1 / 15

SB 1070 Overview

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.

javier
Download Presentation

SB 1070 Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. 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

  3. Water Boards and EPA need WQ Data Status of Waters Assessment 305(b)/303(d) Standards Monitoring Permits Compliance Enforcement Non Point Source Program TMDL Program 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

  4. 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? The Water Board’s Challenge:Assess all waterbodies for all beneficial uses Enter the SWAMP Program

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

  6. SWAMP Strategy Good but under-funded Need to coordinate with others • Monitoring strategy • Objectives • Design • Indicators • QA/QC • Database • Assessment • Reporting • Program Evaluation • 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

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

  8. SWAMP Data ManagementStrategy • 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)

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

  10. 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

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

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

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

  14. 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

  15. 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

More Related