1 / 27

Progress Report

Progress Report. State WQ Ambient Monitoring Program Assessment December 9, 2002. Monitoring Project Goals. Set a 2001 baseline Identify key enhancements Quantify costs and level of effort Identify and share innovations Identify barriers and challenges

luke
Download Presentation

Progress Report

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. Progress Report State WQ Ambient Monitoring Program Assessment December 9, 2002

  2. Monitoring Project Goals • Set a 2001 baseline • Identify key enhancements • Quantify costs and level of effort • Identify and share innovations • Identify barriers and challenges • Provide a common framework for presenting information

  3. Survey Status • 44 responses received to date • (39 states and 2 regional organizations. Some states submitted more than one response.) • Summary report being drafted, available by end of December 2002

  4. Respondents States Reporting Data (39) No Data Reported (11)

  5. Survey scope • General information • Data collection • Data use and management • Volunteer monitoring • Current funding and staffing • Barriers/challenges • Needs/Capacity building • Innovations/Achievements

  6. What Components of State Ambient Monitoring Program are in place? • Written Strategy • Quality Assurance Plans • Strategy reflects CWA objectives • Written monitoring designs • Core indicators designated • Data management centralized • Reports routinely produced • Programmatic evaluations routinely completed

  7. Strategy Components • What components are in place?

  8. Monitoring approaches and methods

  9. Permanent stations/networks Targeted monitoring Site specific Random sites Census-based Stream assessment Beach/coastal sites Exceptional water characterization USGS sites Other methods

  10. Purposes and uses of data

  11. Data storage • How are data stored?

  12. Access to information • How is information made available to the public?

  13. State requirements for monitoring • Is monitoring required by state rule or statute?

  14. Data credibility laws • Has your state adopted laws/rules governing data credibility?

  15. Volunteer Monitoring • What state support is provided?

  16. Volunteer monitoring then and now • Did your state support volunteer monitoring programs in 1972? • 2 States responded “yes” • 38 States/reg. Orgs responded “no”

  17. Current funding • What is the current annual budget for state monitoring programs? $138 million

  18. Sources of funding

  19. Resource Needs • What resources would be needed if all ambient monitoring program objectives were met? $304 Million • Funding gap: $166 Million

  20. Program Budgets • Most states are working with less than half of the resources that they say they need. • States estimated needs conservatively (a “Chevy” program) • The recent Gap analysis supports the monitoring survey estimates.

  21. Capacity Building • Top 5 areas of capacity building: • Staffing • Data management/analysis • Lab facilities and equipment • Training and staff development • Other: revised standards, increased monitoring (esp wetlands), volunteer monitoring, pollutant source identification

  22. Inadequate federal funding Limited state resources Restraints on use of funds Reduced state funding FTE caps Hiring freezes Inadequate lab facilities Antiquated data management systems Lack of IS support State/fed data needs conflict Barriers and Challenges

  23. Observations from the Survey • There is no standard format for describing these programs • Monitoring covers many information needs • States spend about $138 million annually on monitoring (37% Federal) but need about $300 million annually • There are interesting program innovations

  24. Observations from the survey • Many states are moving away from fixed sites toward special studies, targeted approaches, and biomonitoring. • Volunteer monitoring programs have gone from non-existent (1972) to active participants • Good for encouraging stewardship • Not so good for data gathering (QA/QC)

  25. Alabama - Tech Meetings Connecticut ORSANCO, SRBC Missouri – Biological Washington Mon. Oversight Committee Minnesota “Gulfwatch” to monitor toxics in the Gulf of Maine Upper Great Lakes Connecting Channel Mon. Committee Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watershed Monitoring Collaboration Outside of State Monitoring Councils

  26. Next steps • Draft summary report • Initial distribution to workgroup • Distribute report for membership comment • Issue final summary report

  27. Thanks! • Thanks to all the states and regional organizations that have responded! FOR MORE INFO... Contact Jan Renfroe, ASIWPCA Project Coordinator, j.renfroe@asiwpca.org

More Related