Ten Elements of The Massachusetts - Mass.gov

A Water Quality Monitoring Strategy for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Prepared by: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Division of Watershed Management
Watershed Planning Program
Worcester, Massachusetts
[pic]
CN: 203.0 Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Stephen R. Pritchard, Secretary
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
Robert W. Golledge Jr., Commissioner
Bureau of Resource Protection
Glenn Haas, Acting Assistant Commissioner September 2005 (This page intentionally left blank) Executive Summary Introduction The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's (MassDEP) Bureau
of Resource Protection (BRP) has developed this document "A Water Quality
Monitoring Strategy for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts " (the Monitoring
Strategy) in accordance with applicable elements and schedules contained in
the EPA and State Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA). Major components
of the proposed monitoring program fulfill requirements of the Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act, and are
consistent with design and implementation approaches suggested by the EPA
in a guidance document entitled Elements of a State Water Monitoring and
Assessment Program (March, 2003). The EPA acknowledges that the current
status of state monitoring programs varies with respect to satisfactorily
meeting all of the program elements called for in the guidance, and
personnel and other resources are a significant constraint for all states.
Therefore, EPA has provided these elements as goals to be achieved over the
next ten years and the Monitoring Strategy reflects this time frame. Major Monitoring Goals and Design Elements The ultimate goal of the MassDEP is to implement a comprehensive monitoring
program that serves all water quality management needs, and addresses
streams, rivers, lakes, reservoirs, wetlands, estuaries, coastal areas, and
groundwater. This document describes the collection and use of monitoring
data from all of these water body types, with exception of wetlands.
Before wetlands monitoring programs are established, criteria with which to
assess designated use impairment and other impacts must be developed. The
vehicle by which the criteria will most likely be developed is the work of
the New England Biological Assessment of Wetlands Work Group (NEWBAWWG).
In concert with NEWBAWWG efforts, in the fall of 2005, the EPA plans to
begin meeting with wetlands staff in the New England states to draft
wetlands monitoring and assessment strategies. Massachusetts will continue
our participation in this ongoing process, with the intent to meet the
following deadlines imposed by NEWBAWWG: draft strategies completed by
September 30, 2006, and final strategies completed by September 30, 2007.
One element of the overall Statewide monitoring strategy is to add a
wetlands ecologist to the MassDEP's Division of Watershed Management (DWM)
staff to assist with the implementation of the wetlands monitoring
strategy. The proposed monitoring elements incorporate a number of
different design components such as the assessment of designated uses,
fixed-station networks, intensive and screening-level targeted monitoring,
and randomization. Furthermore, these designs encompass rotating watershed
monitoring cycles, continuous year-round sampling, and non-rotating
priority-driven schedules. Major goals of the Monitoring Strategy and the corresponding monitoring
program elements designed to meet those goals are presented in the table
below:
|Monitoring Goals |Monitoring Design Elements |
|1) Determine whether waters are |Five-year Rotating Watershed |
|meeting Water Quality Standards |Monitoring for Use Assessments |
| |(existing) |
| |Targeted monitoring to assess |
| |bioaccumulation (existing) |
| |Targeted monitoring of lakes |
| |(proposed) |
| |Probabilistic Sampling Network |
| |(proposed) |
|2) Determine water quality trends |Continuous fixed-site monitoring |
|and contaminant loadings |network (proposed) |
|3) Implement pollution control |Targeted monitoring to support TMDL |
|strategies (TMDLs and Clean-up |Program (existing and proposed) |
|Plans) |Targeted monitoring of lakes |
| |(existing) |
| |Targeted monitoring to locate |
| |sources of bacterial contamination |
| |(pilot) |
|4) Identify emerging issues and |Targeted monitoring for criteria |
|develop policies and standards |development (existing) |
|5) Measure program or project |Project-specific, targeted |
|effectiveness |monitoring |
|6) Improve the protection of public |Surface Water Assessment Program |
|health and the environment by |Probabilistic monitoring of |
|reducing the risk of drinking |groundwater |
|contaminated water | | The highest priority monitoring elements are aimed at knowing the condition
of Massachusetts' waters, finding pollution sources (as related to TMDLs),
and developing strategies for restoring impaired waters. "Knowing the
waters" is the fundamental element that triggers other monitoring programs
aimed at water quality management and provides the information needed to
develop the Integrated List of Waters. Therefore, the rotating watershed
monitoring plan and targeted monitoring to identify pollution sources and
support TMDLs and other clean-up activities receives the highest priorities
and are already being carried out to the extent that existing resources
allow. The most immediate needs, in order to more fully meet the highest
priority objectives, include two additional benthic biologists, one
additional microbiologist, two data management specialists, and six TMDL
monitoring personnel. Monitoring to detect trends and loadings was assigned the next highest
priority, and implementation is proposed within two years of the Monitoring
Strategy approval. Finally, while probabilistic monitoring designs are
useful for drawing inferences on the status of waters state-wide, they are
not as helpful for identifying site-specific problem areas and focusing
remedial actions, and consequently are given the lowest priority. For that
reason the Monitoring Strategy specifies a five-year implementation
schedule for lakes and ponds and ten years for rivers and coastal waters. There are several themes that pervade all of the monitoring elements
proposed in the Monitoring Strategy. All of the monitoring elements have
been designed to yield data and information that will result in better
management decisions, and data will be shared with other programs, both
within the MassDEP as well as in other agencies, for use in their work.
Finally, the creation of partnerships, such as the involvement of community
partners in drinking water protection and the use of data from citizen
monitoring groups and other external sources, for assessment purposes, is
promoted in the Monitoring Strategy. General Support and Infrastructure Planning Human and monetary resources will be needed to implement new monitoring
programs, and to continue existing programs. The following table provides
a summary of the total annual resources needed to implement the entire
Monitoring Strategy over a ten-year period along with the current program
shortfalls (italicized in parentheses). |RESOURCE |ANNUAL PERSONNEL |ANNUAL COST* |
| |(FTE)* | |
|Assessment and Targeted Monitoring |
|Water quality | 14.0 (10.0) |$1,190,000 ($850,000)|
|monitoring staff | | |
|Benthic biologists | 5.0 (2.0) |$425,000 ($170,000) |
|Microbiologists | 3.0 (2.0) |$255,000 ($170,000) |
|Fish biologists | 3.0 (1.0) |$255,000 ($85,000) |
|Wetlands ecologist | 1.0 (1.0) |$85,000 ($85,000) |
|Volunteer monitor | 1.0 (1.0) |$85,000 ($85,000) |
|liaison | | |
|Seasonal field staff | 3.0 |$255,000 |
|TMDL monitoring staff | 6.0 (6.0) |$510,000 ($510,000) |
|TMDL monitoring | -- |$192,360 ($192,360) |
|equipment | |** |
|Total personnel and | 36.0 (23.0) |$3,252,360 |
|cost | |($2,147,360) |
|Continuous Fixed-site Monitoring for Contaminant Load Trends |
|Monitoring staff | 2.0 (2.0) |$170,000 ($170,000) |
|Total cost | -- |$170,000 ($170,000)