SB 1070 Overview California Water Quality Monitoring Council –MOU CalEPA and Resources (Dec 2007) –Monitoring Inventory (April 2008) –Monitoring Recommendations.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EMAP Efforts in SF Bay Overview of EMAP Western Pilot Overview of Coastal component Activities in SF Bay (FY 2000) Relationship to other SF Bay efforts.
Advertisements

Regional Board Monitoring and Special Studies Related to 303d Listing and TMDLs Karen Taberski Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region.
1 Watershed Planning: A Key to Integrated Planning FHWA Environmental Conference Ann Campbell Wetlands Division.
Virginia Non-Agency Monitoring Program Overview of How VADEQ Incorporates Submitted Data.
State of California Lahontan Water Quality Control Board Update on Salt & Nutrient Management Plans.
Water Resources Monitoring Strategy for Wisconsin: Building on Experience Mike Staggs, WDNR Bureau of Fisheries Management and Habitat Protection Acknowledgements:
James Beckley. Virginia and DEQ Virginia has > 52,255 miles of rivers and streams 116,364 acres of significant lakes and reservoirs 2,684 square miles.
IDEM TMDL 101 Everything you wanted to know about Total Maximum Daily Loads.
Montana’s 2007 Nonpoint Source Management Plan Robert Ray MT Dept Environmental Quality.
Monitoring Agriculture – Strategy and Results Margie Read, REAII Senior Environmental Scientist Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program California Central Valley.
WRP and Water Quality Monitoring Council: Synergy April 1, 2015 Josh Collins Chief Scientist, SFEI and ASC Co-Chair, CWMW WRP Science Advisor Jon Marshack.
Great Lakes Monitoring Inventory and Gap Analysis: Recommendations for Addressing Shortfalls and Improving Monitoring Coordination in the Great Lakes Basin.
Lecture 4. Coastal Policy Overview. Coastal Management: Nested Scales Federal – Coastal Zone Management Act State – California Coastal Program Local.
Redefinition of Scope Presenter: Darrin Polhemus 1.
Watershed Management Framework Mission of watershed management –Coordinate and integrate the programs, tools, and resources of multiple stakeholder groups.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Setting the Course for Improved Water Quality A TMDL Training Program for Local Government Leaders and Other Water Resource.
Community-based Education K-12 students serving as a resource for meeting community needs.
California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program SWAMP Today Emilie L. Reyes November 29, 2007.
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment National Water Quality Monitoring Council Meeting August 20, 2003.
 To conserve our remaining natural resources for future generations  To protect a valuable economic revenue stream  To organize management efforts.
Marin County Watershed Stewardship Plan
2006 Network Users’ Meeting Chesapeake Bay Program Regional Exchange for Non Point Source Best Management Practices April 18, 2006 Nancie L. Imler PA DEP.
THE COST AND LEVEL OF SERVIC E PRESENTED BY: COURTNEY REICH, AICP ECOLOGICAL PLANNING GROUP Stormwater Management Programs for Local Governments.
Region III Activities to Implement National Vision to Improve Water Quality Monitoring National Water Quality Monitoring Council August 20, 2003.
Oregon’s Statewide Land Use Planning Program A Framework for Community Decisions Richard Whitman – Director Oregon Department of Land Conservation and.
California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program Data Management Systems Cassandra Lamerdin SWAMP Data Management Team Marine Pollution Studies Laboratory.
Public Participation and the Advisory Committee Process A Collaborative Partnership For Water Resources Toni M. Johnson, Chief Water Information Coordination.
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Mid-Atlantic States
19-Aug-2003MWMC presentation to NWQMC1 Our vision for monitoring in Maryland … The MWMC envisions a time when monitoring methods, programs, projects, and.
Regional Grant Funding Coordination for Implementation of Watershed Management Plans Project Clean Water Summit July 15, 2004 David W. Gibson SDRWQCB
Support of the Framework for Monitoring Office of Management and Budget March 26, 2003.
California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program SWAMP “Comparability” Data Management Overview Cassandra Lamerdin & Stacey Swenson SWAMP Data Management.
1 Proposed Adoption of Biological and Toxicological Water Quality Data Elements and WQDE Guide LeAnne Astin Interstate Commission on the Potomac River.
EPA Region 9 Meredith Kurpius August 19, Status of Tribal Air Monitoring Value of tribal monitoring Used to protect public health on tribal land.
REGIONAL COORDINATION High Level Indicators Draft “white paper” to recommend a core set indicators that can be shared among all types of monitoring Protocol.
Restoring VA Waters the TMDL Way Jeff Corbin Senior Advisor to the Regional Administrator U.S. EPA Region 3.
Benefits of the Redesigned RMP to Regional Board Decision Making Karen Taberski Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region.
State Perspective… Water Reliability, Conservation, Recycling Bill Bennett Department of Water Resources NBWA Conference, Napa April.
FISCAL YEAR Discussion on Mid-Year Budget Adjustment: SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY DELTA ACTIVITIES 1 Tom Gau, Interim Director San Joaquin County Department.
SWAMP Statewide Monitoring Programs Statewide Monitoring Programs Regional Monitoring Programs Regional Monitoring Programs Infrastructure & Tools Infrastructure.
Mid-Atlantic Regional Council on the Ocean (MARCO) Presented to the 62 nd Annual Interstate Seafood Seminar Bob Connell New Jersey Department of Environmental.
Development of Sediment Quality Objectives for California Bays and Estuaries Technical Approach Steven Bay Southern California Coastal Water Research Project.
Cooperative Agricultural Monitoring on California’s Central Coast: An Integrated, Innovative Approach Karen Worcester, Staff Environmental Scientist Alison.
Safeguarding California: Implementation Action Plans Listening Tour October 2015.
Office of Information Management and Analysis (OIMA) Val Connor 10/28/08.
California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program “SWAMP” Comparable Program Guidance Valerie Connor, Director Office of Information Management and.
Improving Access to California’s Water and Environmental Data  Many data collectors in California, including multiple agencies, academic, private, and.
1 What Program Requirements Drive Data Needs James Hanlon, Director Office of Wastewater Management Office of Water US EPA Expanded Steering Committee.
Slide 1 Drinking Water Subcommittee Greg Gartrell, Chair CALFED Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee SWRCB Periodic Review Presentation January 2005.
Overview of the Total Maximum Daily Load Program.
October 11, 2006 Ellen McCarron & Steve Wolfe Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas Florida Department of Environmental Protection May 2006 Developent.
Protecting Alabama’s Water Resources “It’s A Data Driven Process” Presented by: Chris Johnson Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) 2006.
Water Quality Monitoring in Michigan, : A Decade of Program Evolution By: Gerald Saalfeld, MI Department of Environmental Quality.
HAMPTON ROADS REGIONAL WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Presentation John M. Carlock, AICP Deputy Executive Director, Physical Planning Hampton Roads.
Water Monitoring Programs of EPA and its Clean Water Act Partners.
The National Monitoring Network: Monitoring & Management of Alabama Rivers Fred Leslie Alabama Dept of Environmental Management National Monitoring Conference.
Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs) in California and SWAMP's Statewide Strategy California’s Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP) Freshwater.
Watershed Monitoring *Background Watershed Stewardship Plan-2004 Gap Projects IRWMP-Dec Policies SFEI study-2007 Joint TC/WC meeting-June 2010 *Proposed.
Growing Smarter Pennsylvania’s Land Use Agenda. Percent of Land Developed in Pennsylvania Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Department.
Aquatic Resource Monitoring Overview Anthony (Tony) R. Olsen USEPA NHEERL Western Ecology Division Corvallis, Oregon (541)
Protecting Georgia’s Waters Jennifer Welte Program Manager Regulatory Development & Regional Water Planning Georgia EPD – Watershed Protection Branch.
Stormwater 101 History of the Clean Water Act MARCH 22, 2016 WEST COVINA CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Mid-Atlantic States
Central Valley Salinity Coalition
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Program in Illinois
Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program
FISCAL YEAR Discussion on Mid-Year Budget Adjustment:
Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Mid-Atlantic States
finding the balance: economic sustainability v
The City of Los Angeles and The Los Angeles River
Presentation transcript:

SB 1070 Overview California Water Quality Monitoring Council –MOU CalEPA and Resources (Dec 2007) –Monitoring Inventory (April 2008) –Monitoring Recommendations (Dec 2008) Public Information Program (Water Boards) –Water Quality Data –Programmatic Information

Legislative Findings in SB1070 Water Boards and EPA need WQ data –Status of waters –Effectiveness of programs Resources for monitoring lacking –Budgets small and unstable –Need to coordinate (consistency issues) Information not accessible to agencies or public –Multiple agencies collecting data –No single place to access data

StandardsMonitoring Assessment 305(b)/303(d) Permits Compliance Enforcement Non Point Source Program TMDL Program Status of Waters Effectiveness of Program Programs have similar goals (i.e., Protect Beneficial Uses, Ensure Standards are met) Need to link management actions of programs to environmental responses Water Boards and EPA need WQ Data

The Water Board’s Challenge: Assess all waterbodies for all beneficial uses Waterbody types –Lakes >10,000 lakes 1.6 million acres –Rivers >200,000 miles ~ 30% perennial –Bays, Harbors, Estuaries >600,000 acres –Beaches >3,000 miles of coastline ~ 1000 beaches –Nearshore coastal zone –Wetlands? Core Beneficial uses –Safe to Drink? –Safe to Swim? –Safe to Fish? –Aquatic life protected? Enter the SWAMP Program

Regional Board Monitoring 11 PYs ($1.9M) State Board Infrastructure 7 PYs ($1.5M) Budgets are small and fluctuating SWAMP expenditures in perspective Other Statewide Monitoring Efforts Wadeable Streams: CMAP ($0.5M) Estuaries: Coastal EMAP ($0.1M) Beaches: BEACH ($ 6M) Groundwater: GAMA ($10M) Annual SWAMP Expenditures Regional Monitoring Efforts Southern California Coastal ($ 2M) San Francisco Bay ($ 2M) Central Coast ($0.4M) Sacramento Bay Delta ($12M) Permit-related monitoring Wastewater ($50M) Stormwater ($ 5M) EPA 106 Funds ($4.5M) SWAMP Monitoring Needs Report to Legislature (2000) - 87 PYs to 132 PYs - $59M to $115M

SWAMP Strategy 1.Monitoring strategy 2.Objectives 3.Design 4.Indicators 5.QA/QC 6.Database 7.Assessment 8.Reporting 9.Program Evaluation 10.Program Support Similar objectives, different scales Design must balance needs State Board providing leadership through SWAMP Huge benefits (consistency, cost-savings) Benefits to consistency in assessment. Tailor reporting to local and state audience If monitoring supports program needs, then funding will follow Good but under-funded Need to coordinate with others

Mapping SB1070 to SWAMP (Coordinated, cost-effective, integrated, comprehensive monitoring) 1.Monitoring strategy – Need to coordinate 2.Objectives 3.Design 4.Indicators 5.QA/QC – QA program to ensure valid data 6.Database – User friendly electronic database 7.Assessment – Methodology for analyzing and integrating 8.Reporting – Timely reports on water quality 9.Program Evaluation – Assessment of monitoring needs 10.Program Support – Cost of implementation

SWAMP Data Management Strategy Get SWAMP data into SWAMP database –Huge success getting agreements among RBs Indicators, methods, QA/QC, metadata Consistency in data file formats, common database Capture data from other Board Programs –Grant projects, Ag Waivers, TMDL data –Important but underfunded Integrate with other SWRCB data efforts –CIWQS (California Integrated Water Quality System) –CEDEN (California Environmental Data Exchange Network)

SWAMP FY06/07 Workplan 1.All SWAMP data gets into SWAMP database 2.Work with other Board Programs - SWAMP comparability - Access to ambient data 3.Share ambient data with other Agencies - Facilitating data exchange (CEDEN) - Data available to the public (CEDEN) - Exporting data to EPA in STORET format 4.Assess data and Report Out - 305(b)/303(d) and Integrated Report - Assessment data to EPA in an ADB format

Monitoring Council Coordination State Agencies –State and Regional Boards –Department of Water Resources –Department of Fish and Game –California Coastal Commission –State Lands Commission –Department of Parks and Recreation –Department of Forestry and Fire Protection –Department of Pesticide Regulation –Department of Health Services –All State Agencies shall cooperate with Monitoring Council Other –Federal Government, Local Government, Academia, Regulated Community, Citizen Monitoring Community

CIWQS Other Agencies Permits Ambient Data Geo WBS Ambient Data Other State Agencies Federal Agencies SWAMP EPA’s Assessment DatabaseEPA’s STORET database A SWAMP Perspective of the Data World EPA’s ICIS State Board CEDEN Public Access

CIWQS Other Agencies Permits Ambient Data Geo WBS Ambient Data Other State Agencies Federal Agencies SWAMP EPA’s Assessment Database EPA’s STORET database What about ambient data from other programs? EPA’s ICISState Board CEDEN Data from nonpoint source projects? Data from TMDLs? Data from grants issued by Board? Data from grants issued by DWR? Ambient data from NPDES permits? Public Access

GranteesOther Agencies SWAMP Comparability Required Project QAPPs SFEI MLML DWR SCCWRP UC Davis SWAMP Comparability Desired CEDEN What about data quality? Defining QA/QC standards for ambient data SWAMP Project QAPPs SWAMP QMP Board Programs SWRCB QMP CIWQS NPDES Ambient Module GeoWBS Temporary database Verification step Permanent database SWAMP SWAMP Data to CIWQS Public Access STORET

Public Information Program Access to Water Quality Data What does this mean? Is CEDEN the answer? Good God, I hope so! Access to Programmatic Information Permits, Waste Discharge Requirements Petitions, Waivers, Enforcement Actions, Basin Plans Links to Water Quality

Take home message: Need to work together SWAMP –Established to make ambient monitoring data comparable and accessible –Expertise in monitoring and assessment (Content, QA/QC) –Establishing SWAMP conventions for names, formats, metadata –Required to work with other Board Programs, Grantees –Opportunities for working with other state and federal agencies CEDEN –Access to ambient monitoring data not otherwise available to Board Staff –Leverage existing infrastructure –CEDEN partnership between SWRCB and DWR Monitoring Council –CEDEN partnership between CalEPA and Resources? –Avenue for dialog