Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data Collection Efforts Needed to Support Key Decisions
Published: 2004-06-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Reliable and complete data are needed to assess watersheds--areas that drain into a common body of water--and allocate limited cleanup resources. Historically, water officials have expressed concern about a lack of water data. At the same time, numerous organizations collect a variety of water data. To address a number of issues concerning the water data that various organization collect, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked GAO to determine (1) the key entities that collect water data, the types of data they collect, how they store the data, and how entities can access the data; and (2) the extent that water quality and water quantity data collection efforts are coordinated.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: At least 15 federal agencies collect a wide variety of water quality data. Most notably, the U.S. Geological Survey operates several large water quality monitoring programs across the nation. States also play a key role in water quality data collection to fulfill their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. In addition, numerous local watershed groups, volunteer monitoring groups, industries, and academic groups collect water quality data. In contrast, collection of water quantity data is more centralized, with three federal agencies collecting the majority of data available nationwide. While GAO found notable exceptions, officials in almost all of the federal and state agencies contacted said that coordination of water quality data was falling short of its potential. Key barriers frequently identified as impeding better coordination of water quality data collection include (1) the significantly different purposes for which groups collect data, (2) inconsistencies in groups' data collection protocols, (3) an unawareness by data collectors as to which entities collect what types of data, and (4) low priority for data coordination, as shown in a lack of support for councils that promote improved coordination. GAO concluded that designating a lead organization with sufficient authority and resources to coordinate data collection could help alleviate these problems and ensure that watershed managers have better information upon which to base critical decisions. Data collectors strongly agree that coordinating water quantity data collection is considerably less problematic. Reasons include the fact that controversial water allocation decisions require accurate and complete water quantity data; that some of the technologies for measuring water quantity allow for immediate distribution of data; that water quantity data parameters are generally more consistent; and that coordination is simplified in that relatively fewer entities collect these data. Collectors of water quantity data generally agreed that an overall shortage of data was a more serious problem than a lack of coordination of the data that are collected.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In response to your request, this report discusses (1) the key entities that  collect water quality and water quantity data, including the types of data  they collect, how they store their data, and how entities can access the  data; and (2) the extent to which these entities coordinate their water  quality and water quantity data collection efforts. We include a matter for  congressional consideration that the Congress considers formally  designating a lead organization (either an existing water data coordinating  entity or one of the federal agencies with broad water data collection  responsibilities) to enhance and clearly define authority for coordinating  the collection of water data nationwide. Among its responsibilities, the  organization would (1) support the development and continued operation  of regional and state monitoring councils, (2) coordinate the development  of an Internet-based clearinghouse to convey what entities are collecting  what types of data, and (3) coordinate development of clear guidance on  metadata standards so that data users can integrate data from various  sources.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. We will then send copies to others who are interested and  make copies available to others who request them. In addition, the report  will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please call me or Steve Elstein on (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have  any questions. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
subsections: section_title: Introduction
paragraphs: The availability to decision makers of timely, reliable, and complete data  about the nation’s waters has significant environmental and financial  implications. Water quality data, for example, are critical for determining  which waters do not meet states’ standards and must, therefore, be  targeted for potentially expensive cleanup. Similarly, decision makers need  reliable and comprehensive data on the quantity of the nation’s water  resources to support increasingly important—and contentious—decisions  about how to allocate limited water resources among states and among a  variety of competing uses.
GAO and others, however, have documented shortages in the data available  to make such decisions. At the same time, a large number of public and  private organizations collect this kind of information—raising questions as  to whether more efficient coordination of these data collection efforts can  result in more data available for informed decision making.
subsections: section_title: Decision Makers Need Complete and Reliable Water Quality Data
paragraphs: Under the Clean Water Act, states have primary responsibility for  implementing programs to manage water quality. Their key responsibilities  include establishing water quality standards to achieve designated uses  (the purposes for which a given body of water is intended to serve),  assessing whether the quality of their waters meets states’ water quality  standards, and developing and implementing cleanup plans for waters that  do not meet standards.
Monitoring information on water quality is the linchpin that allows states to  perform these responsibilities. States generally monitor water quality  directly, but frequently supplement these data with data collected by  federal agencies, volunteer groups, and other entities. Monitoring data can  include information about the presence of chemicals such as chlorine,  physical characteristics such as temperature, and biological characteristics  such as the health and abundance of fish and other aquatic species. Figure  1 shows how monitoring water quality is essential to identifying water  quality problems and determining whether actions to restore water quality  are successful.
As shown in figure 1, states compare monitoring data with their water  quality standards. If a state’s assessment of a body of water indicates that it  does not meet the standards—for example, if it has levels of chlorine that  are too high to support aquatic life—then the body of water is considered  as not supporting its intended use of aquatic life. In such cases, states are  required, under section 303(d) of the act, to identify and list waters for  which technology-based effluent limitations are not sufficient to meet  water quality standards and for which pollutants need to be reduced. EPA  must approve or disapprove the states’ lists.
In developing their lists of impaired waters, states must use all existing and  readily available water quality-related data to determine if a water body is  impaired and identify the specific pollutant(s) causing impairment.  Subsequently, states must develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL), as  necessary, for each of the pollutants affecting each impaired body of water.  TMDLs are used to restore water quality by identifying how much pollution  a body of water can receive and still meet standards and then reducing the  amount of pollution entering the water to that level.
While states’ use of water quality data is critical to meeting the objectives  of the Clean Water Act, other organizations also rely heavily on water  quality data for a variety of purposes. The Army Corps of Engineers, for  example, uses these data for a variety of reasons, including regulating  water projects and issuing permits under section 404 of the act for the  discharge of dredge and fill materials into navigable waters. Federal land  management agencies such as the Department of the Interior’s Fish and  Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and Bureau of Land Management  and the Department of Agriculture’s Forest Service rely upon these data to  fulfill their responsibilities to protect and restore aquatic resources on  federal lands. These agencies also use these data to fulfill their  responsibilities under various laws, such as the protection of critical  habitat for plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act. In  addition to these federal agencies, numerous public and private  organizations at the local level rely on water quality data to ensure that  public health and environmental goals are protected.
section_title: Data Also Needed to Support Key Water Quantity Decisions
paragraphs: Federal, state, local, tribal, and private organizations also rely heavily on  water quantity data to fulfill critical responsibilities in ensuring an adequate  water supply to meet competing needs. States are primarily responsible for  governing the allocation and use of water in accordance with the laws  developed by their state and interstate compacts—agreements that address  water allocation, quality, and other issues on bodies of water that cross  state borders. Key state responsibilities in complying with these compacts  and laws include administering water rights to various users, allocating  water in accordance with these water rights, maintaining instream flow  requirements for habitat purposes, and enforcing the decrees and water  laws of the state. To fulfill these responsibilities, states need water  availability data, such as streamflow and snowpack data, to quantify how  much water is and will be available for allocation, and water use data,  including withdrawal and return flow data, to determine how much water  is being consumed. They obtain these data mostly through the efforts of  others, such as federal agencies and municipalities, although a few states  also conduct their own monitoring.
Federal agencies support states in their efforts to govern the allocation and  use of water through many activities. Agencies, such as the Department of  the Interior, assist states in developing, implementing, and enforcing  interstate compacts; the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Oceanic and  Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather Service, and  Natural Resources Conservation Service, among others, collect and share  information such as surface water, rainfall, and snowpack data, which help  forecast water supply; and the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of  Reclamation construct, operate, and maintain dams, reservoirs, and water  distribution facilities to help meet the needs of water users, among other  activities.
Federal agencies also need data to support their own varying objectives on  federal lands. Agencies responsible for managing natural resources—such  as the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife  Service, and National Park Service—construct and/or maintain water  storage and distribution facilities on their lands to provide water for uses  such as visitor services, recreation, habitat, and flood control. These  agencies also often collect water data or conduct water resources  investigations in support of their own responsibilities, such as collection of  supplemental streamgage information to assess habitat and recreational  conditions. Additionally, numerous federal natural resources management  agencies may become involved (e.g., by geography or other factors) in  some aspect(s) of tribal water interests. Federal natural resources  management agency policies generally include provisions to protect and  support tribal water interests, in cooperation with the Bureau of Indian  Affairs and the tribes.
Other agencies needing water quantity data include local, regional, and  interstate water authorities, as well as private firms that own and operate  water resources systems. Scientists and recreational water users are also  heavy users of water quantity data. These groups use data to, among other  things, evaluate current water supplies and plan for future supplies;  forecast floods and droughts; operate reservoirs for hydropower, flood  control, or water supplies; navigate rivers and streams; and safely fish,  canoe, kayak, or raft.
section_title: Data Needed to Support the Watershed Approach
paragraphs: Concerns over both water quality and water quantity often come together  at the “watershed” level. As illustrated in figure 2, a watershed is an area  that drains to a common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary,  wetland, or ocean. Watersheds come in all shapes and sizes, and often  cross county, state, and national boundaries. Depending on its scale, a  watershed may refer to large or small river basins, sub-basins, tributary  basins, or smaller hydrological units or drainage areas.
Many federal agencies have long supported a watershed approach as the  best way to manage the nation’s water resources. Army Corps of Engineers  officials, for example, noted that the agency has been working in the  watershed context and engaged in watershed-level planning and  management for many years. They noted further that watershed analysis  has been the “cornerstone” of planning and environmental review efforts  for major Corps projects. Also, in a December 2002 memorandum, the EPA  Assistant Administrator for Water reaffirmed the agency’s commitment to  the watershed approach, noting that by focusing multistakeholder efforts  within hydrologically defined boundaries to protect and restore our aquatic  resources and ecosystems, the watershed approach “offers the most cost- effective opportunity to tackle today's challenges” in meeting the nation’s  water needs. As the memorandum notes, the value in this approach is in  taking a holistic approach to the water resource in a way that brings in the  full range of federal, state, local, and private parties with a stake in the  resource.
Importantly, the watershed approach also allows for the identification and  prioritization of problems affecting the resource and steps to address them.  This is important because different watersheds may be affected by  significantly different natural conditions and pollution problems. Moreover,  even where watersheds are affected by similar pollutants, the causes of  their pollution problems—and the steps needed to deal with them—can be  quite different. For example, in the case of two watersheds affected by  excessive levels of nitrogen, one may need to reduce discharges from  wastewater treatment plants and other “point” sources, while the other  may need to address nitrogen sources emanating from agricultural use.  Moreover, water officials must also consider water availability issues, since  the amount of water flowing through the watershed affects the ability of  the watershed to assimilate the pollutant. These critical determinations,  however, can only be made and defended if reliable and comprehensive  data are available on the quality and quantity of the water resource and on  the ecological and other factors that affect them.
section_title: Can Critical Data Shortages Be Addressed through Enhanced Coordination?
paragraphs: Unfortunately, the key data needed to support critical water management  decisions are often incomplete and unreliable. According to the best  available data from EPA, only about one-fifth of the nation’s total rivers and  stream miles have been assessed to determine their compliance with states’  water quality standards. More generally, we reported in March 2000 that  few of the 50 states had a majority of the data they need to make key water  quality determinations, such as which of their waters do not meet state  standards and what are their most significant sources of pollution.
This apparent shortage of such data, however, belies the fact that  numerous organizations do in fact collect this kind of information. Many  federal agencies as well as a wide variety of other organizations at the  regional, state, and local levels collect water quality and/or water quantity  data. Consequently, questions have been raised as to whether better  coordination among these numerous organizations in their data collection  activities can provide decision makers with more of the vital information  they need to make informed and defensible decisions on critical water- related issues.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,  House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked GAO to  address a number of issues concerning the water data that various  organizations collect, and the degree to which their data collection efforts  are coordinated with each other. Specifically, we were asked to determine  (1) the key entities that collect water quality and water quantity data,  including the types of data they collect, how they store their data, and how  entities can access the data; and (2) the extent to which these entities  coordinate their water quality and water quantity data collection efforts.
To address the first objective, we identified and surveyed key federal  agencies that collect water quality and/or water quantity data: the  Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative  State Research, Education and Extension Service, Natural Resources  Conservation Service, and Forest Service; the Department of Commerce’s  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine  Fisheries Service, National Weather Service, and National Ocean Service;  the Department of Defense’s Army Corps of Engineers; the Environmental  Protection Agency; the Department of Energy’s Bonneville Power  Administration; the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land  Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.  Geological Survey, and National Park Service; and the Tennessee Valley  Authority. Though not an exhaustive list of all federal agencies collecting  water data, these key agencies were identified through discussions with  federal water officials, identification of member agencies on the National  Water Quality Monitoring Council, and EPA’s Guide to Federal Water  Quality Programs and Information. As appropriate, we obtained separate  information from different units within an agency. In each case, we  obtained information on the types of data being collected, the methods in  which the agencies store the data they collect, and the manner in which the  data could be accessed by other parties.
To obtain insights on data collection by states, local governments, and  other organizations, we conducted site visits to three states—Colorado,  Mississippi, and Virginia. The states were chosen on the basis of the  diversity of entities involved in the collection of data in these states,  geographic diversity, and their experiences in coordinating watershed data.  During these site visits, we interviewed representatives of federal, state,  and local agencies; watershed management groups; and members of  academia, industry, environmental organizations, and volunteer monitoring  groups.
We also used the survey of federal agencies and the site visits to address  the second objective to determine the extent to which data collectors  coordinate their data collection efforts. Specifically, a number of questions  in our federal agency survey addressed the extent to which data collection  activities were coordinated with other federal agencies, as well as other  entities. We also sought opinions on the most useful steps that could be  taken to improve coordination. We supplemented these contacts by  interviewing members of federal and state coordinating organizations,  most notably the National Water Quality Monitoring Council and its state  counterparts in Colorado, Maryland, and Virginia. In these instances, we  sought information about past and ongoing efforts to coordinate data  collection, seeking in particular to better understand the barriers these  groups face in their coordination efforts. We also sought information about  data coordination from other key organizations with particular knowledge  about this issue, such as the Association of State and Interstate Water  Pollution Control Administrators and the Advisory Committee on Water  Information.
As agreed with the Chairman’s office, in addressing the second objective,  we also sought information on efforts to allow for the integration of data  from separate collection efforts, so that direct comparisons can be made in  a way that maximizes the usefulness of these data. This inquiry addressed,  for example, the steps that agencies have taken or attempted to take to  allow data users to integrate data from their agency with data from other  sources. We examined this issue in our interviews with the full range of  data users and data collectors contacted during our study. We also  interviewed database managers from the key agencies that manage and  store water data (most notably EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey) to  identify current barriers to data integration and the steps needed to achieve  better integration.
We conducted our work from March 2003 through May 2004 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. GAO contacts and  staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI.
section_title: Many Organizations Collect Water Quality and Water Quantity Data
paragraphs: Hundreds of entities collect water quality data, while fewer entities collect  most of the available water quantity data. For water quality data, at least 15  federal agencies collect a wide variety of these data on a nationwide,  regional, or project-specific basis. At the state level, multiple state agencies  collect water quality data, including environmental, agricultural,  conservation, health, and forestry agencies, and use these data to comply  with federal regulations and to restore and protect water bodies. In  addition, many local governments, volunteer monitoring groups, industries,  members of academia, and others collect water quality data. Some water  quality data are stored in two large national databases operated by the  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey;  these databases are available through the Internet. However, many data  collectors store their water quality data on a project-specific basis, such as  in a database for a single research project, and these data generally are  available, by request, only to those who know about the agency’s projects.
While many entities collect water quality data, a small number of key  federal agencies are responsible for collecting the largest share of the  water quantity data collected nationwide. The U.S. Geological Survey  collects streamgage data nationwide, NOAA’s National Weather Service  collects precipitation data at over 10,000 locations nationwide, and the  Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service  maintains an extensive automated system to collect snowpack data. These  three agencies store their water quantity data in national databases that are  accessible through the Internet. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers  funds the collection of considerable amounts of water quantity data. Other  federal agencies, such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, also collect water  quantity data, but generally on a project-specific basis with data available  by request only. Some state agencies also collect water quantity data to  better understand water availability and water use.
subsections: section_title: Water Quality Data Collection
paragraphs: At least 15 federal agencies, as well as state agencies, local governments,  volunteer monitoring groups, industry groups, members of academia and  others, collect water quality data. These data generally provide information  on chemical, physical, or biological conditions of waters. The scope of the  data collected varies widely—from national programs, such as the U.S.  Geological Survey’s National Water Quality Assessment Program, to site- specific research projects, such as the Department of Agriculture’s testing  of the effects of agricultural practices on water quality. Different entities  also vary in how they store data and allow others to access them. In some  cases, water quality data are stored in databases that are accessible via the  Internet. In many cases, however, water quality data are stored on a  project-specific basis and can be accessed only by request.
subsections: section_title: Water Quality Monitoring Measures the Biological, Chemical, and Physical Conditions of Water
paragraphs: The Clean Water Act establishes goals for attaining water quality, as  measured by the biological, chemical, and physical conditions of waters.  EPA guidelines discuss the different types of monitoring tests in each of  these areas—each of which yields data about particular aspects of bodies  of water.
Biological monitoring measures the health of aquatic communities and  includes a variety of techniques, such as assessing species’ health and  abundance.
Physical monitoring tests the physical characteristics of bodies of  water, such as temperature and the amount of suspended solids in the  water.
Chemical monitoring tests for chemicals that may be present, such as  chlorine or ammonia, and metals, such as mercury.
These monitoring types and the parameters they measure are described in  figure 3.
section_title: Federal Water Quality Data Collection
paragraphs: A number of federal agencies and subagencies collect, or fund the  collection of, considerable amounts of water quality data. GAO surveyed  the following 15 key federal agencies that collect water quality data on a  wide variety of parameters:  Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration   U.S. Geological Survey We asked officials from these agencies to report on the specific chemical,  physical, and biological parameters—as listed in figure 3—that their  agencies collect. Each of the agencies reported that they collect data on all,  or almost all, of the listed parameters shown in figure 3.
Although these parameters are collected widely across the agencies, we  found that the geographical scope of agency data collection for each of  these parameters varies considerably. The U.S. Geological Survey operates  several large national programs, including the National Stream Quality  Accounting Network and the National Water Quality Assessment Programs.  These programs describe and provide an understanding of water quality in  major river basins and aquifer systems, as well as in small watersheds, and  cover about two-thirds of the land area of the conterminous United States.  Many federal and state agencies and local groups rely upon data collected  by the U.S. Geological Survey for watershed management activities.
The Army Corps of Engineers also collects water quality data on a broad  geographical scale at many of its approximately 700 water projects. These  projects primarily are operated to facilitate navigation, reduce flood or  storm damages, provide water supply storage, or generate hydropower. In  addition, the Corps also collects a considerable amount of water quality  data for planning and design purposes, generally to understand impacts of  projects in advance of their implementation. For example, before entering  into a dredging cycle, the Corps collects short-term data to understand  what pollutants will be released into a water body. Similarly, the Corps  collects specific water quality data in response to Section 404 permit  requests. In general, the Corps collects water quality data to address  environmental issues, such as sediment and water quality for fish and  wildlife.
Most of the agencies we surveyed collect project-specific data in defined  geographic regions. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)  collects water quality data to evaluate ecological health in reservoirs  throughout the Tennessee Valley, an area that includes almost all of  Tennessee and parts of Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, North  Carolina, and Virginia. In addition, the Department of Energy’s Bonneville  Power Administration (BPA) collects water quality data in conjunction  with some of the hundreds of fish and wildlife projects it funds each year  throughout the Pacific Northwest, including Oregon, Washington, Idaho,  and western Montana, as well as small portions of Wyoming, Nevada, Utah,  California, and eastern Montana.
Agencies also collect data at varying frequencies. For example, a Bureau of  Land Management official surveyed the agency’s field offices and found  that most collect chemical, physical, and biological data annually. In  contrast, other agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey and National  Park Service, reported that they collect water quality data on a continuous  or otherwise more frequent basis.
subsections: section_title: Federal Water Quality Data Storage
paragraphs: There are two national databases for water quality data: EPA’s Storage and  Retrieval System (STORET) and U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water  Information System (NWIS). According to EPA officials, STORET contains  biological, physical, and chemical data collected by over 120 organizations,  including federal, state, and local agencies, American Indian tribes,  volunteer groups, and academics. EPA officials reported that, as of January  2004, STORET contains approximately 18 million monitoring results  collected from over 146,000 sites. Figure 4 depicts STORET’s monitoring  coverage. Officials from five of the agencies we surveyed said they store at  least some data in STORET. For example, the National Park Service uses  STORET to store all of its data, while several other agencies, such as the  Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Reclamation, store small  amounts of data in STORET.
The U.S. Geological Survey collects and analyzes chemical, physical, and  biological properties of water and disseminates the data through NWIS to  the public, state and local governments, public and private utilities, and  other federal agencies involved with managing their water resources. The  U.S. Geological Survey established NWIS in 1975 and made it available to  the public through the Internet in July 2001. According to NWIS database  managers, as of September 2003, NWIS was accessed about 16 million  times a month. Unlike STORET, which contains data from multiple entities  collected using a variety of data collection methods, NWIS contains only  data collected by U.S. Geological Survey scientists or under U.S. Geological  Survey approved data collection methods that pass a quality control check.  According to officials from the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of  Land Management, some of their agencies’ data are available through  NWIS. In addition, some water quality data collected by the Army Corps of  Engineers are stored in district offices in individual project files for which  the data were collected. Many of these data are accessible upon request.
While several federal agencies store at least some of their data in STORET  and NWIS, officials in ten of the agencies we surveyed said that all or most  of their water quality data are stored in databases that are specific to the  project or program for which the data are collected. For example, officials  from the Agricultural Research Service said that their data, collected  through experiments conducted on farms and ranches to determine how  agricultural practices affect water quality and verify the efficacy of best  management practices, are stored in numerous, internal project-specific  databases. In addition, according to an official from the National Oceanic  and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Ocean Service, the  agency stores the data used to assess the health of marine and coastal  ecosystems in internal program-specific databases.
section_title: Federal Water Quality Data Accessibility
paragraphs: Data stored in STORET and NWIS are publicly available through the  Internet. Users can search STORET and NWIS by geographic area, such as  state or county, and by water quality parameters, such as chlorine or  dissolved oxygen. Data within STORET become available on the Internet  when users upload their data into the central version of the database. The  availability of NWIS data varies depending on the type of data that users are  trying to access. For example, some water quality data, such as real-time  data that are gathered from gages in streams, may become available in  NWIS every 4 hours. In other cases, it can take an average of 4 months for  data to be processed, checked for quality, and made available through the  NWIS Web site.
Many federal agency officials we interviewed said that their data are  available by request and/or through agency publications. However, several  officials said that, most of the time, it would be difficult for the public to  know that data are available because agencies do not always publicize  information about individual projects. For example, the Cooperative State  Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) provides funding to  collect water quality data in support of research and education objectives  identified by individual investigators, but CSREES has no centralized  database to store the data collected by researchers. Therefore, according to  a CSREES official, potential data users would have to know about  CSREES-funded projects in order to access the data. Similarly, officials  from NOAA’s National Marine Fisheries Service said that the public would  have difficulty accessing the data that are stored in project-specific  databases, because there is no automated access through the NOAA’s  National Marine Fisheries Service Web site.
section_title: State Water Quality Data Collection
paragraphs: To address their considerable water quality management responsibilities,  various state agencies (such as departments of the environment, health,  fish and game, and conservation) collect and use water quality data to  comply with federal requirements and to restore and protect water bodies.  According to a study conducted by the Association of State and Interstate  Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA), 40 state and 2  interstate agencies with specific responsibilities for monitoring and/or  assessing water quality spent a total of roughly $112 million on water  quality monitoring in 2002.
States vary in the types of data they collect, with some states collecting  primarily chemical and physical data, while others focus on biological  monitoring. For example, state agency officials we interviewed in Virginia,  Mississippi, and Colorado said that their state focuses primarily on  collecting chemical data parameters while, as we reported in January 2002,  Illinois, Maine, and Ohio rely primarily on biological monitoring. States  also vary in the extent to which their monitoring strategies target specific  waters of interest or employ statistical sampling methods that allow  inferences to be drawn about a larger number of waters. According to  ASIWPCA, states tend to use traditional monitoring approaches, such as  fixed stations—long-term, sometimes permanent, sampling sites—and  special studies, which usually focus on a specific water quality problem.
Recently, states have also adopted the following types of monitoring  strategies to supplement these approaches:      The rotating basin strategy identifies basins, sub-basins or watersheds  within an area that are sampled sequentially. Usually, a state monitors  about one-fifth of its basins each year. After 4 or 5 years, the state has  sampled all, and it repeats the sampling sequence.
The targeted monitoring strategy targets certain sites for concentrated  monitoring based on a list of consideration and information needs, such  as determining the effects of runoff from septic tanks or storm water or  assessing current conditions in streams flowing to sensitive areas. The  results of targeted monitoring can provide a good picture about water,  identify sources of water impairment, and determine if management  actions are improving water quality. However, the information gathered  is location-specific and cannot be extended to other areas except  through mathematical modeling.
Probabilistic monitoring uses a sampling approach to provide  comprehensive assessments of water quality conditions throughout an  area. Sites are randomly selected from all of the waters in a watershed,  and the results of monitoring are used to estimate water quality  conditions in the larger area with known confidence. Probabilistic  monitoring cannot provide information on specific sites unless the sites  were included in the random selection. In addition, probabilistic  sampling typically does not incorporate seasonal or other variation.
A tiered monitoring strategy structures states’ monitoring programs so  that the less expensive and most expedient monitoring techniques can  be used first, followed by more expensive and time-consuming studies,  if the initial studies demonstrate that more monitoring is warranted. The  tiered approach may combine the techniques described above. For  example, one tier may be a rotating basin probabilistic approach for  gathering information on waters statewide, while a second tier may  focus on monitoring trends on large rivers and urban streams.
In March 2003, EPA issued guidance, “Elements of a State Water Monitoring  and Assessment Program,” that recommends 10 basic elements of a state  water-monitoring program and serves as a tool to help EPA and the states  determine whether a monitoring program meets the requirements of the  Clean Water Act. The elements include (1) developing a monitoring  program strategy, (2) using an integrated monitoring design, and (3) using  accessible electronic data systems. According to the guidance document,  EPA believes that state monitoring programs can be upgraded to include all  ten elements within ten years. According to EPA officials, states should  develop a monitoring strategy by the end of fiscal year 2004 and should  begin implementing the strategy in fiscal year 2005. EPA officials stated  that they are working with states to implement the guidance in order to  reduce inconsistencies and variations in state monitoring programs.
subsections: section_title: State Data Storage
paragraphs: After collecting data using the various monitoring strategies, states must  store the data so that they can be readily retrieved for analysis and  evaluation. According to an EPA official, as of March 2004, 31 states use  STORET to store at least some of their data, and EPA is trying to have the  remaining states and other federal agencies store their water quality data in  STORET as well. ASIWPCA reports that state agencies are increasingly  storing water quality data in national and statewide electronic databases,  but a small number of agencies still use paper files as their predominant  means for storing data.
Our site visits confirm that states differ in how their data are stored. Of the  states we visited, only Colorado uses STORET to store water quality data.  Officials in Virginia and Mississippi reported that they used STORET  through 1998, when EPA introduced a modernized version of STORET.  Officials in both states said that since they could not easily put data in or  retrieve data from the modernized STORET, both states’ Departments of  Environmental Quality developed state databases to better meet their  needs. In addition, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality officials  said that some of their data exists only in paper files.
section_title: Accessibility of State Water Quality Data
paragraphs: As states’ data storage practices vary, so does the accessibility of their data.  According to an ASIWPCA survey, water quality information is primarily  available to the public in published reports and other printed materials as  well as in electronic formats such as CD-ROMs. The survey also showed  that, as their resources permit, states are moving toward making their data  available via the Internet.
Our site visits similarly revealed that the accessibility of data largely  depends on the storage method the state uses. For example, Colorado’s  water quality data are accessible through STORET. Since Virginia’s  database is internal and is not Internet-accessible, data users must request  data or access the data through publications. In Mississippi, the public can  access water quality data through publications or by request from the  Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, though officials report  that the state agency is moving toward developing a system that will be  publicly accessible via the Internet.
section_title: Water Quality Data Collection by Local Governments, Volunteer Monitoring Groups, and Others
paragraphs: Local governments, volunteer monitoring groups, and others also collect  water quality data for a variety of purposes, including monitoring the health  of streams, lakes, and rivers, developing pollution reduction strategies, and  conducting research.
subsections: section_title: Local Governments
paragraphs: Local government agencies, such as water management districts, also  participate in monitoring projects, often to understand and address  recognized water quality problems. Local agencies may limit their data  collection to particular geographic locations (e.g., a sewage treatment  district or particular town lake) or may collect data for specific parameters,  such as pH or dissolved oxygen. For example, according to a Thornton,  Colorado, city official we interviewed during one of our site visits, the cities  of Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster, Colorado, were prompted to  start the Clear Creek Watershed Group in 1981 after city officials found that  excessive nutrients were causing odor and taste problems in the cities’  water supply. Similarly, a Fort Collins, Colorado, official explained that he  helped to initiate a coordinated, regional watershed monitoring effort  among some major municipal water providers because the quality of water  entering water treatment plants was deteriorating.
Local governments may also work with federal agencies to collect water  quality data. For example, according to a National Park Service official, the  agency worked with the city of Las Vegas to collect data on the treatment  and disposal of wastewater at nearby Lake Mead. The Army Corps of  Engineers partnered with the District of Columbia to conduct wetlands  restoration of the Anacostia River, providing monitoring data and technical  and project management expertise. In addition, U.S. Geological Survey  officials noted that local governments participate in its Cooperative Water  Program.
section_title: Volunteer Groups
paragraphs: According to the volunteer monitoring representative of the National Water  Quality Monitoring Council (the National Council), an estimated 800 to  1,200 volunteer monitoring groups across the nation collect monitoring  data with varying levels of technical expertise and financial resources.  Volunteer monitoring groups collect data for a variety of parameters. For  example, volunteers for the Virginia Save Our Streams organization  primarily collect biological data through in-stream monitoring. Volunteers  for another group, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, collect streamside  physical and chemical data, such as temperature, pH, and dissolved  oxygen.
States use volunteer monitoring groups’ data in a variety of ways.  According to the volunteer monitoring representative of the National  Council, states’ use of volunteer monitoring data varies along a continuum;  some states use volunteer monitoring data for educational purposes, others  use the data as a “red flag” to indicate areas where additional state  monitoring is needed, and still others use the data to decide whether  waters should be identified as impaired. For example, according to the  volunteer monitoring representative, Rhode Island uses volunteer  monitoring data to make decisions regarding which lakes are impaired. In  Virginia, officials from the Department of Environmental Quality explained  that the state uses volunteer monitoring data to assess the general  conditions of waters, but not to decide on impairments. According to  Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality officials, volunteer- collected turbidity data led to a state investigation that found that a farmer  caused the pollution because he was clearing land too close to the edge of  the river.
section_title: Other Groups
paragraphs: Finally, we identified the following entities that also collect water quality  data:   Universities. Fifty-four Water Resources Research Institutes are  located at land grant universities throughout the United States.  According to an official from one of the institutes, the Virginia Water  Resources Research Center, the Center has collected water quality data  to develop several total maximum daily load (TMDL) reports.
Industries. Industries collect water quality data to ensure that they are  in compliance with permitted discharge levels, water quality standards,  and TMDLs as well as research for improvements. For example,  according to Weyerhaeuser officials, the company collects sediment  data at some sites to determine their compliance with water quality  standards.
Interstate commissions. Several interstate commissions, such as the  Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the Ohio River Valley  Sanitation Commission, conduct water quality monitoring programs for  a number of purposes, such as identifying problems that threaten the  quality of water resources of multiple states and monitoring trends in  water quality over time.
section_title: Water Quantity Data Collection
paragraphs: As with water quality data, at least 15 federal agencies, as well as some  state agencies, collect water quantity data. However, a small number of key  federal agencies collect a large share of these data, which are often stored  in nationwide databases and accessed widely by a variety of users. The  other federal agencies generally collect project-specific water quantity data  that are available in a variety of ways, depending on the agency.
subsections: section_title: Water Quantity Monitoring Measures Water Availability and Water Use
paragraphs: Water quantity data are used to measure both the availability of water in  lakes, rivers, streams, and other water bodies, as well as the amount of  water that is removed from streams for a variety of purposes, such as  drinking water or agriculture.
Water availability is measured by a number of data parameters, including  streamflow, precipitation, and snowpack. In many cases, entities combine  their data with others’ to measure or estimate the amount of water  available for use.
Water use refers to all in-stream and out-of-stream uses of water for human  purposes from any water source. Water use is measured by parameters  such as: (1) withdrawal, which is water removed from the ground or  diverted from a surface-water source; (2) consumptive use, or the quantity  of water that is not available for immediate reuse because it has been  evaporated, transpired, or incorporated into products, plant tissue, or  animal tissue; and (3) return flow, which is irrigation water that is not  consumed by evapotranspiration and that returns to its source or another  body of water.
section_title: Federal Water Quantity Data Collection
paragraphs: Fifteen federal agencies collect, or fund the collection of, water quantity  data, including water availability data and water use data. Most of the  agencies reported that they collect at least some water availability and  water use data. However, we found that the frequency and geographical  scope of water quantity data collection varies widely. Three entities, the  U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA’s National Weather Service, and the Natural  Resources Conservation Service, collect large amounts of data and store  the data in national databases that are accessible through the Internet. In  addition, the Army Corps of Engineers collects water quantity data and  funds the collection of considerable amounts of additional data. Most of  the other agencies collect limited water quantity data on a project-specific  basis and store the data in internal, project-specific databases. These data  are available in a variety of ways, depending on the agency.
subsections: section_title: The U.S. Geological Survey’s Water Availability and Water Use Data
paragraphs: The U.S. Geological Survey is the federal agency primarily responsible for  collecting, analyzing, and sharing data on water availability and use. In  particular, the U.S. Geological Survey is the main collector of streamflow  data, which measures the volume of water flowing through a stream using  streamgages. Under the National Streamflow Information Program, the  U.S. Geological Survey collects data through its national streamgage  network, which continuously measures the level and flow of rivers and  streams at 7000 stations nationwide (see fig. 5). It makes these data  available to the public via the Internet. The U.S. Geological Survey is also a  major collector of water use data under its National Water Use Information  Program. Under this program, the U.S. Geological Survey compiles  extensive national water use data collected from states every 5 years to  establish long-term water use trends.
Snowpack data is another key element in determining water availability  because it helps western states forecast and manage future water supply.   The Natural Resources Conservation Service is the key collector and  provider of snowpack data through its Snow Survey and Water Supply  Forecasting Program. As figure 6 shows, the Natural Resources  Conservation Service collects snowpack data from over 700 automated  SNOTEL (SNOwpack TELemetry) stations in 12 western states and Alaska.  In addition, the Natural Resources Conservation Service collects snowpack  data at over 900 manually sampled sites in the western states. Snowpack  data is also collected in Vermont, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and  Minnesota through its Soil Climate and Analysis Network. The snowpack  water equivalent and depth are used to estimate annual water availability,  spring runoff, and summer streamflows. Individuals, organizations, and  state and federal agencies use these forecasts for decisions relating to  agricultural production, fish and wildlife management, municipal and  industrial water supply, urban development, flood control, recreation,  power generation, and water quality management.
Precipitation data are also important in determining how much water will  be available for use, as well as in predicting floods. The National Weather  Service collects most of this data through the Automated Surface Observer  System, a joint effort of the National Weather Service, the Federal Aviation  Administration, and the Department of Defense. Data in the Automated  Surface Observer System are collected across the nation at major airports  and other areas, as shown in figure 7. The National Weather Service also  collects precipitation data through the Volunteer Cooperative Weather  Observation Network. Under this program, volunteers collect data at  11,400 weather stations in rural and urban areas to provide data for  weather forecasts and drought and flood warnings. According to an official  from the National Weather Service, precipitation data are used by weather  centers to make more accurate weather forecasts, which can result in  significant savings from flood damage. In addition, the National Weather  Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service combine their  data, together with the U.S. Geological Survey’s streamgage data, to  forecast water supplies and floods.
In partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey, the Army Corps of  Engineers funds approximately 15 percent of the U.S. Geological Survey  National Streamflow Information Program. This provides funding, at least  in part, for about 2,160 of the approximate 7,200 stations. The Army Corps  of Engineers also collects some water quantity data for various parameters  in association with its water management projects. For example, the Army  Corps of Engineers keeps track of rainfall amounts, reservoir storage, and  inflow and outflow as part of operating specific projects. In addition, the  Army Corps of Engineers collects stage data to monitor flood control  efforts. Moreover, according to officials from the Army Corps of Engineers,  the agency contributes to the analysis of water data by developing water  resources software models that are used worldwide.
section_title: Other Agencies
paragraphs: Eleven other federal agencies we surveyed also collect water quantity data,  though mostly on a site-specific basis. For example, the National Park  Service collects site-specific data to, among other things, characterize  hydrologic conditions within park units. In addition, TVA collects water  quantity data, such as flow and storage volumes, in order to help decide  how much water should be released from its dams.
section_title: Storage and Accessibility of Federal Water Quantity Data
paragraphs: Streamflow, snowpack, and precipitation data are easily accessible through  three large federal databases operated by the U.S. Geological Survey,  Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the National Weather Service.  The U.S. Geological Survey updates streamflow data continuously and  makes these data available through NWIS. Through its SNOTEL system, the  Natural Resources Conservation Service operates and maintains an  extensive, automated system to collect snowpack data in the western  United States. The National Weather Service stores precipitation data in the  National Climatic Data Center and makes the data available through  NOAA’s National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service.
According to the Army Corps of Engineers, its data are stored in a number  of databases, including internal databases as well as the U.S. Geological  Survey’s NWIS. According to the Corps, most of these data are available  through their district or division Web pages, though some data are not  available for security reasons.
Most of the other 11 agencies we contacted that collect water quantity data  store their data in internal databases, and the data are made available to the  public in a variety of ways. For example, BPA stores its water quantity data  in internal, project-specific databases and makes them available via the  Internet and/or through publications. The Agricultural Research Service  stores its water data in numerous databases, largely on a project-specific  basis and makes them available via the Internet, by specific request, and/or  through publications. The Fish and Wildlife Service stores its water  quantity data in project-specific databases at the agency’s field offices and  makes the data available on request.
section_title: State Water Quantity Data Collection
paragraphs: Many states also collect at least some water quantity data to manage their  water resources, although the extent of their data collection varies. States  need water availability data to forecast how much water can be used for a  variety of purposes, such as agricultural or residential use, and often obtain  these data from federal agencies. According to a U.S. Geological Survey  official, the agency operates the core streamgaging network in most states  through its Cooperative Water Program. Under this program, the U.S.  Geological Survey enters into agreements with participating states to  operate in-stream gages and to share the data collected from them.  Officials in Mississippi, for example, said that the state contracts with the  U.S. Geological Survey to collect its streamgage data. However, there are a  few states that collect significant amounts of streamgage data. A U.S.  Geological Survey official in Virginia explained that the U.S. Geological  Survey and the Commonwealth of Virginia have historically worked  together to operate a unified network of streamgages with uniform quality  assurance protocols. In addition, Colorado officials said that the state  operates a satellite monitoring system for collecting streamgage data,  which is also coordinated with U.S. Geological Survey streamgage data  collection efforts in the state. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, only  one other state—Nebraska—collects a large share of its state’s streamgage  data.
In addition to streamgage data, states also require some precipitation data.  An official from the National Weather Service said that while some states  rely exclusively on the National Weather Service’s precipitation data, other  states collect some of their own precipitation data to fill in data gaps. For  example, New Jersey relies on university researchers, funded by the state  Department of Transportation, to collect precipitation data that  supplements National Weather Service data.
States need water use data to support the operation of water supply  utilities and water districts. In 2002, the National Research Council  reported that more than 20 states maintain comprehensive site-specific  water use databases, which were most commonly developed to support  regulatory programs that register or permit water withdrawals. In many  cases, these data are developed through cooperative projects between  state water agencies and the U.S. Geological Survey while, in the remaining  states, data are collected only for a subset of water use categories or areas  within the states. Furthermore, some states have no state-level programs  for water use data collection. As we noted in July 2003, state water  managers place a high value on water quantity data collected under federal  programs to support the states’ ability to complete specific water  management activities. For example, 37 states reported that federal  agencies’ data are important to their ability to determine the amount of  available surface water. In addition, state water managers reported that  data collected under federal programs may be more credible and consistent  than the state data.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA offered comments on a draft of this  report that were germane to the material in this chapter. The Corps  commented that the draft report should more fully discuss the range of  water quality and water quantity data that the Corps collects and maintains.  While the draft report had discussed a wide range of Corps data collection  activities pertaining to both water quality and water quantity, we  supplemented those discussions with additional detail in response to the  Corps’ comment. EPA commented that the report should further emphasize  the high cost of monitoring.  To reflect this perspective, we included  information from ASIWPCA that 40 states and 2 interstate agencies spent a  total of roughly $112 million on water quality monitoring in 2002 and  estimated their total resource need at $211 million.
section_title: Improved Coordination of Water Quality Data Collection Can Help Watershed Managers Make More Informed Decisions
paragraphs: Despite the vast array of organizations collecting water quality data, we  and others have documented a considerable shortage of these data. This  shortage has impaired our understanding of the state of the nation’s waters  and complicated decision making on such critical issues as which waters  should be targeted for cleanup and how such cleanups can best be  achieved.
Better coordination among the numerous groups collecting data can help  to close the gap between the availability of data and the much larger need  for information. However, we found a number of barriers to achieving this  goal. Specifically, organizations (1) collect data for disparate missions, (2)  often use inconsistent data collection protocols, (3) are often unaware of  data collected by others, and (4) often assign data coordination a low  priority. These difficulties have not only perpetuated gaps and duplication  of effort among data collectors but have also contributed to an “apples and  oranges” problem in which the data that are collected cannot be easily  synthesized to tell a more complete story. Taken together, the difficulties in  coordinating data collection and in synthesizing available data have  impeded our understanding of water quality issues and, in particular, have  impeded the ability of watershed managers to make well-informed  decisions.
subsections: section_title: Coordination Needed to Enable Monitoring Programs to Make Better Use of Available Resources
paragraphs: The shortage of reliable and complete water quality data, and its  consequences for informed decision making, has been consistently  documented by GAO and others. For example, our March 2000 report,  Water Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and  Incomplete Data, concluded that data gaps limit states’ abilities to carry  out key management and regulatory responsibilities and activities on water  quality. The data gaps were cited as particularly serious for nonpoint  sources, which are widely accepted as contributing to the majority of the  nation’s water quality problems. Only six states reported that they had a  majority of the data needed to assess whether their waters meet water  quality standards. A vast majority of the states reported that they had less  than half the data they needed to (1) identify nonpoint sources that result in  waters not meeting standards and (2) develop total maximum daily loads  (TMDLs) for those waters. Similar findings and conclusions have been  documented by the National Research Council of the National Academies  of Sciences, and the lack of data states have to make assessments has been  acknowledged by the Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution  Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) and other organizations.
As we reported in March 2000, states overwhelmingly cited funding  shortages as a primary constraint on efforts to monitor their waters. Forty- five states indicated that a lack of resources was a key limitation to making  more progress on water quality issues, with a number of states noting  specifically that state-imposed staffing constraints and shortages in lab  funding have exacerbated the problem by limiting the number of samples  that could be taken and analyzed. In the 4 years since that report was  issued, there has been widespread acknowledgment of the need to (1)  improve monitoring programs to allow better informed decisions about  which waters to target for cleanup, (2) pursue watershed management  strategies, and (3) make other key decisions. Nonetheless, the funding  constraints impeding monitoring programs at that time are still present  and, in many respects, have deteriorated further.
In this context, both analysts and practitioners in the water quality  community strongly support the concept of coordinating efforts to collect  water quality data to make the most use of limited resources. Among the  benefits cited, effective coordination improves the coverage of monitoring  stations by more efficiently and strategically locating the monitoring  stations of different groups. Similarly, as we found during our site visits,  mutual understanding of different groups’ monitoring needs and resources  has sometimes resulted in modifying monitoring procedures so that  individual monitoring stations could meet the data needs of a greater  number of users.
section_title: Efforts to Coordinate Data Collection Have Thus Far Had Limited Success
paragraphs: Nonetheless, while we found some notable exceptions, officials in 14 of the  15 federal agencies we contacted told us that coordination was either not  taking place or falling short of its potential. In addition, the officials noted  that enhanced coordination could provide data users with better data about  water quality conditions and a more complete picture of the health of  watersheds. Among the array of examples cited are the following:     An official from the Army Corps of Engineers pointed out that without  mutual interest among agencies, water quality data collection efforts are  very poorly coordinated. The official also noted that some agencies give  a low priority to coordinating data collection within their own agencies.  The official explained that other potential users of the data may have  difficulty finding the correct points of contact to receive data and  believes that enhanced coordination would bring more data into the  hands of data users.
Forest Service officials explained that enhanced coordination would  help to minimize information gaps. They noted that there are over 2,500  listed segments of impaired waters on national forest system lands.  According to the officials, the states are almost always deprived of data  needed to develop TMDLs, and coordination between the Forest Service  and the states could help minimize those data gaps and speed recovery  of impaired waters.
The officials we interviewed from the state environmental agencies agreed,  acknowledging in particular that coordination among state monitoring  efforts, and between states and other data-gathering entities, could be  significantly improved. For example:  According to officials from the Mississippi Department of  Environmental Quality, if federal agencies notified states when they  begin monitoring projects and shared their results, the state could  assess more waters and possibly reduce duplication of effort. For  example, the officials noted an instance in which the Fish and Wildlife  Service paid the U.S. Geological Survey to operate streamgages in  Mississippi, but the Fish and Wildlife Service did not alert the state that  data were being collected.
According to officials from the Virginia Department of Environmental  Quality, the state generally has to solicit data from federal agencies  because the agencies do not readily share data with the state.  Furthermore, better coordination with volunteer groups could  significantly increase the percent of assessed waters in the state.
According to an official from the Illinois Environmental Protection  Agency, many groups in the state collect water quality data, but  coordination is needed to develop mutually agreed upon quality  assurance project plans and to modify data collection procedures to  allow data sharing.
ASIWPCA’s Executive Director also cited the need for greater coordination.  She noted opportunities to enhance monitoring programs through, among  other things, (1) better coordinating monitoring efforts among all levels of  government; (2) integrating multiple objectives with single monitoring  efforts; (3) incorporating state-of-the-art approaches to link data systems  and improve reporting; (4) creating statewide monitoring councils; (5)  creating public/private monitoring partnerships; (6) establishing volunteer  monitoring corps to increase the total number of waters monitored; and (7)  eliminating duplicative monitoring between and among the various state  and federal agencies.
section_title: Several Key Barriers Limit Effective Coordination of Water Quality Data Collection
paragraphs: Given the strong consensus on the need for coordination—but the  difficulty often encountered in achieving it—we asked federal and state  officials, representatives of local governments and watershed groups, and  others who have tried to coordinate data collection to explain the barriers  that have impeded their efforts. As figure 8 shows, the most frequently  cited problems were the following:  Organizations often collect data to achieve specific missions, which  sometimes affects their willingness and ability to modify their  approaches toward data collection to make the results more widely  usable, and which may even make organizations reluctant to share data  they have already collected.
Groups’ data collection protocols often vary, resulting in incomparable  definitions to measure the same or similar pollutants, different detection  limits, inconsistent levels of quality assurance, and inconsistent  collection of metadata.
Without a centralized clearinghouse on water quality data, many  collectors are simply unaware of the data being collected by, or  available from, other organizations.
Data coordination is often assigned a low priority, as shown in a lack of  support for national and state monitoring councils, which were  established specifically to improve data coordination.
subsections: section_title: Organizations Collect Data for Disparate Missions
paragraphs: The very nature of the organizations collecting water quality data varies  widely—some are public, others are private; some are national, others are  statewide or local; some are specifically charged with the responsibility,  others do so voluntarily. As we were frequently told, these variations often  lead to different data needs and priorities, which may affect the  organizations’ ability—and willingness—to coordinate data collection  strategies and to share available data.
The disparate missions among the organizations that collect data were  cited by 13 of the 15 federal agencies as a significant barrier to improved  coordination. Even within the community of federal agencies, significant  diversity in agency missions can lead to vastly different priorities regarding  which data to collect and how to collect and analyze them. For example,  the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) primary interest in water  quality data arises from its responsibility to ensure that waters are in  compliance with states’ water quality standards. Accordingly, its  monitoring approach (and those of the states that conduct monitoring  programs to meet EPA requirements) generally focuses on determining  whether certain thresholds are achieved or exceeded. The degree to which  measurements are on one side or the other of these thresholds is generally  of less consequence. On the other hand, the U.S. Geological Survey’s  monitoring program is oriented toward obtaining precise measurements of  water quality and then tracking changes in these values over time.  Accordingly, its monitoring techniques allow for collecting specific  measurements—and those techniques tend to be more expensive. For  example, the U.S. Geological Survey may use relatively expensive meters to  measure water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen,  pH, and conductivity. These meters require more calibration and  maintenance to ensure accuracy than the test kits used by others seeking to  determine compliance with state water quality standards.
State officials have also emphasized how differing missions can affect the  ability to coordinate monitoring strategies and share data. An ASIWPCA  survey found that state officials identified conflicting state and federal data  needs as among the top barriers to the effectiveness of their ambient  monitoring program.
Finally, some organizations have little incentive to share data, while others  may have strong disincentives to do so. According to some federal agency  officials we interviewed, academicians who collect research data and plan  to publish their results may see little benefit in disclosing their findings  early. Similarly, industry officials told us that they were often unwilling to  share their water quality data with states in situations in which they  believed the data could be unfairly used against them in a regulatory  setting.
section_title: Organizations Often Use Inconsistent Data Collection Protocols
paragraphs: When organizations differ in their overall approaches toward monitoring,  the varying procedures they use to monitor may result in data that cannot  be easily compared. A number of such varying procedures were cited in our  interviews with federal officials and during our site visits.
subsections: section_title: Different Names or Definitions Are Used for Measuring the Same or Similar Parameters
paragraphs: According to several federal officials, different organizations sometimes  use different names or definitions to measure the same or similar  parameters. For example, turbidity, transparency, and total suspended  solids are used to determine the extent to which water bodies are affected  by sediment. However, they are each measured differently, and,  consequently, the data arising from measures of these parameters cannot  be synthesized.
Data collection methods for measuring even the same parameter can vary  widely. Turbidity, which is a measure of the cloudiness of water, for  example, can be measured using a meter, called a nephelometer, which  provides a turbidity reading in nephelometric turbidity units, or it can be  measured with a turbidity tube, which provides results in Jackson turbidity  units. These two measures, however, cannot be used interchangeably. To  address incomparable methods, the National Water Quality Monitoring  Council has produced a National Environmental Methods Index Web site  (www.nemi.gov). This index, which provides a compendium of methods to  support monitoring programs, allows for the rapid comparison of methods  and aims to ensure that data collectors more actively consider analytical  methods when planning and implementing monitoring programs.
section_title: Different Detection Limits
paragraphs: Detection limits are the smallest concentration of a given parameter that  can be measured. Data collectors may measure pollutants using different  detection limits, which can limit the usefulness of their data to other  groups. A Virginia monitoring manual noted, for example, that a test kit  may have a high detection limit for total phosphorus and, therefore, might  not be useful for the state if typical total phosphorus concentrations are  lower. Different entities also report detection limits differently. For  example, according to officials from the Army Corps of Engineers, some  entities report pollutant concentrations that are below detection levels as  zero; others report them as less than a certain detection limit; and still  others report the measurements as the detection limit itself. These  different methods for reporting similar findings make it difficult for data  users to understand and use the data.
section_title: Different Quality Assurance Methods
paragraphs: Data collectors vary widely in the Quality Assurance and Quality Control  methods they use to assure that their data meet minimal standards, and this  variation may preclude wider use of data, according to federal and state  officials we spoke with. For example, according to officials from the  Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, they could not use data on  pH levels collected by the Forest Service because the Service’s  methodology did not meet EPA requirements for quality assurance.
However, if the monitoring had originally been conducted using EPA’s  approved method, the state could have used the data and probably would  have added more waters to Virginia’s impaired waters list. In another  instance, an official from the Army Corps of Engineers in Mississippi noted  that the U.S. Geological Survey has rigorous quality assurance and quality  control procedures, which results in a lag time between when the  measurement was taken and when the data are accessible to the Army  Corps of Engineers and the public. The official explained that, because of  delays in receiving data, the Army Corps of Engineers is not always able to  make optimum use of the data.
Variations in quality assurance and quality control are of even greater  concern when it comes to volunteer monitoring data. For example,  according to officials from the Mississippi Department of Environmental  Quality, data collected by Adopt-A-Stream volunteers, one of the volunteer  organizations in Mississippi, are not used by the state because they are not  of sufficient quality to use in identifying waters that do not meet standards,  and because the state believes it has little control over volunteers.  However, the data could potentially be used to target future monitoring. To  address this concern, EPA’s Volunteer Monitor’s Guide to Quality  Assurance Project Plans outlines steps that a volunteer program needs to  take to document the field, lab, analytical, and data management  procedures of its monitoring program. According to EPA officials, many  volunteer programs develop such documentation in the form of Quality  Assurance Project Plans, which are then submitted to the state water  quality agency or the EPA regional office for review and approval. The  officials noted that programs with approved plans are much more likely to  have their data used.
section_title: Different Metadata Standards
paragraphs: Metadata allow data users to understand characteristics about data  collected by others, such as the methodology used to collect the data, and  thus, determine whether these data are useful for their purposes. Officials  from 9 of the 11 federal agencies we surveyed that use data to make  watershed management decisions noted that a lack of metadata and/or  inconsistency in metadata is a barrier to coordinating data collection  efforts and data sharing. For example, according to an official from the  Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),  without metadata, the reliability of data is suspect and, therefore, should  not be used to make watershed management decisions. Similarly,  according to officials from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric  Administration’s (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service, data users  need to know as much information as possible about the data that were  collected so that data are not misinterpreted.
To address this concern, the Methods and Data Comparability Board of the  National Water Quality Monitoring Council is developing water quality data  elements that specify the metadata needed so data users can understand  and use data from other sources. According to some watershed officials,  however, the list of metadata that was originally suggested contained too  many metadata fields and will need to be made more manageable to be  useful.
Determining appropriate metadata standards is not an easy task. First,  officials from several federal agencies explained that collecting and  recording metadata can be expensive. An official from NOAA’s National  Marine Fisheries Service, for example, explained that the collection and  storage of metadata requires additional staff and resources that may not be  available. Second, as some federal agency officials noted, data collectors  that are monitoring water quality for a project-specific need may not be  aware that the data they are gathering may be useful to others, so they may  not be willing to collect metadata.
section_title: Organizations Are Often Unaware of Data Collected by Other Groups
paragraphs: As representatives of many groups indicated, coordinating data collection  is difficult because they lack information about the data that other groups  may be collecting. Of the 15 federal agencies we surveyed, 10 cited the lack  of awareness of other groups’ data collection activities as a barrier to  coordination. For example, an official from the Agricultural Research  Service in Mississippi noted that even though he tries to identify other data  collectors within the state, he is consistently surprised to find out that  there are additional entities collecting water quality data. An official from  the Bureau of Land Management explained that, because watershed  boundaries do not coincide with political boundaries, it exacerbates the  difficulty of identifying what entities are collecting data within the  watershed.
In addition to a lack of knowledge among data collectors about other  entities that collect data, we also found a significant gap in knowledge  about what data are collected within agencies. Many respondents to our  survey could not provide completed information on the type of data their  agency collects, frequency of data collection, and geographic areas of data  collection. For example, over one-third of the agencies we surveyed were  not able to provide complete information about their water quality data  because there are no central water quality databases within the agencies.
Most of the federal officials citing unawareness of others’ data collection  efforts said that a clearinghouse to disseminate that information would go a  long way toward addressing the problem. According to federal officials,  clearinghouses can take various forms.  For example, a clearinghouse  might be similar to a phone directory, providing an index of data collectors  and the type of data being collected. Or, a clearinghouse might provide an  Internet “portal”—an access point from which data users can obtain  information and access to data from multiple sources.
section_title: Data Coordination Is Often Assigned a Low Priority
paragraphs: Efforts to coordinate data collection activities are a low priority, as  demonstrated by a lack of support accorded to federal and state monitoring  councils that were formed to help coordinate the data collection efforts of  their members and enhance data sharing and use. For example, the  National Water Quality Monitoring Council (National Council) was  established to implement a nationwide strategy to improve water quality  monitoring, assessment, and reporting. This council is co-chaired by EPA  and the U.S. Geological Survey and includes representatives from federal,  interstate, state, tribal, local, and municipal governments, volunteer  monitoring groups, and the private sector. According to its charter, the  National Council aims, among other things, to improve institutional  coordination and collaboration, comparability of collected data, quality  assurance and control, and storage systems that preserve data for future  use. The National Council reports to the Advisory Committee on Water  Information, which advises the federal government, through the U.S.  Geological Survey and the Water Information Coordination Program.
Most of the respondents to our federal survey that were aware of the  National Council and its efforts often cited the National Council as a  positive influence in promoting better coordination among data collectors.  However, almost all of these officials also noted that both a lack of funding  and dedicated time among National Council participants has limited the  council’s effectiveness. Several members of the National Council noted that  participation on the council is voluntary and thus, as one member noted,  “not part of a member’s job description.”
Council members we interviewed also agree that the National Council  lacks authority. The Office of Management and Budget memorandum that  established the National Council does not stipulate that federal agencies  must cooperate. For example, even though the Army Corps of Engineers  participated in the National Council when it was first established, the  agency has opted out of participating in the National Council for the past  several years.
The lack of priority for coordination at the national level is also prevalent at  the state level. First, although the National Council and EPA have  encouraged states to form councils to coordinate monitoring among the  entities active in each state, as of September 2003, only seven state  monitoring councils and three regional councils were active. Second,  even where such councils have been active, they have generally  experienced difficulty in making progress. During interviews with  monitoring council members in Colorado and Virginia—the two states we  visited that have active coordinating councils—officials reported that their  councils were making less progress than anticipated. According to  members of the Colorado Water Quality Monitoring Council, the council  has struggled, in part because participants must volunteer their own time  and its efforts are limited by time and resources. Similarly, a Virginia Water  Monitoring Council member told us that while Virginia’s council has made  some progress (such as sponsoring workshops, conferences, and annual  meetings), the ability of the council to address water issues could be  increased if the energy expended for fundraising was significantly reduced.
An EPA study of eight of the state and regional monitoring councils  substantiated these comments. EPA found that, although the councils  have had some indirect effects, none has made a documented, “on-the  ground” impact to water quality monitoring. The EPA study also identified  many of the same problems we found during our site visits—a lack of  funding, members pressed to balance their council participation with  competing job demands, and the challenge of getting agency members to  take off their “agency hats.”
At the same time, according to EPA, state and regional monitoring councils  can be effective in improving the availability of monitoring data if properly  supported. For example, EPA officials and others have cited the Maryland  Water Monitoring Council as a successful state council. The Maryland  council has conducted monitoring design workshops and a stream  monitoring roundtable to bring together organizations and individuals  planning to monitor streams in Maryland, exchange information about the  kinds of monitoring being planned, and prepare a geographically- referenced compilation of monitoring sites to ensure that everyone knows  where monitoring is taking place. In addition, while the Colorado council  has struggled, it has organized “data swaps” to allow monitoring  organizations to share metadata and compare data collected by various  groups.
As we previously noted, EPA issued guidance to the states in March 2003  that recommends 10 basic elements of a state water monitoring and  assessment program. While EPA’s guidance does not recommend  coordinating data collection activities as one of the basic elements of state  monitoring programs, it notes the importance of state monitoring program  managers working with other state environmental managers and interested  stakeholders as they develop their strategy. In addition, the guidance  recommends that states identify required or likely sources of existing and  available data and information and procedures for collecting or assembling  it.
section_title: Coordinating Entity with Sufficient Resources and Authority Suggested as Potential Solution
paragraphs: Because currently established coordinating entities lack the resources,  priority, and authority to make significant progress, some agency officials  have suggested the need for a clearly designated coordinating body with  both sufficient resources and authority. These agency officials differ in  their suggestions about the structure of this coordinating body. For  example, an official from the Advisory Committee on Water Information  believes that, with enhanced authority, the Advisory Committee and its  National Council could make significant progress toward improving the  coordination of data collection efforts and increasing the amount of data  watershed managers have available to make decisions. The official  recognized that, while the coordinating entity will not be able to alter  agency missions, it would be able to address such things as establishing a  clearinghouse to identify who is collecting what type of data and  developing clearly-defined and generally accepted government metadata  standards for water data collection.
Officials from the Army Corps of Engineers provided a suggestion for an  alternative structure for a coordinating body. The officials believe that the  designation of one lead agency to define, locate, and integrate available  data sources within a specified time frame would make data more easily  accessible, available in a useful format, and better enable local decision  makers to make better informed decisions.  The Corps officials explained  that a lead agency could, for example, establish standards in cooperation  with other agencies and establish a clearinghouse for data. The officials  suggested that an appropriate lead agency would be one that already  carries out and/or supports broad water data collection responsibilities.
section_title: Data Management Challenges Also Limit Data Availability
paragraphs: Water quality officials often noted that difficulties in data management are  a factor inhibiting their ability to use water quality data to make watershed  management decisions. These data management concerns commonly  focused on two areas: (1) complexity of using EPA’s storage and retrieval  system (STORET) and (2) inability to integrate data from various sources  to provide a more complete picture of water quality within watersheds.
subsections: section_title: Complexity of Using STORET
paragraphs: From 1965 until 1998, water quality data were stored in the original  STORET Water Quality File, which is now called “legacy STORET.”  In 1999,  EPA released “modernized STORET” to replace legacy STORET. This  newer version contains data collected beginning in 1999, along with some  older data that were transferred from legacy STORET. Some of the major  changes between legacy STORET and modernized STORET include the  following:   Storing data in legacy STORET could only be accomplished by someone  with a mainframe user ID and specialized training. In contrast,  modernized STORET is installed on personal computers, and data can  be entered on those personal computers without requiring access to an  EPA computer. Local STORET users then choose if and when to upload  their data into national STORET.
Unlike legacy STORET, modernized STORET contains metadata on why  the data were gathered; sampling and analytical methods used; the  laboratory used to analyze the samples; the quality control checks used  when sampling, handling the samples, and analyzing the data; and the  personnel responsible for the data.
EPA considers STORET to be its main repository for water monitoring data  and a cornerstone of its data management activities and water program  integration efforts. And, according to EPA officials, the agency has worked  hard to resolve a number of issues affecting the database’s wider use.
Nonetheless, officials from many of the entities we interviewed suggested  that further progress is needed before they can effectively use STORET.  They cited the following difficulties: (1) uploading data to STORET, (2)  retrieving data from STORET, and (3) dealing with the system’s large  number of data parameters. The last point in particular was cited by Forest  Service officials, who noted that the large number of data parameters in the  system made it cumbersome to use. Consequently, less than 5 percent of  Forest Service data currently go into STORET, and the agency has yet to  decide whether to consolidate their water quality data into STORET or  expend resources to develop an in-house water quality module.
Officials in two of the three states we visited held similar views. Officials  from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality reported that they  have not used STORET since it was updated because of difficulties in  uploading and retrieving data, and the state has instead opted to develop its  own data storage system. Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality  officials similarly reported that they store their data in two state-run  databases. Officials from both states noted that they would prefer to have  their data in STORET, but would need additional assistance from EPA to do  so. On the other hand, one of the states we visited, Colorado, noted success  in using STORET to store its water quality data. In addition, officials from  EPA’s Denver office noted that other states, such as Utah, have also had  success in using STORET.
Some local government and volunteer monitoring groups also have  encountered challenges using STORET. For example, a watershed group in  Colorado noted that, while their group recognizes that STORET is a  valuable data management system and made the decision to use the system  in 2000, the group had only a limited amount of data in STORET as of fall  2003 because of difficulties uploading their data. The group explained that  unified federal support for the system is lacking, and therefore, limited  funding has been made available to address the difficulties STORET users  encounter. In addition, a volunteer monitoring group from Virginia reported  that while they had tried to put their data into STORET, they had too much  difficulty uploading data into the system, and that EPA’s resources were, at  the time, stretched too thinly to provide sufficient assistance. Moreover,  officials from Big Dry Creek Watershed Association in Colorado reported  that while they recognize the benefits to others of having their data in  STORET, they do not perceive a benefit to their association that warrants  spending the funding or time to do so.
Many of these issues were echoed by state and interstate agencies in a 2002  ASIWPCA survey. Most survey respondents, for example, indicated that  EPA does not have sufficient resources to support the system. Some also  noted that STORET is incompatible with their internal state systems and  reporting needs, data retrieval is difficult, and a good deal of staff effort  must be spent to manage incompatibilities.
EPA officials have acknowledged these problems, as well as concerns over  insufficient training and technical support. Nonetheless, the agency has  cited recent successes in dealing with STORET challenges, pointing to  growth in the number of states and other organizations using the system.  As of March 2004, over 120 organizations use STORET, including 31 states,  four EPA offices, interstate organizations such as the Delaware River Basin  Commission, federal agencies, American Indian tribes, watershed groups,  and volunteer monitoring groups. According to EPA, over 7 million of the  approximately 18 million monitoring results contained in STORET were  added in 2003 alone. EPA officials noted that the agency has made efforts  to encourage yet more states, federal agencies, and other groups to make  greater use of the system by (1) working to make the system easier to use  by, for example, releasing revised versions of STORET and a STORET  Import Module which make data upload easier and (2) providing greater  technical assistance. In addition, according to EPA, the agency developed a  new STORET data warehouse in 2003 that has increased data retrieval  speed by 200-fold. With the completion of the data warehouse, the agency  plans to significantly increase customer outreach and support to better  meet states’ needs for the STORET system.
section_title: Agencies Face Difficulties Integrating Data from Separate Sources
paragraphs: Another key data management concern is that many different databases  with different formats and purposes are used to store water quality data,  often making it extremely challenging for data users to integrate data from  various sources. According to several federal agency officials, entities that  collect water quality data need to coordinate their efforts during the  planning phases of data collection to agree on how to manage data. Without  such agreement, data collected often either cannot be used by other  entities or entities must commit resources to integrate data.
An EPA review of statewide watershed management approaches found  data incompatibility affects states’ ability to compile data at the basin and  watershed level. As a result, it can be difficult to obtain a complete picture  of water quality problems and their sources. Furthermore, several states  reported that federal and state data systems are often not compatible, and  that more work is needed to build and manage databases across agencies  that have standardized protocols, metadata reports, and georeferencing  capabilities for mapping and modeling.
The most significant example of incompatible databases involves the U.S.  Geological Survey’s National Water Information System (NWIS) and EPA’s  STORET. Officials from the U.S. Geological Survey explained that different  philosophies and different approaches to the database designs have led to  databases with data models that are not compatible. NWIS contains only  U.S. Geological Survey generated data or data the U.S. Geological Survey  has reviewed and ensured that data quality is known and acceptable. In  contrast, STORET accepts data of varying quality from any source,  contains significant metadata, and allows the data owner to change or  delete data.
According to an EPA official, NWIS was compatible with legacy STORET  and, through an agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey at the time,  NWIS data was regularly copied into legacy STORET. Furthermore, when  EPA modernized STORET, the U.S. Geological Survey and EPA worked  closely to ensure that modernized STORET and an expected modernized  version of NWIS would remain compatible. However, NWIS was not  modernized according to plan, and now the modernized STORET and  NWIS are incompatible. Additionally, according to a U.S. Geological Survey  official, for technical reasons the archived version of legacy STORET no  longer contains NWIS data.
As a result, according to federal and state agency officials, integrating data  from these two primary water quality databases takes time and a significant  commitment of resources. For example, an official from New Jersey’s  Department of Environmental Protection explained that transferring data  from NWIS into STORET—in order to form a more complete picture of  water quality within the state—takes considerable time and effort from  both state and U.S. Geological Survey staff. Similarly, an official from the  National Park Service explained that the incompatibility of NWIS and  STORET makes it very difficult to retrieve data from NWIS and combine it  with National Park Service data stored in STORET to create one useable  database of park water quality. The official explained that, to effectively  use U.S. Geological Survey data from specific contracted studies, the  National Park Service often requests that raw data be put into STORET.
EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey have taken steps to address the issue  of data incompatibility. In February 2003, EPA and the U.S. Geological  Survey agreed to the following:  Deliver data from NWIS and STORET in a common format to federal,  state, and tribal organizations, as well as to the general public and  scientific community.
Ensure that the data from NWIS and STORET are documented to  describe their quality so that users can determine the utility and  comparability of the data.
Their data systems will include metadata associated with each water- quality result as soon as possible.
Recognize that much data exists for which available documentation is  limited and yet these data are useful for certain purposes and, therefore,  the agencies will not exclude such data from their systems because of  these limitations.
Facilitate and encourage the maximum use of metadata to enhance the  usefulness of the information for multiple purposes.
Work with the National Water Quality Monitoring Council to develop a  geospatial Internet-based query tool (portal) for sharing data, especially  relying on data from STORET and NWIS. Since data cannot be  efficiently transported between the databases, the agreement between  the agencies focuses on a data portal as an alternative to copying data  into multiple databases. The agencies agreed to “strive to achieve these  objectives as soon as is practicable within the constraints of available  resources.”
In addition to difficulties in integrating data from STORET and NWIS, some  agency officials noted difficulty in integrating data within agencies. For  example, according to EPA, the agency has historically stored water data  collected under the Superfund program in various databases. Noting the  inconvenience of this practice, four EPA regions are working to  consolidate Superfund data in STORET. In addition, according to the Army  Corps of Engineers, much of its data as well as data from other agencies is  stored using different formats in different databases, making integrating  the data and analyzing the information for decision making extremely  difficult and time consuming.
To address the difficulties integrating data, the Army Corps of Engineers  believes using a Geographic Information System (GIS) as the foundation  for managing water resources is the only viable solution to effectively  integrate vast amounts of disparate data needed to effectively manage the  nation’s water resources. Thus, according to Corps officials, the agency is  taking steps to standardize and integrate disparate data sets by developing  an “Enterprise GIS” to support watershed analyses. The Corps envisions  that the Enterprise GIS data, output from watershed modeling efforts, and  many of the analytical tools would be Web-enabled to make them  accessible to federal, state, and local governments. The Corps  acknowledges, however, that the agency’s implementation of Enterprise  GIS at the national level has been slow, citing funding constraints.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: The acute shortage of accurate and reliable water data has been  documented by GAO, the National Academies of Science, and other  organizations. The consequences of this shortage have been amplified in  recent years as states and local communities have come under increased  pressure to identify and address—in a scientifically sound and legally  defensible manner—which of their waters do not meet standards and  should, therefore, be targeted for cleanup. The consequences of inadequate  water data have also been amplified by the nation’s increased reliance on  the watershed approach, a strategy whose success relies heavily on the  availability of comprehensive and reliable information.
With this critical need in mind, some may find it perplexing that literally  hundreds of organizations collect water quality data that are not being  sufficiently brought to bear on critical decisions. Our findings suggest that  improved coordination could go a long way toward alleviating this  problem.
However, the national, regional, and state monitoring councils that exist to  promote such coordination have frequently been impeded by a lack of  authority to make key decisions, a shortage of funding to undertake key  coordinating activities, and low priority attention from data collecting  organizations. Among the most notable of these is the National Water  Quality Monitoring Council, which is co-chaired by EPA and U.S.  Geological Survey, and which includes representatives from federal,  interstate, state, tribal, local, and municipal governments, watershed  groups, volunteer monitoring groups, and the private sector.
Some have cited these difficulties in calling for a clearly designated lead  water data coordinating body at the national level; one with both sufficient  resources and authority. They differ, however, on the precise form this  body would take. One model would enhance the role of the National Water  Quality Monitoring Council, as the nation’s premier water data  coordinating body. Another approach suggested by some would be to  designate a lead federal agency to assume this role—one that already  carries out and/or supports broad water data collection responsibilities. We  believe that it is most appropriate for the Congress to exercise the  judgment call as to whether and how such an effective coordinating body  should be established.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To enhance and clearly define authority for coordinating the collection of  water data nationwide, we recommend that the Congress consider formally  designating a lead organization (either an existing water data coordinating  entity or one of the federal agencies with broad water data collection  responsibilities) for this purpose. Among its responsibilities, the  organization would:  Support the development and continued operation of regional and state  monitoring councils.
Coordinate the development of an Internet-based clearinghouse to  convey what entities are collecting what types of data. As part of this  effort, the organization could advance the development of a geospatial  Internet-based query tool (portal) that would allow users access to  information about water data available within a given watershed.
Coordinate the development of clear guidance on metadata standards so  that data users can integrate data from various sources.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior, and the  Environmental Protection Agency offered comments on a draft of this  report that were particularly germane to the material in this chapter. The  Corps offered additional information about planned activities to use a  comprehensive integrated watershed management approach, which we  included in finalizing the chapter.
The Department of the Interior cautioned that the designation of a lead  water data organization would not necessarily remove all of the barriers  that are currently limiting the coordination of data collection activities.  Interior noted that while designating a lead organization or agency has  value, resources are needed and some barriers, such as differing purposes  for data collection and variation in data collection protocols, would remain.  We agree and, accordingly, view Congress’ designation of a lead  organization as an important step toward addressing the challenges of  coordinating data collection. We believe that such a step would enhance  and more clearly define the authority needed to address many of these  barriers.
Interior also stated that a crucial distinction between NWIS and other  databases mentioned in the report, particularly STORET, is that NWIS  serves not only as a data archive but also as a data processing system that  applies quality control tests. In addition, Interior explained that  establishing one large Federal database is neither feasible nor desirable.  We agree with both points. Regarding the first point, we recognize that  NWIS holds data that are consistently subjected to quality assurance and  quality control, while STORET and other databases contain some data of  varying or unknown quality. Regarding the second point, many federal  agency officials and others noted that it would be neither realistic nor  necessary to establish one database that contains all water data. Rather,  they generally explained that an Internet-based tool that allows them to  link to data sources in a particular geographic area would be both practical  and sufficient.
EPA agreed on the need for reliable, comprehensive, and accessible data on  water quality to effectively implement the watershed approach. EPA noted,  however, that the report should further discuss recent significant  improvements to the STORET system and the emphasis placed on  coordination and data sharing in EPA’s “Elements of a State Monitoring and  Assessment Program” guidance. The draft report contained some  information on these issues, but we incorporated additional detail in  response to EPA’s comments.
section_title: Water Quantity Data Are Limited, but Efforts to Collect Them Are Generally Well- Coordinated
paragraphs: Many stakeholders use water quantity data to make decisions with  important economic, environmental, and social implications. Among other  things, water quantity data are needed to help make water quality  determinations. The quantity of water flowing through a river, for example,  affects the concentration of a regulated pollutant in that river. The  importance of water quantity data, however, extends beyond their impacts  on pollutant concentrations. Federal, state, local, tribal, and private  organizations also rely heavily on water quantity data to fulfill critical  responsibilities such as ensuring an adequate water supply to meet a  variety of competing needs.
Officials at both the federal and state level most often reported that their  biggest concern about water quantity data is the lack of data available to  make these economically and socially important watershed management  decisions. However, where data are available, there is broad consensus  among federal and state data collectors we interviewed that, while not  always flawless, the coordination of water quantity collection efforts is less  complicated and more effective than the coordination of water quality data  collection.
subsections: section_title: Water Quantity Data Are Needed for Decisions with Important Economic, Environmental, and Social Implications
paragraphs: As pressure on existing supplies continues to grow, water supply and  management issues, and therefore water quantity data, are increasingly  important. Much as debits, credits, and savings in a financial budget need  to be quantified to maintain fiscal responsibility, the nation’s water supply  and use need to be comprehensively quantified within the water budget  context to ensure adequate availability of water as water demands  fluctuate regionally because of changes in climate, urban growth patterns,  agricultural practices, and energy needs.
Scientific water quantity data make it possible to understand and protect  water for many economically, environmentally, and socially important uses  such as safe drinking water, habitat for fish and wildlife, rivers and streams  for recreational activities, and water allocations among competing uses by  industry, agriculture, and municipalities. A broad group of stakeholders use  water quantity data to support decisions concerning these uses. These  stakeholders—water managers, engineers, scientists, emergency  managers, recreational water users, and utilities—use water quantity data  to evaluate current water supplies and plan for future supplies; forecast  floods and droughts; operate reservoirs for hydropower, flood control, or  water supplies; make informed evaluations of the nation’s water quality;  navigate rivers and streams; and ensure safe fishing and boating. Many of  these activities require decisions to be made on a daily basis, which means  timely, yet reliable, data are necessary.
section_title: Overall Lack of Water Quantity Data Is a Key Concern
paragraphs: Among federal and state officials we interviewed, the most frequently cited  concern about water quantity data was the general lack of data available to  aid decision making. As shown in figure 9, the majority of federal agencies  using water quantity data for watershed management reported having  “less” or “far less” than the amount of data that they need to make well- supported decisions, for almost all the listed water quantity parameters,  according to our survey of 15 federal agencies. Additionally, in a 2003 GAO  survey of state water quantity managers, managers in 39 states ranked  expanding the number of federal data collection points, such as streamgage  sites, as the most useful federal action to help their state meet its water  quantity information needs. In particular, several officials at the federal  and state level reported that the decline in U.S. Geological Survey  streamgaging stations is a concern, and respondents from the National  Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Weather  Service and the Agricultural Research Service reported that there are gaps  in precipitation monitoring stations.
According to several federal and state agencies, they are particularly  concerned about the continuing decline in U.S. Geological Survey  streamgaging stations, which provide many entities with water quantity  information needed for key watershed management decisions. Officials at  the Colorado Department of Natural Resources explained that in their  state, the U.S. Geological Survey has cut streamgage stations that collect  data that the state needs. Where possible, the Colorado Department of  Natural Resources has taken on the abandoned sites, but it has had to leave  some abandoned because of resource constraints. U.S. Geological Survey  officials in Mississippi reported that the state Department of  Environmental Quality decided to drop Cooperative Program funding to  support 19 streamgages, which accounted for half the state’s streamflow  monitoring. According to officials at Mississippi’s Department of  Environmental Quality, some of these gages collected data the state needs  to enforce diversion permits, and others have 50 to 60 years of continuous  data collection on record, which they do not want to discontinue. However,  the state does not have the funds to support expensive U.S. Geological  Survey gages, according to the state officials. Similarly, an Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) regional official reported that one state within its  region—Wyoming—recently applied for EPA funding to reactivate needed  U.S. Geological Survey streamgage stations.
As figure 10 shows, a large number of U.S. Geological Survey long-record  streamgages have been discontinued over the past 70 years. According to a  U.S. Geological Survey headquarters official, the loss of long-record  streamgages is a serious matter because trend data from these gages are  requisites for understanding climate change issues and for designing  bridges to withstand floods, among other concerns.   While the number of  long-record streamgages has declined over the past 70 years, the number of  total gages remains largely the same from year to year. In many cases, as  long-record gages were eliminated, new shorter-term gages were  established through the Cooperative Program. The U.S. Geological Survey  expects funding from cooperators to decline this year and the next due to  current state fiscal constraints, which will likely cause the overall number  of gages to go down in the next couple of years.
Officials at two federal agencies also identified NOAA’s National Weather  Service rain gauge data as an area with information gaps. According to the  National Weather Service, while currently its observation systems primarily  exist at airports, it is trying to improve coverage, especially in the West  where the biggest gaps exist. According to a National Weather Service  official, studies conducted by the Agricultural Research Service and the  National Weather Service show that improving the coverage of monitoring  sites to a 20 mile by 20 mile grid would improve stage forecasting by 50  percent. If this coverage is realized, the federal government could save $700  million annually through more accurate flood forecasts, according to the  official. To achieve this better coverage, the National Weather Service is  beginning to add 4,000 new sites and to upgrade 4,000 existing sites. As we  previously reported, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Weather Service stated that a lack of sufficient funding is their primary  barrier to expanding or automating data collection.
section_title: Efforts to Coordinate Water Quantity Data Collection Have Been Comparatively Successful
paragraphs: While the lack of funds for monitoring water quantity parallels the lack of  funds for monitoring water quality, efforts to coordinate water quantity  data collection have generally been successful and are comparatively  unimpeded by barriers. Federal and state officials cited several key reasons  for better coordination of water quantity data as follows:  Water quantity data collection is more centralized among fewer entities,  which allows users and collectors to more easily identify data sources  that may be helpful in making watershed management decisions and  encourages coordination to meet a common purpose.
Critical, urgent, and controversial decisions concerning issues such as  water rights and flood management require accurate and complete real- time water quantity data and provide an impetus for groups to  collaboratively generate such data.
Advanced technology, such as satellites that relay data monitored in  stream to computers and radio technology that reports data from  collection sites to the Internet, greatly improve the ability of data  collectors to share data.
The general consistency of water quantity data parameters, a result of  the well-developed methods available to measure and report them,  allows data users to more easily integrate data from separate collection  efforts.
subsections: section_title: Data Collection Is More Centralized among Fewer Entities
paragraphs: Compared with water quality data, collection of water quantity data is more  centralized among a smaller number of primary data collectors, according  to several federal and state officials. As discussed in chapter 2, in most  states, the U.S. Geological Survey collects the majority of streamgaging  data, while other agencies have clearly delineated responsibilities for  collecting other water quantity data. While these efforts are cleanly divided,  they also share the common purpose of predicting and measuring the  nation’s water availability and use, which facilitates better coordination,  according to some officials. For example, once NOAA’s National Weather  Service, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the U.S.  Geological Survey collect their data, they combine them to forecast water  supplies and floods.
Some officials also cited the common purpose of data collection as a  reason coordinating data collection efforts on water quantity has been  more successful than for water quality. According to the U.S. Geological  Survey, all states participate in its Cooperative Program, in which  nonfederal entities and the U.S. Geological Survey jointly fund water  resources projects that involve water quantity data collection.
section_title: Critical and Time-Sensitive Water Quantity Management Decisions Require Accurate and Complete Water Quantity Data
paragraphs: Accurate and complete data are critical in supporting urgent and  controversial water quantity management decisions made by state and  federal agencies. According to many federal and state officials, there is  generally a more critical need for accurate and complete real-time water  quantity data than there is for water quality because important decisions  must be made daily with regard to water allocation, reservoir projects,  flood and drought management, navigation, and evaluation of compliance  with water withdrawal permits.
According to water quantity officials in Virginia, the critical need for water  quantity data increases as the quantity of available water becomes more  equivalent to the amount of water being used, or where floods occur. In  some of these instances, water quantity decisions must be made quickly  with accurate data. For example, according to an Army Corps of Engineers  official, when floods occur, managers must make critical on-the-spot  decisions, such as which residents need to be evacuated or how much  water should be released from a reservoir to reduce risk and optimize flood  reduction. Similarly, according to a U.S. Geological Survey official in  Virginia, during the state’s drought in 2002, discharge permit holders with  limits on how much they could discharge at various streamflows relied on  hourly streamflow data to be sure that their discharges were not exceeding  permitted levels. Several federal and state officials explained that this  critical need for data has prompted water quantity officials to coordinate  better.
Numerous officials also noted the need for accurate and complete data for  controversial decisions, especially when they may be challenged in court.  In particular, states need data to, among other things, administer water  rights to various users, establish and maintain in-stream flow requirements  for endangered species and, generally, to comply with interstate compacts.  The need for adequate data for these sensitive decisions is especially  critical in western states, like Colorado, where rising populations  combined with increasing demand for water for recreation, scenic value,  and fish and wildlife habitat, have resulted in conflicts and litigation. An  official in Colorado explained that in his state, there is great emphasis on  keeping track of water because “every drop of water is owned by  someone.”
When water is improperly allocated, states can face costly consequences,  which encourages states to coordinate data collection and share results.  For example, according to Colorado water officials, the state may be  required to pay almost $30 million to Kansas as a result of litigation Kansas  initiated when Colorado allegedly withdrew more than its share of water  from the Arkansas River as a result of ground water pumping. The officials  acknowledged that at the time, the state did not have adequate ground  water use data. The state has since decided to focus its resources to bring  high-quality data together to make well-supported decisions instead of  paying for litigation and payments resulting from inadequately supported  decisions. Toward this end, the state has established the Colorado Decision  Support System, a central query-based data system that incorporates data  from various entities in the state.
section_title: Technology Allows for Immediate Distribution of Some Data
paragraphs: Advanced technology within the water quantity field allows for data to be  directly and almost instantaneously delivered to data users, which makes it  easier to share data and facilitates coordination of water quantity data  collection, according to many federal and state officials. Part of the reason  that water quantity data is easier to collect and share is because many of  the water quantity parameters for which groups collect data can be  measured in situ through electronic equipment. This is not true of most  water quality parameters, which require manually intensive sampling and  subsequent lab processing and analysis to obtain the final data values.
Where data are measured electronically, telemetry systems such as satellite  technology—depicted in figure 11—can relay data from the instrument to  data users almost immediately. For example, much of the U.S. Geological  Survey’s streamflow data, which are collected continuously by electronic  in-stream equipment, are available within 4 hours of collection through use  of satellite systems or other telemetry systems such as phones and radios.
Since the mid-1980s, the proportion of the U.S. Geological Survey’s  streamgages with telemetry has increased dramatically, as shown in figure  12. The U.S. Geological Survey’s computers also have built-in checking  routines, which provide some quality assurance, according to a Colorado  U.S. Geological Survey official. Satellites, in particular, transmit much of  the hydrologic data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey to data users.  Once data are picked up by satellite, they can be transmitted to users in a  couple of ways. For example, some data collected by the Bureau of  Reclamation can be captured directly by users with their own domestic  satellite receivers, or can be accessed on the Web through NOAA’s National  Geophysical Data Center, a repository for satellite data within the National  Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service.
Another telemetry system—“meteor burst” communication technology— used by the Natural Resources Conservation Service also facilitates timely  sharing of water quantity data. Meteor burst technology (see figure 13) is  the ability to reflect radio signals, sent from remote locations, off of ionized  meteorite trails 50 to 75 miles above the earth's surface. With this  technology, collection sites as far apart as 1,200 miles can communicate  with one another for short time intervals, which are sufficient to "burst"  relatively short data messages between sending and receiving stations. This  method of communications is preferable for transmitting snowpack data  because, among other reasons, interference that mountains often cause in  conventional communications is not a problem for a meteor burst system,  long-term costs are lower than they are for satellite technology, and data  transfer reliability is higher for meteor burst. The Natural Resources  Conservation Service operates over 700 automated, high-elevation snow  and climate measurement sites in 12 western states and Alaska; these sites  use advanced radio technology to report data on the Internet about once  each day.
section_title: Water Quantity Data Parameters Are Generally More Consistent Nationwide
paragraphs: Water quantity parameters, such as streamflow and precipitation, are  generally more uniform nationwide than water quality parameters,  according to several federal and state officials, making it easier for groups  to integrate data from separate collection efforts. For example, water  withdrawal is measured as a volume of water in gallons, and stage is  measured as the height of water in feet, which can be easily compared.  Water quality parameters, on the other hand, are less uniform. Sediment  concentration in water is one example of a measure that may be described  by multiple parameters—total suspended solids, turbidity, and  transparency—that are not easily integrated.
According to several federal and state officials, water quantity parameters  are more uniform partly because traditional parameters and the same  methods of measurements have been around for decades. For example, the  U.S. Geological Survey has operated its streamgaging network to measure  streamflow since 1889, and the Army Corps of Engineers has collected  stage data as far back as 1785 on the Mississippi River with more regular  measurements beginning about 1838. Their monitoring methods and  standardized techniques for converting stage data to flow data are  established and relatively uniform among entities, according to an Army  Corps of Engineers official. Many water quality parameters and assessment  methods, on the other hand, are relatively new. For example, an EPA  bioassessment guidance document noted that many natural resource  agencies throughout the country have begun the process of developing and  implementing biological assessment and criteria programs. In part because  these processes are relatively new, sampling methods differ across  agencies, impeding data sharing.
In addition to water quantity parameters being more uniform, there are also  fewer than for water quality, which lessens the burden of coordination  according to some of the federal and state officials we spoke with. While  water quantity can be characterized by a relatively small number of  parameters (in magnitude of tens) concerning the volume of water  available and the volume that is used, a much larger number of chemical,  physical, and biological parameters (in magnitude of thousands) are  required to provide an accurate picture of water quality. Chemical  measures alone account for a large number of parameters because there  are so many agricultural, industrial, pharmaceutical, and household  chemicals in use today that are found in surface waters. According to a U.S.  Geological Survey official, the agency’s water quantity monitoring largely  concentrates on discharge and water height (stage) measurements. In  contrast, the U.S. Geological Survey alone collects water quality data on  about 500 different chemicals and identifies thousands of biological species  in streams, lakes, and reservoirs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: We found a broad consensus that, for a variety of reasons, water quantity  data collection efforts have relatively been well coordinated. At the same  time, we found that more water quantity data are needed to make well- supported watershed management decisions. The efficient collection and  use of water quantity data will only grow in importance, as the nation’s  population grows and water supplies continue to face increasing demands  among competing uses. And given the inherent interrelationship between  water quality and water quantity, it will also be increasingly important for  data collectors to extend their collaborative efforts to include  organizations that collect both water quantity and water quality data.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior  offered comments on a draft of this report that were particularly germane  to the material in this chapter. The Corps commented that the lead agency  concept described in the previous chapter applies here as well, stating its  belief that “designation of a lead federal agency by Congress to operate as a  clearinghouse for water quantity data is an important step to improving  data collection and management.”  The Corps noted that setting up a  clearinghouse of water quantity data could result in significant savings for  the federal government, while also assisting state and local governments  with their land use decisions. As noted in the conclusions to this chapter,  there is an inherent interrelationship between water quality and water  quantity. We recognize that it is increasingly important for data collectors  to extend their collaborative efforts to include both water quantity and  water quality data collection.
The Department of the Interior expressed agreement with our concern that  while water quantity data collection is comparatively well coordinated and  consistent, the data currently being collected is not adequate to address the  needs of decision makers trying to address water quantity-related  questions. Interior explained that it is particularly troubled by the loss of  many of the long-term data collection stations, which are needed for trend  analysis to answer many important questions about flood and drought  conditions and their recurrence.