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