Day 1 - Tuesday Sept. 9, 2003

Welcome and Introduction of Water 2025

Robert Hirsch (ACWI Chair and Associate Director for Water, USGS)

• Brief welcome to ACWI members and other participants.

Bennett Raley (Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, USDOI)

• Emphasized the importance of water information, which is critical to decision making on matters of water management and policy development and implementation. Recognized the scientists of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), who are valued for their competence, integrity and objectivity in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of water data.

• Water 2025: Preventing Crises and Conflict in the West - Will provide a basis for a public discussion in advance of water crises (in the American West) and sets forth a framework to focus on meeting water supply challenges in the future. The focus is on water quantity, but recognizes that quantity and quality are integrally related. The program recognizes that states, tribes, and local governments should play a leading role in meeting water-related challenges, and that the DOI should focus its attention and resources on areas where scarce federal dollars can provide the greatest benefits (see 1-page handout and website www.doi.gov/water2025).

• The map of "Potential Water-Supply Crises by 2025" (on the handout mentioned above) is very subjective, and would very likely be drawn differently by others.

• Old (19th and 20th century) water wars were local and regional in extent and impact; now (21st century) they are of national impact and importance. Those "old" wars were fought over water for growth; today's water shortages, under even "normal" hydrologic conditions, affect current infrastructure and economies. (California's economy is critically dependent on water management.)

• The integration of science and policy decisions remains a critical and not quite yet fait accompli.

Federal Roundtable

Jason Freihage (Office of Management and Budget)

• To fulfill its oversight responsibilities under Memorandum M-92-01 that authorized establishment of the Water Information Coordination Program (WICP)) and ACWI, OMB is requesting inter-agency cooperation in displaying water-related funding information. Available data are not always presented in a consistent and comparable manner or format, and the cooperation and efficiency at agency levels are not always clear and obvious. OMB wants to ensure that water-information agencies are addressing critical issues (i.e. collecting the "right" data), that the data are accessible by all, and that the agencies are coordinating their efforts so as to maximize the return on resources expended.

Process for Data Call

Toni Johnson (USGS; ACWI Executive Secretary )

• A set of guidelines was sent to all ACWI Federal agencies, asking that they compile a summary table/spreadsheet identifying major water programs, highlighting water-quality monitoring activities, and showing funding levels over the past 5 years.

• Results of analysis of data nearing completion, but not yet ready for distribution pending completion of trend graphs.

Results of Data Call

Charles Spooner (USEPA, Office of Water)

Water monitoring programs of the EPA and its Clean Water Act partners fall into three categories:

• Status and process monitoring ($43.3 M annually) - includes the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)

• Monitoring to guide the management of National Programs ($124-192 M annually) - includes the Water Pollution Control Program, which addresses issues such as chemical residues in lake fishes, marine debris monitoring and abatement, pesticides in water-supply reservoirs and finished drinking water, among others

• Monitoring to guide the management of geographic programs ($5 M annually) -- monitors programs totaling $55M in the Florida Keys, Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and the Gulf of Mexico.

[Also see PowerPoint presentation]

James Peters (USGS, Water Resources Programs)

• Water-data collection as part of the Cooperative Water Programs, in which costs have historically (traditionally?) been shared on a 50-50 basis between the USGS and the State or local agency cooperator, have totaled approximately $4M per year over the period FY1999-2003. The Federal/USGS share of costs has been decreasing in recent years. [NEED TO CHECK THIS WITH JIM - MY NOTES A BIT UNCLEAR ON THIS ISSUE]

• National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program - Was conducting assessments in 60 study units across the Nation in FY99, with funding at the $70M level; is now focusing on just 42 study units (some units combined, studies in others discontinued) with FY2000-03 funding reduced to $60-62M/year.

• National Stream Information Program (NSIP) - Funded at $4M in FY99, $6M in FY00, but substantially increased to about $14M in each of FYs 2001-03.

• Other USGS water-data-collection activities include: National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) = 32 stations on 5 large rivers; National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) water quality in 58 National Parks; and other smaller programs. These activities (combined) are funded at approximately $6-7M annually.

Jeff Loser (Dept of Agriculture - NRCS)

• Seven agencies within USDA conducts or contributes to more than 40 water-related programs and activities, in 3 broad categories -- Research, monitoring and outreach; Assisting farmers and ranchers with water management problems and issues; and protection of forest lands in the areas of both water quantity and quality.

• Funding directed to water-related aspects of programs and activities totaled about $2.5B in FY99, and has increased to about $3.4B in FY03. Some specific programs or activities include: Agricultural Research Service; Conservation Reserve(?) Program; Forest Service (management of forests and rangeland); National Resource Conservation Service (conducts snow surveys, and soil and climate analyses); and Rural Utilities ($1.5B in loans and grants for water-supply infrastructure and wastewater treatment facilities).

Greg Mandt (Director National Weather Service Office of Climate, Water, And Weather Services)

• WATER is a major focus in NOAA's planning - its Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Services program is being modernized and expanded.

• NOAA and NWS working with FEMA and the States to improve flood forecast maps and flood forecast inundation graphics to help those entities better prepare for emergency situations (natural disasters).

[Also see meeting handout and PowerPoint presentation]

Barry Long (National Park Service)

• Water resources programs of NPS totaled $4.7M in FY99, and have increased to $11.6M in FY03; about half of the budget is directed to monitoring activities. If these activities could/would be fully funded as proposed, would total nearly $100M!

[Also see 1-page meeting handout]

Comments/questions from floor: Greg Good of ASIWPCA notes that the States are currently spending about $100M/yr on ambient monitoring, but that "total monitoring" would require and additional $100-150M!........In answer to question about whether any agency is coordinating efforts regarding instream-flow requirements, Bob Hirsch noted that the USGS chairs a standing advisory committee of the National Academy of Sciences that addresses this issue; another attendee (?) noted that Texas maintains a program to look at instream-flow requirements.

Introductions

Gail Bingham (Resolve) --Meeting Facilitator

• Introductions and explanation of procedures, etiquette, and conduct of meeting.

Statements from New Member Organizations

David Denig-Chakroff (Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies - AMWA)

• The primary purpose of AMWA is to represent large publicly owned drinking-aer systems, and works closely with Congress to ensure efficient, cost-effective federal drinking-water laws and regulations. AMWA has about 200 member agencies across the Nation.

• A recent and critical activity of AMWA has been the establishment of the WaterISAC, or the Water(sector) Information Sharing and Analysis, which uses a secure Internet portal to: 1) disseminate early warnings and alerts concerning threats to the infrastructure and cyber systems of drinking water and wastewater utilities, 2) allow water utilities to share information on security incidents, and 3) provide an opportunity for utilities to have security incidents analyzed by counterterrorism experts.

Tony Wagner (American Chemical Council - ACC)

• Is leader of ACC's "Water Team" and a member of NWQMC for several years.

• ACC has interest in a wide variety of water-related topics and issues, including public health & policy, clean air & water programs (e.g. TMDLs), and cooling-water intake structures.

Harry Zhang (American Water Resources Association; Chair, AWRA's Hydrology and Watershed Management Committee)

• Founded in 1963, with close ties to the USGS, AWRA is involved in all aspects of water information.

• AWRA advances the dissemination of multi-disciplinary water-resources information in the areas of education, management, and research, through its publications (the "regular" Journal of AWRA and bi-monthly special topic issues of IMPACT) and by convening or supporting several specialty conferences each year.

Steven Heiskary (President, North American Lame Management Society - NALMS)

• NALMS goal is to help members manage and enjoy lakes and reservoirs.

• Shares information, primarily through its publications "Lake Lines" and "Lake and Reservoir Management"

• Certifies Lake Manager Programs

• Fosters protection and management of lakes - recognizes importance of monitoring at all levels; has history of working closely with Federal agencies.

Comments & statements from the floor:

Robert Masters (National Ground-Water Association) - NGWA urges support for water-study programs being reduced or eliminated as billions of dollars are being directed at terrorism, the anthrax issue, etc.

Craig Schiffries (NCSE) - Reports that a new "USGS Coalition" is being formed to support USGS programs. Noted that some issues "fall between" agencies, such as pharmaceuticals, which are unregulated by drinking-water standards. On this particular issue, however, the USGS has been collecting much data, and the USEPA has been involved in toxicity analyses.

Mike Paque (Ground-Water Protection Council) - Opined that in most cases, ground-water monitoring data are inadequate, with the exception of those "covered" by USGS programs.

Designing a Portal for Access to Water Databases

Ken Lanfear (USGS Office of Information)

• Described the planned development of a web-based, integrated interface between the USEPA's Storage and Retrieval data system (STORET) and the USGS's National Water Information System (NWIS).

• USEPA and USGS have different philosophies for database design, development, and use, so that the data models within STORET and NWIS are not compatible. Because directly copying data from one database to the other cannot (or should not?) be done, this leads to agreeing on a data portal that would provide access to the data in both databases.

• A new USGS/USEPA agreement provides for developing and implementing the portal in 5 phases on a time schedule that will depend on available resources: Create a web portal (complete as of May 2003); Present a common view of data--collection systems; Present a common view of data-collection activities; Present a common view of the results of data-collection activities' and Develop standards for exchanging water data.

[Also see meeting handout and PowerPoint presentation]

Steve Elstein (Assistant Director, Office of Natural Resources and Environment, Government Accounting Office - GAO)

• His office identifying ways to facilitate watershed management through integration of data on water resources and water quality.

• Which agencies and entities are collecting water and water-related data? What kinds of data are being collected (are they the "right" data for stated purposes?), where are those data being collected, and what are the properties of the data (metadata)?

• To what extent are data-collection efforts being coordinated, so as to minimize duplication of effort, and how can current coordination efforts be improved?

• How are the data stored, shared, accessed, and used?

• Example: TMDLs = a decades-old concept. Early work focused on identification of data gaps; the current view is to make the best/most efficient use of data that are available.

[ACWI members also see info sheet in meeting folder]

Subgroup report: Subcommittee on Sedimentation (SOS)

Douglas Glysson (USGS, Office of Water Quality)

The SOS petitioned for inclusion as a standing subcommittee of ACWI -- the petition was accepted with no changes - SEE ACTION ITEMS

• The SOS was founded in 1939 as Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project to standardize sediment sampling and analysis equipment and techniques. Moved and functioned as subcommittee under wider-scope water info related committees over the years; in September 1978 moved to be under Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data.
  

  Principal historical activities of SOS:

• SOS first published Notes on Sedimentation Activities in 1946, and continued publication at various intervals until 1992. Currently exploring ways to present the data via the Web.

• Summary reports on sediment deposition in U.S. reservoirs ((last paper summary published in late 1980s ). The current database contains information of almost 6,000 surveys on more than 1,800 reservoirs; SOS exploring ways, and funding, to house and maintain the database, which is not now accessible to the public.

• Evaluation of computer-based stream sedimentation models - Twelve models were evaluated, and a summary report was published in 1988.

• Conferences - Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conferences have been held at various intervals from 1947 to 2001; proceedings of each conference were published. SOS sponsored a Bridge Scour Symposium in 1989 to define state-of-the-art in predicting bridge scour at that time; outlined knowledge gaps and identified research needs to fill those gaps. A Federal Interagency Workshop on Turbidity and Other Sediment Surrogates was held in 2002; outcome and recommendations of this workshop are published in USGS Circular 1250, available at [http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/circ/2003/circ1250]
  

  Current Activities of SOS:

• Planning for the 8th Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference, to be held in spring of 2006, possibly in conjunction with the next planned Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference.

• Reorganization of the Federal Interagency Sedimentation Project, to ensure that the calibrated standardized sediment sampling equipment developed by FISP is available to all who need it and that research and development activities of the project is directed to new technologies to measure sediment in real time.

Ken Kirk (Executive Director, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies)

• Spoke on various aspects of water infrastructure needs faced by the agencies AMSA represents, and concluded that renewed federal/state/local partnerships are needed. Local governments cannot close funding gaps - estimated by USEPA to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars -- on their own, and if highways and aviation infrastructures have benefited from trust funds, then WHY NOT WATER? -- also see pamphlet and handout pages

Arthur Gary (Alternate Ethics Official, and Deputy Director, Office of Ethics, USDOI)

• Addressed ethics responsibilities of ACWI members under the Federal Advisory Committee Act

Day 1 -- September 9, 2003 (continued) - PM Session,

Subgroup Report: Subcommittee on Hydrology (SOH)

S. Samuel Lin (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission - FERC)

Current workgroups of SOH and some activities include:

• Hydrologic Frequency Analysis - Work group has held two meetings in past year; it has prepared a paper "Evaluation of Flood Frequency Estimates for Ungaged Watersheds," by W.O. Thomas, M.M. Grimm, and R.H. McCuen - available on the group's web page (accessible thru ACWI homepage); copies were available at this meeting; a list of Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on Bulletin 17B also has been posted on the group's web site. [Comment/question posed by W.O. Thomas - Will Bulletin 17B ever be completely revised? Probably not anytime soon because of lack of Federal(?) support, but the 30-year old methods presented in 17B are being "tweaked around the edges."]

• Hydrologic Modeling - Work group held it's second Federal Interagency Meeting on Hydrologic Modeling in 2002 (Next meeting in 2006? - see SOS note above.)

• Satellite Telemetry - Shares information on use of the GOES, which collects environmental data using the data-collection platform capabilities of the satellite. [R. Hirsch noted the vulnerability of GOES only download site at Wallops Island - was it affected by Hurricane Isabel??]

[Also see meeting handout (article) and PowerPoint Presentation]

American Heritage Rivers

Fred Fox (U.S. Department of Agriculture):

• The American Heritage River (AHR) Initiative -established by Executive Order 13061 in 1997 7345; helps communities reconnect to their rivers to realize benefits. Fourteen rivers were designated American Heritage Rivers in June 1998 --Blackstone-Woonasquatucket (Mass.-R.I.); Connecticut, Hudson, Upper Susquehanna&345;Lackawanna, Potomac, New (N.C., Va., and W.Va.), Cuyahoga (Ohio), Detroit, Upper Mississippi, Lower Mississippi, St. Johns (Fla.), Rio Grande, Willamette (Ore.), and Hanalei (Hawaii). [Executive Order allows 20 rivers, and other candidates are being considered.]

• The AHR Initiative is designed to promote environmental protection, encourage economic revitalization, and foster historical and cultural preservation at the community level.

• Key factors contributing to the success of AHR Initiative: voluntary and locally driven; helps build local capacity; partnerships between communities, business, and government; responsive, efficient, and effective; combined emphasis on economy and environment; results-oriented; leveraging resources (to date, AHR Initiative has helped to leverage $250 million in federal, state, local, and private funds to apply to the goals of the program); watershed focus; and nonpartisan support.

[Also see meeting handout ("Rivers Uniting Communities") and PowerPoint presentation]

Subgroup Report: National Water-Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC)

Gail Mallard (USGS, Office of the Associate Director for Water) and Charles Spooner (USEPA, Office of Water)

• The NWQMC, created in 1997, has 35 members, a balanced representation of federal, state, tribal, local, and municipal governments; watershed and environmental groups; the volunteer monitoring community; universities, and the private sector. The council provides a national forum for coordination of consistent and scientifically defensible methods and strategies to improve water-quality monitoring, assessment, and reporting. [For additional information, visit http://acwi.gov/monitoring].

• NWQMC's proposed water quality monitoring framework, developed with input from the monitoring community, comprises a series of interlinked steps to improve monitoring efforts, monitoring results, and communication of information. The framework is graphically portrayed as a wheel, with an outer ring: COMMUNICATE - COLLABORATE - COORDINATE and internal "cogs" : Develop monitoring objectives - Design monitoring programs - Collect field and lab data - Compile and manage data - Assess and interpret data - and Convey results and findings, all efforts and activities that will help us to understand, protect, and restore our waters (the hub of the wheel).

• The framework and each of the monitoring steps is described fully in eight articles in the September 2003 special issue issue of AWRA's IMPACT - Seeking a Common Framework for Water-Quality Monitoring, which was distributed to meeting participants.

• The Council is now planning the next National Monitoring Conference, with a theme of "Building and Sustaining Successful Monitoring Programs," to be held in Chattanooga, Tenn., May 17-20, 2004. [for more information, visit www.nwqmc.org]

• NWQMC has four work groups: Methods and Data Comparability Board, Watershed Components Interactions, Water Information Strategies, and Communications and Outreach.

• Areas of activity include the Water Quality Data Elements (WQDE), the National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI), and Performance Based Systems; Support for State and Regional Councils; publication of Fact Sheets about the Council and benefits of State and Regional Councils; the development of "expert systems" to design monitoring programs, and monitoring in coastal zones; and an on-going dialogue and upcoming meeting at which the compatibility of EPA's STORET and USGS's NWIS data bases will be reviewed.

Suggestions (from the floor) for issues that NWQMC might take up:

• Nutrient standards - monitoring aspects, how much and what kind, not whether or not enough data are available

• Seasonality aspects of monitoring - when and where do "standard" models apply and when not? Followed by discussion about transferability of monitoring methods and models.

(Also see PowerPoint presentation)

Evaluation of State and Regional Monitoring Councils

Charles Spooner (USEPA, Office of Water)

• USEPA's Office of Water has identified improved monitoring as one of its top priorities, and recommends 10 elements for an effective water monitoring and assessment program (see PowerPoint presentation).

• The Regional Councils are forums for communication, collaboration, and cooperation among monitoring entities, and support these common objectives through regular meetings and specialty conferences, monitoring inventories, minimum data elements or sampling protocols, and data storage and transmission protocols.

• Council successes include increased communication and collaboration through facilitated information flow. These successes and impacts have been difficult to quantify by will likely mount over the long term

• Lessons learned - Regional Councils have difficulty keeping momentum (a primary challenge$#33;), and vary in design and objectives, but they have yielded significant benefits, have dedicated staffs, and have state support.

[Also see PowerPoint presentation]

Subgroup Report: Task Force on USGS Cooperative Water Program (COOP)

James Peters (USGS, COOP Coordinator)

• Summarized the background of the ACWI-sponsored external task force review of the USGS (Federal-State Cooperative) Water Program. The COOP program, created in 1895, combines the resources of the Federal government with those of other government entities to collect and analyze water-resources data.

• The 21-member task force reviewed and considered all aspects of the approximately $180 million program (FY1999) over a 1-year period (1998-99)). While the task force concluded that the COOP has been a successful part of the USGS on&45;going mission to assess the Nation's water resources, it found opportunities for improvement, which were communicated in 32 principal findings and 57 recommendations in the following areas:
  
  

  Mission	Priorities for funding
  Funding levels	A National streamgaging program
  Collaboration and communication
  Competition with the private sector
  Quality of USGS work	Products

• Peters briefly described the Survey's responses to the Task Force recommendations, with emphasis on the draft of a USGS Water Resources Discipline Policy Memorandum on the subject "Avoiding Competition with the Private Sector," which was submitted for review by the ACWI membership, and an example of a guidance memorandum mentioned in the "Avoiding Competition" policy memorandum. In the policy memo, the objectivity of USGS science and data are cited as the principal justification for agencies and cooperators to come to the USGS for assistance in addressing water-related issues and problems.

• USGS/WRD plans to call for a second full review of the COOP in several more years, but Peters/USGS invited comments from ACWI members in an interim review, suggesting such review might be made by 8 members over a 6-month period, to begin early in 2004. Bob Hirsch suggested that two questions such a review might address are how to obtain additional information and views on the competition issue, and how COOP funds should be distributed around the Nation. The membership accepted Hirsh's suggestion that ACWI charter and support a work group that would draft the Terms of Reference and define a concept of membership for such an interim review. Four members volunteered either themselves (?) or that someone from their group would serve on the work group (Greg Cook, Emery Cleaves, Bob Masters, and Steve Heiskary). [ See ACTION ITEMS ?]

[Also see USGS Circular 1192 and meeting handouts on the COOP review, USGS responses, and "Avoiding Competition" policy and guidance memos, and
PowerPoint presentation]

Subgroup Report: National Liaison Committee, National Water-Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)

Tim Miller (USGS, Office of Water QualityA)

• Completion and publication of Summary Reports (USGS Circulars) for the 14 water-quality assessments conducted in 1997-2001 is expected by early 2004, at which time the reports for all 51 assessments conducted over the period 1991-2001 will be available. In addition, all data in the NAWQA "data warehouse" are available via the USGS/NAWQA website.

• In the second cycle of assessments, which began in 2001, the NAWQA Program will focus on 42 of the Nation's most important river-basin and aquifer systems.

• In collaboration with government, research, and interest-group partners, NAWQA has selected five water-quality issues and priorities for study in those study units most affected by these issues: Effects of nutrient enrichment on streams; Sources, transport, and fate of agricultural chemicals, Transport of contaminants to water-supply wells; Effects of urbanization on stream ecosystems; and Bioaccumulation of mercury in aquatic organisms. USGS Fact Sheets outlining the latter two issues have been published (FS-042-02 on urbanization effects, and FS-016-03 on mercury).

• The NAWQA National Liaison Committee has considered/reviewed the METALLICUS project (on mercury) and the issue of nutrient enrichment. In an upcoming meeting (November in Washington DC), will consider the issue of atmospheric deposition as it applies to the Clean Air Act.

Day 2 - Wednesday Sept. 10, 2003

Keynote Speaker: Water Policy Dialog

Gerry Galloway (Vice President, Enterprise Engineering Group, Titan Corporation)

• Water "challenges" in/to the US include: drought and water demand: increasing flood damages ($6Billion$year); non-competitive port depths (45 feet in US, but 60 feet internationally); threatened water quality (290,000 miles of streams fail one or more quality standards); wetland and species loss; and infrastructure shortfalls (estimates = $12B for wastewater treatment; $11B for water treatment).

• Common themes discussed/heard at Sept. 2002 meeting: Balance and sustainability; Holism and watersheds; Collaboration and cooperation; Information and education; "Blunt instruments?" - no progress without adequate deliberation amongst stakeholders; Physical security; Must look to the future, even though post-audits are OK; Water and the land are inextricably linked (growth on land = use of water).

• Congress has recognized the problems/issues mentioned above by proposal (or passage$) of HR135, which established the 21st Century Water Commission.

• Not having a distinct policy = no policy; and a lot of separate bits and pieces do not = a National policy.

• Galloway suggests a letter from ACWI to the President proposing development of a National water "vision,"" to be translated, with input and cooperation the States, into a National Water Policy. Such a policy would ensure collaboration and coordination among the Federal government and other government entities, would provide for consideration of incentives (monetary and others) for that cooperation; and deal with water issues in a holistic way.

• Galloway encourages ACWI members and participants to continue to be involved in the dialogue, either technically, educationally, and via politics and institutions. You can make a difference!

• Other issues: Wetland loss was once caused primarily to agricultural field drainage, but now is due mainly to urban and coastal development. Many wastewater treatment plants are becoming "old and decrepit" while new and more stringent standards must be met; rates are affected.

R. Hirsch (USGS) posed dilemma faced by USGS and others: Given finite resources (e.g. level budgets), how do we apportion those resources between the collection of new/more basis data vs analyzing and interpreting the data we already have in useable format for decisionmaking? How do we best serve the Nation? If we do not collect 10 years of streamflow data, we can't go back and collect it again, and we can't do analyses on the data we don't have...Another item: As USGS prepares to issue its next water--use Circular (for 2000 ): , it is time for doing some/more "water-use science." Hirsch sees this as one of weak areas of USGS work with respect to water-data analysis and interpretation.

Toni Johnson (ACWI Exec. Secretary) - Proposes support of ACWI for Water Policy Dialogue ,and suggests that ACWI members review each recommendation from the Dialogue and state what they and their organizations can do on each issue. [SEE ACTION ITEMS!]

Status and Trends of the National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP)

Mike Norris (USGS, NSIP Coordinator)?

• Provided update and status of the program; ; background information on NSIP can be found in USGS Fact Sheet FS-005-01 "National Streamflow Information Program, Implementation Plan and Progress Report. "?

• Funding for streamgaging was in the $4-5M range until FY99, and is now approximately $14M.

• The total number of stations has not changed substantially over the past few years, but many long-term stations (30-plus years of record) have been "lost," and USGS projects a decline in the overall number of stations (perhaps 10 percent) over the next two years."

• The distribution of funding has changed, so that only 13 percent of all streamgaging effort is wholly funded by USGS (remainder is partner-funded). "

Discussion: Emery Cleaves noted that Maryland made an analysis of the uses and needs for data at each streamgaging station in the State, which resulted in an proposed increase of from 80 to 120 new stations. Another participant noted that Wisconsin, Delaware, and Texas have made similar analyses.

Subgroup Report: Streamgaging Task Force

Tom Yorke (Yorke Consulting, Inc.)

• Discussed highlights of the task force's final report to ACWI (copy included in members meeting folders). Comments on the draft of the report had been received from League of Women Voters (on several issues), USEPA (re real-time data issues), UCOWRR (on comparing costs vs benefits of each gaging station, real-time data issues, and indicating that TMDL's a high priority), and USGS (comments regarding funding of gaging stations).

• The Task Force report makes 10 recommendations to ACWI (and USGS?), 3 of which apply to network issues and 7 to funding and related strategies. Yorke described 2 recommendations (R below) in some detail: --R-1. That USGS adopt as a goal the monitoring of representative discharge from 8-digit hydrologic cataloguing units vs the current monitoring near the terminus of 6-digit units; monitoring at the small cataloguing units, however, would require an additional 2,100 stations! --R-6. That the network components of the USGS NSIP be implemented by using funding increases to add new or reactivated stations and to fund infrastructure costs, and that NSIP funds be used to fund existing stations only if cooperator funds are lost and the stability of the network is affected.

Discussion: Noted that there was no mention, in the recommendations, about streamflow information needs in support of water-quality. Yorke "admitted" this, but noted that water quality needs were discussed in the goals section of the report, and that to provide all flow data that would be needed to meet all water-quality goals would require an estimated additional 20,000 stations!

• Requested that ACWI support and accept the final report and its recommendations. Adopted with no objections [See ACTION ITEMS]

Subgroup Report: Methods and Data Comparability Board (MDCB)

Herb Brass (USEPA, Office of Ground Water)

• Reminder of the mission of the Board: To create a framework for collaboration and comparability among programs by identifying, examining, and recommending monitoring approaches that facilitate collaboration and yield comparable data and assessment results.

• Requested that ACWI ask Federal agencies and others to implement previously adopted recommendations re (a) accreditation of federal laboratories, and (b) National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI). Fact Sheets (green) on each of these topics were distributed at the meeting. For information on NEMI, visit www.nemi.gov

• MDCB developing position papers on State laboratories and on field accreditation of labs.

• NEMI continuing to maintain and upgrade its data base to focus on new and improved methods, including addition of chemical, microbiological, and radiochemical methods contributed by external parties, and acting as a clearinghouse for new analytical methods.

• Next steps in NEMI - adding water security methods, adding remaining regulatory methods for drinking water and wastewater, supporting development of expert systems, and adding methods for media in addition to those for water.

• Performance Based Systems (PBS) permit the use of any scientifically appropriate method that demonstrates the ability to meet established performance criteria and complies with specified data quality needs or requirements. Discussed application of PBS in a Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) pilot study; a report on the completed study is available (see next item).

• Brass indicated he would submit two documents to ACWI members for review and approval& (a) pilot study; a report on the completed study is available (see next item) further endorsements regarding the laboratory accreditation program; and (b) the PBS COD pilot report for release as a WQMC report. [Requested members response by October 10]

Jerry Diamond (Tetra Tech, Inc).

• Provided update on Water Quality Data Elements (WQDE) workgroup. WQDE is a list of "core metadata" that facilitates comparability assessments, and which tell us the "who, what, when, where, why, and how &34120;collected") about data.

• The ((new?) Biology Methods workgroup is developing WQDEs for field biology methods, and is working on several pilot studies. Among other activities, this workgroup will be involved in taxonomic certification efforts, provide guidance on field population/community and toxicity methods, developing a data dictionary for biological WQDEs, coordinating and conducting PBS pilot studies to help define comparability of biological methods, and promoting new biological technologies that appear promising for water monitoring.

[Also see meeting handouts and PowerPoint presentation]

Subgroup Report: Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable (SWRR)

Ethan T. (Tim) Smith (Consultant)

• The stated purpose of the SWRR, which originated at the March 2001 meeting of the Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators, is "to provide an open forum for exchanging ideas and information to foster collaboration on ways to manage water resources in such as a way that the resource and its uses may be sustained over the long term. "

• Smith presented a draft/revised version of the previously adopted "Terms of Reference" (in member's meeting folder) for ACWI review, endorsement, and adoption. The revised Terms of Reference were adopted at this meeting on condition that wording (under Scope, p. 3?) be included that specifies that if any funding (for Roundtable activities) is requested from non-Federal sources, that request must originate in a non-Federal agency. In additional discussion, it was agreed that membership in SWRR is not restricted to ACWI members, and that subcommittees may call upon/use expertise as deemed necessary.

• SWRR activities include developing a conceptual model of water sustainability, compiling water indicators from other efforts, and identifying criteria for defining water sustainability and research needed to do so.

• Tim keep members advised of SWRR meetings, and related meetings and activities via periodic emails.

Use of Expert Systems

Larry Keith (Instant Reference Sources, Inc.)

• Expert System defined - an interactive computer program that incorporates the knowledge of one or more people into a series of decision trees so that answers (as advice) to specific questions are the same ones that a human would give. Advantages include: consistent answers (vs possibly inconsistent human answers), insures all important factors are considered, provides the "right" answers quickly and efficiently.

• Expert systems have been developed to help support the use of the NEMI and the NEMI-CBR (chemical, biological, and radiological agent ) databases.

• Two expert systems have been developed for water-quality monitoring: Environmental Monitoring and Measurement Advisor (EMMA), and USEPA's Water Anti-Terrorism Expert Response (WATER). WATER provides supports to the NEMI-CBR database of methods for anti-terrorism, and planning for methods selection (particularly in an emergency situation when the identity of the suspect analyte or organism may not be known), site entry, and water sampling.

USGS Stream Stats - Live Web Demonstration

Kernell Ries (USGS, Office of Surface Water))

• Described, and (with Al Rea, USGS Idaho) provided live demonstration of the StreamStats Web Application, which provides estimates of streamflow statistics, basin and climatic characteristics, and other information for user-selected or ungaged streams; automatically measures basin and climatic characteristics for ungaged sites using GIS, and provides published streamflow statistics and other information for established data-collection stations.

• The prototype for Massachusetts has been available since January 2001 via http://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/ [Also see USGS Fact Sheet 104-00]. USGS is working on a National prototype, and the system for Idaho should be available soon. Data for Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Tennessee are also being used in development of the National prototype.

Subgroup Report: Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data (SSWD&$41;

Bob Pierce (USGS, Geographic Information Office&$41;

• Reported on status of key spatial water datasets: -National Elevation Dataset (NED) - complete at 30 -m resolution, progressing on 10 -m resolution -Watershed Boundary Dataset - progressing from 8-digit to 10- and 12-unit HUCs. About half of the country complete, and parts of the completed work are in various stages of verification; the latter being delayed for various reasons (available funding and personnel, etc.)
  
  -National Hydrography Dataset &#$);NHD) - complete at 1:100,000 scale, and part of US is completed at 1:24,000-scale. An NHD Problem: At the 1:100,000-scale, differences in drainage density appear in adjacent basins. The density problems decrease at the larger scale and higher resolution provided by the 1:24,000 dataset.

• Concerns have been raised about data security - re location of utilities and other critical infrastructure facilities: water intakes, dams, well, etc. Bob Hirsch noted that USGS has "struggled " with this issue, and has proposed that USGS convene a small group to develop policy/guidelines/philosophy on how decisions are made with respect to restricting access to various types of data.

• A "Geospatial One-Stop" has been created under the EGOV initiative, to make it easier, faster, and less expensive for all levels of government and the public to access geospatial information. [See http://www.geo-one-stop.gov/]

• Pierce noted that Geospatial.gov is calling for "Data Category Managers;" he asked if he should volunteer (as chair of SSWD) and participate. Upon question from Emery Cleaves regarding "terms of reference," the decision to endorse Pierce's participation was deferred pending additional information to be provided. [See ACTION ITEMS?]

Subgroup Report: Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
National Science and Policy Conference

Eileen O'Neill (Water Environment Federation)

• TMDL conferences have been popular and successful: 1st in 2001 had 600 attendees and many well-attended workshops; 2nd in 2002, more than 200 abstracts were submitted and there were 460 attendees. Now planning the next conference, to be held November 16-19, 2003 in Chicago (see meeting handout of conference announcement and );

• TMDL 2003 proposed as a WEF Specialty Conference. Endorsed by ACWI members.

• Question posed as whether a special committee on TMDL issues is still needed/desired within ACWI? Opinion voiced that "this bird can now fly on its own" but that ACWI would continue to support efforts and activities of WEF on the TMDL issue by helping to disseminate information, perhaps provide some financial support, and endorse the conferences. By unanimous vote, it was decided to "sunset" the TMDL subcommittee and suggested that any TMDL issues brought to the table at ACWI will be referred to the Sediment Subcommittee. [See ACTION ITEMS]

Summary of ACWI 2003

Toni Johnson(USGS, ACWI Executive Secretary)

• Reviewed ACTION ITEMS and discussed plans, requested input on future meetings - should we have a 1-day interim session before next year's annual 2-day meeting? (see details at other locations on ACWI website)

• Noted that ACWI is now a Presidential Committee, renewable every 2 years, so long as the OMB memorandum enabling the committee remains valid.

Bob Hirsch (USGS, Associate Director for Water)

• Some "larger" issues or topics he heard discussed and/or proposed for ACWI attention or involvement - emerging contaminants; methods of analysis (NWQMC issue?); and water-use science.

• Thank you to all Members and Participants. ACWI 2003 is adjourned.

Submitted by Chester Zenone
USGS Retired
Hydrologist and Scientific Reports Editor
USGS Retired
1375 Elser Drive SE
Salem OR 97302
503-365-0682 chetwrdz@aol.com