![[logo] US EPA](https://webarchive.library.unt.edu/eot2008/20090512011742im_/http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
New Jersey's Water Quality Monitoring Program
INTRODUCTION
Water is one of our most vital resources and must be protected. One of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) ten strategic goals is clean and safe water. People use lakes, rivers, and streams for drinking water, boating, fishing, swimming, irrigation, and industry. States adopt water quality standards to protect these uses of the water, and monitor the water to find out how well the water quality supports the water uses. The states and EPA use the water quality information as a basis for their programs to control and clean up water pollution. This audit is one in a series of state water quality audits conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to develop a national picture of the performance of state water quality programs.
OBJECTIVES
Our overall objective was to review New Jersey's water quality standards and monitoring program. Our specific audit objectives were to answer the following questions:
- Has New Jersey implemented procedures to develop water quality standards that will protect its water quality?
- Has New Jersey implemented procedures to test and assess the quality of all appropriate waters in the State?
- Are State reports on water quality complete, accurate, and useful for program management?
- Has Region 2 implemented effective procedures to approve New Jersey's water quality standards and evaluate the State's water quality standards setting, testing, assessing, and reporting?
RESULTS IN BRIEF
New Jersey had implemented procedures to develop water quality standards. Overall, New Jersey had established a structure for the running of a comprehensive water quality program that generally protects its surface water to sustain human health and aquatic life, and provides for recreational and economic activities. It had also adopted numerical criteria that were slightly more stringent than Federal criteria.
However, State and Regional officials have stated that decreased environmental funding and resources forced the State agency to make choices. New Jersey had made a good effort to assess its waters through an ambient surface water monitoring network. Yet, there were reductions in the number of monitoring stations and the frequency of samples taken to assess water quality corresponding with budgetary reductions. All the above issues are discussed in more detail in Chapter 2.
Water quality reporting was also affected by budgetary restraints. Water quality reports were not complete and accurate because they did not include all State waters. In addition, the biennial report on State water quality and the listing of impaired water bodies were consistently late. The biennial reports were issued one to two years after their due dates, while the impaired listing missed its deadline by 5 to 28 months. Furthermore, few pollution limits to correct the impairments were developed. Reporting issues are detailed in Chapter 3.
The priorities that were set sometimes benefitted some aspects of the program at the detriment of others. For example, New Jersey concentrated many of its monitoring and assessment resources on coastal waters. The State has a growing shellfish industry and vast coastal recreation which are important economic factors. While the State's shell fishing and beach monitoring activities improved, other water bodies including lakes and ponds, have suffered. Chapter 4 provides more detail on how the assignment of a lower priority has affected the State's lakes.
Finally, the Region had been improving its oversight of the New Jersey water quality monitoring program. However, we found some areas where improved communications could strengthen the program. Regional oversight is discussed in Chapter 5.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Regional Administrator work with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) to determine a way to maximize the use of available resources to increase the number and frequency of sites tested annually. We also recommend that the Region continue to work with the State to improve its timeliness for issuing water quality reports. In addition, the Region needs to periodically review and monitor the State's 10-year total maximum daily load schedule to assure that planned actions are being met and commitments are being achieved.
We also recommend that the Regional Administrator encourage NJDEP to actively solicit, assemble and evaluate all existing and readily available lake water quality related data and information. NJDEP needs to develop and implement a plan to assess and report the status and trends of all publicly owned lakes.
AGENCY COMMENTS
& OIG EVALUATION
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Policy and Management (ARA) responded to our draft report on May 28, 1999. The response also attached NJDEP's comments dated May 4, 1999. Both agencies provided additional information, clarifications, and actions taken to the issues presented in the draft report. Based on those responses, we have revised the report, where appropriate. Their responses have been summarized at the end of each chapter. The complete Regional and State responses have been included as Appendices 2 and 3. An exit conference was held with Regional and State officials on June 15, 1999. A copy of the proposed final audit report was sent to the State on June 25, 1999. Some additional comments were provided on July 6, 1999.