Sb 1070 overview
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 15

SB 1070 Overview PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 104 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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

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


Sb 1070 overview

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


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?

The Water Board’s Challenge:Assess all waterbodies for all beneficial uses

Enter the SWAMP Program


Sb 1070 overview

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)


Swamp strategy

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


Mapping sb1070 to swamp coordinated cost effective integrated comprehensive monitoring

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


Swamp data management strategy

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)


Swamp fy06 07 workplan

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


Monitoring council coordination

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


Sb 1070 overview

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


Sb 1070 overview

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


Sb 1070 overview

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


Public information program

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

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


  • Login