The FY 2008-2010 Water Quality Grant Guidance:

The New Three-Tiered Approach and Performance Measures

The FY 2008-2010 Water Quality Grant Guidance:

The New Three-Tiered Approach and Performance Measures

Dan Helfgott, ChiefGovernment and International Services Branch

US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs

Western Regions Pesticide MeetingMay 17, 2007

Dan Helfgott, ChiefGovernment and International Services Branch

US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs

Western Regions Pesticide MeetingMay 17, 2007

Program GoalProgram Goal

The goal of the Pesticide Water Quality Program is to insure that pesticides do not adversely affect

the nation’s water resources.

The goal of the Pesticide Water Quality Program is to insure that pesticides do not adversely affect

the nation’s water resources.

How Much for WQ?How Much for WQ?How Much for WQ?How Much for WQ?• Approximately $4.4M are provided to Approximately $4.4M are provided to

States & Tribes in STAG funds.States & Tribes in STAG funds.

• Funds provided range between $11K to Funds provided range between $11K to $180K.$180K.

• This figure has remained steady for This figure has remained steady for several years, and is basically unchanged several years, and is basically unchanged in the President’s FY 08 Budget.in the President’s FY 08 Budget.

• Approximately $4.4M are provided to Approximately $4.4M are provided to States & Tribes in STAG funds.States & Tribes in STAG funds.

• Funds provided range between $11K to Funds provided range between $11K to $180K.$180K.

• This figure has remained steady for This figure has remained steady for several years, and is basically unchanged several years, and is basically unchanged in the President’s FY 08 Budget.in the President’s FY 08 Budget.

Three Tiered ApproachThree Tiered ApproachThree Tiered ApproachThree Tiered Approach1.1. Evaluate: Evaluate:

• Identify Identify pesticides of concernpesticides of concern over timeover time by by evaluating a list of evaluating a list of pesticides of interestpesticides of interest that that may have the potential to threaten water may have the potential to threaten water quality locally;quality locally;

2.2. Manage:Manage:• Take actions Take actions over timeover time to manage to manage

pesticides of concernpesticides of concern; and ; and

3.3. Demonstrate Progress:Demonstrate Progress:• Examine Examine available dataavailable data and trends to and trends to

demonstrate improvement in water quality.demonstrate improvement in water quality.

1.1. Evaluate: Evaluate: • Identify Identify pesticides of concernpesticides of concern over timeover time by by

evaluating a list of evaluating a list of pesticides of interestpesticides of interest that that may have the potential to threaten water may have the potential to threaten water quality locally;quality locally;

2.2. Manage:Manage:• Take actions Take actions over timeover time to manage to manage

pesticides of concernpesticides of concern; and ; and

3.3. Demonstrate Progress:Demonstrate Progress:• Examine Examine available dataavailable data and trends to and trends to

demonstrate improvement in water quality.demonstrate improvement in water quality.

Pesticides of InterestPesticides of Interest• Pesticides with the Pesticides with the potentialpotential to occur in to occur in

ground or surface water at concentrations ground or surface water at concentrations approaching or exceeding a human health approaching or exceeding a human health or ecological reference point.or ecological reference point. – Pesticides that have been identified by the Pesticides that have been identified by the

States in the survey conducted by SFIREG in States in the survey conducted by SFIREG in 20052005

– Currently registered pesticides that are the Currently registered pesticides that are the cause of water quality impairments under cause of water quality impairments under CWA §303(d).CWA §303(d).

– Any other pesticides a State/Tribe wishes to Any other pesticides a State/Tribe wishes to add. add.

• Pesticides with the Pesticides with the potentialpotential to occur in to occur in ground or surface water at concentrations ground or surface water at concentrations approaching or exceeding a human health approaching or exceeding a human health or ecological reference point.or ecological reference point. – Pesticides that have been identified by the Pesticides that have been identified by the

States in the survey conducted by SFIREG in States in the survey conducted by SFIREG in 20052005

– Currently registered pesticides that are the Currently registered pesticides that are the cause of water quality impairments under cause of water quality impairments under CWA §303(d).CWA §303(d).

– Any other pesticides a State/Tribe wishes to Any other pesticides a State/Tribe wishes to add. add.

Evaulate Pesticides of InterestEvaulate Pesticides of Interest• To determine whether a human health or environmental To determine whether a human health or environmental

reference pointreference point is likelyis likely to be approached or exceeded in to be approached or exceeded in localized areas, and therefore, whether the pesticide localized areas, and therefore, whether the pesticide should be elevated to a should be elevated to a pesticide of concernpesticide of concern which which needs to be managed.needs to be managed.– The The reference pointreference point is the concentration of a pesticide active is the concentration of a pesticide active

ingredient in water used to judge the severity of contamination.ingredient in water used to judge the severity of contamination.• Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL),Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL),• Drinking water health advisory, Drinking water health advisory, • Surface or ground water quality standard (human or aquatic life Surface or ground water quality standard (human or aquatic life

toxicity), toxicity), • EPA reference dose, EPA reference dose, • OPP benchmark (e.g, the drinking water level of concern).OPP benchmark (e.g, the drinking water level of concern).• Or another benchmark that the State or Tribe adopts by regulation Or another benchmark that the State or Tribe adopts by regulation

or policy. or policy.

• To determine whether a human health or environmental To determine whether a human health or environmental reference pointreference point is likelyis likely to be approached or exceeded in to be approached or exceeded in localized areas, and therefore, whether the pesticide localized areas, and therefore, whether the pesticide should be elevated to a should be elevated to a pesticide of concernpesticide of concern which which needs to be managed.needs to be managed.– The The reference pointreference point is the concentration of a pesticide active is the concentration of a pesticide active

ingredient in water used to judge the severity of contamination.ingredient in water used to judge the severity of contamination.• Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL),Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL),• Drinking water health advisory, Drinking water health advisory, • Surface or ground water quality standard (human or aquatic life Surface or ground water quality standard (human or aquatic life

toxicity), toxicity), • EPA reference dose, EPA reference dose, • OPP benchmark (e.g, the drinking water level of concern).OPP benchmark (e.g, the drinking water level of concern).• Or another benchmark that the State or Tribe adopts by regulation Or another benchmark that the State or Tribe adopts by regulation

or policy. or policy.

What Counts as an Evaluation?What Counts as an Evaluation?What Counts as an Evaluation?What Counts as an Evaluation?• A A previous evaluationprevious evaluation by the State or Tribe. by the State or Tribe.

– A re-evaluation is not required unless new information, new use A re-evaluation is not required unless new information, new use patterns, or increased risk of exposure indicate the need for a patterns, or increased risk of exposure indicate the need for a new evaluation. new evaluation.

• A A state determinationstate determination that there is no reasonable that there is no reasonable exposure expected (due to factors such as soil type, use exposure expected (due to factors such as soil type, use pattern, state registrations status, sales, or volume of pattern, state registrations status, sales, or volume of use).use).

• A new quantitative technical evaluation.A new quantitative technical evaluation.– New evaluations can be based on New evaluations can be based on availableavailable monitoring data. monitoring data. – An evaluation may also be based on the pesticide’s An evaluation may also be based on the pesticide’s

environmental fate and use patterns, performance in the field, environmental fate and use patterns, performance in the field, available prospective monitoring studies, peer-reviewed available prospective monitoring studies, peer-reviewed scientific literature, or monitoring results and experience from scientific literature, or monitoring results and experience from other States or Tribes with comparable conditions. other States or Tribes with comparable conditions.

• A A previous evaluationprevious evaluation by the State or Tribe. by the State or Tribe.– A re-evaluation is not required unless new information, new use A re-evaluation is not required unless new information, new use

patterns, or increased risk of exposure indicate the need for a patterns, or increased risk of exposure indicate the need for a new evaluation. new evaluation.

• A A state determinationstate determination that there is no reasonable that there is no reasonable exposure expected (due to factors such as soil type, use exposure expected (due to factors such as soil type, use pattern, state registrations status, sales, or volume of pattern, state registrations status, sales, or volume of use).use).

• A new quantitative technical evaluation.A new quantitative technical evaluation.– New evaluations can be based on New evaluations can be based on availableavailable monitoring data. monitoring data. – An evaluation may also be based on the pesticide’s An evaluation may also be based on the pesticide’s

environmental fate and use patterns, performance in the field, environmental fate and use patterns, performance in the field, available prospective monitoring studies, peer-reviewed available prospective monitoring studies, peer-reviewed scientific literature, or monitoring results and experience from scientific literature, or monitoring results and experience from other States or Tribes with comparable conditions. other States or Tribes with comparable conditions.

Measure #1Measure #1Measure #1Measure #1

• Measure #1 is aimed at quantifying the progress of evaluating pesticides of interest.

• Metric: # of pesticides of interest evaluated X 100 # of pesticides of interest

• Goal: Over time, evaluate 100% of the pesticides of interest.

• Measure #1 is aimed at quantifying the progress of evaluating pesticides of interest.

• Metric: # of pesticides of interest evaluated X 100 # of pesticides of interest

• Goal: Over time, evaluate 100% of the pesticides of interest.

ManageManage

• AA pesticide of concern pesticide of concern is actively is actively “managed” when activities are carried “managed” when activities are carried out that are intended to prevent or out that are intended to prevent or reduce contamination so the active reduce contamination so the active ingredient will not reach the water ingredient will not reach the water quality standard or other reference quality standard or other reference point, or is brought below the reference point, or is brought below the reference point. point.

• AA pesticide of concern pesticide of concern is actively is actively “managed” when activities are carried “managed” when activities are carried out that are intended to prevent or out that are intended to prevent or reduce contamination so the active reduce contamination so the active ingredient will not reach the water ingredient will not reach the water quality standard or other reference quality standard or other reference point, or is brought below the reference point, or is brought below the reference point. point.

Examples of ManagementExamples of Management• Applicator or user education, hands-on training, or public Applicator or user education, hands-on training, or public

outreach on practices can minimize exposure. outreach on practices can minimize exposure. • Water quality assessment to identify vulnerable water Water quality assessment to identify vulnerable water

resources. resources. • Promotion and adoption of voluntary BMPs judged to prevent Promotion and adoption of voluntary BMPs judged to prevent

or reduce contamination by a particular pesticide e.g., riparian or reduce contamination by a particular pesticide e.g., riparian buffer zones, filter strips, no-till cultivation. buffer zones, filter strips, no-till cultivation.

• Management control decisions based on spatially and Management control decisions based on spatially and temporally focused surveillance monitoring.temporally focused surveillance monitoring.

• Targeted inspections and enforcement of existing water Targeted inspections and enforcement of existing water quality-related label restrictions and cancellation notices. quality-related label restrictions and cancellation notices.

• Designation as State or Tribal “Restricted Use” due to water Designation as State or Tribal “Restricted Use” due to water quality concerns. quality concerns.

• Imposition of other use or label restrictions designed to Imposition of other use or label restrictions designed to reduce contamination of a pesticide. reduce contamination of a pesticide.

• Denial of State registration due to water quality concerns. Denial of State registration due to water quality concerns. • Activities specific to assessing and addressing CWA § 303(d) Activities specific to assessing and addressing CWA § 303(d)

“impaired waters.”“impaired waters.”

• Applicator or user education, hands-on training, or public Applicator or user education, hands-on training, or public outreach on practices can minimize exposure. outreach on practices can minimize exposure.

• Water quality assessment to identify vulnerable water Water quality assessment to identify vulnerable water resources. resources.

• Promotion and adoption of voluntary BMPs judged to prevent Promotion and adoption of voluntary BMPs judged to prevent or reduce contamination by a particular pesticide e.g., riparian or reduce contamination by a particular pesticide e.g., riparian buffer zones, filter strips, no-till cultivation. buffer zones, filter strips, no-till cultivation.

• Management control decisions based on spatially and Management control decisions based on spatially and temporally focused surveillance monitoring.temporally focused surveillance monitoring.

• Targeted inspections and enforcement of existing water Targeted inspections and enforcement of existing water quality-related label restrictions and cancellation notices. quality-related label restrictions and cancellation notices.

• Designation as State or Tribal “Restricted Use” due to water Designation as State or Tribal “Restricted Use” due to water quality concerns. quality concerns.

• Imposition of other use or label restrictions designed to Imposition of other use or label restrictions designed to reduce contamination of a pesticide. reduce contamination of a pesticide.

• Denial of State registration due to water quality concerns. Denial of State registration due to water quality concerns. • Activities specific to assessing and addressing CWA § 303(d) Activities specific to assessing and addressing CWA § 303(d)

“impaired waters.”“impaired waters.”

Measure #2Measure #2• Measure #2 is aimed at quantifying State Measure #2 is aimed at quantifying State

and Tribal efforts to manage pesticides that and Tribal efforts to manage pesticides that have been identified as posing a risk of have been identified as posing a risk of significant contamination.significant contamination.

• Metric:Metric: # pesticides of concern managed# pesticides of concern managed x 100 x 100

# pesticides of concern identified# pesticides of concern identified

• Goal:Goal: Over time, manage 100% of Over time, manage 100% of pesticides of concernpesticides of concern. .

• Measure #2 is aimed at quantifying State Measure #2 is aimed at quantifying State and Tribal efforts to manage pesticides that and Tribal efforts to manage pesticides that have been identified as posing a risk of have been identified as posing a risk of significant contamination.significant contamination.

• Metric:Metric: # pesticides of concern managed# pesticides of concern managed x 100 x 100

# pesticides of concern identified# pesticides of concern identified

• Goal:Goal: Over time, manage 100% of Over time, manage 100% of pesticides of concernpesticides of concern. .

Demonstrated ProgressDemonstrated Progress

• Management efforts show that concentrations in water are being held at acceptable levels or are being reduced toward acceptable levels (i.e., below a reference point), or certified widespread adoption of control measures.

• Management efforts show that concentrations in water are being held at acceptable levels or are being reduced toward acceptable levels (i.e., below a reference point), or certified widespread adoption of control measures.

What Demonstrates Progress?What Demonstrates Progress?

• Targeted monitoring of water samples from Targeted monitoring of water samples from vulnerable use areas that determines that mitigation vulnerable use areas that determines that mitigation measures are preventing residue levels from measures are preventing residue levels from approaching or exceeded a reference point.approaching or exceeded a reference point.

• Downward trends in concentration levels established Downward trends in concentration levels established by monitoring data in geographic areas where the by monitoring data in geographic areas where the pesticide of concern is being used (data from USGS, pesticide of concern is being used (data from USGS, registrant, USDA, or other sources).registrant, USDA, or other sources).

• The results of targeted surveys or inspections that The results of targeted surveys or inspections that document the wide adoption of voluntary or document the wide adoption of voluntary or regulatory measures which have been proven via regulatory measures which have been proven via research to protect water quality.research to protect water quality.

• Targeted monitoring of water samples from Targeted monitoring of water samples from vulnerable use areas that determines that mitigation vulnerable use areas that determines that mitigation measures are preventing residue levels from measures are preventing residue levels from approaching or exceeded a reference point.approaching or exceeded a reference point.

• Downward trends in concentration levels established Downward trends in concentration levels established by monitoring data in geographic areas where the by monitoring data in geographic areas where the pesticide of concern is being used (data from USGS, pesticide of concern is being used (data from USGS, registrant, USDA, or other sources).registrant, USDA, or other sources).

• The results of targeted surveys or inspections that The results of targeted surveys or inspections that document the wide adoption of voluntary or document the wide adoption of voluntary or regulatory measures which have been proven via regulatory measures which have been proven via research to protect water quality.research to protect water quality.

Measure #3Measure #3• The third measure is aimed at quantifying the number The third measure is aimed at quantifying the number

of pesticides for which some form of management has of pesticides for which some form of management has demonstrated progressdemonstrated progress toward keeping (or returning) toward keeping (or returning) pesticide concentrations in water to below a reference pesticide concentrations in water to below a reference point.point.

• Metric:Metric:# pesticides of concern managed with # pesticides of concern managed with

demonstrated progress toward reduction x 100demonstrated progress toward reduction x 100 or maintenance of concentrations below or maintenance of concentrations below the Reference Point .the Reference Point . # pesticides of concern managed# pesticides of concern managed

• The third measure is aimed at quantifying the number The third measure is aimed at quantifying the number of pesticides for which some form of management has of pesticides for which some form of management has demonstrated progressdemonstrated progress toward keeping (or returning) toward keeping (or returning) pesticide concentrations in water to below a reference pesticide concentrations in water to below a reference point.point.

• Metric:Metric:# pesticides of concern managed with # pesticides of concern managed with

demonstrated progress toward reduction x 100demonstrated progress toward reduction x 100 or maintenance of concentrations below or maintenance of concentrations below the Reference Point .the Reference Point . # pesticides of concern managed# pesticides of concern managed

Pesticide of Interest (POI)

Metric 1: Evaluate

POC

Metric 2: Manage

Managed POC

Metric 3: Measure Progress

POC below level of concern

Not a POC Re-evaluate

Re-evaluations not to beincluded in first metric

POI list = 57 from 2008-2010 EPA Grant Guidance+ 303(d) listed (but only for currently registered a.i.s)+ others added by states

Concentrations Approaching/Exceeding

Reference Point or State/Tribe Action-Trigger

NoYes

Information from ongoing monitoring;

changes in use patterns; or state/tribal program guidance,

rule or statute that triggers periodic re-evaluation

Information used to re-evaluatePOIs and POCs may come fromfrom ongoing monitoring,use-tracking or other sources

Additional Pesticides Additional Pesticides WQ MeasuresWQ Measures

Additional Pesticides Additional Pesticides WQ MeasuresWQ Measures

Support in Reducing Impairments Due to Pesticides

Support in Reducing Impairments Due to Pesticides

• EPA’s Office of Water (OW) strategic target:EPA’s Office of Water (OW) strategic target:– By 2012, remove at least 5,200 of the specific causes of water By 2012, remove at least 5,200 of the specific causes of water

body impairment identified by States in 2002. (2002 Baseline: body impairment identified by States in 2002. (2002 Baseline: estimate of 64,250 specific causes of water body impairment estimate of 64,250 specific causes of water body impairment identified by States and Tribes.)identified by States and Tribes.)

• SLAs can help by consulting and coordinating with State SLAs can help by consulting and coordinating with State water agencies, where possible, to help validate listing water agencies, where possible, to help validate listing decisions due to specific, currently registered pesticides decisions due to specific, currently registered pesticides and/or by managing specific pesticides to mitigate the and/or by managing specific pesticides to mitigate the cause of impairment. cause of impairment.

• Pesticide evaluations, and any supporting data, of Pesticide evaluations, and any supporting data, of specific pesticide inputs to §303(d)-listed water bodies, specific pesticide inputs to §303(d)-listed water bodies, which do not appear to rise to the level of a pesticide of which do not appear to rise to the level of a pesticide of concern, should be shared with the State water agency concern, should be shared with the State water agency with responsibility for the CWA §303(d) list.with responsibility for the CWA §303(d) list.

• EPA’s Office of Water (OW) strategic target:EPA’s Office of Water (OW) strategic target:– By 2012, remove at least 5,200 of the specific causes of water By 2012, remove at least 5,200 of the specific causes of water

body impairment identified by States in 2002. (2002 Baseline: body impairment identified by States in 2002. (2002 Baseline: estimate of 64,250 specific causes of water body impairment estimate of 64,250 specific causes of water body impairment identified by States and Tribes.)identified by States and Tribes.)

• SLAs can help by consulting and coordinating with State SLAs can help by consulting and coordinating with State water agencies, where possible, to help validate listing water agencies, where possible, to help validate listing decisions due to specific, currently registered pesticides decisions due to specific, currently registered pesticides and/or by managing specific pesticides to mitigate the and/or by managing specific pesticides to mitigate the cause of impairment. cause of impairment.

• Pesticide evaluations, and any supporting data, of Pesticide evaluations, and any supporting data, of specific pesticide inputs to §303(d)-listed water bodies, specific pesticide inputs to §303(d)-listed water bodies, which do not appear to rise to the level of a pesticide of which do not appear to rise to the level of a pesticide of concern, should be shared with the State water agency concern, should be shared with the State water agency with responsibility for the CWA §303(d) list.with responsibility for the CWA §303(d) list.

OPP Mission Area Measure Protect the Environment

OPP Mission Area Measure Protect the Environment

• The specific pesticide water quality The specific pesticide water quality strategicstrategic targets from the Agency’s 2006-2011 Strategic targets from the Agency’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, Sub-Objective 4.1.4 “Protect the Plan, Sub-Objective 4.1.4 “Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, “ are:Environment from Pesticide Risk, “ are:– By 2011, reduce the percentage of urban watersheds By 2011, reduce the percentage of urban watersheds

that exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic that exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion). (diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion).

– By 2011, reduce the number of agricultural By 2011, reduce the number of agricultural watersheds, that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks watersheds, that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides (azinphos-methyl and for two key pesticides (azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos.).chlorpyrifos.).

• The specific pesticide water quality The specific pesticide water quality strategicstrategic targets from the Agency’s 2006-2011 Strategic targets from the Agency’s 2006-2011 Strategic Plan, Sub-Objective 4.1.4 “Protect the Plan, Sub-Objective 4.1.4 “Protect the Environment from Pesticide Risk, “ are:Environment from Pesticide Risk, “ are:– By 2011, reduce the percentage of urban watersheds By 2011, reduce the percentage of urban watersheds

that exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic that exceed the National Pesticide Program aquatic life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern life benchmarks for three key pesticides of concern (diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion). (diazinon, chlorpyrifos, malathion).

– By 2011, reduce the number of agricultural By 2011, reduce the number of agricultural watersheds, that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks watersheds, that exceed EPA aquatic life benchmarks for two key pesticides (azinphos-methyl and for two key pesticides (azinphos-methyl and chlorpyrifos.).chlorpyrifos.).

End-Of-Year ReportingEnd-Of-Year Reporting• The Grant Guidance also includes The Grant Guidance also includes

streamlined End of Year (EOY) reporting streamlined End of Year (EOY) reporting forms to:forms to:1.1. allow EPA verify that States are meeting the allow EPA verify that States are meeting the

core requirements of the grant guidance; core requirements of the grant guidance; 2.2. ensure EPA is receiving the data necessary ensure EPA is receiving the data necessary

to support the performance measures of the to support the performance measures of the national pesticide program.national pesticide program.

3.3. facilitate uniform reporting and easier facilitate uniform reporting and easier compilation of the reported information compilation of the reported information without creating an additional burden in without creating an additional burden in terms of time and resources. terms of time and resources.

• The Grant Guidance also includes The Grant Guidance also includes streamlined End of Year (EOY) reporting streamlined End of Year (EOY) reporting forms to:forms to:1.1. allow EPA verify that States are meeting the allow EPA verify that States are meeting the

core requirements of the grant guidance; core requirements of the grant guidance; 2.2. ensure EPA is receiving the data necessary ensure EPA is receiving the data necessary

to support the performance measures of the to support the performance measures of the national pesticide program.national pesticide program.

3.3. facilitate uniform reporting and easier facilitate uniform reporting and easier compilation of the reported information compilation of the reported information without creating an additional burden in without creating an additional burden in terms of time and resources. terms of time and resources.

On-Line ReportingOn-Line Reporting

• In cooperation with Regions, States, and In cooperation with Regions, States, and Tribes, OPP is developing an on-line EOY Tribes, OPP is developing an on-line EOY reporting tool that will provide this data in reporting tool that will provide this data in an accessible database that will make it an accessible database that will make it easier for pesticide lead agencies to easier for pesticide lead agencies to review information from across the review information from across the country e.g., citations on new studies, country e.g., citations on new studies, regulatory standards in use, pesticides of regulatory standards in use, pesticides of concern, successful BMPs etc.concern, successful BMPs etc.

• In cooperation with Regions, States, and In cooperation with Regions, States, and Tribes, OPP is developing an on-line EOY Tribes, OPP is developing an on-line EOY reporting tool that will provide this data in reporting tool that will provide this data in an accessible database that will make it an accessible database that will make it easier for pesticide lead agencies to easier for pesticide lead agencies to review information from across the review information from across the country e.g., citations on new studies, country e.g., citations on new studies, regulatory standards in use, pesticides of regulatory standards in use, pesticides of concern, successful BMPs etc.concern, successful BMPs etc.

MonitoringMonitoringMonitoringMonitoring

• Monitoring is not required, but is encouraged to assess the potential for contamination, the extent/magnitude of contamination, and/or demonstrate success of management actions.

• Monitoring activities should be coordinated with State water quality agencies.

• Monitoring is not required, but is encouraged to assess the potential for contamination, the extent/magnitude of contamination, and/or demonstrate success of management actions.

• Monitoring activities should be coordinated with State water quality agencies.

Reporting: MonitoringReporting: Monitoring

• If cooperative agreement funds are used for water quality monitoring, a report is required to be submitted to EPA

• EPA encourages States and Tribes to submit any monitoring data) to EPA regardless of the funding source.

• EPA access to this information will further inform and influence its risk assessment and risk management process, and may lead to better registration decisions to protect human health and the environment.

• This data will also help the national program refine its measures of success for field program activities.

• Any monitoring results need to be provided in electronic format (easy to import into a spreadsheet or database).

• If cooperative agreement funds are used for water quality monitoring, a report is required to be submitted to EPA

• EPA encourages States and Tribes to submit any monitoring data) to EPA regardless of the funding source.

• EPA access to this information will further inform and influence its risk assessment and risk management process, and may lead to better registration decisions to protect human health and the environment.

• This data will also help the national program refine its measures of success for field program activities.

• Any monitoring results need to be provided in electronic format (easy to import into a spreadsheet or database).

Core ActivitiesCore Activities

• Streamlined Guidance will require as “core program activities” only those activities that are essential to baseline operation of the WQ program, achieving environmental results, and are needed to feed the new performance measures.– At a minimum, states/tribes must commit to

accomplishing the “core activities”.

• Streamlined Guidance will require as “core program activities” only those activities that are essential to baseline operation of the WQ program, achieving environmental results, and are needed to feed the new performance measures.– At a minimum, states/tribes must commit to

accomplishing the “core activities”.

Supplemental ActivitiesSupplemental Activities

• The guidance also includes "supplemental activities” which States/tribes should strongly consider.– “Supplemental activities” are optional and not

considered essential to the baseline operation of programs, however, EPA feels these activities will enhance program effectiveness.

• EPA separated these supplemental activities from the core activities in order to give the state/tribes more flexibility in recognition of budget constraints.