one water resource type (streams, lakes, estuaries, wetlands, etc);
e. Address core indicators for at least one designated use; and
f. State monitoring strategy includes plans to continue surveys over time.
2.  States report survey results, preferably as a component of the States Integrated Report/305b/303d
3.  States continue to participate in the national/regional scale surveys, unless the state scale survey is fully integrated with the national survey design and methods

## EPA/State Collaboration to Survey the Nation’s Waters

- Create partnership to design and implement surveys
- Report on status and trends in condition of all waters in a cost-effective manner
- Examine key stressors, their prevalence and impact on water quality to support national and regional priority setting
- Report on effectiveness of water quality management efforts in protecting and restoring waters
- Support State capacity for implementation of statistical surveys with consistent indicators

**Notes:**
About 30 states are implementing state-scale surveys
About 20 states have bioassessment programs for rivers and streams

Benefits of National and State Surveys
National and Regional
First-ever scientifically defensible national assessment of water resource condition
Provides basis for tracking trends in resource with subsequent surveys, and for identifying key stressors and biological impact 
Allows evaluation of Nation’s investments in clean water programs
States and Tribes
Generates cost-effective assessment of 100% of State’s waters 
Assists States to prioritize water resource protection and restoration
Builds institutional infrastructure for monitoring
Develop predictive and diagnostic tools
Enhance expertise, protocols, analytical capacity
Provides tools to support core resource protection programs
Develop and refine water quality standards
Evaluate effectiveness of NPDES permits, TMDLs, and nonpoint source management measures

## Biological Indicators are Core to Surveys

- Lakes (2007) – zooplankton, phytoplankton, sediment diatoms, macroinvertebrates
- Rivers and streams (2008/9) – fish, macroinvertebrates, periphyton, phytoplankton
- Coastal (2010) – macroinvertebrates and possibly others, the team is planning an indicator meeting this spring
- Wetlands (2011) – vegetation and others TBD, the team is planning an indicator meeting this summer

## National Coastal Condition Report

- All coastal States and Puerto Rico participated
- in monitoring
- Data support status and trends at regional,
- State and local scales
- Strong support among states to continue partnership with EPA, NOAA, others
- Built State capacity to assess coastal waters

- Summary of results from the National Coastal Assessment III (2008)

**Notes:**
Summary of results from the National Coastal Assessment III  (to be released in Oct. 2008) 

This recent report, now out for review, finds that the overall condition of the Nation's coastal waters is generally fair and has improved slightly since the initial report in 2001.  Condition is rated based on key indicators of ecological health, including water chemistry, sediment toxicity, macroinvertebrates, fish tissue, and coastal habitat.  The report finds that the water chemistry indicator in U.S. coastal waters has improved substantially, while smaller improvements in sediment quality and benthic condition are noted.  Fish tissue contaminants and coastal habitat condition have shown little or no improvement since the first report. 

## 2006 Wadeable Streams Assessment

- First national baseline condition of streams
- The WSA found 28% of streams in good condition, compared to least-disturbed reference condition.
- Identified information on key stressors
- Across the US 25-30% of streams have excess sedimentation or high levels of _nutrients_, respectively.
- These streams are twice as likely to have poor biology.

**Biological Condition of Streams**
**(Index of Biotic Condition)**

**Notes:**
Takes speculation out of estimates and provides certainty around extent of waters in poor condition
Confidence intervals plus or minus 2.8%
Statistical design allows specification of confidence intervals.  Cannot generate these based on traditional 305(b) because those 305(b) sites are hand-picked.

## National Water Resource Survey Schedule

|  | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 | FY10 | FY11 | FY12 | FY13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Lakes | Field | Lab, data | Report | Research | Design | Field | Lab, data |
| Rivers | Design | Field | Lab, data | Report* | Research | Design | Field |
| Streams | Research | Design | Field | Lab, data | Report | Research | Design |
| Coastal | Report | Research | Design | Field | Lab, data | Report | Research |
| Wetlands | Research | 
Research | Research | Design | Field | Lab,data | Report |

- *The rivers and streams results will be combined into one report issued in 2011, that covers condition of both rivers and streams and changes in stream condition since the baseline report that was finalized in 2006.

**Notes:**
This schedule was developed to illustrate the level of effort and key activities involved in generating reports on the condition of the nations waters that are based on statistically valid surveys designs, use standardized or comparable methods, address all water resource classes, and are repeated on a 5 year cycle.

Developing an initial baseline for each water resource type will require that survey resources focus on one water resource type at a time.  Once a baseline is established survey implementation may transition to incorporate data collection for national/regional reporting with state-wide or rotating basin/watershed monitoring schedules.  The integration of national, regional and state scale monitoring and reporting may better support state monitoring capacity if some monitoring is conducted for all resources each year, even though it may take several years to accumulate sufficient data for state, regional and national scale reporting.  This additional flexibility in implementation would require additional coordination and logistical support to ensure data are available for reporting on a routine (e.g., 5 year) cycle for each water resource type.

## Implementation of National/Regional Surveys

- Short-term strategy
- Rotate through water resources
- Use standardized design
- Use standardized methods
- Long-term vision
- State-scale surveys roll into national
- Explore options for more flexibility in methods, schedule, etc.
- Develop vision and roadmap for getting there

## How can Surveys Better Support Bioassessment?

- Raise visibility (public, congress, managers) of biological indicators for all water resource types
- Promote use of multiple assemblages for all water resource types
- Increase focus on reference condition, e.g. regional gaps and effect of regional variability
- Promote method performance criteria and comparability
- Explore applications of BCG/GSG framework