This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-382 
entitled 'Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data Collection 
Efforts Needed to Support Key Decisions' which was released on June 28, 
2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office 
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a 
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and 
Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 
Representatives: 

June 2004: 

WATERSHED MANAGEMENT: 

Better Coordination of Data Collection Efforts Needed to Support Key 
Decisions: 

GAO-04-382: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-04-382, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Reliable and complete data are needed to assess watersheds—areas that 
drain into a common body of water—and allocate limited cleanup 
resources. Historically, water officials have expressed concern about 
a lack of water data. At the same time, numerous organizations collect 
a variety of water data. To address a number of issues concerning the 
water data that various organization collect, the Chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment asked GAO to determine 
(1) the key entities that collect water data, the types of data they 
collect, how they store the data, and how entities can access the data; 
and (2) the extent that water quality and water quantity data 
collection efforts are coordinated.

What GAO Found: 

At least 15 federal agencies collect a wide variety of water quality 
data. Most notably, the U.S. Geological Survey operates several large 
water quality monitoring programs across the nation. States also play 
a key role in water quality data collection to fulfill their 
responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. In addition, numerous local 
watershed groups, volunteer monitoring groups, industries, and academic 
groups collect water quality data. In contrast, collection of water 
quantity data is more centralized, with three federal agencies 
collecting the majority of data available nationwide. 

While GAO found notable exceptions, officials in almost all of the 
federal and state agencies contacted said that coordination of water 
quality data was falling short of its potential. As illustrated below, 
key barriers frequently identified as impeding better coordination of 
water quality data collection include (1) the significantly different 
purposes for which groups collect data, (2) inconsistencies in groups’ 
data collection protocols, (3) an unawareness by data collectors as to 
which entities collect what types of data, and (4) low priority for 
data coordination, as shown in a lack of support for councils that 
promote improved coordination. GAO concluded that designating a lead 
organization with sufficient authority and resources to coordinate data 
collection could help alleviate these problems and ensure that 
watershed managers have better information upon which to base critical 
decisions. 

Data collectors strongly agree that coordinating water quantity data 
collection is considerably less problematic. Reasons include the fact 
that controversial water allocation decisions require accurate and 
complete water quantity data; that some of the technologies for 
measuring water quantity allow for immediate distribution of data; that 
water quantity data parameters are generally more consistent; and that 
coordination is simplified in that relatively fewer entities collect 
these data. Collectors of water quantity data generally agreed that an 
overall shortage of data was a more serious problem than a lack of 
coordination of the data that are collected.

Most Frequently Cited Barriers to Coordinating Water Quality Data 
Collection Efforts by 15 Federal Agencies: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: GAO.

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends: 

To enhance and clearly define authority for coordinating the collection 
of water data nationwide, the Congress should consider formally 
designating a lead organization for this purpose. Among its 
responsibilities, the organization would (1) support the development 
and continued operation of regional and state monitoring councils, (2) 
coordinate the development of an Internet-based clearinghouse to convey 
what entities are collecting what types of data, and (3) coordinate 
development of clear guidance on metadata standards so that data users 
can integrate data from various sources.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-382.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at 
(202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Executive Summary: 

Purpose: 

Background: 

Results in Brief: 

Principal Findings: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Chapter 1: Introduction: 

Decision Makers Need Complete and Reliable Water Quality Data: 

Data Also Needed to Support Key Water Quantity Decisions: 

Data Needed to Support the Watershed Approach: 

Can Critical Data Shortages Be Addressed through Enhanced Coordination?

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Chapter 2: Many Organizations Collect Water Quality and Water Quantity 
Data: 

Water Quality Data Collection: 

Water Quantity Data Collection: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Chapter 3: Improved Coordination of Water Quality Data Collection Can 
Help Watershed Managers Make More Informed Decisions: 

Coordination Needed to Enable Monitoring Programs to Make Better Use of 
Available Resources: 

Efforts to Coordinate Data Collection Have Thus Far Had Limited 
Success: 

Several Key Barriers Limit Effective Coordination of Water Quality Data 
Collection: 

Coordinating Entity with Sufficient Resources and Authority Suggested 
as Potential Solution: 

Data Management Challenges Also Limit Data Availability: 

Conclusions: 

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Chapter 4: Water Quantity Data Are Limited, but Efforts to Collect 
Them Are Generally Well-Coordinated: 

Water Quantity Data Are Needed for Decisions with Important Economic, 
Environmental, and Social Implications: 

Overall Lack of Water Quantity Data Is a Key Concern: 

Efforts to Coordinate Water Quantity Data Collection Have Been 
Comparatively Successful: 

Conclusions: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Water Data Collection Activities by Federal Agency: 

Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service: 

Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service: 

Department of Agriculture's Forest Service: 

Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service: 

Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Ocean Service: 

Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Weather Service: 

Department of Defense's Army Corps of Engineers: 

Department of Energy's Bonneville Power Administration: 

Environmental Protection Agency: 

Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management: 

Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation: 

Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey: 

Department of the Interior's National Park Service: 

Tennessee Valley Authority: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Army Corps of Engineers: 

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Agricultural Research Service: 

Table 2: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Agricultural Research Service: 

Table 3: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by CSREES: 

Table 4: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by CSREES: 

Table 5: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Forest 
Service: 

Table 6: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Forest 
Service: 

Table 7: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Table 8: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Table 9: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by NOAA's 
National Marine Fisheries Service: 

Table 10: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by NOAA's 
National Marine Fisheries Service: 

Table 11: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by NOAA's 
National Ocean Service: 

Table 12: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by NOAA's 
National Ocean Service: 

Table 13: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by NOAA's 
National Weather Service: 

Table 14: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Army 
Corps of Engineers: 

Table 15: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Army Corps of Engineers: 

Table 16: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by BPA: 

Table 17: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by BPA: 

Table 18: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by EPA: 

Table 19: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Bureau 
of Land Management: 

Table 20: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Bureau of Land Management: 

Table 21: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Bureau 
of Reclamation: 

Table 22: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Bureau of Reclamation: 

Table 23: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service: 

Table 24: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Table 25: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the U.S. 
Geological Survey: 

Table 26: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
U.S. Geological Survey: 

Table 27: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
National Park Service: 

Table 28: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
National Park Service: 

Table 29: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by TVA: 

Table 30: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by TVA: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Process of Water Quality Management: 

Figure 2: Representation of a Typical Watershed: 

Figure 3: Monitoring Types and the Parameters They Measure: 

Figure 4: STORET's Monitoring Coverage: 

Figure 5: The U.S. Geological Survey's Nationwide Streamgage Network: 

Figure 6: SNOTEL's Site Locations: 

Figure 7: Automated Surface Observer System Sites as of February 2004: 

Figure 8: Most Frequently Cited Barriers to Coordinating Water Quality 
Data Collection Efforts by 15 Federal Agencies: 

Figure 9: Federal Agencies Reporting on the Amount of Data That They 
Have to Make Well-Supported Watershed Management Decisions: 

Figure 10: Cumulative Number of U.S. Geological Survey Gages with 30 or 
More Years of Record Discontinued, 1933-2003: 

Figure 11: Satellite Used to Relay Collected Water Quantity Data to 
Data Users (Lawson, Colorado): 

Figure 12: Increase in the Use of Telemetry Systems at U.S. Geological 
Survey Streamgage Stations: 

Figure 13: Meteor Burst Communication Technology Used to Relay Radio 
Signals from Remote Collection Locations to a Master Station: 

Abbreviations: 

ASIWPCA: Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 
Administrators: 

BPA: Bonneville Power Administration: 

CSREES: Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

NOAA: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

NWIS: National Water Information System: 

SNOTEL: Snowpack Telemetry: 

STORET: Storage and Retrieval System: 

TMDL: total maximum daily load: 

TVA: Tennessee Valley Authority: 

Letter June 7, 2004: 

The Honorable John J. Duncan, Jr.: 
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment: 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

In response to your request, this report discusses (1) the key entities 
that collect water quality and water quantity data, including the types 
of data they collect, how they store their data, and how entities can 
access the data; and (2) the extent to which these entities coordinate 
their water quality and water quantity data collection efforts. We 
include a matter for congressional consideration that the Congress 
considers formally designating a lead organization (either an existing 
water data coordinating entity or one of the federal agencies with 
broad water data collection responsibilities) to enhance and clearly 
define authority for coordinating the collection of water data 
nationwide. Among its responsibilities, the organization would (1) 
support the development and continued operation of regional and state 
monitoring councils, (2) coordinate the development of an Internet-
based clearinghouse to convey what entities are collecting what types 
of data, and (3) coordinate development of clear guidance on metadata 
standards so that data users can integrate data from various sources.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. We will then send copies to others who are 
interested and make copies available to others who request them. In 
addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site 
at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

Please call me or Steve Elstein on (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff 
have any questions. Key contributors to this report are listed in 
appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

John B. Stephenson: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section]

Executive Summary: 

Purpose: 

The availability of timely, reliable, and complete data about the 
nation's waters has significant environmental and financial 
implications. Water quality data, for example, are critical for 
determining which waters do not meet states' standards and must, 
therefore, be targeted for potentially expensive cleanup. Similarly, 
reliable and comprehensive data on the quantity of the nation's water 
resources are needed to support important--and increasingly 
contentious--decisions about how to allocate limited water resources 
among states and among a variety of competing uses. GAO and other 
organizations, however, have documented shortages in the data available 
to decision makers. Paradoxically, a large number of public and private 
organizations collect this kind of information--raising questions as to 
whether more efficient coordination of these data collection efforts 
can result in more data being made available for informed decision 
making.

The Chairman, the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked GAO to 
address a number of issues concerning the water data that various 
organizations collect and the degree to which their data collection 
efforts are coordinated with each other. Specifically, GAO was asked to 
determine (1) the key entities that collect water quality and water 
quantity data, including the types of data they collect, how they store 
their data, and how entities can access the data; and (2) the extent to 
which these entities coordinate their water quality and water quantity 
data collection efforts.

To respond to the Chairman's request, GAO surveyed key federal agencies 
that collect water quality and water quantity data. GAO also met with 
and obtained information from federal and state agencies, monitoring 
councils, localities, and other interested groups in Colorado, 
Mississippi, and Virginia. These states were chosen on the basis of the 
diversity of entities involved in the collection of data in these 
states, geographic diversity, and their experiences in coordinating 
water data. GAO also met with and obtained information from key 
national organizations interested in water monitoring and coordination 
of monitoring efforts. (See ch. 1 for a detailed description of GAO's 
scope and methodology.) 

Background: 

Under the Clean Water Act, states have primary responsibility for 
implementing programs to manage water quality. This responsibility 
includes establishing water quality standards, monitoring and assessing 
the quality of their waters, and developing and implementing cleanup 
plans for waters that do not meet standards (impaired waters). Given 
the environmental consequences and financial expense at stake in 
determining which waters are targeted for cleanup, it is particularly 
important that such water quality determinations and cleanup strategies 
be supported by complete and accurate data. In arriving at these 
determinations, state agencies responsible for water quality programs 
can use data collected by other state agencies, federal agencies, 
volunteer groups, and others. While states' collection of water quality 
data is critical to meeting the objectives of the Clean Water Act, 
other organizations also rely heavily on water quality data for a 
variety of purposes. The Army Corps of Engineers, for example, uses 
water quality data to, among other purposes, regulate water projects 
for flood control, navigation, and hydropower and process permits under 
Section 404 of the Act for the discharge of dredge and fill materials 
into navigable waters.

A number of entities also regulate the quantity of available water 
supplies to meet a variety of needs. Among other things, water quantity 
data are needed to help make water quality determinations. The quantity 
of water flowing through a river, for example, affects the 
concentrations of regulated pollutants in that river. The importance of 
water quantity data, however, extends beyond their impacts on pollutant 
concentrations. Federal, state, local, tribal, and private 
organizations also rely heavily on water quantity data to fulfill 
critical responsibilities in ensuring an adequate water supply to meet 
a variety of competing needs. States govern the allocation and use of 
water in accordance with their own laws, and enter into interstate 
compacts with neighboring states regarding water supplies that cross 
their common borders. To fulfill these responsibilities, states need 
data on how much water is available for allocation (e.g., streamflow 
and snowpack data) and data on how much water is being consumed. For 
their part, federal agencies support states in their efforts to govern 
the allocation and use of water and also use these data themselves in 
managing resources on federal lands.

In making decisions regarding the nation's waters, many advocate the 
use of the watershed approach, which seeks to manage watersheds--areas 
that drain to a common waterway--rather than individual bodies of water 
that may be affected by similar pollutants or natural conditions. The 
key data available to support critical watershed management decisions, 
however, are often incomplete and unreliable. According to the best 
available data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), for 
example, only about one-fifth of the nation's total rivers and stream 
miles have been assessed to: 

determine their compliance with states' water quality 
standards.[Footnote 1] Of the river and stream miles that were 
assessed, 39 percent were found to be out of compliance with states' 
standards. More generally, GAO reported in March 2000[Footnote 2] that 
few of the 50 states had a majority of the data they needed to make key 
water quality determinations, such as which of their waters do not meet 
state standards and what are their most significant sources of 
pollution.

Results in Brief: 

GAO identified 16 key federal agencies that collect water 
data.[Footnote 3] Fifteen of those agencies are collectors of a wide 
variety of water quality data. Among the most notable is the U.S. 
Geological Survey, which operates several large water quality 
monitoring programs across the nation. States also play a key role in 
water quality data collection to fulfill their responsibilities under 
the Clean Water Act. In addition, hundreds of other organizations, 
including local watershed groups, volunteer monitoring groups, 
industries, and members of academia collect water quality data. In 
contrast to the large number of entities collecting water quality data, 
collection of water quantity data is considerably more centralized. 
Several key federal agencies--most notably Interior's U.S. Geological 
Survey, Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National 
Weather Service--collect a majority of the water quantity data 
available nationwide. The Army Corps of Engineers also collects water 
quantity data and funds the collection of considerable amounts of 
additional data.

While GAO found instances where good coordination has decreased water 
quality information gaps and duplication of effort, for the most part, 
entities collecting water quality data are either not coordinating 
their efforts or have experienced difficulty in doing so. These 
entities have faced several key barriers: (1) data collected for 
different organizations are geared toward serving different purposes, 
(2) inconsistent methods ("protocols") are used to obtain samples and 
interpret their results, (3) data collectors are unaware as to which 
entities collect what types of data, and (4) low priority for data 
coordination, as shown in a lack of support for national and state 
councils that have been established to improve coordination. These 
difficulties have not only perpetuated gaps and duplication of effort 
but have also complicated efforts to synthesize data from different 
collection efforts in a way that would provide decision makers with a 
more comprehensive picture of an area's water quality. GAO is 
recommending that the Congress consider formally designating a lead 
organization, such as a council or an agency, with sufficient authority 
and resources to effectively coordinate data collection.

The federal and state officials GAO interviewed generally agreed that 
efforts to coordinate the collection of water quantity data have been 
comparatively successful, often reporting that their biggest concern is 
that the overall amount of water quantity data is in short supply. 
These officials cited several reasons for the relative success of water 
quantity coordination efforts: (1) data collection is more centralized 
among the smaller number of entities collecting data, (2) water 
managers have a more critical need for accurate and complete data to 
support critical and time-sensitive decisions, (3) some of the 
technologies for measuring water quantity allow for immediate 
distribution of data, and (4) the measures of water quantity are fewer 
in number and are taken by data collectors in a more consistent manner.

Principal Findings: 

Many Organizations Collect Water Quality and Water Quantity Data: 

Fifteen of the sixteen federal agencies GAO examined said that they 
collect at least some water quality data on a wide variety of data 
parameters. A few agencies, such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the 
Army Corps of Engineers, collect water quality data across the nation. 
Most others, however, collect or fund the collection of project-
specific data that are limited in geographic scope and frequency. For 
example, the Agricultural Research Service and the Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service collect or fund the 
collection of data on a project-specific level primarily for research. 
State water quality agencies play a key role in collecting data needed 
to meet their responsibilities under the Clean Water Act. However, they 
vary considerably in the comprehensiveness of their monitoring 
programs; the types of data they collect to ascertain the health of 
their waters (i.e., whether their monitoring programs emphasize the 
gathering of physical, chemical, or biological data); and the extent to 
which their monitoring strategies target specific waters of interest or 
employ statistical sampling methods that allow inferences to be drawn 
about a larger number of waters. In addition, local groups, volunteer 
monitors, academic institutions, and private companies collect water 
quality data for a variety of projects.

Water quality data are stored in a variety of ways, and their 
accessibility to potential users depends largely on how they are 
stored. Specifically, extensive water quality data are stored in either 
of two large, Internet-accessible federal databases: EPA's Storage and 
Retrieval System (STORET) and the U.S. Geological Survey's National 
Water Information System (NWIS). Thirty-one states, for example, store 
at least some of their water quality data in the STORET database. A 
considerable amount of data, however, is not maintained in these 
centralized databases. According to the Association of State and 
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA),[Footnote 
4] some states store their data in state databases, and a small number 
of agencies still use paper files as their predominant means for 
storing data. In addition, considerable water quality data have been 
generated by federal agencies and other organizations on specific 
projects, though these data are usually stored in internal databases 
that are only accessible by request. Officials associated with some of 
these projects told GAO that, unless potential users of the data were 
aware of these projects, they are not likely to request the data.

Fifteen of the sixteen federal agencies GAO examined reported that they 
collect at least some water quantity data. Most water quantity data 
available nationwide, however, are collected by a few primary agencies. 
The U.S. Geological Survey is the primary collector of 
streamgage[Footnote 5] and water use data, which are stored and 
accessed through NWIS. The Department of Agriculture's Natural 
Resources Conservation Service collects snowpack data through its Snow 
Survey and Water Supply Forecasting Program in 12 western states and 
Alaska. It stores these data in an extensive, automated system, and 
makes them available to the public through the Internet. In addition, 
the National Weather Service collects precipitation data at most major 
airports and from volunteers across the nation. It stores these data in 
the National Climatic Data Center of NOAA's National Environmental 
Satellite, Data, and Information Service and makes them available to 
the public via the Internet. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers 
funds the collection of considerable water quantity data. Other federal 
agencies reported that they generally collect project-specific water 
quantity data that they store in internal databases, which they make 
available in a variety of ways depending on the agency. Additionally, 
some states collect water quantity data, such as streamgage data and 
precipitation data, often to fill in gaps in the data collected by 
federal agencies.

Improved Coordination of Water Quality Data Collection Can Help 
Watershed Managers Make More Informed Decisions: 

Officials in almost all of the 15 federal agencies GAO contacted that 
collect water quality data indicated that coordination was either not 
taking place or falling short of its potential, and that enhanced 
coordination could provide data users with better data about water 
quality conditions and a more complete picture of the health of 
watersheds. For example, Forest Service officials explained that 
enhanced coordination between the Forest Service and the states would 
help states obtain the data needed to identify and address waters that 
do not meet water quality standards. State environmental agencies we 
contacted generally agreed, acknowledging in particular that improved 
coordination among state monitoring efforts, and between states and 
other data-gathering entities, could be significantly improved.

Given the strong consensus on the need for better coordination, GAO 
asked federal and state officials, representatives of local governments 
and watershed groups, and others to explain the barriers that have 
impeded their efforts to coordinate water quality data collection. 
Among the most frequently cited problems were the following: 

* Organizations often collect data to achieve very specific missions, 
which sometimes makes officials unwilling or unable to modify their 
data collection approaches to make the results more widely usable, and 
which may even make officials reluctant to share data they have on 
hand.

* Data collectors often use different data collection procedures, 
resulting in incomparable definitions to measure the same or similar 
pollutants, different detection limits, inconsistent levels of quality 
assurance, and inconsistent collection of metadata.[Footnote 6]

* Many collectors do not know who is collecting which types of data 
because they do not have a centralized clearinghouse on water quality 
data.

In addition, water quality officials also cited complications in the 
way data are managed as a factor that makes it difficult to use data 
from various sources. Federal and state agency officials explained that 
data are often stored using different formats in different databases, 
making integrating data extremely difficult.

As some of the officials noted, there are coordinating bodies at the 
national and state levels that address coordination issues. Among the 
most notable of these is the National Water Quality Monitoring Council. 
The council is co-chaired by EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey and 
includes representatives from federal, interstate, state, tribal, 
local, and municipal governments, watershed groups, volunteer 
monitoring groups, and the private sector. The officials noted, 
however, that the effectiveness of the council, and of many similar 
organizations at the state level, has been inhibited by a lack of 
authority to make key decisions, a shortage of funding to undertake key 
coordinating activities, and low priority attention from data 
collecting organizations.

Some have cited these difficulties in calling for a clearly designated 
water data coordinating body with both sufficient resources and 
authority. They differ, however, on the precise form this body would 
take. When asked what type of entity might best fulfill this role, an 
official with the U.S. Geological Survey said that, with clearly 
defined authority, the National Water Quality Monitoring Council could 
make greater progress in improving both data coordination and the 
availability of water information for decision making. On the other 
hand, officials from the Army Corps of Engineers suggested that it may 
be preferable to designate a lead federal agency to assume this role. 
The officials suggested that an appropriate lead agency would be one 
that already carries out or supports broad water data responsibilities. 
GAO concluded that it may be appropriate for the Congress to make the 
judgment call as to whether such a body should be designated and which 
body should fulfill this role.

Water Quantity Data Are Limited, but Efforts to Collect Them Are 
Generally Well-Coordinated: 

Numerous federal and state officials cited an overall lack of water 
quantity data as a major concern. Nonetheless, broad consensus emerged 
among the federal and state officials GAO interviewed that where water 
quantity data are being collected, coordination has been comparatively 
successful. The officials cited the following key factors that account 
for this greater success: 

* Water quantity data collection is centralized among a smaller number 
of entities, which allows users and collectors to more easily identify 
data sources. Additionally, the entities have clearly defined roles in 
data collection that collectively serve a common purpose of predicting 
and measuring the nation's water availability and use. Together, these 
attributes help prevent overlap and facilitate coordination.

* The need for accurate and complete real-time data to support urgent 
and controversial water quantity management decisions, such as flood 
control and water allocation decisions, provides an impetus for groups 
to collaborate in generating adequate data. In some cases, agencies may 
face costly consequences if they make poor decisions, adding yet 
another incentive to obtain sufficient data through coordination.

* Advanced technologies, such as satellite and radio technology, allow 
data gathered in stream or in remote locations to be quickly 
disseminated to data users via the Internet. By making it easier to 
share and access data, the availability of these technologies 
encourages coordination.

* The general consistency in the way water quantity data are measured 
and analyzed makes it easier for data users to integrate data gathered 
from separate collection efforts. Because water quantity has been 
measured for so many years, the parameters that agencies measure and 
the methods they use to measure them are well-developed and more 
uniformly used.

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

To enhance and clearly define authority for coordinating the collection 
of water data nationwide, GAO recommends that the Congress consider 
formally designating a lead organization (either an existing water data 
coordinating entity or one of the federal agencies with broad water 
data collection responsibilities) for this purpose. Among its 
responsibilities, the organization would: 

* Support the development and continued operation of regional and state 
monitoring councils.

* Coordinate the development of an Internet-based clearinghouse to 
convey what entities are collecting what types of data. As part of this 
effort, the organization could advance the development of a geospatial 
Internet-based query tool (portal) that would allow users access to 
information about water data available within a given watershed.

* Coordinate the development of clear guidance on metadata standards so 
that data users can integrate data from various sources.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

GAO provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Agriculture, 
Commerce, and the Interior; the Army Corps of Engineers; and EPA. The 
Departments of Commerce and the Interior, the Army Corps of Engineers, 
and EPA provided written comments, which are reprinted in appendixes II 
through V. The Department of Agriculture did not submit a formal 
letter, although an official with the Department's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service expressed general agreement with the report. All 
of the agencies provided technical comments and clarifications, which 
were incorporated as appropriate. GAO also provided the draft report to 
two nonfederal members of the National Water Quality Monitoring Council 
for their review.

The Army Corps of Engineers stated that it "agrees with the majority of 
the [draft report's] findings," noting in particular its agreement that 
better coordination of data collection is needed to improve decision 
making. The Corps commented, however, that the draft report should have 
more fully discussed the full range of water quality and water quantity 
data that is collected and maintained by the Corps. The draft report 
had discussed a wide range of Corps data collection activities (both 
water quality and water quantity), but GAO supplemented those 
discussions with additional detail in response to the Corps' comment. 
The Corps also offered additional information about planned activities 
to use a comprehensive integrated watershed management approach. GAO 
also added information about these planned activities. The Corps' 
comments, and GAO's response, are discussed at the end of chapters 2, 
3, and 4.

The Department of the Interior generally agreed with the report, 
stating that "GAO is commended on their comprehensive job in assembling 
information on a large complex subject…" Interior's letter also noted 
that "GAO has brought many of the most important perspectives of 
successes and challenges to light." Interior cautioned, however, that 
the designation of a lead water data organization would not necessarily 
remove all of the barriers that are currently limiting the coordination 
of data collection activities. GAO agrees, but still believes that the 
establishment of such a lead organization would be an important first 
step to enhance and clearly define authority needed to address many of 
these barriers. These and other issues, and GAO's responses, are 
discussed at the end of chapters 3 and 4.

EPA agreed on the need for reliable, comprehensive, and accessible data 
on water quality to effectively implement the watershed approach. EPA 
noted, however, that the report should further emphasize (1) the high 
cost of monitoring, (2) recent significant improvements to the STORET 
system, and (3) the emphasis placed on coordination and data sharing in 
EPA's "Elements of a State Monitoring and Assessment Program" guidance. 
We provided additional information on these issues in response to the 
EPA comment. These issues, and GAO's responses, are discussed at the 
end of chapters 2 and 3.

The Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration suggested that GAO clarify that the report addresses 
freshwater rather than saltwater and that it eliminate references to 
watersheds since the report does not deal with the subject at great 
length. GAO added language clarifying that our study focused on 
freshwater but retained references to watersheds. As the letter 
requesting our study noted, the watershed approach has become 
increasingly important in efforts to manage the nation's waters and 
that approach depends heavily on the availability of complete and 
reliable data.

The two National Water Quality Monitoring Council members offered 
several clarifications and suggestions, which were incorporated as 
appropriate. National Water Quality Monitoring Council officials noted 
that, since the reviewers' comments were not considered for endorsement 
by the council's membership, they should be viewed as informal 
suggestions to enhance the accuracy and completeness of the report.

GAO also verified specific information in the draft report with 
officials from BPA, TVA, states, industry, watershed groups, and 
volunteer monitoring groups and made modifications as necessary.

[End of section]

Chapter 1: Introduction: 

The availability to decision makers of timely, reliable, and complete 
data about the nation's waters has significant environmental and 
financial implications. Water quality data, for example, are critical 
for determining which waters do not meet states' standards and must, 
therefore, be targeted for potentially expensive cleanup. Similarly, 
decision makers need reliable and comprehensive data on the quantity of 
the nation's water resources to support increasingly important--and 
contentious--decisions about how to allocate limited water resources 
among states and among a variety of competing uses.

GAO and others, however, have documented shortages in the data 
available to make such decisions. At the same time, a large number of 
public and private organizations collect this kind of information--
raising questions as to whether more efficient coordination of these 
data collection efforts can result in more data available for informed 
decision making.

Decision Makers Need Complete and Reliable Water Quality Data: 

Under the Clean Water Act, states have primary responsibility for 
implementing programs to manage water quality. Their key 
responsibilities include establishing water quality standards to 
achieve designated uses (the purposes for which a given body of water 
is intended to serve), assessing whether the quality of their waters 
meets states' water quality standards, and developing and implementing 
cleanup plans for waters that do not meet standards.

Monitoring information on water quality is the linchpin that allows 
states to perform these responsibilities. States generally monitor 
water quality directly, but frequently supplement these data with data 
collected by federal agencies, volunteer groups, and other entities. 
Monitoring data can include information about the presence of chemicals 
such as chlorine, physical characteristics such as temperature, and 
biological characteristics such as the health and abundance of fish and 
other aquatic species. Figure 1 shows how monitoring water quality is 
essential to identifying water quality problems and determining whether 
actions to restore water quality are successful.

Figure 1: Process of Water Quality Management: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

As shown in figure 1, states compare monitoring data with their water 
quality standards. If a state's assessment of a body of water indicates 
that it does not meet the standards--for example, if it has levels of 
chlorine that are too high to support aquatic life--then the body of 
water is considered as not supporting its intended use of aquatic life. 
In such cases, states are required, under section 303(d) of the act, to 
identify and list waters for which technology-based effluent 
limitations are not sufficient to meet water quality standards and for 
which pollutants need to be reduced. EPA must approve or disapprove the 
states' lists.

In developing their lists of impaired waters, states must use all 
existing and readily available water quality-related data to determine 
if a water body is impaired and identify the specific pollutant(s) 
causing impairment. Subsequently, states must develop a total maximum 
daily load (TMDL), as necessary, for each of the pollutants affecting 
each impaired body of water. TMDLs are used to restore water quality by 
identifying how much pollution a body of water can receive and still 
meet standards and then reducing the amount of pollution entering the 
water to that level.

While states' use of water quality data is critical to meeting the 
objectives of the Clean Water Act, other organizations also rely 
heavily on water quality data for a variety of purposes. The Army Corps 
of Engineers, for example, uses these data for a variety of reasons, 
including regulating water projects and issuing permits under section 
404 of the act for the discharge of dredge and fill materials into 
navigable waters. Federal land management agencies such as the 
Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park 
Service, and Bureau of Land Management and the Department of 
Agriculture's Forest Service rely upon these data to fulfill their 
responsibilities to protect and restore aquatic resources on federal 
lands. These agencies also use these data to fulfill their 
responsibilities under various laws, such as the protection of critical 
habitat for plants and animals under the Endangered Species Act. In 
addition to these federal agencies, numerous public and private 
organizations at the local level rely on water quality data to ensure 
that public health and environmental goals are protected.

Data Also Needed to Support Key Water Quantity Decisions: 

Federal, state, local, tribal, and private organizations also rely 
heavily on water quantity data to fulfill critical responsibilities in 
ensuring an adequate water supply to meet competing needs. States are 
primarily responsible for governing the allocation and use of water in 
accordance with the laws developed by their state and interstate 
compacts--agreements that address water allocation, quality, and other 
issues on bodies of water that cross state borders. Key state 
responsibilities in complying with these compacts and laws include 
administering water rights to various users, allocating water in 
accordance with these water rights, maintaining instream flow 
requirements for habitat purposes, and enforcing the decrees and water 
laws of the state. To fulfill these responsibilities, states need water 
availability data, such as streamflow and snowpack data, to quantify 
how much water is and will be available for allocation, and water use 
data, including withdrawal and return flow data, to determine how much 
water is being consumed. They obtain these data mostly through the 
efforts of others, such as federal agencies and municipalities, 
although a few states also conduct their own monitoring.

Federal agencies support states in their efforts to govern the 
allocation and use of water through many activities. Agencies, such as 
the Department of the Interior, assist states in developing, 
implementing, and enforcing interstate compacts; the U.S. Geological 
Survey, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 
National Weather Service, and Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
among others, collect and share information such as surface water, 
rainfall, and snowpack data, which help forecast water supply; and the 
Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Reclamation construct, operate, 
and maintain dams, reservoirs, and water distribution facilities to 
help meet the needs of water users, among other activities.

Federal agencies also need data to support their own varying objectives 
on federal lands. Agencies responsible for managing natural resources-
-such as the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, and National Park Service--construct and/or maintain 
water storage and distribution facilities on their lands to provide 
water for uses such as visitor services, recreation, habitat, and flood 
control. These agencies also often collect water data or conduct water 
resources investigations in support of their own responsibilities, such 
as collection of supplemental streamgage information to assess habitat 
and recreational conditions. Additionally, numerous federal natural 
resources management agencies may become involved (e.g., by geography 
or other factors) in some aspect(s) of tribal water interests. Federal 
natural resources management agency policies generally include 
provisions to protect and support tribal water interests, in 
cooperation with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the tribes.

Other agencies needing water quantity data include local, regional, and 
interstate water authorities, as well as private firms that own and 
operate water resources systems. Scientists and recreational water 
users are also heavy users of water quantity data. These groups use 
data to, among other things, evaluate current water supplies and plan 
for future supplies; forecast floods and droughts; operate reservoirs 
for hydropower, flood control, or water supplies; navigate rivers and 
streams; and safely fish, canoe, kayak, or raft.

Data Needed to Support the Watershed Approach: 

Concerns over both water quality and water quantity often come together 
at the "watershed" level. As illustrated in figure 2, a watershed is an 
area that drains to a common waterway, such as a stream, lake, estuary, 
wetland, or ocean. Watersheds come in all shapes and sizes, and often 
cross county, state, and national boundaries. Depending on its scale, a 
watershed may refer to large or small river basins, sub-basins, 
tributary basins, or smaller hydrological units or drainage areas.

Figure 2: Representation of a Typical Watershed: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Many federal agencies have long supported a watershed approach as the 
best way to manage the nation's water resources. Army Corps of 
Engineers officials, for example, noted that the agency has been 
working in the watershed context and engaged in watershed-level 
planning and management for many years. They noted further that 
watershed analysis has been the "cornerstone" of planning and 
environmental review efforts for major Corps projects. Also, in a 
December 2002 memorandum, the EPA Assistant Administrator for Water 
reaffirmed the agency's commitment to the watershed approach, noting 
that by focusing multistakeholder efforts within hydrologically defined 
boundaries to protect and restore our aquatic resources and ecosystems, 
the watershed approach "offers the most cost-effective opportunity to 
tackle today's challenges" in meeting the nation's water 
needs.[Footnote 7] As the memorandum notes, the value in this approach 
is in taking a holistic approach to the water resource in a way that 
brings in the full range of federal, state, local, and private parties 
with a stake in the resource.

Importantly, the watershed approach also allows for the identification 
and prioritization of problems affecting the resource and steps to 
address them. This is important because different watersheds may be 
affected by significantly different natural conditions and pollution 
problems. Moreover, even where watersheds are affected by similar 
pollutants, the causes of their pollution problems--and the steps 
needed to deal with them--can be quite different. For example, in the 
case of two watersheds affected by excessive levels of nitrogen, one 
may need to reduce discharges from wastewater treatment plants and 
other "point" sources, while the other may need to address nitrogen 
sources emanating from agricultural use. Moreover, water officials must 
also consider water availability issues, since the amount of water 
flowing through the watershed affects the ability of the watershed to 
assimilate the pollutant. These critical determinations, however, can 
only be made and defended if reliable and comprehensive data are 
available on the quality and quantity of the water resource and on the 
ecological and other factors that affect them.

Can Critical Data Shortages Be Addressed through Enhanced Coordination?

Unfortunately, the key data needed to support critical water management 
decisions are often incomplete and unreliable. According to the best 
available data from EPA, only about one-fifth of the nation's total 
rivers and stream miles have been assessed to determine their 
compliance with states' water quality standards.[Footnote 8] More 
generally, we reported in March 2000 that few of the 50 states had a 
majority of the data they need to make key water quality 
determinations, such as which of their waters do not meet state 
standards and what are their most significant sources of 
pollution.[Footnote 9]

This apparent shortage of such data, however, belies the fact that 
numerous organizations do in fact collect this kind of information. 
Many federal agencies as well as a wide variety of other organizations 
at the regional, state, and local levels collect water quality and/or 
water quantity data. Consequently, questions have been raised as to 
whether better coordination among these numerous organizations in their 
data collection activities can provide decision makers with more of the 
vital information they need to make informed and defensible decisions 
on critical water-related issues.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, 
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, asked GAO to 
address a number of issues concerning the water data that various 
organizations collect, and the degree to which their data collection 
efforts are coordinated with each other. Specifically, we were asked to 
determine (1) the key entities that collect water quality and water 
quantity data, including the types of data they collect, how they store 
their data, and how entities can access the data; and (2) the extent to 
which these entities coordinate their water quality and water quantity 
data collection efforts.

To address the first objective, we identified and surveyed key federal 
agencies that collect water quality and/or water quantity data: the 
Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative 
State Research, Education and Extension Service, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, and Forest Service; the Department of Commerce's 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine 
Fisheries Service, National Weather Service, and National Ocean 
Service; the Department of Defense's Army Corps of Engineers; the 
Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of Energy's Bonneville 
Power Administration; the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land 
Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. 
Geological Survey, and National Park Service; and the Tennessee Valley 
Authority. Though not an exhaustive list of all federal agencies 
collecting water data, these key agencies were identified through 
discussions with federal water officials, identification of member 
agencies on the National Water Quality Monitoring Council,[Footnote 10] 
and EPA's Guide to Federal Water Quality Programs and Information. As 
appropriate, we obtained separate information from different units 
within an agency. In each case, we obtained information on the types of 
data being collected, the methods in which the agencies store the data 
they collect, and the manner in which the data could be accessed by 
other parties.[Footnote 11]

To obtain insights on data collection by states, local governments, and 
other organizations, we conducted site visits to three states--
Colorado, Mississippi, and Virginia. The states were chosen on the 
basis of the diversity of entities involved in the collection of data 
in these states, geographic diversity, and their experiences in 
coordinating watershed data. During these site visits, we interviewed 
representatives of federal, state, and local agencies; watershed 
management groups; and members of academia, industry, environmental 
organizations, and volunteer monitoring groups.

We also used the survey of federal agencies and the site visits to 
address the second objective to determine the extent to which data 
collectors coordinate their data collection efforts. Specifically, a 
number of questions in our federal agency survey addressed the extent 
to which data collection activities were coordinated with other federal 
agencies, as well as other entities. We also sought opinions on the 
most useful steps that could be taken to improve coordination. We 
supplemented these contacts by interviewing members of federal and 
state coordinating organizations, most notably the National Water 
Quality Monitoring Council and its state counterparts in Colorado, 
Maryland, and Virginia. In these instances, we sought information about 
past and ongoing efforts to coordinate data collection, seeking in 
particular to better understand the barriers these groups face in their 
coordination efforts. We also sought information about data 
coordination from other key organizations with particular knowledge 
about this issue, such as the Association of State and Interstate Water 
Pollution Control Administrators and the Advisory Committee on Water 
Information.

As agreed with the Chairman's office, in addressing the second 
objective, we also sought information on efforts to allow for the 
integration of data from separate collection efforts, so that direct 
comparisons can be made in a way that maximizes the usefulness of these 
data. This inquiry addressed, for example, the steps that agencies have 
taken or attempted to take to allow data users to integrate data from 
their agency with data from other sources. We examined this issue in 
our interviews with the full range of data users and data collectors 
contacted during our study. We also interviewed database managers from 
the key agencies that manage and store water data (most notably EPA and 
the U.S. Geological Survey) to identify current barriers to data 
integration and the steps needed to achieve better integration.

We conducted our work from March 2003 through May 2004 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. GAO contacts and 
staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix VI.

[End of section]

Chapter 2: Many Organizations Collect Water Quality and Water Quantity 
Data: 

Hundreds of entities collect water quality data, while fewer entities 
collect most of the available water quantity data. For water quality 
data, at least 15 federal agencies collect a wide variety of these data 
on a nationwide, regional, or project-specific basis. At the state 
level, multiple state agencies collect water quality data, including 
environmental, agricultural, conservation, health, and forestry 
agencies, and use these data to comply with federal regulations and to 
restore and protect water bodies. In addition, many local governments, 
volunteer monitoring groups, industries, members of academia, and 
others collect water quality data. Some water quality data are stored 
in two large national databases operated by the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey; these databases 
are available through the Internet. However, many data collectors store 
their water quality data on a project-specific basis, such as in a 
database for a single research project, and these data generally are 
available, by request, only to those who know about the agency's 
projects.

While many entities collect water quality data, a small number of key 
federal agencies are responsible for collecting the largest share of 
the water quantity data collected nationwide. The U.S. Geological 
Survey collects streamgage data nationwide, NOAA's National Weather 
Service collects precipitation data at over 10,000 locations 
nationwide, and the Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources 
Conservation Service maintains an extensive automated system to collect 
snowpack data. These three agencies store their water quantity data in 
national databases that are accessible through the Internet. In 
addition, the Army Corps of Engineers funds the collection of 
considerable amounts of water quantity data. Other federal agencies, 
such as the Fish and Wildlife Service, also collect water quantity 
data, but generally on a project-specific basis with data available by 
request only. Some state agencies also collect water quantity data to 
better understand water availability and water use.

Water Quality Data Collection: 

At least 15 federal agencies, as well as state agencies, local 
governments, volunteer monitoring groups, industry groups, members of 
academia and others, collect water quality data. These data generally 
provide information on chemical, physical, or biological conditions of 
waters. The scope of the data collected varies widely--from national 
programs, such as the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality 
Assessment Program, to site-specific research projects, such as the 
Department of Agriculture's testing of the effects of agricultural 
practices on water quality. Different entities also vary in how they 
store data and allow others to access them. In some cases, water 
quality data are stored in databases that are accessible via the 
Internet. In many cases, however, water quality data are stored on a 
project-specific basis and can be accessed only by request.

Water Quality Monitoring Measures the Biological, Chemical, and 
Physical Conditions of Water: 

The Clean Water Act establishes goals for attaining water quality, as 
measured by the biological, chemical, and physical conditions of 
waters. EPA guidelines discuss the different types of monitoring tests 
in each of these areas--each of which yields data about particular 
aspects of bodies of water.

* Biological monitoring measures the health of aquatic communities and 
includes a variety of techniques, such as assessing species' health and 
abundance.

* Physical monitoring tests the physical characteristics of bodies of 
water, such as temperature and the amount of suspended solids in the 
water.

* Chemical monitoring tests for chemicals that may be present, such as 
chlorine or ammonia, and metals, such as mercury.

These monitoring types and the parameters they measure are described in 
figure 3.

Figure 3: Monitoring Types and the Parameters They Measure: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Federal Water Quality Data Collection: 

A number of federal agencies and subagencies collect, or fund the 
collection of, considerable amounts of water quality data. GAO surveyed 
the following 15 key federal agencies that collect water quality data 
on a wide variety of parameters: 

* Department of Agriculture: 

* Agricultural Research Service: 

* Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service: 

* Forest Service: 

* Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

* Department of Commerce: 

* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration: 

* National Marine Fisheries Service: 

* National Ocean Service: 

* Department of Defense: 

* Army Corps of Engineers: 

* Department of Energy: 

* Bonneville Power Administration: 

* Environmental Protection Agency: 

* Department of the Interior: 

* Bureau of Land Management: 

* Bureau of Reclamation: 

* Fish and Wildlife Service: 

* U.S. Geological Survey: 

* National Park Service: 

* Tennessee Valley Authority: 

We asked officials from these agencies to report on the specific 
chemical, physical, and biological parameters--as listed in figure 3--
that their agencies collect. Each of the agencies reported that they 
collect data on all, or almost all, of the listed parameters shown in 
figure 3.[Footnote 12]

Although these parameters are collected widely across the agencies, we 
found that the geographical scope of agency data collection for each of 
these parameters varies considerably. The U.S. Geological Survey 
operates several large national programs, including the National Stream 
Quality Accounting Network and the National Water Quality Assessment 
Programs. These programs describe and provide an understanding of water 
quality in major river basins and aquifer systems, as well as in small 
watersheds, and cover about two-thirds of the land area of the 
conterminous United States. Many federal and state agencies and local 
groups rely upon data collected by the U.S. Geological Survey for 
watershed management activities.

The Army Corps of Engineers also collects water quality data on a broad 
geographical scale at many of its approximately 700 water projects. 
These projects primarily are operated to facilitate navigation, reduce 
flood or storm damages, provide water supply storage, or generate 
hydropower. In addition, the Corps also collects a considerable amount 
of water quality data for planning and design purposes, generally to 
understand impacts of projects in advance of their implementation. For 
example, before entering into a dredging cycle, the Corps collects 
short-term data to understand what pollutants will be released into a 
water body. Similarly, the Corps collects specific water quality data 
in response to Section 404 permit requests. In general, the Corps 
collects water quality data to address environmental issues, such as 
sediment and water quality for fish and wildlife.

Most of the agencies we surveyed collect project-specific data in 
defined geographic regions. For example, the Tennessee Valley Authority 
(TVA) collects water quality data to evaluate ecological health in 
reservoirs throughout the Tennessee Valley, an area that includes 
almost all of Tennessee and parts of Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, 
Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia. In addition, the Department of 
Energy's Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) collects water quality 
data in conjunction with some of the hundreds of fish and wildlife 
projects it funds each year throughout the Pacific Northwest, including 
Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and western Montana, as well as small 
portions of Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, California, and eastern Montana.

Agencies also collect data at varying frequencies. For example, a 
Bureau of Land Management official surveyed the agency's field offices 
and found that most collect chemical, physical, and biological data 
annually. In contrast, other agencies, such as the U.S. Geological 
Survey and National Park Service, reported that they collect water 
quality data on a continuous or otherwise more frequent basis.

Federal Water Quality Data Storage: 

There are two national databases for water quality data: EPA's Storage 
and Retrieval System (STORET) and U.S. Geological Survey's National 
Water Information System (NWIS). According to EPA officials, STORET 
contains biological, physical, and chemical data collected by over 120 
organizations, including federal, state, and local agencies, American 
Indian tribes, volunteer groups, and academics. EPA officials reported 
that, as of January 2004, STORET contains approximately 18 million 
monitoring results collected from over 146,000 sites. Figure 4 depicts 
STORET's monitoring coverage. Officials from five of the agencies we 
surveyed said they store at least some data in STORET. For example, the 
National Park Service uses STORET to store all of its data, while 
several other agencies, such as the Bureau of Land Management and the 
Bureau of Reclamation, store small amounts of data in STORET.

Figure 4: STORET's Monitoring Coverage: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The U.S. Geological Survey collects and analyzes chemical, physical, 
and biological properties of water and disseminates the data through 
NWIS to the public, state and local governments, public and private 
utilities, and other federal agencies involved with managing their 
water resources. The U.S. Geological Survey established NWIS in 1975 
and made it available to the public through the Internet in July 2001. 
According to NWIS database managers, as of September 2003, NWIS was 
accessed about 16 million times a month. Unlike STORET, which contains 
data from multiple entities collected using a variety of data 
collection methods, NWIS contains only data collected by U.S. 
Geological Survey scientists or under U.S. Geological Survey approved 
data collection methods that pass a quality control check. According to 
officials from the Army Corps of Engineers and Bureau of Land 
Management, some of their agencies' data are available through NWIS. In 
addition, some water quality data collected by the Army Corps of 
Engineers are stored in district offices in individual project files 
for which the data were collected. Many of these data are accessible 
upon request.

While several federal agencies store at least some of their data in 
STORET and NWIS, officials in ten of the agencies we surveyed said that 
all or most of their water quality data are stored in databases that 
are specific to the project or program for which the data are 
collected. For example, officials from the Agricultural Research 
Service said that their data, collected through experiments conducted 
on farms and ranches to determine how agricultural practices affect 
water quality and verify the efficacy of best management practices, are 
stored in numerous, internal project-specific databases. In addition, 
according to an official from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration's (NOAA) National Ocean Service, the agency stores the 
data used to assess the health of marine and coastal ecosystems in 
internal program-specific databases.

Federal Water Quality Data Accessibility: 

Data stored in STORET and NWIS are publicly available through the 
Internet. Users can search STORET and NWIS by geographic area, such as 
state or county, and by water quality parameters, such as chlorine or 
dissolved oxygen. Data within STORET become available on the Internet 
when users upload their data into the central version of the database. 
The availability of NWIS data varies depending on the type of data that 
users are trying to access. For example, some water quality data, such 
as real-time data that are gathered from gages in streams, may become 
available in NWIS every 4 hours. In other cases, it can take an average 
of 4 months for data to be processed, checked for quality, and made 
available through the NWIS Web site.

Many federal agency officials we interviewed said that their data are 
available by request and/or through agency publications. However, 
several officials said that, most of the time, it would be difficult 
for the public to know that data are available because agencies do not 
always publicize information about individual projects. For example, 
the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service 
(CSREES) provides funding to collect water quality data in support of 
research and education objectives identified by individual 
investigators, but CSREES has no centralized database to store the data 
collected by researchers. Therefore, according to a CSREES official, 
potential data users would have to know about CSREES-funded projects in 
order to access the data. Similarly, officials from NOAA's National 
Marine Fisheries Service said that the public would have difficulty 
accessing the data that are stored in project-specific databases, 
because there is no automated access through the NOAA's National Marine 
Fisheries Service Web site.

State Water Quality Data Collection: 

To address their considerable water quality management 
responsibilities, various state agencies (such as departments of the 
environment, health, fish and game, and conservation) collect and use 
water quality data to comply with federal requirements and to restore 
and protect water bodies. According to a study conducted by the 
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 
Administrators (ASIWPCA),[Footnote 13] 40 state and 2 interstate 
agencies with specific responsibilities for monitoring and/or assessing 
water quality spent a total of roughly $112 million on water quality 
monitoring in 2002.[Footnote 14]

States vary in the types of data they collect, with some states 
collecting primarily chemical and physical data, while others focus on 
biological monitoring. For example, state agency officials we 
interviewed in Virginia, Mississippi, and Colorado said that their 
state focuses primarily on collecting chemical data parameters while, 
as we reported in January 2002, Illinois, Maine, and Ohio rely 
primarily on biological monitoring.[Footnote 15] States also vary in 
the extent to which their monitoring strategies target specific waters 
of interest or employ statistical sampling methods that allow 
inferences to be drawn about a larger number of waters. According to 
ASIWPCA, states tend to use traditional monitoring approaches, such as 
fixed stations--long-term, sometimes permanent, sampling sites--and 
special studies, which usually focus on a specific water quality 
problem.

Recently, states have also adopted the following types of monitoring 
strategies to supplement these approaches: 

* The rotating basin strategy identifies basins, sub-basins or 
watersheds within an area that are sampled sequentially. Usually, a 
state monitors about one-fifth of its basins each year. After 4 or 5 
years, the state has sampled all, and it repeats the sampling sequence.

* The targeted monitoring strategy targets certain sites for 
concentrated monitoring based on a list of consideration and 
information needs, such as determining the effects of runoff from 
septic tanks or storm water or assessing current conditions in streams 
flowing to sensitive areas. The results of targeted monitoring can 
provide a good picture about water, identify sources of water 
impairment, and determine if management actions are improving water 
quality. However, the information gathered is location-specific and 
cannot be extended to other areas except through mathematical modeling.

* Probabilistic monitoring uses a sampling approach to provide 
comprehensive assessments of water quality conditions throughout an 
area. Sites are randomly selected from all of the waters in a 
watershed, and the results of monitoring are used to estimate water 
quality conditions in the larger area with known confidence. 
Probabilistic monitoring cannot provide information on specific sites 
unless the sites were included in the random selection. In addition, 
probabilistic sampling typically does not incorporate seasonal or other 
variation.

* A tiered monitoring strategy structures states' monitoring programs 
so that the less expensive and most expedient monitoring techniques can 
be used first, followed by more expensive and time-consuming studies, 
if the initial studies demonstrate that more monitoring is warranted. 
The tiered approach may combine the techniques described above. For 
example, one tier may be a rotating basin probabilistic approach for 
gathering information on waters statewide, while a second tier may 
focus on monitoring trends on large rivers and urban streams.

In March 2003, EPA issued guidance, "Elements of a State Water 
Monitoring and Assessment Program,"[Footnote 16] that recommends 10 
basic elements of a state water-monitoring program and serves as a tool 
to help EPA and the states determine whether a monitoring program meets 
the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The elements include (1) 
developing a monitoring program strategy, (2) using an integrated 
monitoring design, and (3) using accessible electronic data systems. 
According to the guidance document, EPA believes that state monitoring 
programs can be upgraded to include all ten elements within ten years. 
According to EPA officials, states should develop a monitoring strategy 
by the end of fiscal year 2004 and should begin implementing the 
strategy in fiscal year 2005. EPA officials stated that they are 
working with states to implement the guidance in order to reduce 
inconsistencies and variations in state monitoring programs.

State Data Storage: 

After collecting data using the various monitoring strategies, states 
must store the data so that they can be readily retrieved for analysis 
and evaluation. According to an EPA official, as of March 2004, 31 
states use STORET to store at least some of their data, and EPA is 
trying to have the remaining states and other federal agencies store 
their water quality data in STORET as well. ASIWPCA reports that state 
agencies are increasingly storing water quality data in national and 
statewide electronic databases, but a small number of agencies still 
use paper files as their predominant means for storing data.

Our site visits confirm that states differ in how their data are 
stored. Of the states we visited, only Colorado uses STORET to store 
water quality data. Officials in Virginia and Mississippi reported that 
they used STORET through 1998, when EPA introduced a modernized version 
of STORET. Officials in both states said that since they could not 
easily put data in or retrieve data from the modernized STORET, both 
states' Departments of Environmental Quality developed state databases 
to better meet their needs. In addition, Virginia Department of 
Environmental Quality officials said that some of their data exists 
only in paper files.

Accessibility of State Water Quality Data: 

As states' data storage practices vary, so does the accessibility of 
their data. According to an ASIWPCA survey, water quality information 
is primarily available to the public in published reports and other 
printed materials as well as in electronic formats such as CD-ROMs. The 
survey also showed that, as their resources permit, states are moving 
toward making their data available via the Internet.

Our site visits similarly revealed that the accessibility of data 
largely depends on the storage method the state uses. For example, 
Colorado's water quality data are accessible through STORET. Since 
Virginia's database is internal and is not Internet-accessible, data 
users must request data or access the data through publications. In 
Mississippi, the public can access water quality data through 
publications or by request from the Mississippi Department of 
Environmental Quality, though officials report that the state agency is 
moving toward developing a system that will be publicly accessible via 
the Internet.

Water Quality Data Collection by Local Governments, Volunteer 
Monitoring Groups, and Others: 

Local governments, volunteer monitoring groups, and others also collect 
water quality data for a variety of purposes, including monitoring the 
health of streams, lakes, and rivers, developing pollution reduction 
strategies, and conducting research.

Local Governments: 

Local government agencies, such as water management districts, also 
participate in monitoring projects, often to understand and address 
recognized water quality problems. Local agencies may limit their data 
collection to particular geographic locations (e.g., a sewage treatment 
district or particular town lake) or may collect data for specific 
parameters, such as pH or dissolved oxygen. For example, according to a 
Thornton, Colorado, city official we interviewed during one of our site 
visits, the cities of Northglenn, Thornton, and Westminster, Colorado, 
were prompted to start the Clear Creek Watershed Group in 1981 after 
city officials found that excessive nutrients were causing odor and 
taste problems in the cities' water supply. Similarly, a Fort Collins, 
Colorado, official explained that he helped to initiate a coordinated, 
regional watershed monitoring effort among some major municipal water 
providers because the quality of water entering water treatment plants 
was deteriorating.

Local governments may also work with federal agencies to collect water 
quality data. For example, according to a National Park Service 
official, the agency worked with the city of Las Vegas to collect data 
on the treatment and disposal of wastewater at nearby Lake Mead. The 
Army Corps of Engineers partnered with the District of Columbia to 
conduct wetlands restoration of the Anacostia River, providing 
monitoring data and technical and project management expertise. In 
addition, U.S. Geological Survey officials noted that local governments 
participate in its Cooperative Water Program.

Volunteer Groups: 

According to the volunteer monitoring representative of the National 
Water Quality Monitoring Council (the National Council),[Footnote 17] 
an estimated 800 to 1,200 volunteer monitoring groups across the nation 
collect monitoring data with varying levels of technical expertise and 
financial resources. Volunteer monitoring groups collect data for a 
variety of parameters. For example, volunteers for the Virginia Save 
Our Streams organization primarily collect biological data through in-
stream monitoring. Volunteers for another group, the Alliance for the 
Chesapeake Bay, collect streamside physical and chemical data, such as 
temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen.

States use volunteer monitoring groups' data in a variety of ways. 
According to the volunteer monitoring representative of the National 
Council, states' use of volunteer monitoring data varies along a 
continuum; some states use volunteer monitoring data for educational 
purposes, others use the data as a "red flag" to indicate areas where 
additional state monitoring is needed, and still others use the data to 
decide whether waters should be identified as impaired. For example, 
according to the volunteer monitoring representative, Rhode Island uses 
volunteer monitoring data to make decisions regarding which lakes are 
impaired. In Virginia, officials from the Department of Environmental 
Quality explained that the state uses volunteer monitoring data to 
assess the general conditions of waters, but not to decide on 
impairments. According to Mississippi Department of Environmental 
Quality officials, volunteer-collected turbidity data led to a state 
investigation that found that a farmer caused the pollution because he 
was clearing land too close to the edge of the river.

Other Groups: 

Finally, we identified the following entities that also collect water 
quality data: 

* Universities. Fifty-four Water Resources Research Institutes are 
located at land grant universities throughout the United States. 
According to an official from one of the institutes, the Virginia Water 
Resources Research Center, the Center has collected water quality data 
to develop several total maximum daily load (TMDL) reports.

* Industries. Industries collect water quality data to ensure that they 
are in compliance with permitted discharge levels, water quality 
standards, and TMDLs as well as research for improvements. For example, 
according to Weyerhaeuser officials, the company collects sediment data 
at some sites to determine their compliance with water quality 
standards.

* Interstate commissions. Several interstate commissions, such as the 
Susquehanna River Basin Commission and the Ohio River Valley Sanitation 
Commission, conduct water quality monitoring programs for a number of 
purposes, such as identifying problems that threaten the quality of 
water resources of multiple states and monitoring trends in water 
quality over time.

Water Quantity Data Collection: 

As with water quality data, at least 15 federal agencies, as well as 
some state agencies, collect water quantity data. However, a small 
number of key federal agencies collect a large share of these data, 
which are often stored in nationwide databases and accessed widely by a 
variety of users. The other federal agencies generally collect project-
specific water quantity data that are available in a variety of ways, 
depending on the agency.

Water Quantity Monitoring Measures Water Availability and Water Use: 

Water quantity data are used to measure both the availability of water 
in lakes, rivers, streams, and other water bodies, as well as the 
amount of water that is removed from streams for a variety of purposes, 
such as drinking water or agriculture.

Water availability is measured by a number of data parameters, 
including streamflow, precipitation, and snowpack. In many cases, 
entities combine their data with others' to measure or estimate the 
amount of water available for use.

Water use refers to all in-stream and out-of-stream uses of water for 
human purposes from any water source. Water use is measured by 
parameters such as: (1) withdrawal, which is water removed from the 
ground or diverted from a surface-water source; (2) consumptive use, or 
the quantity of water that is not available for immediate reuse because 
it has been evaporated, transpired, or incorporated into products, 
plant tissue, or animal tissue; and (3) return flow, which is 
irrigation water that is not consumed by evapotranspiration and that 
returns to its source or another body of water.

Federal Water Quantity Data Collection: 

Fifteen federal agencies collect, or fund the collection of, water 
quantity data, including water availability data and water use data. 
Most of the agencies reported that they collect at least some water 
availability and water use data. However, we found that the frequency 
and geographical scope of water quantity data collection varies widely. 
Three entities, the U.S. Geological Survey, NOAA's National Weather 
Service, and the Natural Resources Conservation Service, collect large 
amounts of data and store the data in national databases that are 
accessible through the Internet. In addition, the Army Corps of 
Engineers collects water quantity data and funds the collection of 
considerable amounts of additional data. Most of the other agencies 
collect limited water quantity data on a project-specific basis and 
store the data in internal, project-specific databases. These data are 
available in a variety of ways, depending on the agency.

The U.S. Geological Survey's Water Availability and Water Use Data: 

The U.S. Geological Survey is the federal agency primarily responsible 
for collecting, analyzing, and sharing data on water availability and 
use. In particular, the U.S. Geological Survey is the main collector of 
streamflow data, which measures the volume of water flowing through a 
stream using streamgages. Under the National Streamflow Information 
Program, the U.S. Geological Survey collects data through its national 
streamgage network, which continuously measures the level and flow of 
rivers and streams at 7000 stations nationwide (see fig. 5). It makes 
these data available to the public via the Internet. The U.S. 
Geological Survey is also a major collector of water use data under its 
National Water Use Information Program. Under this program, the U.S. 
Geological Survey compiles extensive national water use data collected 
from states every 5 years to establish long-term water use trends.

Figure 5: The U.S. Geological Survey's Nationwide Streamgage Network: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The Natural Resources Conservation Service's Snowpack Data: 

Snowpack data is another key element in determining water availability 
because it helps western states forecast and manage future water 
supply. The Natural Resources Conservation Service is the key collector 
and provider of snowpack data through its Snow Survey and Water Supply 
Forecasting Program. As figure 6 shows, the Natural Resources 
Conservation Service collects snowpack data from over 700 automated 
SNOTEL (SNOwpack TELemetry) stations in 12 western states and Alaska. 
In addition, the Natural Resources Conservation Service collects 
snowpack data at over 900 manually sampled sites in the western states. 
Snowpack data is also collected in Vermont, New Hampshire, 
Pennsylvania, and Minnesota through its Soil Climate and Analysis 
Network. The snowpack water equivalent and depth are used to estimate 
annual water availability, spring runoff, and summer streamflows. 
Individuals, organizations, and state and federal agencies use these 
forecasts for decisions relating to agricultural production, fish and 
wildlife management, municipal and industrial water supply, urban 
development, flood control, recreation, power generation, and water 
quality management.

Figure 6: SNOTEL's Site Locations: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

NOAA's National Weather Service Precipitation Data: 

Precipitation data are also important in determining how much water 
will be available for use, as well as in predicting floods. The 
National Weather Service collects most of this data through the 
Automated Surface Observer System, a joint effort of the National 
Weather Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, and the 
Department of Defense. Data in the Automated Surface Observer System 
are collected across the nation at major airports and other areas, as 
shown in figure 7. The National Weather Service also collects 
precipitation data through the Volunteer Cooperative Weather 
Observation Network. Under this program, volunteers collect data at 
11,400 weather stations in rural and urban areas to provide data for 
weather forecasts and drought and flood warnings. According to an 
official from the National Weather Service, precipitation data are used 
by weather centers to make more accurate weather forecasts, which can 
result in significant savings from flood damage. In addition, the 
National Weather Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
combine their data, together with the U.S. Geological Survey's 
streamgage data, to forecast water supplies and floods.

Figure 7: Automated Surface Observer System Sites as of February 2004: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Army Corps of Engineers: 

In partnership with the U.S. Geological Survey, the Army Corps of 
Engineers funds approximately 15 percent of the U.S. Geological Survey 
National Streamflow Information Program. This provides funding, at 
least in part, for about 2,160 of the approximate 7,200 stations. The 
Army Corps of Engineers also collects some water quantity data for 
various parameters in association with its water management projects. 
For example, the Army Corps of Engineers keeps track of rainfall 
amounts, reservoir storage, and inflow and outflow as part of operating 
specific projects. In addition, the Army Corps of Engineers collects 
stage[Footnote 18] data to monitor flood control efforts. Moreover, 
according to officials from the Army Corps of Engineers, the agency 
contributes to the analysis of water data by developing water resources 
software models that are used worldwide.

Other Agencies: 

Eleven other federal agencies we surveyed also collect water quantity 
data, though mostly on a site-specific basis.[Footnote 19] For example, 
the National Park Service collects site-specific data to, among other 
things, characterize hydrologic conditions within park units. In 
addition, TVA collects water quantity data, such as flow and storage 
volumes, in order to help decide how much water should be released from 
its dams.

Storage and Accessibility of Federal Water Quantity Data: 

Streamflow, snowpack, and precipitation data are easily accessible 
through three large federal databases operated by the U.S. Geological 
Survey, Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the National 
Weather Service. The U.S. Geological Survey updates streamflow data 
continuously and makes these data available through NWIS. Through its 
SNOTEL system, the Natural Resources Conservation Service operates and 
maintains an extensive, automated system to collect snowpack data in 
the western United States. The National Weather Service stores 
precipitation data in the National Climatic Data Center and makes the 
data available through NOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data, 
and Information Service.

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, its data are stored in a 
number of databases, including internal databases as well as the U.S. 
Geological Survey's NWIS. According to the Corps, most of these data 
are available through their district or division Web pages, though some 
data are not available for security reasons.

Most of the other 11 agencies we contacted that collect water quantity 
data store their data in internal databases, and the data are made 
available to the public in a variety of ways. For example, BPA stores 
its water quantity data in internal, project-specific databases and 
makes them available via the Internet and/or through publications. The 
Agricultural Research Service stores its water data in numerous 
databases, largely on a project-specific basis and makes them available 
via the Internet, by specific request, and/or through publications. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service stores its water quantity data in project-
specific databases at the agency's field offices and makes the data 
available on request.

State Water Quantity Data Collection: 

Many states also collect at least some water quantity data to manage 
their water resources, although the extent of their data collection 
varies. States need water availability data to forecast how much water 
can be used for a variety of purposes, such as agricultural or 
residential use, and often obtain these data from federal agencies. 
According to a U.S. Geological Survey official, the agency operates the 
core streamgaging network in most states through its Cooperative Water 
Program. Under this program, the U.S. Geological Survey enters into 
agreements with participating states to operate in-stream gages and to 
share the data collected from them. Officials in Mississippi, for 
example, said that the state contracts with the U.S. Geological Survey 
to collect its streamgage data. However, there are a few states that 
collect significant amounts of streamgage data. A U.S. Geological 
Survey official in Virginia explained that the U.S. Geological Survey 
and the Commonwealth of Virginia have historically worked together to 
operate a unified network of streamgages with uniform quality assurance 
protocols. In addition, Colorado officials said that the state operates 
a satellite monitoring system for collecting streamgage data, which is 
also coordinated with U.S. Geological Survey streamgage data collection 
efforts in the state. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, only one 
other state--Nebraska--collects a large share of its state's streamgage 
data.

In addition to streamgage data, states also require some precipitation 
data. An official from the National Weather Service said that while 
some states rely exclusively on the National Weather Service's 
precipitation data, other states collect some of their own 
precipitation data to fill in data gaps. For example, New Jersey relies 
on university researchers, funded by the state Department of 
Transportation, to collect precipitation data that supplements National 
Weather Service data.

States need water use data to support the operation of water supply 
utilities and water districts. In 2002, the National Research Council 
reported that more than 20 states maintain comprehensive site-specific 
water use databases, which were most commonly developed to support 
regulatory programs that register or permit water withdrawals.[Footnote 
20] In many cases, these data are developed through cooperative 
projects between state water agencies and the U.S. Geological Survey 
while, in the remaining states, data are collected only for a subset of 
water use categories or areas within the states. Furthermore, some 
states have no state-level programs for water use data collection. As 
we noted in July 2003,[Footnote 21] state water managers place a high 
value on water quantity data collected under federal programs to 
support the states' ability to complete specific water management 
activities. For example, 37 states reported that federal agencies' data 
are important to their ability to determine the amount of available 
surface water. In addition, state water managers reported that data 
collected under federal programs may be more credible and consistent 
than the state data.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

The Army Corps of Engineers and EPA offered comments on a draft of this 
report that were germane to the material in this chapter. The Corps 
commented that the draft report should more fully discuss the range of 
water quality and water quantity data that the Corps collects and 
maintains. While the draft report had discussed a wide range of Corps 
data collection activities pertaining to both water quality and water 
quantity, we supplemented those discussions with additional detail in 
response to the Corps' comment. EPA commented that the report should 
further emphasize the high cost of monitoring. To reflect this 
perspective, we included information from ASIWPCA that 40 states and 2 
interstate agencies spent a total of roughly $112 million on water 
quality monitoring in 2002 and estimated their total resource need at 
$211 million.

[End of section]

Chapter 3: Improved Coordination of Water Quality Data Collection Can 
Help Watershed Managers Make More Informed Decisions: 

Despite the vast array of organizations collecting water quality data, 
we and others have documented a considerable shortage of these data. 
This shortage has impaired our understanding of the state of the 
nation's waters and complicated decision making on such critical issues 
as which waters should be targeted for cleanup and how such cleanups 
can best be achieved.

Better coordination among the numerous groups collecting data can help 
to close the gap between the availability of data and the much larger 
need for information. However, we found a number of barriers to 
achieving this goal. Specifically, organizations (1) collect data for 
disparate missions, (2) often use inconsistent data collection 
protocols, (3) are often unaware of data collected by others, and (4) 
often assign data coordination a low priority. These difficulties have 
not only perpetuated gaps and duplication of effort among data 
collectors but have also contributed to an "apples and oranges" problem 
in which the data that are collected cannot be easily synthesized to 
tell a more complete story. Taken together, the difficulties in 
coordinating data collection and in synthesizing available data have 
impeded our understanding of water quality issues and, in particular, 
have impeded the ability of watershed managers to make well-informed 
decisions.

Coordination Needed to Enable Monitoring Programs to Make Better Use of 
Available Resources: 

The shortage of reliable and complete water quality data, and its 
consequences for informed decision making, has been consistently 
documented by GAO and others. For example, our March 2000 report, Water 
Quality: Key EPA and State Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and 
Incomplete Data,[Footnote 22] concluded that data gaps limit states' 
abilities to carry out key management and regulatory responsibilities 
and activities on water quality. The data gaps were cited as 
particularly serious for nonpoint sources,[Footnote 23] which are 
widely accepted as contributing to the majority of the nation's water 
quality problems. Only six states reported that they had a majority of 
the data needed to assess whether their waters meet water quality 
standards. A vast majority of the states reported that they had less 
than half the data they needed to (1) identify nonpoint sources that 
result in waters not meeting standards and (2) develop total maximum 
daily loads (TMDLs) for those waters. Similar findings and conclusions 
have been documented by the National Research Council of the National 
Academies of Sciences,[Footnote 24] and the lack of data states have to 
make assessments has been acknowledged by the Association of State and 
Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASIWPCA) and other 
organizations. 

As we reported in March 2000, states overwhelmingly cited funding 
shortages as a primary constraint on efforts to monitor their waters. 
Forty-five states indicated that a lack of resources was a key 
limitation to making more progress on water quality issues, with a 
number of states noting specifically that state-imposed staffing 
constraints and shortages in lab funding have exacerbated the problem 
by limiting the number of samples that could be taken and analyzed. In 
the 4 years since that report was issued, there has been widespread 
acknowledgment of the need to (1) improve monitoring programs to allow 
better informed decisions about which waters to target for cleanup, (2) 
pursue watershed management strategies, and (3) make other key 
decisions. Nonetheless, the funding constraints impeding monitoring 
programs at that time are still present and, in many respects, have 
deteriorated further.

In this context, both analysts and practitioners in the water quality 
community strongly support the concept of coordinating efforts to 
collect water quality data to make the most use of limited resources. 
Among the benefits cited, effective coordination improves the coverage 
of monitoring stations by more efficiently and strategically locating 
the monitoring stations of different groups. Similarly, as we found 
during our site visits, mutual understanding of different groups' 
monitoring needs and resources has sometimes resulted in modifying 
monitoring procedures so that individual monitoring stations could meet 
the data needs of a greater number of users.

Efforts to Coordinate Data Collection Have Thus Far Had Limited 
Success: 

Nonetheless, while we found some notable exceptions, officials in 14 of 
the 15 federal agencies we contacted told us that coordination was 
either not taking place or falling short of its potential. In addition, 
the officials noted that enhanced coordination could provide data users 
with better data about water quality conditions and a more complete 
picture of the health of watersheds. Among the array of examples cited 
are the following: 

* An official from the Army Corps of Engineers pointed out that without 
mutual interest among agencies, water quality data collection efforts 
are very poorly coordinated. The official also noted that some agencies 
give a low priority to coordinating data collection within their own 
agencies. The official explained that other potential users of the data 
may have difficulty finding the correct points of contact to receive 
data and believes that enhanced coordination would bring more data into 
the hands of data users.

* Forest Service officials explained that enhanced coordination would 
help to minimize information gaps. They noted that there are over 2,500 
listed segments of impaired waters on national forest system lands. 
According to the officials, the states are almost always deprived of 
data needed to develop TMDLs, and coordination between the Forest 
Service and the states could help minimize those data gaps and speed 
recovery of impaired waters.

The officials we interviewed from the state environmental agencies 
agreed, acknowledging in particular that coordination among state 
monitoring efforts, and between states and other data-gathering 
entities, could be significantly improved. For example: 

* According to officials from the Mississippi Department of 
Environmental Quality, if federal agencies notified states when they 
begin monitoring projects and shared their results, the state could 
assess more waters and possibly reduce duplication of effort. For 
example, the officials noted an instance in which the Fish and Wildlife 
Service paid the U.S. Geological Survey to operate streamgages in 
Mississippi, but the Fish and Wildlife Service did not alert the state 
that data were being collected.

* According to officials from the Virginia Department of Environmental 
Quality, the state generally has to solicit data from federal agencies 
because the agencies do not readily share data with the state. 
Furthermore, better coordination with volunteer groups could 
significantly increase the percent of assessed waters in the state.

* According to an official from the Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency, many groups in the state collect water quality data, but 
coordination is needed to develop mutually agreed upon quality 
assurance project plans and to modify data collection procedures to 
allow data sharing.

ASIWPCA's Executive Director also cited the need for greater 
coordination. She noted opportunities to enhance monitoring programs 
through, among other things, (1) better coordinating monitoring efforts 
among all levels of government; (2) integrating multiple objectives 
with single monitoring efforts; (3) incorporating state-of-the-art 
approaches to link data systems and improve reporting; (4) creating 
statewide monitoring councils; (5) creating public/private monitoring 
partnerships; (6) establishing volunteer monitoring corps to increase 
the total number of waters monitored; and (7) eliminating duplicative 
monitoring between and among the various state and federal 
agencies.[Footnote 25]

Several Key Barriers Limit Effective Coordination of Water Quality Data 
Collection: 

Given the strong consensus on the need for coordination--but the 
difficulty often encountered in achieving it--we asked federal and 
state officials, representatives of local governments and watershed 
groups, and others who have tried to coordinate data collection to 
explain the barriers that have impeded their efforts. As figure 8 
shows, the most frequently cited problems were the following: 

* Organizations often collect data to achieve specific missions, which 
sometimes affects their willingness and ability to modify their 
approaches toward data collection to make the results more widely 
usable, and which may even make organizations reluctant to share data 
they have already collected.

* Groups' data collection protocols often vary, resulting in 
incomparable definitions to measure the same or similar pollutants, 
different detection limits, inconsistent levels of quality assurance, 
and inconsistent collection of metadata.[Footnote 26]

* Without a centralized clearinghouse on water quality data, many 
collectors are simply unaware of the data being collected by, or 
available from, other organizations.

* Data coordination is often assigned a low priority, as shown in a 
lack of support for national and state monitoring councils, which were 
established specifically to improve data coordination.

Figure 8: Most Frequently Cited Barriers to Coordinating Water Quality 
Data Collection Efforts by 15 Federal Agencies: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Organizations Collect Data for Disparate Missions: 

The very nature of the organizations collecting water quality data 
varies widely--some are public, others are private; some are national, 
others are statewide or local; some are specifically charged with the 
responsibility, others do so voluntarily. As we were frequently told, 
these variations often lead to different data needs and priorities, 
which may affect the organizations' ability--and willingness--to 
coordinate data collection strategies and to share available data.

The disparate missions among the organizations that collect data were 
cited by 13 of the 15 federal agencies as a significant barrier to 
improved coordination. Even within the community of federal agencies, 
significant diversity in agency missions can lead to vastly different 
priorities regarding which data to collect and how to collect and 
analyze them. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 
primary interest in water quality data arises from its responsibility 
to ensure that waters are in compliance with states' water quality 
standards. Accordingly, its monitoring approach (and those of the 
states that conduct monitoring programs to meet EPA requirements) 
generally focuses on determining whether certain thresholds are 
achieved or exceeded. The degree to which measurements are on one side 
or the other of these thresholds is generally of less consequence. On 
the other hand, the U.S. Geological Survey's monitoring program is 
oriented toward obtaining precise measurements of water quality and 
then tracking changes in these values over time. Accordingly, its 
monitoring techniques allow for collecting specific measurements--and 
those techniques tend to be more expensive. For example, the U.S. 
Geological Survey may use relatively expensive meters to measure water 
quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, and 
conductivity. These meters require more calibration and maintenance to 
ensure accuracy than the test kits used by others seeking to determine 
compliance with state water quality standards.

State officials have also emphasized how differing missions can affect 
the ability to coordinate monitoring strategies and share data. An 
ASIWPCA survey found that state officials identified conflicting state 
and federal data needs as among the top barriers to the effectiveness 
of their ambient monitoring program.

Finally, some organizations have little incentive to share data, while 
others may have strong disincentives to do so. According to some 
federal agency officials we interviewed, academicians who collect 
research data and plan to publish their results may see little benefit 
in disclosing their findings early. Similarly, industry officials told 
us that they were often unwilling to share their water quality data 
with states in situations in which they believed the data could be 
unfairly used against them in a regulatory setting.

Organizations Often Use Inconsistent Data Collection Protocols: 

When organizations differ in their overall approaches toward 
monitoring, the varying procedures they use to monitor may result in 
data that cannot be easily compared. A number of such varying 
procedures were cited in our interviews with federal officials and 
during our site visits.

Different Names or Definitions Are Used for Measuring the Same or 
Similar Parameters: 

According to several federal officials, different organizations 
sometimes use different names or definitions to measure the same or 
similar parameters. For example, turbidity, transparency, and total 
suspended solids are used to determine the extent to which water bodies 
are affected by sediment. However, they are each measured differently, 
and, consequently, the data arising from measures of these parameters 
cannot be synthesized.

Data collection methods for measuring even the same parameter can vary 
widely. Turbidity, which is a measure of the cloudiness of water, for 
example, can be measured using a meter, called a nephelometer, which 
provides a turbidity reading in nephelometric turbidity units, or it 
can be measured with a turbidity tube, which provides results in 
Jackson turbidity units. These two measures, however, cannot be used 
interchangeably. To address incomparable methods, the National Water 
Quality Monitoring Council has produced a National Environmental 
Methods Index Web site (www.nemi.gov). This index, which provides a 
compendium of methods to support monitoring programs, allows for the 
rapid comparison of methods and aims to ensure that data collectors 
more actively consider analytical methods when planning and 
implementing monitoring programs.

Different Detection Limits: 

Detection limits are the smallest concentration of a given parameter 
that can be measured. Data collectors may measure pollutants using 
different detection limits, which can limit the usefulness of their 
data to other groups. A Virginia monitoring manual noted, for example, 
that a test kit may have a high detection limit for total phosphorus 
and, therefore, might not be useful for the state if typical total 
phosphorus concentrations are lower. Different entities also report 
detection limits differently. For example, according to officials from 
the Army Corps of Engineers, some entities report pollutant 
concentrations that are below detection levels as zero; others report 
them as less than a certain detection limit; and still others report 
the measurements as the detection limit itself. These different methods 
for reporting similar findings make it difficult for data users to 
understand and use the data.

Different Quality Assurance Methods: 

Data collectors vary widely in the Quality Assurance and Quality 
Control methods they use to assure that their data meet minimal 
standards, and this variation may preclude wider use of data, according 
to federal and state officials we spoke with. For example, according to 
officials from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, they 
could not use data on pH levels collected by the Forest Service because 
the Service's methodology did not meet EPA requirements for quality 
assurance. However, if the monitoring had originally been conducted 
using EPA's approved method, the state could have used the data and 
probably would have added more waters to Virginia's impaired waters 
list. In another instance, an official from the Army Corps of Engineers 
in Mississippi noted that the U.S. Geological Survey has rigorous 
quality assurance and quality control procedures, which results in a 
lag time between when the measurement was taken and when the data are 
accessible to the Army Corps of Engineers and the public. The official 
explained that, because of delays in receiving data, the Army Corps of 
Engineers is not always able to make optimum use of the data.

Variations in quality assurance and quality control are of even greater 
concern when it comes to volunteer monitoring data. For example, 
according to officials from the Mississippi Department of Environmental 
Quality, data collected by Adopt-A-Stream volunteers, one of the 
volunteer organizations in Mississippi, are not used by the state 
because they are not of sufficient quality to use in identifying waters 
that do not meet standards, and because the state believes it has 
little control over volunteers. However, the data could potentially be 
used to target future monitoring. To address this concern, EPA's 
Volunteer Monitor's Guide to Quality Assurance Project Plans outlines 
steps that a volunteer program needs to take to document the field, 
lab, analytical, and data management procedures of its monitoring 
program.[Footnote 27] According to EPA officials, many volunteer 
programs develop such documentation in the form of Quality Assurance 
Project Plans, which are then submitted to the state water quality 
agency or the EPA regional office for review and approval. The 
officials noted that programs with approved plans are much more likely 
to have their data used.

Different Metadata Standards: 

Metadata allow data users to understand characteristics about data 
collected by others, such as the methodology used to collect the data, 
and thus, determine whether these data are useful for their purposes. 
Officials from 9 of the 11 federal agencies we surveyed that use data 
to make watershed management decisions noted that a lack of metadata 
and/or inconsistency in metadata is a barrier to coordinating data 
collection efforts and data sharing.[Footnote 28] For example, 
according to an official from the Cooperative State Research, 
Education, and Extension Service (CSREES), without metadata, the 
reliability of data is suspect and, therefore, should not be used to 
make watershed management decisions. Similarly, according to officials 
from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) 
National Marine Fisheries Service, data users need to know as much 
information as possible about the data that were collected so that data 
are not misinterpreted.

To address this concern, the Methods and Data Comparability Board of 
the National Water Quality Monitoring Council is developing water 
quality data elements that specify the metadata needed so data users 
can understand and use data from other sources. According to some 
watershed officials, however, the list of metadata that was originally 
suggested contained too many metadata fields and will need to be made 
more manageable to be useful.

Determining appropriate metadata standards is not an easy task. First, 
officials from several federal agencies explained that collecting and 
recording metadata can be expensive. An official from NOAA's National 
Marine Fisheries Service, for example, explained that the collection 
and storage of metadata requires additional staff and resources that 
may not be available. Second, as some federal agency officials noted, 
data collectors that are monitoring water quality for a project-
specific need may not be aware that the data they are gathering may be 
useful to others, so they may not be willing to collect metadata.

Organizations Are Often Unaware of Data Collected by Other Groups: 

As representatives of many groups indicated, coordinating data 
collection is difficult because they lack information about the data 
that other groups may be collecting. Of the 15 federal agencies we 
surveyed, 10 cited the lack of awareness of other groups' data 
collection activities as a barrier to coordination. For example, an 
official from the Agricultural Research Service in Mississippi noted 
that even though he tries to identify other data collectors within the 
state, he is consistently surprised to find out that there are 
additional entities collecting water quality data. An official from the 
Bureau of Land Management explained that, because watershed boundaries 
do not coincide with political boundaries, it exacerbates the 
difficulty of identifying what entities are collecting data within the 
watershed.

In addition to a lack of knowledge among data collectors about other 
entities that collect data, we also found a significant gap in 
knowledge about what data are collected within agencies. Many 
respondents to our survey could not provide completed information on 
the type of data their agency collects, frequency of data collection, 
and geographic areas of data collection. For example, over one-third of 
the agencies we surveyed were not able to provide complete information 
about their water quality data because there are no central water 
quality databases within the agencies.

Most of the federal officials citing unawareness of others' data 
collection efforts said that a clearinghouse to disseminate that 
information would go a long way toward addressing the problem. 
According to federal officials, clearinghouses can take various forms. 
For example, a clearinghouse might be similar to a phone directory, 
providing an index of data collectors and the type of data being 
collected. Or, a clearinghouse might provide an Internet "portal"--an 
access point from which data users can obtain information and access to 
data from multiple sources.

Data Coordination Is Often Assigned a Low Priority: 

Efforts to coordinate data collection activities are a low priority, as 
demonstrated by a lack of support accorded to federal and state 
monitoring councils that were formed to help coordinate the data 
collection efforts of their members and enhance data sharing and use. 
For example, the National Water Quality Monitoring Council (National 
Council) was established to implement a nationwide strategy to improve 
water quality monitoring, assessment, and reporting. This council is 
co-chaired by EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey and includes 
representatives from federal, interstate, state, tribal, local, and 
municipal governments, volunteer monitoring groups, and the private 
sector.[Footnote 29] According to its charter, the National Council 
aims, among other things, to improve institutional coordination and 
collaboration, comparability of collected data, quality assurance and 
control, and storage systems that preserve data for future use. The 
National Council reports to the Advisory Committee on Water 
Information, which advises the federal government, through the U.S. 
Geological Survey and the Water Information Coordination 
Program.[Footnote 30]

Most of the respondents to our federal survey that were aware of the 
National Council and its efforts often cited the National Council as a 
positive influence in promoting better coordination among data 
collectors. However, almost all of these officials also noted that both 
a lack of funding and dedicated time among National Council 
participants has limited the council's effectiveness. Several members 
of the National Council noted that participation on the council is 
voluntary and thus, as one member noted, "not part of a member's job 
description." 

Council members we interviewed also agree that the National Council 
lacks authority. The Office of Management and Budget memorandum that 
established the National Council does not stipulate that federal 
agencies must cooperate. For example, even though the Army Corps of 
Engineers participated in the National Council when it was first 
established, the agency has opted out of participating in the National 
Council for the past several years.

The lack of priority for coordination at the national level is also 
prevalent at the state level. First, although the National Council and 
EPA have encouraged states to form councils to coordinate monitoring 
among the entities active in each state, as of September 2003, only 
seven state monitoring councils and three regional councils were 
active.[Footnote 31] Second, even where such councils have been active, 
they have generally experienced difficulty in making progress. During 
interviews with monitoring council members in Colorado and Virginia--
the two states we visited that have active coordinating councils--
officials reported that their councils were making less progress than 
anticipated. According to members of the Colorado Water Quality 
Monitoring Council, the council has struggled, in part because 
participants must volunteer their own time and its efforts are limited 
by time and resources. Similarly, a Virginia Water Monitoring Council 
member told us that while Virginia's council has made some progress 
(such as sponsoring workshops, conferences, and annual meetings), the 
ability of the council to address water issues could be increased if 
the energy expended for fundraising was significantly reduced.

An EPA study of eight of the state and regional monitoring councils 
substantiated these comments.[Footnote 32] EPA found that, although the 
councils have had some indirect effects, none has made a documented, 
"on-the ground" impact to water quality monitoring. The EPA study also 
identified many of the same problems we found during our site visits--
a lack of funding, members pressed to balance their council 
participation with competing job demands, and the challenge of getting 
agency members to take off their "agency hats." 

At the same time, according to EPA, state and regional monitoring 
councils can be effective in improving the availability of monitoring 
data if properly supported. For example, EPA officials and others have 
cited the Maryland Water Monitoring Council as a successful state 
council. The Maryland council has conducted monitoring design workshops 
and a stream monitoring roundtable to bring together organizations and 
individuals planning to monitor streams in Maryland, exchange 
information about the kinds of monitoring being planned, and prepare a 
geographically-referenced compilation of monitoring sites to ensure 
that everyone knows where monitoring is taking place. In addition, 
while the Colorado council has struggled, it has organized "data swaps" 
to allow monitoring organizations to share metadata and compare data 
collected by various groups.

As we previously noted, EPA issued guidance to the states in March 2003 
that recommends 10 basic elements of a state water monitoring and 
assessment program. While EPA's guidance does not recommend 
coordinating data collection activities as one of the basic elements of 
state monitoring programs, it notes the importance of state monitoring 
program managers working with other state environmental managers and 
interested stakeholders as they develop their strategy. In addition, 
the guidance recommends that states identify required or likely sources 
of existing and available data and information and procedures for 
collecting or assembling it.

Coordinating Entity with Sufficient Resources and Authority Suggested 
as Potential Solution: 

Because currently established coordinating entities lack the resources, 
priority, and authority to make significant progress, some agency 
officials have suggested the need for a clearly designated coordinating 
body with both sufficient resources and authority. These agency 
officials differ in their suggestions about the structure of this 
coordinating body. For example, an official from the Advisory Committee 
on Water Information believes that, with enhanced authority, the 
Advisory Committee and its National Council could make significant 
progress toward improving the coordination of data collection efforts 
and increasing the amount of data watershed managers have available to 
make decisions. The official recognized that, while the coordinating 
entity will not be able to alter agency missions, it would be able to 
address such things as establishing a clearinghouse to identify who is 
collecting what type of data and developing clearly-defined and 
generally accepted government metadata standards for water data 
collection.

Officials from the Army Corps of Engineers provided a suggestion for an 
alternative structure for a coordinating body. The officials believe 
that the designation of one lead agency to define, locate, and 
integrate available data sources within a specified time frame would 
make data more easily accessible, available in a useful format, and 
better enable local decision makers to make better informed decisions. 
The Corps officials explained that a lead agency could, for example, 
establish standards in cooperation with other agencies and establish a 
clearinghouse for data. The officials suggested that an appropriate 
lead agency would be one that already carries out and/or supports broad 
water data collection responsibilities.

Data Management Challenges Also Limit Data Availability: 

Water quality officials often noted that difficulties in data 
management are a factor inhibiting their ability to use water quality 
data to make watershed management decisions. These data management 
concerns commonly focused on two areas: (1) complexity of using EPA's 
storage and retrieval system (STORET) and (2) inability to integrate 
data from various sources to provide a more complete picture of water 
quality within watersheds.

Complexity of Using STORET: 

From 1965 until 1998, water quality data were stored in the original 
STORET Water Quality File, which is now called "legacy STORET." In 
1999, EPA released "modernized STORET" to replace legacy STORET. This 
newer version contains data collected beginning in 1999, along with 
some older data that were transferred from legacy STORET. Some of the 
major changes between legacy STORET and modernized STORET include the 
following: 

* Storing data in legacy STORET could only be accomplished by someone 
with a mainframe user ID and specialized training. In contrast, 
modernized STORET is installed on personal computers, and data can be 
entered on those personal computers without requiring access to an EPA 
computer. Local STORET users then choose if and when to upload their 
data into national STORET.

* Unlike legacy STORET, modernized STORET contains metadata on why the 
data were gathered; sampling and analytical methods used; the 
laboratory used to analyze the samples; the quality control checks used 
when sampling, handling the samples, and analyzing the data; and the 
personnel responsible for the data.

EPA considers STORET to be its main repository for water monitoring 
data and a cornerstone of its data management activities and water 
program integration efforts. And, according to EPA officials, the 
agency has worked hard to resolve a number of issues affecting the 
database's wider use. Nonetheless, officials from many of the entities 
we interviewed suggested that further progress is needed before they 
can effectively use STORET. They cited the following difficulties: (1) 
uploading data to STORET, (2) retrieving data from STORET, and (3) 
dealing with the system's large number of data parameters. The last 
point in particular was cited by Forest Service officials, who noted 
that the large number of data parameters in the system made it 
cumbersome to use. Consequently, less than 5 percent of Forest Service 
data currently go into STORET, and the agency has yet to decide whether 
to consolidate their water quality data into STORET or expend resources 
to develop an in-house water quality module.

Officials in two of the three states we visited held similar views. 
Officials from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality 
reported that they have not used STORET since it was updated because of 
difficulties in uploading and retrieving data, and the state has 
instead opted to develop its own data storage system. Mississippi 
Department of Environmental Quality officials similarly reported that 
they store their data in two state-run databases. Officials from both 
states noted that they would prefer to have their data in STORET, but 
would need additional assistance from EPA to do so. On the other hand, 
one of the states we visited, Colorado, noted success in using STORET 
to store its water quality data. In addition, officials from EPA's 
Denver office noted that other states, such as Utah, have also had 
success in using STORET.

Some local government and volunteer monitoring groups also have 
encountered challenges using STORET. For example, a watershed group in 
Colorado noted that, while their group recognizes that STORET is a 
valuable data management system and made the decision to use the system 
in 2000, the group had only a limited amount of data in STORET as of 
fall 2003 because of difficulties uploading their data. The group 
explained that unified federal support for the system is lacking, and 
therefore, limited funding has been made available to address the 
difficulties STORET users encounter. In addition, a volunteer 
monitoring group from Virginia reported that while they had tried to 
put their data into STORET, they had too much difficulty uploading data 
into the system, and that EPA's resources were, at the time, stretched 
too thinly to provide sufficient assistance. Moreover, officials from 
Big Dry Creek Watershed Association in Colorado reported that while 
they recognize the benefits to others of having their data in STORET, 
they do not perceive a benefit to their association that warrants 
spending the funding or time to do so.

Many of these issues were echoed by state and interstate agencies in a 
2002 ASIWPCA survey. Most survey respondents, for example, indicated 
that EPA does not have sufficient resources to support the system. Some 
also noted that STORET is incompatible with their internal state 
systems and reporting needs, data retrieval is difficult, and a good 
deal of staff effort must be spent to manage incompatibilities.

EPA officials have acknowledged these problems, as well as concerns 
over insufficient training and technical support. Nonetheless, the 
agency has cited recent successes in dealing with STORET challenges, 
pointing to growth in the number of states and other organizations 
using the system. As of March 2004, over 120 organizations use STORET, 
including 31 states, four EPA offices, interstate organizations such as 
the Delaware River Basin Commission, federal agencies, American Indian 
tribes, watershed groups, and volunteer monitoring groups. According to 
EPA, over 7 million of the approximately 18 million monitoring results 
contained in STORET were added in 2003 alone. EPA officials noted that 
the agency has made efforts to encourage yet more states, federal 
agencies, and other groups to make greater use of the system by (1) 
working to make the system easier to use by, for example, releasing 
revised versions of STORET and a STORET Import Module which make data 
upload easier and (2) providing greater technical assistance. In 
addition, according to EPA, the agency developed a new STORET data 
warehouse in 2003 that has increased data retrieval speed by 200-fold. 
With the completion of the data warehouse, the agency plans to 
significantly increase customer outreach and support to better meet 
states' needs for the STORET system.

Agencies Face Difficulties Integrating Data from Separate Sources: 

Another key data management concern is that many different databases 
with different formats and purposes are used to store water quality 
data, often making it extremely challenging for data users to integrate 
data from various sources. According to several federal agency 
officials, entities that collect water quality data need to coordinate 
their efforts during the planning phases of data collection to agree on 
how to manage data. Without such agreement, data collected often either 
cannot be used by other entities or entities must commit resources to 
integrate data.

An EPA review of statewide watershed management approaches found data 
incompatibility affects states' ability to compile data at the basin 
and watershed level.[Footnote 33] As a result, it can be difficult to 
obtain a complete picture of water quality problems and their sources. 
Furthermore, several states reported that federal and state data 
systems are often not compatible, and that more work is needed to build 
and manage databases across agencies that have standardized protocols, 
metadata reports, and georeferencing capabilities for mapping and 
modeling.

The most significant example of incompatible databases involves the 
U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Information System (NWIS) and 
EPA's STORET. Officials from the U.S. Geological Survey explained that 
different philosophies and different approaches to the database designs 
have led to databases with data models that are not compatible. NWIS 
contains only U.S. Geological Survey generated data or data the U.S. 
Geological Survey has reviewed and ensured that data quality is known 
and acceptable. In contrast, STORET accepts data of varying quality 
from any source, contains significant metadata, and allows the data 
owner to change or delete data.

According to an EPA official, NWIS was compatible with legacy STORET 
and, through an agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey at the time, 
NWIS data was regularly copied into legacy STORET. Furthermore, when 
EPA modernized STORET, the U.S. Geological Survey and EPA worked 
closely to ensure that modernized STORET and an expected modernized 
version of NWIS would remain compatible. However, NWIS was not 
modernized according to plan, and now the modernized STORET and NWIS 
are incompatible. Additionally, according to a U.S. Geological Survey 
official, for technical reasons the archived version of legacy STORET 
no longer contains NWIS data.

As a result, according to federal and state agency officials, 
integrating data from these two primary water quality databases takes 
time and a significant commitment of resources. For example, an 
official from New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection 
explained that transferring data from NWIS into STORET--in order to 
form a more complete picture of water quality within the state--takes 
considerable time and effort from both state and U.S. Geological Survey 
staff. Similarly, an official from the National Park Service explained 
that the incompatibility of NWIS and STORET makes it very difficult to 
retrieve data from NWIS and combine it with National Park Service data 
stored in STORET to create one useable database of park water quality. 
The official explained that, to effectively use U.S. Geological Survey 
data from specific contracted studies, the National Park Service often 
requests that raw data be put into STORET.

EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey have taken steps to address the 
issue of data incompatibility. In February 2003, EPA and the U.S. 
Geological Survey agreed to the following: 

* Deliver data from NWIS and STORET in a common format to federal, 
state, and tribal organizations, as well as to the general public and 
scientific community.

* Ensure that the data from NWIS and STORET are documented to describe 
their quality so that users can determine the utility and comparability 
of the data.

* Their data systems will include metadata associated with each water-
quality result as soon as possible.

* Recognize that much data exists for which available documentation is 
limited and yet these data are useful for certain purposes and, 
therefore, the agencies will not exclude such data from their systems 
because of these limitations.

* Facilitate and encourage the maximum use of metadata to enhance the 
usefulness of the information for multiple purposes.

* Work with the National Water Quality Monitoring Council to develop a 
geospatial Internet-based query tool (portal) for sharing data, 
especially relying on data from STORET and NWIS. Since data cannot be 
efficiently transported between the databases, the agreement between 
the agencies focuses on a data portal as an alternative to copying data 
into multiple databases. The agencies agreed to "strive to achieve 
these objectives as soon as is practicable within the constraints of 
available resources." 

In addition to difficulties in integrating data from STORET and NWIS, 
some agency officials noted difficulty in integrating data within 
agencies. For example, according to EPA, the agency has historically 
stored water data collected under the Superfund program in various 
databases. Noting the inconvenience of this practice, four EPA regions 
are working to consolidate Superfund data in STORET. In addition, 
according to the Army Corps of Engineers, much of its data as well as 
data from other agencies is stored using different formats in different 
databases, making integrating the data and analyzing the information 
for decision making extremely difficult and time consuming.

To address the difficulties integrating data, the Army Corps of 
Engineers believes using a Geographic Information System (GIS) as the 
foundation for managing water resources is the only viable solution to 
effectively integrate vast amounts of disparate data needed to 
effectively manage the nation's water resources. Thus, according to 
Corps officials, the agency is taking steps to standardize and 
integrate disparate data sets by developing an "Enterprise GIS" to 
support watershed analyses. The Corps envisions that the Enterprise GIS 
data, output from watershed modeling efforts, and many of the 
analytical tools would be Web-enabled to make them accessible to 
federal, state, and local governments. The Corps acknowledges, however, 
that the agency's implementation of Enterprise GIS at the national 
level has been slow, citing funding constraints.

Conclusions: 

The acute shortage of accurate and reliable water data has been 
documented by GAO, the National Academies of Science, and other 
organizations. The consequences of this shortage have been amplified in 
recent years as states and local communities have come under increased 
pressure to identify and address--in a scientifically sound and legally 
defensible manner--which of their waters do not meet standards and 
should, therefore, be targeted for cleanup. The consequences of 
inadequate water data have also been amplified by the nation's 
increased reliance on the watershed approach, a strategy whose success 
relies heavily on the availability of comprehensive and reliable 
information.

With this critical need in mind, some may find it perplexing that 
literally hundreds of organizations collect water quality data that are 
not being sufficiently brought to bear on critical decisions. Our 
findings suggest that improved coordination could go a long way toward 
alleviating this problem.

However, the national, regional, and state monitoring councils that 
exist to promote such coordination have frequently been impeded by a 
lack of authority to make key decisions, a shortage of funding to 
undertake key coordinating activities, and low priority attention from 
data collecting organizations. Among the most notable of these is the 
National Water Quality Monitoring Council, which is co-chaired by EPA 
and U.S. Geological Survey, and which includes representatives from 
federal, interstate, state, tribal, local, and municipal governments, 
watershed groups, volunteer monitoring groups, and the private sector.

Some have cited these difficulties in calling for a clearly designated 
lead water data coordinating body at the national level; one with both 
sufficient resources and authority. They differ, however, on the 
precise form this body would take. One model would enhance the role of 
the National Water Quality Monitoring Council, as the nation's premier 
water data coordinating body. Another approach suggested by some would 
be to designate a lead federal agency to assume this role--one that 
already carries out and/or supports broad water data collection 
responsibilities. We believe that it is most appropriate for the 
Congress to exercise the judgment call as to whether and how such an 
effective coordinating body should be established.

Matter for Congressional Consideration: 

To enhance and clearly define authority for coordinating the collection 
of water data nationwide, we recommend that the Congress consider 
formally designating a lead organization (either an existing water data 
coordinating entity or one of the federal agencies with broad water 
data collection responsibilities) for this purpose. Among its 
responsibilities, the organization would: 

* Support the development and continued operation of regional and state 
monitoring councils.

* Coordinate the development of an Internet-based clearinghouse to 
convey what entities are collecting what types of data. As part of this 
effort, the organization could advance the development of a geospatial 
Internet-based query tool (portal) that would allow users access to 
information about water data available within a given watershed.

* Coordinate the development of clear guidance on metadata standards so 
that data users can integrate data from various sources.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of the Interior, and 
the Environmental Protection Agency offered comments on a draft of this 
report that were particularly germane to the material in this chapter. 
The Corps offered additional information about planned activities to 
use a comprehensive integrated watershed management approach, which we 
included in finalizing the chapter.

The Department of the Interior cautioned that the designation of a lead 
water data organization would not necessarily remove all of the 
barriers that are currently limiting the coordination of data 
collection activities. Interior noted that while designating a lead 
organization or agency has value, resources are needed and some 
barriers, such as differing purposes for data collection and variation 
in data collection protocols, would remain. We agree and, accordingly, 
view Congress' designation of a lead organization as an important step 
toward addressing the challenges of coordinating data collection. We 
believe that such a step would enhance and more clearly define the 
authority needed to address many of these barriers.

Interior also stated that a crucial distinction between NWIS and other 
databases mentioned in the report, particularly STORET, is that NWIS 
serves not only as a data archive but also as a data processing system 
that applies quality control tests. In addition, Interior explained 
that establishing one large Federal database is neither feasible nor 
desirable. We agree with both points. Regarding the first point, we 
recognize that NWIS holds data that are consistently subjected to 
quality assurance and quality control, while STORET and other databases 
contain some data of varying or unknown quality. Regarding the second 
point, many federal agency officials and others noted that it would be 
neither realistic nor necessary to establish one database that contains 
all water data. Rather, they generally explained that an Internet-based 
tool that allows them to link to data sources in a particular 
geographic area would be both practical and sufficient.

EPA agreed on the need for reliable, comprehensive, and accessible data 
on water quality to effectively implement the watershed approach. EPA 
noted, however, that the report should further discuss recent 
significant improvements to the STORET system and the emphasis placed 
on coordination and data sharing in EPA's "Elements of a State 
Monitoring and Assessment Program" guidance. The draft report contained 
some information on these issues, but we incorporated additional detail 
in response to EPA's comments.

[End of section]

Chapter 4: Water Quantity Data Are Limited, but Efforts to Collect Them 
Are Generally Well-Coordinated: 

Many stakeholders use water quantity data to make decisions with 
important economic, environmental, and social implications. Among other 
things, water quantity data are needed to help make water quality 
determinations. The quantity of water flowing through a river, for 
example, affects the concentration of a regulated pollutant in that 
river. The importance of water quantity data, however, extends beyond 
their impacts on pollutant concentrations. Federal, state, local, 
tribal, and private organizations also rely heavily on water quantity 
data to fulfill critical responsibilities such as ensuring an adequate 
water supply to meet a variety of competing needs.

Officials at both the federal and state level most often reported that 
their biggest concern about water quantity data is the lack of data 
available to make these economically and socially important watershed 
management decisions. However, where data are available, there is broad 
consensus among federal and state data collectors we interviewed that, 
while not always flawless, the coordination of water quantity 
collection efforts is less complicated and more effective than the 
coordination of water quality data collection.

Water Quantity Data Are Needed for Decisions with Important Economic, 
Environmental, and Social Implications: 

As pressure on existing supplies continues to grow, water supply and 
management issues, and therefore water quantity data, are increasingly 
important. Much as debits, credits, and savings in a financial budget 
need to be quantified to maintain fiscal responsibility, the nation's 
water supply and use need to be comprehensively quantified within the 
water budget context to ensure adequate availability of water as water 
demands fluctuate regionally because of changes in climate, urban 
growth patterns, agricultural practices, and energy needs.

Scientific water quantity data make it possible to understand and 
protect water for many economically, environmentally, and socially 
important uses such as safe drinking water, habitat for fish and 
wildlife, rivers and streams for recreational activities, and water 
allocations among competing uses by industry, agriculture, and 
municipalities. A broad group of stakeholders use water quantity data 
to support decisions concerning these uses. These stakeholders--water 
managers, engineers, scientists, emergency managers, recreational 
water users, and utilities--use water quantity data to evaluate current 
water supplies and plan for future supplies; forecast floods and 
droughts; operate reservoirs for hydropower, flood control, or water 
supplies; make informed evaluations of the nation's water quality; 
navigate rivers and streams; and ensure safe fishing and boating. Many 
of these activities require decisions to be made on a daily basis, 
which means timely, yet reliable, data are necessary.

Overall Lack of Water Quantity Data Is a Key Concern: 

Among federal and state officials we interviewed, the most frequently 
cited concern about water quantity data was the general lack of data 
available to aid decision making. As shown in figure 9, the majority of 
federal agencies using water quantity data for watershed management 
reported having "less" or "far less" than the amount of data that they 
need to make well-supported decisions, for almost all the listed water 
quantity parameters, according to our survey of 15 federal agencies. 
Additionally, in a 2003 GAO survey of state water quantity managers, 
managers in 39 states ranked expanding the number of federal data 
collection points, such as streamgage sites, as the most useful federal 
action to help their state meet its water quantity information 
needs.[Footnote 34] In particular, several officials at the federal and 
state level reported that the decline in U.S. Geological Survey 
streamgaging stations is a concern, and respondents from the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Weather 
Service and the Agricultural Research Service reported that there are 
gaps in precipitation monitoring stations.

Figure 9: Federal Agencies Reporting on the Amount of Data That They 
Have to Make Well-Supported Watershed Management Decisions: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

According to several federal and state agencies, they are particularly 
concerned about the continuing decline in U.S. Geological Survey 
streamgaging stations, which provide many entities with water quantity 
information needed for key watershed management decisions. Officials at 
the Colorado Department of Natural Resources explained that in their 
state, the U.S. Geological Survey has cut streamgage stations that 
collect data that the state needs. Where possible, the Colorado 
Department of Natural Resources has taken on the abandoned sites, but 
it has had to leave some abandoned because of resource constraints. 
U.S. Geological Survey officials in Mississippi reported that the state 
Department of Environmental Quality decided to drop Cooperative Program 
funding to support 19 streamgages, which accounted for half the state's 
streamflow monitoring. According to officials at Mississippi's 
Department of Environmental Quality, some of these gages collected data 
the state needs to enforce diversion permits, and others have 50 to 60 
years of continuous data collection on record, which they do not want 
to discontinue. However, the state does not have the funds to support 
expensive U.S. Geological Survey gages, according to the state 
officials. Similarly, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regional 
official reported that one state within its region--Wyoming--recently 
applied for EPA funding to reactivate needed U.S. Geological Survey 
streamgage stations.

As figure 10 shows, a large number of U.S. Geological Survey long-
record streamgages have been discontinued over the past 70 years. 
According to a U.S. Geological Survey headquarters official, the loss 
of long-record streamgages is a serious matter because trend data from 
these gages are requisites for understanding climate change issues and 
for designing bridges to withstand floods, among other concerns. While 
the number of long-record streamgages has declined over the past 70 
years, the number of total gages remains largely the same from year to 
year. In many cases, as long-record gages were eliminated, new shorter-
term gages were established through the Cooperative Program. The U.S. 
Geological Survey expects funding from cooperators to decline this year 
and the next due to current state fiscal constraints, which will likely 
cause the overall number of gages to go down in the next couple of 
years.

Figure 10: Cumulative Number of U.S. Geological Survey Gages with 30 or 
More Years of Record Discontinued, 1933-2003: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Officials at two federal agencies also identified NOAA's National 
Weather Service rain gauge data as an area with information gaps. 
According to the National Weather Service, while currently its 
observation systems primarily exist at airports, it is trying to 
improve coverage, especially in the West where the biggest gaps exist. 
According to a National Weather Service official, studies conducted by 
the Agricultural Research Service and the National Weather Service show 
that improving the coverage of monitoring sites to a 20 mile by 20 mile 
grid would improve stage forecasting by 50 percent. If this coverage is 
realized, the federal government could save $700 million annually 
through more accurate flood forecasts, according to the official. To 
achieve this better coverage, the National Weather Service is beginning 
to add 4,000 new sites and to upgrade 4,000 existing sites. As we 
previously reported, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National: 

Weather Service stated that a lack of sufficient funding is their 
primary barrier to expanding or automating data collection.[Footnote 
35]

Efforts to Coordinate Water Quantity Data Collection Have Been 
Comparatively Successful: 

While the lack of funds for monitoring water quantity parallels the 
lack of funds for monitoring water quality, efforts to coordinate water 
quantity data collection have generally been successful and are 
comparatively unimpeded by barriers. Federal and state officials cited 
several key reasons for better coordination of water quantity data as 
follows: 

* Water quantity data collection is more centralized among fewer 
entities, which allows users and collectors to more easily identify 
data sources that may be helpful in making watershed management 
decisions and encourages coordination to meet a common purpose.

* Critical, urgent, and controversial decisions concerning issues such 
as water rights and flood management require accurate and complete 
real-time water quantity data and provide an impetus for groups to 
collaboratively generate such data.

* Advanced technology, such as satellites that relay data monitored in 
stream to computers and radio technology that reports data from 
collection sites to the Internet, greatly improve the ability of data 
collectors to share data.

* The general consistency of water quantity data parameters, a result 
of the well-developed methods available to measure and report them, 
allows data users to more easily integrate data from separate 
collection efforts.

Data Collection Is More Centralized among Fewer Entities: 

Compared with water quality data, collection of water quantity data is 
more centralized among a smaller number of primary data collectors, 
according to several federal and state officials. As discussed in 
chapter 2, in most states, the U.S. Geological Survey collects the 
majority of streamgaging data, while other agencies have clearly 
delineated responsibilities for collecting other water quantity data. 
While these efforts are cleanly divided, they also share the common 
purpose of predicting and measuring the nation's water availability and 
use, which facilitates better coordination, according to some 
officials. For example, once NOAA's National Weather Service, the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey 
collect their data, they combine them to forecast water supplies and 
floods.

Some officials also cited the common purpose of data collection as a 
reason coordinating data collection efforts on water quantity has been 
more successful than for water quality. According to the U.S. 
Geological Survey, all states participate in its Cooperative Program, 
in which nonfederal entities and the U.S. Geological Survey jointly 
fund water resources projects that involve water quantity data 
collection.

Critical and Time-Sensitive Water Quantity Management Decisions Require 
Accurate and Complete Water Quantity Data: 

Accurate and complete data are critical in supporting urgent and 
controversial water quantity management decisions made by state and 
federal agencies. According to many federal and state officials, there 
is generally a more critical need for accurate and complete real-time 
water quantity data than there is for water quality because important 
decisions must be made daily with regard to water allocation, reservoir 
projects, flood and drought management, navigation, and evaluation of 
compliance with water withdrawal permits.

According to water quantity officials in Virginia, the critical need 
for water quantity data increases as the quantity of available water 
becomes more equivalent to the amount of water being used, or where 
floods occur. In some of these instances, water quantity decisions must 
be made quickly with accurate data. For example, according to an Army 
Corps of Engineers official, when floods occur, managers must make 
critical on-the-spot decisions, such as which residents need to be 
evacuated or how much water should be released from a reservoir to 
reduce risk and optimize flood reduction. Similarly, according to a 
U.S. Geological Survey official in Virginia, during the state's drought 
in 2002, discharge permit holders with limits on how much they could 
discharge at various streamflows relied on hourly streamflow data to be 
sure that their discharges were not exceeding permitted levels. Several 
federal and state officials explained that this critical need for data 
has prompted water quantity officials to coordinate better.

Numerous officials also noted the need for accurate and complete data 
for controversial decisions, especially when they may be challenged in 
court. In particular, states need data to, among other things, 
administer water rights to various users, establish and maintain in-
stream flow requirements for endangered species and, generally, to 
comply with interstate compacts. The need for adequate data for these 
sensitive decisions is especially critical in western states, like 
Colorado, where rising populations combined with increasing demand for 
water for recreation, scenic value, and fish and wildlife habitat, have 
resulted in conflicts and litigation. An official in Colorado explained 
that in his state, there is great emphasis on keeping track of water 
because "every drop of water is owned by someone." 

When water is improperly allocated, states can face costly 
consequences, which encourages states to coordinate data collection and 
share results. For example, according to Colorado water officials, the 
state may be required to pay almost $30 million to Kansas as a result 
of litigation Kansas initiated when Colorado allegedly withdrew more 
than its share of water from the Arkansas River as a result of ground 
water pumping. The officials acknowledged that at the time, the state 
did not have adequate ground water use data. The state has since 
decided to focus its resources to bring high-quality data together to 
make well-supported decisions instead of paying for litigation and 
payments resulting from inadequately supported decisions. Toward this 
end, the state has established the Colorado Decision Support System, a 
central query-based data system that incorporates data from various 
entities in the state.

Technology Allows for Immediate Distribution of Some Data: 

Advanced technology within the water quantity field allows for data to 
be directly and almost instantaneously delivered to data users, which 
makes it easier to share data and facilitates coordination of water 
quantity data collection, according to many federal and state 
officials. Part of the reason that water quantity data is easier to 
collect and share is because many of the water quantity parameters for 
which groups collect data can be measured in situ through electronic 
equipment. This is not true of most water quality parameters, which 
require manually intensive sampling and subsequent lab processing and 
analysis to obtain the final data values.

Where data are measured electronically, telemetry systems such as 
satellite technology--depicted in figure 11--can relay data from the 
instrument to data users almost immediately. For example, much of the 
U.S. Geological Survey's streamflow data, which are collected 
continuously by electronic in-stream equipment, are available within 4 
hours of collection through use of satellite systems or other telemetry 
systems such as phones and radios.

Figure 11: Satellite Used to Relay Collected Water Quantity Data to 
Data Users (Lawson, Colorado): 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Since the mid-1980s, the proportion of the U.S. Geological Survey's 
streamgages with telemetry has increased dramatically, as shown in 
figure 12. The U.S. Geological Survey's computers also have built-in 
checking routines, which provide some quality assurance, according to a 
Colorado U.S. Geological Survey official. Satellites, in particular, 
transmit much of the hydrologic data collected by the U.S. Geological 
Survey to data users. Once data are picked up by satellite, they can be 
transmitted to users in a couple of ways. For example, some data 
collected by the Bureau of Reclamation can be captured directly by 
users with their own domestic satellite receivers, or can be accessed 
on the Web through NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center, a 
repository for satellite data within the National Environmental 
Satellite, Data, and Information Service.

Figure 12: Increase in the Use of Telemetry Systems at U.S. Geological 
Survey Streamgage Stations: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Another telemetry system--"meteor burst" communication technology--
used by the Natural Resources Conservation Service also facilitates 
timely sharing of water quantity data. Meteor burst technology (see 
figure 13) is the ability to reflect radio signals, sent from remote 
locations, off of ionized meteorite trails 50 to 75 miles above the 
earth's surface. With this technology, collection sites as far apart as 
1,200 miles can communicate with one another for short time intervals, 
which are sufficient to "burst" relatively short data messages between 
sending and receiving stations. This method of communications is 
preferable for transmitting snowpack data because, among other reasons, 
interference that mountains often cause in conventional communications 
is not a problem for a meteor burst system, long-term costs are lower 
than they are for satellite technology, and data transfer reliability 
is higher for meteor burst. The Natural Resources Conservation Service 
operates over 700 automated, high-elevation snow and climate 
measurement sites in 12 western states and Alaska; these sites use 
advanced radio technology to report data on the Internet about once 
each day.

Figure 13: Meteor Burst Communication Technology Used to Relay Radio 
Signals from Remote Collection Locations to a Master Station: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Water Quantity Data Parameters Are Generally More Consistent 
Nationwide: 

Water quantity parameters, such as streamflow and precipitation, are 
generally more uniform nationwide than water quality parameters, 
according to several federal and state officials, making it easier for 
groups to integrate data from separate collection efforts. For example, 
water withdrawal is measured as a volume of water in gallons, and stage 
is measured as the height of water in feet, which can be easily 
compared. Water quality parameters, on the other hand, are less 
uniform. Sediment concentration in water is one example of a measure 
that may be described by multiple parameters--total suspended solids, 
turbidity, and transparency--that are not easily integrated.

According to several federal and state officials, water quantity 
parameters are more uniform partly because traditional parameters and 
the same methods of measurements have been around for decades. For 
example, the U.S. Geological Survey has operated its streamgaging 
network to measure streamflow since 1889, and the Army Corps of 
Engineers has collected stage data as far back as 1785 on the 
Mississippi River with more regular measurements beginning about 1838. 
Their monitoring methods and standardized techniques for converting 
stage data to flow data are established and relatively uniform among 
entities, according to an Army Corps of Engineers official. Many water 
quality parameters and assessment methods, on the other hand, are 
relatively new. For example, an EPA bioassessment guidance document 
noted that many natural resource agencies throughout the country have 
begun the process of developing and implementing biological assessment 
and criteria programs. In part because these processes are relatively 
new, sampling methods differ across agencies, impeding data sharing.

In addition to water quantity parameters being more uniform, there are 
also fewer than for water quality, which lessens the burden of 
coordination according to some of the federal and state officials we 
spoke with. While water quantity can be characterized by a relatively 
small number of parameters (in magnitude of tens) concerning the volume 
of water available and the volume that is used, a much larger number of 
chemical, physical, and biological parameters (in magnitude of 
thousands) are required to provide an accurate picture of water 
quality. Chemical measures alone account for a large number of 
parameters because there are so many agricultural, industrial, 
pharmaceutical, and household chemicals in use today that are found in 
surface waters. According to a U.S. Geological Survey official, the 
agency's water quantity monitoring largely concentrates on discharge 
and water height (stage) measurements. In contrast, the U.S. Geological 
Survey alone collects water quality data on about 500 different 
chemicals and identifies thousands of biological species in streams, 
lakes, and reservoirs.

Conclusions: 

We found a broad consensus that, for a variety of reasons, water 
quantity data collection efforts have relatively been well coordinated. 
At the same time, we found that more water quantity data are needed to 
make well-supported watershed management decisions. The efficient 
collection and use of water quantity data will only grow in importance, 
as the nation's population grows and water supplies continue to face 
increasing demands among competing uses. And given the inherent 
interrelationship between water quality and water quantity, it will 
also be increasingly important for data collectors to extend their 
collaborative efforts to include organizations that collect both water 
quantity and water quality data.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior 
offered comments on a draft of this report that were particularly 
germane to the material in this chapter. The Corps commented that the 
lead agency concept described in the previous chapter applies here as 
well, stating its belief that "designation of a lead federal agency by 
Congress to operate as a clearinghouse for water quantity data is an 
important step to improving data collection and management." The Corps 
noted that setting up a clearinghouse of water quantity data could 
result in significant savings for the federal government, while also 
assisting state and local governments with their land use decisions. As 
noted in the conclusions to this chapter, there is an inherent 
interrelationship between water quality and water quantity. We 
recognize that it is increasingly important for data collectors to 
extend their collaborative efforts to include both water quantity and 
water quality data collection.

The Department of the Interior expressed agreement with our concern 
that while water quantity data collection is comparatively well 
coordinated and consistent, the data currently being collected is not 
adequate to address the needs of decision makers trying to address 
water quantity-related questions. Interior explained that it is 
particularly troubled by the loss of many of the long-term data 
collection stations, which are needed for trend analysis to answer many 
important questions about flood and drought conditions and their 
recurrence.

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Water Data Collection Activities by Federal Agency: 

We identified 16 key federal agencies that collect water data. The 
following descriptions provided by each agency detail their data 
collection activities, including general information about the purpose 
for which their agency collects data, the specific data parameters for 
which they collect data, the geographic scope and frequency of 
collection, how their data are stored, and how their data can be 
accessed.

Department of Agriculture's Agricultural Research Service: 

Agency Mission: 

The Agricultural Research Service conducts research to develop and 
transfer solutions to agricultural problems of high national priority. 
It disseminates information related to this research to: 

* ensure high-quality, safe food and other agricultural products;

* assess the nutritional needs of Americans;

* sustain a competitive agricultural economy;

* enhance the natural resource base and the environment; and: 

* provide economic opportunities for rural citizens, communities, and 
society as a whole.

Water Quality Data: 

As shown in table 1, the Agricultural Research Service collects data on 
a variety of water quality parameters. The primary purpose for which 
the Agricultural Research Service collects water quality data is 
research and technology transfer. Most of the research is conducted on 
farms or ranches, with varying types of data collected. The second 
purpose for which the Agricultural Research Service collects water 
quality data is to provide research information to other federal 
agencies, as well as public and private agricultural customers and 
organizations. In terms of water quality data and research, the 
Agricultural Research Service's primary customer is the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service, which helps owners of private land 
conserve their soil, water, and other resources. The Agricultural 
Research Service also cooperates with the Environmental Protection 
Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Geological Survey in the collection and 
dissemination of water quality data.

Table 1: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Agricultural Research Service: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: Agricultural Research Service.

[A] The Agricultural Research Service also collects project-specific 
pathogen data. The frequency of collection varies depending on the 
objectives of site-specific research studies.

[B] The frequency of data collection varies depending on the objectives 
of site-specific research studies.

[C] The Agricultural Research Service collects very little habitat and 
indicator bacteria data.

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

As shown in table 2, the Agricultural Research Service collects data on 
a variety of water quantity parameters. The Agricultural Research 
Service primarily collects water quantity data in conjunction with 
water quality data to provide research information to other federal 
agencies, as well as public and private agricultural customers and 
organizations. In addition, the Agricultural Research Service collects 
some water quantity data in cooperation with other agencies, such as 
the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the National Weather 
Service, and the U.S. Geological Survey, to forecast water supplies and 
drought.

Table 2: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Agricultural Research Service: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: Agricultural Research Service.

[A] The frequency of data collection varies depending on the objectives 
of site-specific research studies.

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the Agricultural Research Service, its water data are 
stored in numerous databases, largely on a project-specific basis. 
These data are publicly accessible via the Internet, by specific 
request, and through publications.

Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service: 

Agency Mission: 

The mission of the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension 
Service (CSREES) is to advance knowledge for agriculture, the 
environment, human health and well being, and communities. The primary 
functions, as follows, of CSREES are to provide: 

* program leadership to identify, develop, and manage programs to 
support university-based and other institutional research, education, 
and extension; and: 

* fair, effective, and efficient administration of federal assistance 
implementing research, education, and extension awards and agreements.

Water Quality Data: 

CSREES does not collect water quality data directly but funds a lot of 
data collection on a wide variety of parameters (as shown in table 3) 
through research projects at universities, government laboratories, and 
nonprofit organizations. All data collected through CSREES-funded 
projects are used for educational or research purposes. Water quality 
data collection is funded under the following programs: 

* $15-20 million is provided to states through the Hatch Act for 
agricultural research. Individual research projects collect water 
quality data as needed.

* $12 million is provided through the National Integrated Water Quality 
Program, which emphasizes integration of research, education, and 
extension. Approximately $6 million is used to support a network of 
regional coordination projects for state water quality coordinators.

* $4.5 million is provided through the National Research Institute for 
research projects focused on watershed management and hydrologic 
processes.

* $2-3 million is provided through congressionally directed projects to 
states. Projects supported through this funding mechanism include the 
National Drought Mitigation Center at Lincoln, Nebraska, which studies 
drought preparedness.

Table 3: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by CSREES: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: CSREES.

[A] CSREES sponsors research and education projects that collect water 
quality data in support of investigator-defined project objectives.

[B] The frequency of data collection varies for each parameter based on 
project needs.

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

Although CSREES programs tend to focus on water quality, researchers 
need flow data to interpret and support their findings. Therefore, 
CSREES encourages researchers to collect water quantity data in 
conjunction with water quality data. As shown in table 4, CSREES 
researchers collect data on a variety of water quantity parameters.

Table 4: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by CSREES: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: CSREES.

[A] CSREES researchers collect a lot of streamflow data; a fair amount 
of soil moisture data; some surface water storage data, a little 
surface runoff, aquifer recharge, snowpack, and precipitation data; and 
occasional water withdrawal parameters.

[B] The frequency of data collection varies for each parameter based on 
project needs.

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to CSREES, it does not have a central database for water data 
collected with CSREES funding. Individual researchers store the data 
they collect, and the data can be accessed by request.

Department of Agriculture's Forest Service: 

Agency Mission: 

The mission of the Forest Service is to sustain the health, diversity, 
and productivity of the nation's forests and grasslands to meet the 
needs of present and future generations. The Forest Service manages 
public lands in national forests and grasslands through activities such 
as the following: 

* Protection and management of the natural resources of the national 
forests and grasslands through the national forest system.

* Research on all aspects of forestry, rangeland management, and forest 
resource utilization through the research branch.

* Management of nonfederal forest and rangelands to improve conditions 
in rural areas through state and private forestry programs.

* Formulating policy and coordinating United States support for the 
protection and sound management of the world's forest resources through 
the International Assistance Program.

Water Quality Data: 

As shown in table 5, the Forest Service collects data on a wide variety 
of water quality parameters. The Forest Service generally collects 
water quality data for two purposes: research studies (done through the 
research branch) and forest administrative studies (usually implemented 
through the national forest system). Research studies are often long-
term studies that require the collection of various parameters at 
frequencies that are specific to each individual research project. For 
example, there are at least a dozen projects throughout the Forest 
Service that currently involve the collection of long-term data. 
However, no two share identical objectives and, as a result, data 
collection methods vary based on individual project needs. Research 
grade projects tend to be executed with a high level of concern for 
technical rigor and statistical validity.

Forest administrative studies are shorter-term studies intended to 
evaluate the environmental impact of forest management practices. For 
example, the agency performs best management practice evaluations to 
determine the implementation rates and effectiveness of water 
protection measures. Administrative studies are normally more 
qualitative in nature than research projects. Administrative studies 
may also involve more focused evaluations of individual projects or 
seek to answer more site-specific questions that relate to local 
management concerns. Forest scientists or researchers may collect data 
for 10 or more years, but typically, an administrative project 
implemented at the forest level takes 1 to 3 years to complete. Like 
research studies, forest administrative studies may also implement 
technically rigorous projects, but statistical rigor is usually not 
required to answer the more locally relevant questions these studies 
generally pose.

Table 5: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Forest 
Service: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: Forest Service.

[A] The Forest Service conducts no routine monitoring for water quality 
parameters except in the case of individual research projects. Most 
data are collected for specific research or administrative studies.

[B] Water systems are sampled monthly for indicator bacteria.

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

Although the Forest Service generally relies on data collected by the 
U.S. Geological Survey in order to estimate the amount of water 
available to manage the national forests, the agency collects a limited 
amount of its own water quantity data. Data collection is usually 
limited to projects where more site-specific information is needed. The 
data are used, for example, along with U.S. Geological Survey data, to 
estimate the total flows yielded from national forests and determine 
how that water may be allocated to other uses. Table 6 shows the water 
quantity parameters collected by the Forest Service and the scope and 
frequency of collection.

Table 6: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Forest 
Service: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: Forest Service.

[A] Data are collected as needed for specific projects. In addition, 
the Forest Service relies on data from other federal agencies, such as 
the U.S. Geological Survey.

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the Forest Service, its water quality data are currently 
stored in scattered internal databases, and a limited amount of data 
are stored in EPA's Storage and Retrieval (STORET) System. Recently, 
the agency has established a centralized data storage system that is 
now being implemented. Access to data varies, with some data available 
through the Internet and other data available by request in electronic 
or paper formats. Water quantity data are stored in published reports 
and are available by request through the U.S. Geological Survey.

Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

Agency Mission: 

The mission of the Natural Resources Conservation Service is to provide 
leadership in a partnership effort to help people conserve, maintain, 
and improve our natural resources and environment. The Service also 
helps owners of America's private land to conserve their soil, water, 
and other natural resources. The Service works with local partners and 
serves almost every county in the nation, and in the Caribbean and 
Pacific Basin.

Water Quality Data: 

As shown in table 7, the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
collects water quality data on a watershed or site-specific scale, such 
as an agricultural location, for project-specific purposes. For 
example, the Service collects data in watersheds to determine effects 
of animal feeding practices on water quality and to identify potential 
mismanagement of manure.

Table 7: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service: 


[See PDF for image] 

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

[End of table]
 

Water Quantity Data: 

The Natural Resources Conservation Service collects water quantity data 
(as shown in table 8) primarily to derive forecasts of water supply in 
western states. The Service produces reservoir storage reports and a 
water supply outlook report, posted on its Web site daily from January 
through spring, to identify snowpack and runoff amounts. The data are 
used by states to predict water surpluses and shortages.

The Service collects snowpack and precipitation data in association 
with the National Weather Service and the U.S. Geological Survey. In 
addition, the Soil Climate Analysis Network measures soil temperature 
and moisture content, which aids in determining the severity of 
drought.

Table 8: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

[A] The Natural Resources Conservation Service collects surface water 
storage data in Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 
Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

[B] The Natural Resources Conservation Service collects snowpack and 
precipitation data in the western states.

[C] The Natural Resources Conservation Service collects soil moisture 
data at over 80 real-time sites in 39 states and territories.

[End of table]
 

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the Natural Resources Conservation Service, water quality 
data are stored primarily with the partners who collect the data. The 
data are most likely stored in paper-based project files and are 
available by request. Snowpack and precipitation data are stored in 
Internet-accessible databases and in published reports.

Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service: 

Agency Mission: 

The mission of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's 
(NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service is the stewardship of living 
marine resources through science-based conservation and management and 
the promotion of healthy ecosystems. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries 
Service is responsible for the management, conservation, and protection 
of living marine resources within the United States Exclusive Economic 
Zone. It also plays a supportive and advisory role in the management of 
living marine resources in coastal areas under state jurisdiction, 
provides scientific and policy leadership in the international arena, 
and implements international conservation and management measures as 
appropriate.

Water Quality Data: 

The Service collects project-specific water quality data (as shown in 
table 9) for a variety of uses. For example, data are used to 
substantiate whether a species should be covered under the Endangered 
Species Act, to designate a critical habitat, to establish a recovery 
plan and/or substantiate the rate of recovery, to conduct a 
consultation and work with federal and other entities to determine 
effects, to determine effects of different programs on the environment, 
or for enforcement. The Service collects water quality data at varying, 
project-specific frequencies, durations, and locations through its 
Science Centers, Office of Protected Resources, and Office of Habitat 
Conservation.

Table 9: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by NOAA's 
National Marine Fisheries Service: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service.

[A] These parameters are not routinely collected. The frequency of 
collection depends on project-specific needs.

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

As shown in table 10, the National Marine Fisheries Service collects 
water quantity data on a project-specific basis. The Service collects 
some water quantity data such as those needed to understand the effects 
of freshwater flowing into coastal habitats. The Army Corps of 
Engineers provides some funds to NOAA to collect streamgage data, and 
NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service provides funding to federal, 
state, and local groups to collect water quantity data through the 
Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.

Table 10: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by NOAA's 
National Marine Fisheries Service: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service.

[A] These parameters are not routinely collected. The frequency of 
collection depends on project-specific needs.

[End of table]
 

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the National Marine Fisheries Service, it does not 
maintain a centralized, internal water database. Some water data are 
stored in the National Oceanographic Data Center and some data are 
stored in paper or electronic files, which are dispersed throughout the 
agency. Data stored in the National Oceanographic Data Center are 
available via the Internet, while other data are available upon 
request.

Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Ocean Service: 

Agency Mission: 

The mission of NOAA's National Ocean Service is to preserve and enhance 
the nation's coastal resources and ecosystems along 95,000 miles of 
shoreline and 3.5 million square miles of coastal ocean. At the same 
time, it works to support economic growth for the long-term benefit of 
the nation.

Water Quality Data: 

As shown in table 11, the National Ocean Service collects data on a 
project-specific basis. These projects primarily seek to assess the 
health of coasts and establish trends in the health of coastal systems 
through activities such as monitoring the health of coral reefs and 
mapping sea grass beds. According to the Service, it collects water 
quality under a number of programs, such as the following: 

* National Status and Trends Program.

* National Estuarine Research Reserves System Program.

* National Marine Sanctuary System Program.

* Benthic Habitat Assessment Mapping Program.

* Coral Reef Monitoring Program.

* Harmful Algal Bloom Monitoring Program.

Table 11: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by NOAA's 
National Ocean Service: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: NOAA's National Ocean Service.

[A] NOAA's National Ocean Service also collects harmful algal bloom 
data on a project specific basis.

[B] Pesticides, other organic contaminants, and metals data are 
collected every year under the National Status and Trends Program; 
however, only half the stations are occupied per year.

[C] The frequency of collection varies depending on project needs.

[D] Data is collected on both fish and shellfish tissue. In general, 
shellfish tissue data are collected yearly, and fish tissue data are 
collected on a varying frequency depending on project needs.

[End of table]
 

Water Quantity Data: 

The National Ocean Service collects precipitation data (as shown in 
table 12) at some data collection locations through its National 
Estuarine Research Reserve System Program, which seeks to track short-
term variability and long-term changes in coastal ecosystems 
represented in the reserve system. In addition, through the National 
Water Level Program and its National Current Observation Program, the 
agency measures tide levels and water levels in the Great Lakes, tidal 
currents for navigation purposes, and storm surges associated with 
tropical storms and hurricanes. Water level data and tidal current data 
are collected on a continuous long-term basis.

Table 12: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by NOAA's 
National Ocean Service: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: NOAA's National Ocean Service.

[A] NOAA's National Ocean Service also collects tidal current and tide 
and water level data on a continuous, nationwide basis.

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the National Ocean Service, it stores its water quality 
data in internal program databases, with each National Ocean Service 
program having its own database. Some of these data are available 
online through NOAA data centers, and some are archived in project 
files that are accessible by request. Its water quantity data are 
stored in a NOAA national water level database and are available 
through the Internet.

Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration, National Weather Service: 

Agency Mission: 

The mission of NOAA's National Weather Service is to provide weather, 
hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for the United States, 
its territories, adjacent waters and ocean areas, for the protection of 
life and property and the enhancement of the national economy. National 
Weather Service data and products form a national information database 
and infrastructure, which can be used by other governmental agencies, 
the private sector, the public, and the global community.

Water Quality Data: 

The National Weather Service does not collect water quality data.

Water Quantity Data: 

NOAA's National Weather Service collects water quantity data (as shown 
in table 13) to support weather forecast activities and aviation 
operations, as well as the needs of the meteorological, hydrological, 
and climatological research communities. Two of its programs, the 
Automated Surface Observing Systems Program and the Cooperative 
Observer Program, serve as the nation's primary weather and climate 
observation networks. Through these programs, data are gathered on a 
long-term, daily basis and are used to define the climate of the United 
States and to support forecast, warning, and other public service 
programs of NOAA's National Weather Service.

Table 13: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by NOAA's 
National Weather Service: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: National Weather Service.

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the National Weather Service, its data are stored in the 
National Climatic Data Center of NOAA's National Environmental 
Satellite, Data, and Information Service and are available to the 
public via the Internet.

Department of Defense's Army Corps of Engineers: 

Agency Mission: 

The Army Corps of Engineers' mission is to provide quality, responsive 
engineering services to the nation, including: 

* planning, designing, implementing and, in some cases, operating water 
resources and other civil works projects (navigation, flood and storm 
damage reduction, environmental protection and restoration, 
hydropower, water supply, disaster response, etc.);

* designing and managing the construction of military facilities for 
the Army and Air Force (military construction); and: 

* providing design and construction management support for other 
Defense and federal agencies (interagency and international services).

Water Quality Data: 

The Army Corps of Engineers collects water quality data (as shown in 
table 14) on a broad geographic scale at many of its approximately 700 
water projects. These projects primarily are operated to facilitate 
navigation, reduce flood or storm damages, provide water supply 
storage, or generate hydropower. It also collects some data for other 
projects, such as the Florida Everglades. In that particular case, the 
Army Corps of Engineers collects data on pesticides, nutrients, and 
dissolved oxygen in order to maintain the health of the Everglades.

Table 14: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Army 
Corps of Engineers: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Army Corps of Engineers.

Note: The Army Corps of Engineers noted that it collects additional 
data for purposes such as planning and design. These additional data 
are collected by staff in district offices for specific needs and the 
data are stored in project-specific files at the district offices.

[A] In addition to its in-house data collection, the Army Corps of 
Engineers partners with multiple agencies and often contracts out data 
collection activities to others (e.g., the U.S. Geological Survey, 
NOAA's National Weather Service, universities, and private 
contractors).

[B] The frequency of collection varies depending on project needs.

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

The Army Corps of Engineers collects water quantity data (as shown in 
table 15) largely in association with its water management projects. 
For example, it keeps track of rainfall amounts, reservoir storage, and 
inflow and outflow as part of operating specific projects. It also 
collects stage data to monitor flood control efforts. In addition to 
their data collection activities, the Army Corps of Engineers funds 
approximately 25 percent of the U.S. Geological Survey's National 
Streamflow Information Program. Moreover, according to the Army Corps 
of Engineers, it contributes to the analysis of water data by 
developing water resources software models that are used worldwide.

Table 15: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Army Corps of Engineers: 

[See PDF for image]

Source: Army Corps of Engineers.

[A] In addition to its in-house data collection activities, the Army 
Corps of Engineers partners with multiple agencies and often contracts 
out data collection activities to others (e.g., the U.S. Geological 
Survey, NOAA's National Weather Service, universities, and private 
contractors).

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the Army Corps of Engineers, it stores its data in a 
number of databases, including internal databases as well as EPA's 
STORET and the U.S. Geological Survey's National Water Information 
System (NWIS). Many of these data are available through their district 
or division Web pages. In addition, some water quality data are stored 
in district offices in individual project files for which the data were 
collected. Many of these data are accessible upon request. Some Corps 
water data are not publicly available for security reasons.

Department of Energy's Bonneville Power Administration: 

Agency Mission: 

The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) markets wholesale electrical 
power and operates and markets transmission services in the Pacific 
Northwest. The power comes from 31 federal hydroelectric projects, one 
nonfederal nuclear plant, and several other nonfederal power plants. 
The hydroelectric projects and the electrical system are known as the 
Federal Columbia River Power System. About 45 percent of the electric 
power used in the Northwest comes from BPA. BPA's transmission system 
accounts for about three-quarters of the region's high-voltage grid and 
includes major transmission links with other regions.

Water Quality Data: 

BPA collects water quality data in conjunction with some of the 
hundreds of fish and wildlife projects it funds each year throughout 
the U.S. portion of the Columbia-Snake River Basin. As shown in table 
16, BPA collects a variety of water quality data on a project-specific 
scale. The purpose for data collection is usually to obtain baseline 
water quality data in a specific area and then compare it with water 
quality after a project is complete. BPA collects data in both small 
watersheds as well as big watersheds, such as the Columbia River Basin.

BPA provides funds to a variety of agencies to collect water quality 
data, including state departments of fish and wildlife, NOAA's National 
Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, local 
soil and water conservation districts, and tribes in the Columbia River 
Basin. BPA's fish and wildlife program has an approximately $140 
million annual budget and operates hundreds of projects, of which as 
many as 50 to 75 percent collect a small amount of water quality data.

Table 16: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by BPA: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: BPA.

[A] BPA also collects total dissolved gas data on a project-specific 
basis.

[B] Because BPA lacks a database that could provide information on the 
specific type and frequency of data collection, they were not able 
provide more detailed information for frequency of collection. Project-
specific data is collected on anywhere from a daily to yearly basis.

[C] Projects last one to several years, and data is collected and 
analyzed for one or more watersheds or subbasins.

[End of table]
 

Water Quantity Data: 

As shown in table 17, BPA collects a wide variety of water quantity 
data on a project-specific scale. Generally, water quantity data are 
used for complying with the Endangered Species Act and dam operations. 
BPA water quantity data are also used by others such as state fish and 
wildlife agencies and the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and 
Columbia River Basin navigation programs. BPA also uses data collected 
by the U.S. Geological Survey, Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of 
Reclamation, and Natural Resources Conservation Service, which are 
readily available via the Internet. In addition, BPA sometimes funds 
data collection by others, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, tribes, 
and states.

Table 17: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by BPA: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: BPA.

[A] The frequency of data collection varies depending on project-
specific needs.

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to BPA, the water quality data collected with BPA funding are 
stored in external, project-specific databases that are maintained by 
the data collectors. Most of the data are available by request, 
although small amounts of data are available via the Internet. Water 
quantity data are stored in internal, project-specific databases. Data 
are available through publications and via the Internet.

Environmental Protection Agency: 

Agency Mission: 

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) mission is to protect human 
health and to safeguard the natural environment and to ensure the 
following: 

* All Americans are protected from significant risks to human health 
and the environment where they live, learn, and work.

* National efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best 
available scientific information.

* Federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced 
fairly and effectively.

* Environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. 
policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, 
energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international 
trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing 
environmental policy.

* All parts of society--communities, individuals, business, state and 
local governments, tribal governments--have access to accurate 
information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human 
health and environmental risks.

* Environmental protection contributes to making our communities and 
ecosystems diverse, sustainable, and economically productive.

* The United States plays a leadership role in working with other 
nations to protect the global environment.

Water Quality Data: 

EPA supports states' monitoring programs to assess the quality of their 
waters and to identify waters that do not meet water quality standards. 
While EPA obtains most of the water quality data it uses from states, 
tribes, grantees, contractors, and regulated entities, EPA's 
laboratories collect some data for independent studies to determine the 
environmental impacts of special concerns, such as mining operations 
and underground storage tanks. In addition, EPA also collects or funds 
the collection of some water quality data (as shown in table 18) under 
the following monitoring programs: 

* Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National Marine 
Sanctuary;

* Monitoring and Reporting on the State of the Chesapeake Bay Program;

* Monitoring and Reporting on the State of the Great Lakes Ecosystem;

* Gulf of Mexico Monitoring;

* Office of Research and Development Environmental Monitoring and 
Assessment Program;

* National Estuary Program: National Coastal Assessment Intensive 
Sampling;

* Regulation of Ocean Dumping;

* National Marine Debris Monitoring Program and the International 
Coastal Cleanup;

* Pesticides in Selected Water-Supply Reservoirs and Finished Drinking 
Water, 1999-2000;

* National Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue;

* Beach Program; and: 

* Atmospheric Deposition.

Table 18: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by EPA: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: EPA.

Note: The information provided in this table is primarily based on the 
following six programs: the Beach Program, Chesapeake Bay Program, 
Great Lakes Program, National Estuary Program, Water Quality Protection 
Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and National 
Study of Chemical Residues in Lake Fish Tissue.

[A] According to EPA, data is collected on varying geographic scales, 
depending on the project.

[B] EPA noted that the frequency of collection varies depending on 
program needs. EPA only provided frequency information for data 
collected under the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Program, 
which collects data on nutrients, dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, 
and turbidity on a quarterly basis.

[End of table]


Water Quantity Data: 

EPA does not collect water quantity data, except in rare circumstances.

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to EPA, most of its water quality data are stored in STORET, 
which is Internet accessible. Data collected under some programs, such 
as the Water Quality Protection Program for the Florida Keys National 
Marine Sanctuary and the Chesapeake Bay Program, are stored in external 
databases that are managed by others. Project-specific data are added 
to contractor databases, some of which are available through STORET. In 
addition, some water quality data collected under Superfund has 
recently been loaded into STORET.

Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management: 

Agency Mission: 

The mission of the Bureau of Land Management is to sustain the health, 
diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and 
enjoyment of present and future generations. The Bureau manages 262 
million acres of land--about one-eighth of the land in the United 
States--and about 300 million additional acres of subsurface mineral 
resources. It is also responsible for wildfire management and 
suppression on 388 million acres.

Most of the lands the agency manages are located in the western United 
States, including Alaska, and are dominated by extensive grasslands, 
forests, high mountains, arctic tundra, and deserts. The Bureau 
oversees a wide variety of resources and uses, including energy and 
minerals; timber; forage; wild horse and burro populations; fish and 
wildlife habitat; wilderness areas; archaeological, paleontological, 
and historical sites; and other natural heritage values.

Water Quality Data: 

The Bureau uses water quality data in its management of public lands 
and to fulfill its obligations under the Clean Water Act. In most 
cases, its data are collected at the agency's 157 field offices for 
specific projects. It uses project-specific water quality data to 
understand the conditions of the lakes, rivers, streams, and ponds on 
agency-managed lands. As shown in table 19, the Bureau collects data on 
a variety of water quality parameters.

Table 19: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Bureau 
of Land Management: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: BLM.

[A] This information is based on 22 of BLM's 157 field offices. Water 
quality data collection varies among field offices, and BLM data are 
not aggregated at the national level.

[B] BLM's 22 field offices indicated that they collect data on both 
regional and project-specific geographic scopes. However, a BLM 
official noted that field offices vary in their interpretation of 
"regional." 

[C] While BLM did not provide specific information for the frequency of 
data collection, it reported that data collection at 22 of its 157 
field offices was typically conducted annually and rarely on a monthly 
or continuous frequency.

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

BLM collects and analyzes water quantity data for a variety of needs, 
such as: 

* designing a variety of fish and wildlife habitat and stream channel 
stabilization projects,

* in-stream flow analysis for habitat and recreation needs,

* floodplain management,

* fire management,

* fuel treatment planning,

* analyzing water quality data, and: 

* habitat assessments for fisheries.

Examples of types of water quantity data collected by the Bureau of 
Land Management are as follows: 

* streamflow and stream discharge data, in conjunction with water 
quality data on a project-specific basis;

* snowpack data, in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture's 
Natural Resources Conservation Service;

* surface water storage and groundwater data, perhaps once or twice a 
year (at the beginning or end of a growing season) to monitor 
agricultural areas;

* precipitation and evapotranspiration data during the growing season; 
and: 

* data from rain storage gages.

As shown in table 20, the Bureau collects data on a variety of water 
quantity parameters.


Table 20: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Bureau of Land Management: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: BLM.

[A] This information is based on 22 of BLM's 157 field offices. Water 
quantity data collection varies among field offices, and BLM data are 
not aggregated at the national level.

[B] More than half of the 22 BLM field offices indicated that they 
collect data on a project-specific basis. Three responses indicated 
that data are collected on a regional scale. However, a BLM official 
noted that field offices vary in their interpretation of "regional." 

[C] Data collection at BLM's field offices varies depending on specific 
project needs. Staff may collect data at any of the above listed 
frequencies.

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the Bureau of Land Management, its data are stored 
primarily at the local level, such as in field office databases. In 
addition, a small amount of Bureau data are stored in EPA's STORET 
database and the U.S. Geological Survey's NWIS. While the data stored 
in STORET and NWIS are publicly available via the Internet, most of the 
Bureau's water data are available by request.

Department of the Interior's Bureau of Reclamation: 

Agency Mission: 

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is to manage, 
develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally 
and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.

Reclamation: 

* manages, develops, and protects water and related resources in an 
environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the 
American public;

* serves as the fifth largest electric utility in the 17 western states 
and the nation's largest wholesale water supplier, administering 348 
reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 245 million acre-feet (an 
acre-foot, 325,851 gallons of water, supplies enough water for a family 
of four for one year);

* provides one out of five western farmers (140,000) with irrigation 
water for 10 million farmland acres that produce 60% of the nation's 
vegetables and 25% of its fruits and nuts;

* operates 58 hydroelectric power plants averaging 42 billion kilowatt-
hours annually;

* delivers 10 trillion gallons of water to more than 31 million people 
each year for municipal, rural, and industrial use; and: 

* manages in partnership over 300 recreation sites visited by 90 
million people a year.

Water Quality Data: 

As shown in table 21, Reclamation collects a wide variety of water 
quality data to meet project needs. Reclamation works together with the 
Natural Resources Conservation Service to collect water quality data 
under the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control program. In addition, 
Reclamation collects water quality data in compliance with its 
responsibilities under the Clean Water Act.

Table 21: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Bureau 
of Reclamation: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation.

[A] In addition, a Reclamation official indicated that some projects 
collect data on the following parameters: phytoplankton, cyanotoxins, 
total dissolved gas, and pharmaceuticals.

[B] The frequency of data collection varies for each parameter based on 
project needs (i.e., the Bureau may not collect a particular parameter 
for some projects but may collect the parameter on a regular basis for 
other projects).

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

As shown in table 22, Reclamation collects water quantity data on a 
project-specific basis. For example, Reclamation measures inflow, 
outflow, and reservoir surface elevation at reservoirs.

Table 22: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Bureau of Reclamation: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Bureau of Reclamation.

[A] The frequency of data collection varies for each parameter 
depending on project needs (i.e., the Bureau may not collect a 
particular parameter for some projects but may collect the parameter on 
a regular basis for other projects).

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to Reclamation, it often stores project-specific water 
quality data in internal databases. These data are generally available 
in hard copy or in publications. In addition, a small amount of Bureau 
data are stored in EPA's STORET and the U.S. Geological Survey's NWIS. 
These data are available via the Internet.

Water quantity data are stored in project-specific, internal databases 
or in Reclamation's Hydromet and Agrimet databases. Hydromet and 
Agrimet are available via the Internet. All water quantity data are 
generally available by request, though some data may be restricted due 
to security concerns.

Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service: 

Agency Mission: 

The mission of the Fish and Wildlife Service is, working with others, 
to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their 
habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service 
manages the 95 million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System of 543 
National Wildlife Refuges and thousands of small wetlands and other 
special management areas. Under its Fisheries and Habitat Conservation 
Program, the Fish and Wildlife Service also operates 66 National Fish 
Hatcheries, 64 fishery resource offices, and 78 ecological services 
field stations.

Among its key functions, the Fish and Wildlife Service enforces federal 
wildlife laws, protects endangered species, manages and conserves 
migratory birds, restores nationally significant fisheries, conserves 
and restores wildlife habitat such as wetlands, manages the world's 
largest system of lands devoted to the conservation of fish, wildlife, 
and plants, and helps foreign governments with their international 
conservation efforts. It also oversees the federal aid program that 
distributes hundreds of millions of dollars in excise taxes on fishing 
and hunting equipment to state fish and wildlife agencies for fish, 
wildlife, and habitat conservation.

Water Quality Data: 

As shown in table 23, the Service typically collects water quality data 
on a project-specific basis. For example, the agency collects data in 
order to assist in restoration of Superfund sites, where a suspected 
contaminant may affect lands within the National Wildlife Refuge 
System, or may collect data in specific watersheds where threatened or 
endangered species are present. The agency also collects data for the 
National Irrigation Water Quality Program--a cooperative effort with 
the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, and U.S. 
Geological Survey that operates mostly in the West to study endangered 
species on trustee land. In general, the Fish and Wildlife Service does 
not conduct long-term monitoring.

Table 23: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the Fish 
and Wildlife Service: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

The Fish and Wildlife Service collects a modest amount of water 
quantity data and often relies on data from other agencies, such as the 
U.S. Geological Survey. The Service collects water quantity data on a 
project-specific basis (as shown in table 24), to protect water rights 
and assure proper management of lands within the National Wildlife 
Refuge System, such as during drought conditions in order to protect 
endangered species.

Table 24: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
Fish and Wildlife Service: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: Fish and Wildlife Service.

[A] The frequency of data collection varies depending on project needs.

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the Fish and Wildlife Service, its water data are stored 
in project-specific databases at agency field offices. In addition, it 
has historically stored some data in a database operated by Maryland's 
Department of Environmental Quality. While some of its water quality 
information may not be publicly available for legal reasons, other 
water quality and water quantity data are available by request.

Department of the Interior's U.S. Geological Survey: 

Agency Mission: 

The U.S. Geological Survey is a nonregulatory agency that serves the 
nation by providing reliable scientific information to describe and 
understand the earth; minimize the loss of life and property from 
natural disasters; and manage water, biological, energy, and mineral 
resources. The U.S. Geological Survey provides comprehensive, high-
quality, and timely scientific data and information to decision makers 
and the public faced with complex natural resources issues.

Water Quality Data: 

The U.S. Geological Survey collects water quality data on a wide 
variety of parameters, as shown in table 25. The U.S. Geological Survey 
operates several large national water quality programs, including the 
National Water Quality Assessment Program and the National Stream 
Quality Accounting Network. The programs describe and provide an 
understanding of water quality in major river basins and aquifer 
systems, as well as in small watersheds, and cover about two-thirds of 
the land area of the conterminous United States.

Water quality data are also collected through the Cooperative Water 
Program, which is an ongoing partnership between the Geological Survey 
and nonfederal agencies in every state (as well as Puerto Rico and 
several U.S. trust territories). Through this program, about half of 
the $64 million of appropriated funds and $90 million of local matching 
funds are used for water-quality programs. Data collected for this 
program, along with a scientific understanding of these data the U.S. 
Geological Survey provides, are often used to address local management 
needs. The U.S. Geological Survey Cooperative Water Program funds 
approximately 750 projects targeted at specific water-resource issues, 
such as the effects of urbanization, agricultural practices, and energy 
development on water quality.

Table 25: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the U.S. 
Geological Survey: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey.

[A] In addition, a U.S. Geological Survey official indicated that the 
agency collects data for the following parameters: radio chemistry, 
stable isotopes, major ions, solid phase chemistry, alkalinity, plant 
tissue, and bed sediments.

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

The U.S. Geological Survey collects water quantity data on a variety of 
parameters, as shown in table 26. The U.S. Geological Survey is the 
main collector of streamflow data (the volume of water moving down a 
stream) under the National Streamflow Information Program, the 
Cooperative Water Program, and federal reimbursement agreements. The 
Geological Survey continuously collects streamflow data from rivers and 
streams at about 7000 gaging stations nationwide.

The Geological Survey is also a major collector of water use data under 
its National Water Use Information Program. It works in cooperation 
with local, state, and federal environmental agencies to collect water-
use information at a site-specific level, such as the amount of water 
used to produce power at a fossil-fuel power-generation plant in 
Georgia. It also compiles the data from hundreds of thousands of these 
sites to produce water-use information aggregated up to the county, 
state, and national levels. Every 5 years, data at the state and 
hydrologic region level are compiled into a national water-use data 
system and are published in a national circular.

Table 26: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
U.S. Geological Survey: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey.

[End of table]
 

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, it stores water quality data 
primarily in NWIS and the National Water Quality Assessment Program 
data warehouse. Data from both databases are available via the 
Internet. Water quantity data are also available through NWIS.

Department of the Interior's National Park Service: 

Agency Mission: 

The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural 
resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment, 
education, and inspiration of this and future generations. It 
cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural 
resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country 
and the world. Among its primary responsibilities is the preservation 
of natural resources. In order to make sound management decisions, 
National Park Service managers need accurate information about the 
condition of park natural systems, how they change over time, and what 
amount of change is within natural variability. Therefore, the Service 
has begun long-term natural resource monitoring throughout the national 
parks.

Water Quality Data: 

In the area of water quality, the National Park Service has three main 
data collection programs: 

* The Natural Resource Challenge-Vital Signs Monitoring Program is a 
Service-wide program that involves long-term water quality monitoring 
in parks for key indicators of change that could impair the long-term 
health of natural systems. The National Park Service, contractors, or 
cooperators, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, may collect data for 
the Vital Signs Monitoring Program.

* The National Park Service-U.S. Geological Survey Water Quality 
Assessment and Monitoring Partnership Program was initiated in 1998. 
Under this program, the U.S. Geological Survey funds and conducts water 
quality projects that address high priority National Park Service water 
quality issues identified by parks. The data collected are shared 
between the agencies and made available for public use.

* The National Park Service funds the collection of water quality data 
in parks to address specific problems. The agency calls for single-or 
multiyear projects in an annual call for park project proposals and may 
also conduct some discretionary projects that have high national 
priority. These projects may be conducted directly by the Service or by 
contractors or cooperators.

As shown in table 27, the National Park Service collects a wide variety 
of water quality data.

Table 27: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
National Park Service: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: National Park Service.

[A] Most water quality data collected by National Park Service staff, 
contractors, and cooperators are project-specific.

[B] Frequency of collection for all data types is prescribed in 
individual Project Implementation Plans, Vital Signs Monitoring Plans, 
or applicable program plans. Frequency of collection varies based on 
those plans.

[C] Planning is under way for Service-wide water quality monitoring as 
part of the Park Vital Signs Monitoring Program. On-the-ground 
monitoring will begin in fiscal year 2005.

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

The Service's Water Resources Division assists parks in identifying 
water quantity needs and in pursuing appropriate means to secure and 
protect water supplies for resource protection and administrative 
purposes. In addition, some water quantity data are collected in 
conjunction with water quality data. As shown in table 28, the type, 
frequency, and geographic scope of water quantity data collected in and 
around parks depend on project needs and can vary substantially from 
one project to another.

Table 28: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by the 
National Park Service: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: National Park Service.

[A] Most of the National Park Service's water availability data is 
collected by contractors (especially the U.S. Geological Survey), and 
the type, location, and frequency are determined on a site-specific 
basis by project needs.

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to the National Park Service, its water quality data are 
stored in an in-house version of EPA's STORET, and all data are 
available via the Internet through EPA's national STORET database. The 
agency's water quantity data are stored separately within the agency, 
though the Service's water quantity data that are collected by the U.S. 
Geological Survey are available through NWIS.

Tennessee Valley Authority: 

Agency Mission: 

The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is a federal corporation and the 
nation's largest public power company. As a regional development 
agency, TVA supplies affordable, reliable power, supports a thriving 
river system, and stimulates sustainable economic development in the 
public interest. It operates fossil, nuclear, and hydropower plants, 
and has also begun producing energy from renewable sources. It manages 
the nation's fifth-largest river system to minimize flooding, maintain 
navigation, provide recreational opportunities, provide water supply, 
and protect water quality in the 41,000-square-mile watershed. The 
river system covers about half of Tennessee and parts of Mississippi, 
Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Water Quality Data: 

TVA collects water quality data to evaluate ecological health in 
reservoirs throughout the Tennessee Valley. TVA conducts Reservoir 
Ecological Health Assessments, using a scoring process based on five 
ecological indicators (dissolved oxygen, chlorophyll, fish, bottom 
life, and sediment contaminants). Chemical analysis (pesticides, 
organics, and metals) is conducted for fish tissue and sediment 
contaminant monitoring. As shown in table 29, TVA collects a wide 
variety of water quality data on a regional scale and at varying 
frequencies. TVA provides its data to states to use at their discretion 
for determining whether their waters meet water quality standards. 
Others, such as industry and environmental groups, also use TVA data to 
perform environmental assessments.

Table 29: Water Quality Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and the 
Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by TVA: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: TVA.

[A] TVA also collects yearly data on sport fish populations (primarily 
focused on largemouth bass) and weekly data on zebra mussel and 
corbicula populations. These data are collected at 60 sites on 25 
reservoirs from spring to fall.

[B] TVA analyzes fish tissue and sediment samples for pesticides, 
organics, and metals contamination. Sediment contaminants monitoring is 
conducted at 59 sites on 32 reservoirs.

[C] These data parameters are collected under TVA's core monitoring 
program, which has 59 sites on 32 reservoirs and 18 major tributary 
inflows. Reservoirs are monitored annually with data collections 
monthly from April through October. Tributary inflows are monitored on 
a 2-year rotation with quarterly data collections.

[D] Data on the structure/function of aquatic communities is collected 
on a 2-year rotation at 69 sites on 31 reservoirs and a 5-year rotation 
on 650 streams.

[E] Fish tissue data is collected on a 4-year rotation at 69 sites on 
31 reservoirs and a 2-year rotation on 18 major tributaries.

[F] Habitat data is collected on a 5-year rotation on 650 streams.

[G] Data on the health/abundance of aquatic species or fish populations 
is collected on a 2-year rotation at 69 sites on 31 reservoirs and a 5-
year rotation on 650 streams.

[H] Indicator bacteria data is collected at 300 formal and informal 
swimming areas.

[End of table]

Water Quantity Data: 

TVA collects water quantity data to help decide how much water should 
be released from its 49 dams, for purposes such as protecting aquatic 
habitat, assimilating waste, and cooling power plants. To make these 
decisions, TVA needs to know how much and where water is entering the 
system, how much water is stored within the system, and rainfall 
amounts. As shown in table 30, TVA collects data on several water 
quantity parameters on a regional scale, and the data are collected on 
either a continuous basis or periodically.

Table 30: Water Quantity Parameters for Which Data Are Collected and 
the Frequency and Geographic Scope of Collection, as Reported by TVA: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: TVA.

[A] Surface runoff data and streamflow data are collected through a 
network of streamgages. Data on water levels at dams are also collected 
through this network.

[B] Precipitation data are collected through the rain gauge network.

[C] Withdrawal, consumptive use, and return flow data are collected for 
a periodic 5-year survey.

[End of table]

Storage Method and Accessibility: 

According to TVA, its data are stored in internal databases and 
generally available by request. Some data are classified and not 
available to the public.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Army Corps of Engineers: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 
20314-1000:

MAR 10 2004:

REPLY TO ATTENTION OF:

Mr. John B. Stephenson:

Director, Natural Resources and Environment 
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548.

Dear Mr. Stephenson:

This is the Department of Defense response to the GAO draft report, 
`WATERSHED MANAGEMENT: Better Coordination of Water Data Collection 
Efforts Can Increase Data Available to Support Key Decisions,' dated 
February 10, 2004, (GAO Code 360320/GAO-04-382).

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has reviewed the draft report and 
agrees with the majority of the findings. Most importantly, we agree 
with the conclusion that better coordination of data collection and 
analytical tools would lead to significantly improved decision-making 
capability with the Tribal, State and local governments, as well as 
provide important information to the general public. The Corps believes 
that designation of a lead Federal agency by Congress to operate as a 
clearinghouse for water quantity data is an important step to improving 
data collection and management.

Data acquisition through the many and varied Civil Works projects along 
with permit evaluation, is one of the most significant capabilities of 
the Corps. During development of this report, we provided to the study 
team a paper that summarized and exemplified these activities and their 
relationship to watershed principles. Most Corps projects collect large 
quantities of data on water quality and quantity, in addition to other 
factors important to a watershed assessment. The report does not 
clearly and accurately reflect the enormous amount of water quantity 
and quality data that is collected and maintained by the Corps. For 
example, projects like the Upper Mississippi River, the Everglades, and 
Coastal Louisiana Restoration efforts generate tremendous datasets 
containing both water quantity and quality information. However, due to 
the absence of statutory authority and funding, most data do not reach 
Tribal, State and local government or the public. Another category of 
water quantity and quality data in the custody of the Corps comes from 
the more than 80,000 Clean Water Act permits issued each year. These 
permits incorporate data from various Tribal, State, and local 
agencies, as well as data developed by applicants, for project-specific 
analysis of impacts. Finally, the Corps has served as an agent for a 
number of large projects carried out by other agencies and maintains 
large quantities of water quality and water quantity data from these 
efforts. A notable example of this type of effort is the Department of 
Energy (DOE) Pantex Facility near Amarillo, Texas. State and local 
governments have told us that all these data are of a great value but 
not conveniently accessible to them or the public. The Corps, along 
with other Federal agencies, is evaluating opportunities to organize 
and provide these data to State and local governments through 
initiatives that organize water data along watershed boundaries.

The Corps is moving forward with a new vision for a comprehensive 
integrated watershed management approach to take advantage of the 
interdisciplinary team approach and integrate all of its programs, 
projects, and data collection responsibilities within a holistic 
watershed framework. This comprehensive management approach envisions 
that all water resources management activities and decisions, whether 
they be for planning, operations, regulatory, engineering, or military 
construction, will be made with full consideration of the effects on 
the particular watershed(s) in which the action would occur. Data 
generated through these programs would be made available to everyone 
through web-based applications based on these watershed boundaries. A 
preliminary draft mission statement has been developed:

"The Corps will use a comprehensive, integrated watershed management 
approach in all activities, projects, and permits, using data and 
analytical procedures for evaluating the physical, environmental, 
economic, social and political elements characterizing that 
watershed."

This watershed approach will include a unified framework of analytic 
tools and watershed data that will be used to support the Corps and 
stakeholders' decision to be shared among the community of water 
interests outside the Corps. An integrated system of analyses, 
applicable to any watershed, will be used to evaluate the 
environmental, economic, and social equity aspects of all decisions. 
Furthermore, these data will be used with various environmental models 
that predict the impact of decisions on the values and functions of the 
watershed.

Because watershed data have an inherent spatial context, Enterprise 
Geographic Information Systems (EGIS) technology will be employed to 
collect and organize these data. The transparency associated with 
sharing data and analytical tools empowers collaboration and consensus 
building and thereby produces sustainable decisions with wide 
acceptance by all affected parties and stakeholders. These data, 
analytical tools, and procedures permit the evaluation of alternatives 
and clarify the trade-offs and balance required among value and 
function, the environment, economy, and social equity values. For 
example, from the outset of project development within this framework, 
planners and project managers will share the data and analyses with 
stakeholders to formulate holistic solutions having broad based 
support. Designers and engineers will define solutions within the same 
collaborative framework, ensuring that shared stakeholder concepts are 
incorporated into implementation. Existing projects will be operated 
with an awareness of integrating and balancing the impacts and benefits 
of management decisions on the watersheds where projects are located. 
The public will have the advantages of a transparent set of data, 
decision tools, and timely access to key Corps managers to facilitate 
their participation in the process. Wetland permit decisions will also 
be watershed based and the full community of stakeholders will be able 
to participate in an open process empowered by direct access to the 
shared framework.

The Corps is taking the next steps to develop and utilize its 
watershed-based approach through the effective management of all 
programs within the agency. We are acquiring significant amounts of 
data through our internal efforts as well as importing externally 
generated 
data from other sources for use by our programs. In many places where 
State, regional or local agencies have led or are leading the way, the 
Corps can work with those agencies cooperatively to integrate those 
data for use in this approach. These data are being systematically 
compiled and most are being made available to other agencies and the 
general public for broader use. As we compile these data, we are 
incorporating the EGIS into all core business processes. The Corps is 
moving to leverage our existing investments in data acquisition by 
integrating mapping and EGIS technology across all districts and 
divisions. EGIS will provide the information foundation for the Corps, 
support the district offices in their conduct of multi-level analysis 
and associated decision making, and provide an over-arching national 
view of water resources initiatives and their associated practitioners. 
Implementation of the Enterprise GIS will facilitate the identification 
of data gaps, identify potential sources of external data and 
underscore the need for refinements in analytic tools.

Integrating comprehensive watershed management on a regional basis 
depends on the formation of partnerships between governments and the 
public, across disciplines and borders, and among water users, 
planners, engineers, and regulators with different interests and 
missions. Achieving and maintaining close, functional linkages with our 
Tribal, State and local partners, are the keys to effective execution 
of the watershed management concept. The Corps, with its on-going 
efforts, is strategically placed to play a vital role in this effort in 
the future. The Corps appreciates the opportunities that would be 
afforded to State and local managers and the public by making these 
large data sets available in EGIS format. Unfortunately the Corps lacks 
statutory authority to seek funds to compile and make this data 
accessible to the public. Studies and projects are cost shared by 
project sponsors making undesirable and inequitable the use of project 
overheads to centrally fund the management of these data. The Corps 
would be willing to participate in any discussions associated with 
establishing a clearinghouse for water quantity data. Setting up a 
clearinghouse of water quantity data could result in significant 
savings for the Federal government as well as assisting State and local 
governments with their land use decisions.

We thank you for the ability to provide these comments on an important 
subject that will have great benefits to our country in the future.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Carl A. Strock:

Major General, 
U.S. Army 
Director of Civil Works:

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Department of the Interior: 

United States Department of the Interior:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY:
Washington, D.C. 20240:

Mr. John B. Stephenson: 
Director, Natural Resources and the Environment:
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G Street, N. W. 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

MAR 12 2004:

Dear Mr. Stephenson:

Thank you for providing the Department of the Interior (DOI) the 
opportunity to review and comment on the draft U.S. General Accounting 
Office (GAO) report entitled, "Watershed Management: Better 
Coordination of Water Data Collection Efforts Can Increase Data 
Available to Support Key Decisions," (GAO-04-382). The GAO has done an 
excellent job of gathering information from many sources and assembling 
the perspectives into a well-organized document. Considering all the 
organizations and issues around water resource information, management, 
and remediation at the national and local level, and the various 
competing mission responsibilities, the GAO has brought many of the 
most important perspectives of successes and challenges to light. The 
GAO is commended on their comprehensive job in assembling information 
on a large complex subject in a short time frame.

Several issues are worth comment from the DOI perspective: a) The 
suggestion that Congress consider designating a lead organization or 
agency for coordinating water data collection nationwide; b) 
identification of deficiencies in the coordination and collaboration of 
water-quality data collection that such a designee might address, and 
what deficiencies would remain; c) determination of data sharing and 
database issues that need to be addressed, and those that should remain 
even after collaboration is maximized; and d) examination of what is 
still missing for the more highly coordinated water quantity data 
collection issue that needs support.

The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Memorandum 92-01 designates 
the:

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as the lead agency for coordinating water 
information. As a result of implementing OMB M-92-O1, the USGS has 
worked with other agencies to establish and operate the Water 
Information Coordination Program. As GAO mentioned (pages 52-56), 
though advancements have been made through the Advisory Committee on 
Water Information (ACWI) and the National Water-Quality Monitoring 
Council (NWQMC), the USGS lacks financial resources to facilitate 
further coordination and collaboration. Many agencies at the Federal 
and local level participate in ACWI and NWQMC on a voluntary basis, 
with staff time only marginally available.

The issue is not the absence of an established process or lead agency, 
but rather the level of funding and personnel resources dedicated to 
these efforts across all of the participating agencies.

Even if the suggestion of designating a lead agency were implemented, 
some issues would remain, including: 1) Differing purposes for data 
collection; 2) variation in data collection protocols; 3) lack of 
awareness regarding who is collecting water data; and 4) low priority 
and insufficient funding for collaboration of water data collection and 
data sharing. Of these four key barriers to coordination and 
collaboration, the suggestion for a lead organization with resources 
would address #3 and #4, but the first two barriers would remain.

The first barrier results primarily from differing mission 
responsibilities, and from implementing legislation or regulations. 
That barrier can be lowered to some extent by coordination and 
collaboration; however, bureaus will continue to have distinct 
responsibilities and missions, which require that they ask different 
questions about water resources. These different questions lead to 
differences in geographic scale and timing of data to provide the 
answers. For example, in managing water delivery for a large watershed 
area, the Department needs information over a large area covering 
seasonal to annual variations. In contrast, in managing habitat for a 
protected species, the Department needs water resource data for a small 
stream reach over shorter time scales. These responsibilities require 
different data collection efforts. The data collection protocols also 
may vary across organizations for two reasons: 1) Different questions 
often lead to separate approaches or protocols; and 2) as long as 
protocol selection is voluntary (as it is among the States), 
differences will remain as each authority selects its preferred 
approach.

The GAO accurately described many of the database issues in the draft 
report. We want to further highlight a few points. First, databases are 
used for other purposes beyond that of a data repository. Within the 
Department, the USGS National Water Information System (NWIS) is not 
only an archive containing data of known quality and origin, but also a 
data processing system that automatically and continuously applies 
quality control tests as new data enter NWIS. This is a crucial 
distinction between NWIS and other databases mentioned in the GAO 
report such as the new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Storage 
and Retrieval System. The processing capability within NWIS allows the 
USGS to provide continuous streamflow and water-quality data from 
monitoring locations within a few hours of data generation. Although 
those data are subject to further review and quality assurance, they 
are quickly provided to the public over the Internet after an automatic 
first level of quality control review. This crucial distinction between 
NWIS and the other databases mentioned in the GAO report illustrates 
why the Department needs NWIS to meet mission responsibilities to 
protect life and property.

In addition, as we have observed the evolution of data systems, we have 
become convinced that establishing one huge Federal database is neither 
feasible nor desirable. Current database and Internet technology is 
best suited to multiple databases that conform to data standards, 
creating the ability to identify and share data among systems. When 
data systems are too large and remote from the data generation 
responsibility, maintaining data integrity becomes difficult and 
inefficient. Thus, data sharing can be achieved through developing a 
data portal. Development of such a portal should also create 
organizational interest in identifying other data that could be made 
available for sharing through the portal. Such an approach is the one 
currently pursued by the USGS and EPA. The major constraint for both 
organizations right now is working within the limit of resources 
available; however, progress is being made and the first phases of this 
effort will be made public soon.

The GAO has accurately identified water quantity data collection as 
being more highly coordinated and consistent because fewer agencies and 
organizations are involved in the majority of data collection 
activities. In addition, the science of water quantity data collection 
is more mature than the science supporting water quality data 
collection. What is primarily missing in water quantity data 
collection, as appropriately identified by the GAO, is adequate data. 
More data production at this point will not result from efficiencies of 
coordination and collaboration; what is lacking at all levels of 
government are the financial resources to support more data collection. 
Especially troubling is the loss of long-term data collection stations 
(Figure 10), as many important questions around flood and drought 
conditions and their recurrence require long-term data sets to answer. 
The USGS is striving to work with many Federal, State, and local 
partners to continue long-term data collection within existing 
resources.

Finally, coordination and collaboration is a huge challenge because of 
the multitude of agencies and organizations involved. The Department 
and its bureaus are committed to making water data collection and 
coordination activities as effective as possible at all levels of 
government. While designating a lead organization or agency has value, 
without resources we will not see fast results. All organizations are 
working within a complex environment including changing water quality 
perspectives and needs and differing mission responsibilities, which 
result in legitimately different approaches. Thus, one cannot expect 
that coordinated approaches will answer all questions or meet all water 
resource needs.

The enclosure provides specific comments from the U.S. Geological 
Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, and 
the Bureau of Reclamation. We hope our comments will assist you in 
preparing the final report.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

P. Lynn Scarlett:

Assistant Secretary - Policy, Management and Budget: 
General Accounting Office, 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460:

OFFICE OF WATER:

MAR 2 2004:

John B. Stephenson, Director: 
Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
441 G. Street, N. W.
Washington D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Stephenson:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the draft March 2004 report 
"Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Water Data Collection 
Efforts Can Increase Data Available to Support Key Decisions.":

As the draft report notes, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
has long believed that the watershed approach is the best way to manage 
the nation's water resources. We agree with GAO that effective 
implementation of the watershed approach depends upon reliable, 
comprehensive, and accessible data on water quality. These data are 
also necessary in order to characterize the state of the nation's 
waters.

EPA believes that it is important for the report to reflect the 
critical leadership role that States have in implementing programs 
under the Clean Water Act. We also believe that the report could be 
strengthened by noting: (1) the high cost of monitoring, (2) recent 
significant improvements to the STORET system, and (3) the emphasis 
placed on coordination and data sharing in EPA's "Elements of a State 
Monitoring and Assessment Program" guidance.

Regarding the high cost of monitoring, states report that they 
currently have an annual shortfall of $100-150 million for their water 
quality monitoring programs. The magnitude of this shortfall 
underscores the importance of collaboration and coordination on data 
collection efforts.

Regarding STORET, the report recognizes that data should be stored in 
accessible databases, and identifies STORET as the only database 
available to most users. STORET is evolving quickly. Last year, EPA 
completed a new STORET data warehouse that has increased data retrieval 
speed from STORET by 200-fold. With the completion of the data 
warehouse, EPA has now significantly increased customer outreach and 
support to better meet States' needs for the STORET system. We believe 
that the report should note new developments to the STORET system in 
conjunction with comments on past performance of the database.

EPA's "Elements of a State Monitoring and Assessment Program" guidance 
specifically addresses the issues of better coordination and data 
sharing. The first page of the guidance states:

"EPA recommends that State monitoring program managers work with other 
State environmental managers and interested stakeholders (including EPA 
Regions, other Federal water quality and land management agencies, 
volunteer monitoring organizations, and academic institutions) as they 
develop their strategy. This collaboration provides the State water 
quality program an opportunity to maximize its use of other parties' 
data and effectively expand its monitoring resources. Many States have 
formed monitoring councils that help facilitate coordination of 
monitoring activities among various organizations."

The guidance also states on page 10:

G. Data Analysis/Assessment:

The State has a methodology for assessing attainment of water quality 
standards based on analysis of various types of data (chemical, 
physical, biological, land use) from various sources, for all waterbody 
types and all State waters... The methodology describes how the state 
integrates its primary data - collected specifically for making 
attainment decisions according to a State QAPP - with data from 
secondary sources, collected for a variety of purposes under a variety 
of quality control practices. (Secondary data could include, for 
example, volunteer monitoring data or discharge monitoring reports) The 
methodology should:

* Identify the required or likely sources of existing and available 
data and information and procedures for collecting or assembling it,... 

Please see our additional specific technical comments, enclosed. EPA 
appreciates this opportunity to comment on the draft report. The Agency 
agrees with GAO on the critical importance of coordination and 
collaboration on data sharing. We appreciate your undertaking this 
investigation and look forward to working with you in the future. If 
you have any questions, please contact Peter Grevatt, Chief of the 
Monitoring Branch, at 202-566-1925.

Sincerely yours,

Signed for: 

Benjamin H. Grumbles:

Acting Assistant Administrator:

Enclosure:

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Commerce's National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration: 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
The Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere 
Washington, D.C. 20230:

MAR 4 2004: 

Mr. John B. Stephenson: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
United States General Accounting Office 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Stephenson:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the General 
Accounting Office's draft report entitled, "Watershed Management: 
Better Coordination of Water Data Collection Efforts Can Increase Data 
Available to Support Key Decisions." GAO-04-382. Enclosed are the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's comments on the draft 
report.

These comments were prepared in accordance with the Office of 
Management and Budget Circular A-50.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr. 
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (Ret.) 
Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere:

Enclosure:

NOAA Comments on the GAO Draft Audit Report Entitled:

"Better Coordination of Water Data Collection Efforts Can Increase Data 
Available to Support Key Decisions" (GAO-04-382):

General Comments:

All occurrences of "Fisheries" or "NOAA's Fisheries" should be replaced 
with "NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service" throughout the draft 
report.

The Executive Summary and Introduction section of the draft report 
should clarify the information contained in the report relates to 
"freshwater," not "saltwater."

We recommend eliminating, in general, references to "watersheds" for 
two major reasons: (1) The draft does not include many references to 
"watersheds," and (2) the remainder of the draft report would not be 
affected, if revised. All of it supports the second part of the present 
title, "Better Coordination of Water Data Collection Efforts Can 
Increase Data Available to Support Key Decisions."

Specific Comments:

Page 1, paragraph 1: Delete "both" before the phrase, "significant 
environmental and financial implications."

Page 1, paragraph 2, second sentence: Insert the article, "the" before 
"states' standards."

Page l, paragraph 2, third sentence: Insert the article, "the" before 
the noun, "states."

Page 3, footnote 3: Add the acronym "(NOAA)" after the "National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration," under footnote 3, page 3.

Page 4, first sentence: Revise top of page 4 by deleting the article, 
"the" before "National Weather Service" and substitute "NOAA's" in lieu 
thereof.

Page 6, seventh sentence: Delete in its entirety and replace with the 
following: "It stores these data in the National Climatic Data Center 
of NOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information 
Service and makes them available to the public via the Internet."

Page 25, use of the term "STORET": Beginning on page 25, STORET is 
introduced and perhaps the distinction between the old STORET and the 
modernized STORET should be introduced at this point to make it clear 
the current system goes a long way to correct the apples and oranges 
approach to the original system and the current emphasis on metadata.

Page 27, subheading: Revise the subheading, Federal Water Quality Data 
Storage, page 27, by deleting the last line of the first paragraph in 
its entirety and replacing it with the following:

"... used to assess the health of marine and coastal ecosystems in 
internal program-specific databases."

Page 39, subheading: Revise the subheading, Storage and Accessibility 
of Federal Water Quantity Data by deleting "Commerce's" before 
"National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service" and 
replace it with "NOAA's."

Page 50, in the section entitled, "Different Metadata Standards: To 
clarify the meaning of the term "metadata" we suggest providing a 
characteristic such as mode of sample collection or periodicity of 
sampling. "Quality of the data" is determined by a user who assesses 
the metadata to better understand the standard used to collect, 
analyze, and assess the data set.

Page 52, in the section entitled "Data Coordination is Often Assigned a 
Low Priority:" The authors discuss the reasons for limited coordination 
even where efforts have been made to coordinate and consolidate the 
data collection, such as the National Council effort, the participation 
is only as useful as the breadth of knowledge that the agency 
representative has of the Agency's water quality collection efforts. 
Too often, individuals represent their individual office activities but 
make limited effort to reflect the other activities in other offices of 
the Agency. In many cases, there is little interaction or awareness of 
other programs so any error in presentation is one of omission and not 
volition.

Page 77, first paragraph: The thought suggests the water quantity data 
will become more important as populations grow and, by the way, we 
should collect water quality data too. Water quantity data are critical 
to protect human and natural populations at times of extreme events, 
i.e., floods and droughts, and must be monitored to avoid errors in 
water distribution. With increases in population density, water quality 
data will become increasingly important to everyday needs of protecting 
humans and wildlife exposure to increased concentrations of biological 
and chemical products of human activities thrust upon an environment 
that has exceeded its capacity to store or neutralize the daily 
assaults. One set of data collections is more important to protect and 
improve management responses to extreme events while the other set of 
data collections are of increasing importance on a daily and long term 
scale. 

[End of section]

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 Steve Elstein, (202) 512-6515: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individuals named above, Leah DeWolf, Laura Gatz, 
Barbara Patterson, and Emmy Rhine made key contributions to this 
report. Also contributing to this report were Robert Crystal, Lynn 
Musser, and Carol Shulman.

(360320): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Inventory: 
2000 Report (Washington, D.C.: August 2002).

[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Water Quality: Key EPA and State 
Decisions Limited by Inconsistent and Incomplete Data, GAO/RCED-00-54 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 15, 2000).

[3] While not an exhaustive list of federal agencies that collect water 
data, GAO identified the following agencies: Within the Department of 
Agriculture--Agricultural Research Service, Cooperative State 
Research, Education, and Extension Service, Forest Service, and Natural 
Resources Conservation Service. Within the Department of Commerce's 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--National Marine 
Fisheries Service, National Ocean Service, and National Weather 
Service. Within the Department of Defense--Army Corps of Engineers. 
Within the Department of Energy--Bonneville Power Administration. 
Environmental Protection Agency. Within the Department of the Interior-
-Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife 
Service, U. S. Geological Survey, and National Park Service. Tennessee 
Valley Authority.

[4] ASIWPCA is an independent, nonpartisan organization of state and 
interstate water program managers. 

[5] Streamgage data include measurements of depths, areas, velocities, 
and rates of flow in natural or artificial channels.

[6] Metadata describe the content, quality, condition, and other 
characteristics of data. They provide data users with information about 
the data so that they can make informed decisions as to the quality of 
the data and the comparability of the data for their questions or 
purposes.

[7] Mehan III, G. Tracy, EPA Assistant Administrator for Water, 
Committing EPA's Water Program to Advancing the Watershed Approach. 
Memorandum to EPA Office Directors and Regional Water Decision 
Directors. (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

[8] Environmental Protection Agency, National Water Quality Inventory: 
2000 Report (Washington, D.C.: August 2002).

[9] GAO/RCED-00-54.

[10] The National Water Quality Monitoring Council was created in 1997 
and has representatives from federal, interstate, state, tribal, local 
and municipal governments; watershed groups; the volunteer monitoring 
community; universities; and the private sector. The purpose of the 
council is to provide a national forum to coordinate consistent and 
scientifically defensible water quality monitoring methods and 
strategies. This council's activities, including its role in 
coordinating water data collection, are discussed in greater detail in 
chapter 3. 

[11] This report focuses largely on freshwater. 

[12] Some agencies do not collect all of the listed parameters 
themselves, but provide funding to others to collect the data. For 
example, the Bonneville Power Administration, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, and Cooperative State Research, Education, and 
Extension Service do not collect all of their water quality data 
themselves but instead provide funding to other entities that collect 
data.

[13] Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control 
Administrators, Water Quality Monitoring Programs 2002: A Survey Report 
of the Status and Future of State Ambient Water Quality Monitoring 
Programs (Washington, D.C.: 2003).

[14] The states and interstate agencies estimated their total resource 
need at $211 million, meaning they faced a shortfall of $99 million for 
water quality monitoring in 2002. 

[15] U.S. General Accounting Office, Water Quality: Inconsistent State 
Approaches Complicate Nation's Efforts to Identify Its Most Polluted 
Waters, GAO-02-186 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 2002).

[16] Environmental Protection Agency, Elements of a State Water 
Monitoring and Assessment Program (Washington, D.C.: March 2003).

[17] The National Water Quality Monitoring Council was created in 1997 
and has representatives from federal, interstate, state, tribal, local, 
and municipal governments; watershed and environmental groups; the 
volunteer monitoring community; universities; and the private sector. 
The purpose of the council is to provide a national forum to coordinate 
consistent and scientifically defensible water quality monitoring 
methods and strategies. This council's activities, including its role 
in coordinating water data collection, are discussed in greater detail 
in chapter 3. 

[18] Stage is a measure of the height of a water surface.

[19] Some of these agencies reported that they provide funding to 
others, such as contractors or academics, to collect water quantity 
data rather than collecting the data themselves.

[20] National Research Council, Estimating Water Use in the United 
States (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2002).

[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, Freshwater Supply: States' Views 
of How Federal Agencies Could Help Them Meet the Challenges of Expected 
Shortages, GAO-03-514 (Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2003).

[22] GAO/RCED-00-54.

[23] Nonpoint sources of pollution are diffuse sources that include a 
variety of land-based activities, such as timber harvesting, 
agriculture, and urban development. 

[24] National Research Council, Assessing the TMDL Approach to Water 
Quality Management (Washington, D.C.: July 2001).

[25] The Environmental Forum, Sample Problem (September/October 2002; 
vol. 19, no. 5, p. 26).

[26] Metadata describe the content, quality, condition, and other 
characteristics of data. They provide data users with information about 
the data so that they can make informed decisions as to the quality of 
the data and the comparability of the data for their questions or 
purposes.

[27] Environmental Protection Agency, The Volunteer Monitor's Guide to 
Quality Assurance Project Plans (Washington, D.C.: September 1996).

[28] The federal agencies we interviewed that use data to make 
watershed management decisions include the EPA, Bureau of Land 
Management, Bureau of Reclamation, National Park Service, Fish and 
Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Forest 
Service, Army Corps of Engineers, Bonneville Power Administration 
(BPA), Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and NOAA's National Ocean 
Service.

[29] According to its terms of reference, National Council membership 
cannot exceed 35 member organizations, allowing for representatives 
from 10 federal agencies and 10 states (1 state from each of the 10 
federal regions). Other organizations that participate on the National 
Council represent the following interests: Native Americans, 
agriculture, environmental interest groups, industry, local agencies 
and municipalities, river-basin commissions, and/or associations, 
universities, and volunteer monitoring groups. 

[30] The Water Information Coordination Program, established by a 
December 1991 Office of Management and Budget memorandum, was created 
to ensure coordination of water information programs and designated the 
U.S. Geological Survey as the lead agency.

[31] State councils are Maryland, Virginia, Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, 
Kentucky, and Wisconsin. The regional councils are Chesapeake Bay, Lake 
Michigan, and New England. A state council was previously established 
in Montana but has since disbanded. According to EPA, three more states 
are considering forming state monitoring councils. 

[32] Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of State and Regional 
Water Quality Monitoring Councils (Washington, D.C.: August 2003).

[33] Environmental Protection Agency, A Review of Statewide Watershed 
Management Approaches (Washington, D.C.: April 2002).

[34] GAO-03-514.

[35] GAO-03-514.

GAO's Mission: 

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, 
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: