1. Region III Activities to Implement National Vision to Improve Water Quality Monitoring National Water Quality Monitoring Council August 20, 2003

2. 2 Water Quality Monitoring The Best of Times, The Worst of Times Crisis = Opportunity

3. 3 National Vision for Future Water Quality Monitoring Programs U.S. and States are getting the best return on federal and state monitoring investments By maximizing partnerships, and Using best monitoring tools to answer key questions at national, regional, state and local scales Effectively targeting water quality actions to maximize benefits and social cost savings

4. 4 National Vision Formed by Recent Critiques of Programs General Accounting Office, 2000 EPA and States cannot make statistically valid inferences about water quality and lack data to support management decisions National Research Council, 2001 A uniform, consistent approach to ambient monitoring and data collection is necessary to support core water quality programs National Academy of Public Administration, 2002 Improved water quality monitoring information is necessary to help states make more effective use of limited resources Heinz Center Report, 2002 There is inadequate data for national reporting on fresh water, coastal and ocean water quality indicators. Draft State of the Environment Report, 2003 No current way to develop a national picture of water quality

5. 5 Status of Water Quality Monitoring Current monitoring and assessment approaches are limited: Focus on targeted monitoring Assess limited percentage state waters and water body types (19% rivers and streams, 43% lakes, 36% estuaries, 4% wetlands) Generally not comparable across states Limited utility for state by state or national assessment Inefficient allocation of resources

6. 6 The Problem - Inadequate Water Quality Information for Decisions About one-third of U.S. waters were assessed under 305b for states’ 2000 reports Only about half of these assessments are based on current, site-specific monitoring information. Most monitoring is not done in a way that allows for statistically valid assessments of conditions in unmonitored waters. GAO found only six states reported that they have a majority of the data they need to assess whether their waters meet water quality standards

7. 7 Impacts of Inadequate Information Incomplete and unreliable assessments of water quality Incorrect lists of impaired waters Weak technical basis for establishment of TMDLs and pollution controls Ineffective evaluation of water programs Inefficient resource allocation

8. 8 Strategy for Achieving the Vision Strengthen state programs Invest in state/tribal programs through grants and technical support Use multiple monitoring tools Support full range of decisions for all water body types Expand accessibility and use of data Encourage standardization of methods and reporting Improve communication of water quality results Promote Partnerships Collaborate to maximize use of monitoring resources

9. 9 Strengthen State Programs Comprehensive state strategies by FY05 This is the primary focus of Regional efforts $100M shortfall for state monitoring Better planning and targeting needed Technical assistance

10. 10 Overview of Region III Programs Good State Programs Chesapeake Bay Program Estuary Programs Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment New Water Protection Division Team

11. 11 Overview of Region III Programs Generally already fairly strong in use of multiple monitoring tools and use of biological indicators Long history of participation in efforts with OW and ORD to advance water quality monitoring and assessment 305(b) consistency workgroup Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment National Coastal Assessment

12. 12 Overview of Region III Programs Long History of Collaboration and Partnerships Chesapeake Bay Program Thru Formation of State Monitoring Councils in Maryland and Virginia Mid-Atlantic Wetlands (monitoring) Workgroup

13. 13 Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment An integrated monitoring and assessment program in the Mid-Atlantic Region that: provides a safe and healthy environment for humans and other living things supports the regulatory needs (305b report, 303d listing, development of TMDLs, etc.) Supports non-regulatory needs (zoning, land-use planning, conservation acquisition, etc.) functions at multiple scales (regional, state, county, watershed, etc.)

14. 14 Region III Priorities Determine Current Status of State Water Quality Monitoring Programs Build on Existing State Programs to Develop Comprehensive Strategies for Ambient Monitoring of all Waterbody Types Integrate Ongoing Monitoring Programs Improve Data Management and Expand Access Implement New Organization

15. 15 Region III Priority - Focus on State Program Upgrades A primary goal is to assist in the upgrade of state monitoring programs that will be fully implemented by 2014 to assess all waterbody types for all designated uses by incorporating the ten elements from EPA Guidance issued in March 2003 entitled ‘Elements of a State Water Monitoring Program’.

16. 16 Overview of Elements Guidance The guidance better defines what the elements of an state water monitoring program should be, and provides a framework for upgrading state water monitoring programs over time. It serves as a tool to promote consistent Regional assessments of state programs and to guide EPA determinations of whether a state water quality monitoring program meets CWA objectives. Http://www.epa.gov/owow/monitoring/repguid. html

17. 17 Overview of Elements Guidance The 10 Elements Include: Monitoring program strategy Monitoring objectives Monitoring design Core indicators of water quality Quality assurance Data management Data analysis and assessment (CALM) Reporting Program evaluation General support and infrastructure

18. 18 Region III Approach for Assessing State Programs Joint EPA and State Effort Identifies Strengths, Weakness, Challenges Identifies and Prioritizes Goals/Milestones – thru 10 year Implementation Schedule Identifies Resources Needs and Collaborations

19. 19 Region III Approach for Assessing State Programs Questionnaire for Information Gathering Discussions with State Water Monitoring Program Managers and Staff – including Basin Commissions Assessing Program Status in Relation to CWA Goals

20. 20 Proposed Schedule Information Gathering – Summer/Fall 2003 Draft Monitoring Strategy by Winter/Spring 2004 Final Monitoring Strategy by 10/1/04 Begin Implementation in FY2005 based on resources and priorities Annual Review of progress towards goals and annual milestones

21. 21 Accessibility and Use of Data Regional effort to expand use of STORET among states USGS and EPA have signed an agreement to enhance public access and data comparability between NWIS and STORET WATERS GIS Coverage and Contextual Data National Hydrography Dataset Land cover NPDES and other source locations

22. 22 Region III WPD Reorganization Monitoring and Assessment Team Consolidate Water Quality Programs Estuary Programs Moved to WPD Expand Outreach Efforts to Enhance Partnerships

23. 23 Region III WPD Reorganization Office of Watersheds Watershed Restoration Branch Monitoring and Assessment Team - Larry Merrill, Acting Team Leader - 215-814-5452 - merrill.larry@epa.gov