ACWI notes 9/14/2004

Day 1

Weimer welcomes Committee and introduces Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary, Department of Interior

Lynn Scarlett DOI
Barne Island CT-- sea marsh preserve was established collaboratively with scientists and conservationists. Sixty years ago they began studying effects of impoundments and how to measure effects of removing impoundments Grand Calumet River-dredging to remove up to 35 ft sediment accumulated over 100 years has been considered. How would removal of sediment effect environment? Maine River-effect of withdrawals and additional impoundments on aquatic ecosystem?

These three examples illustrate that water is ever present part of DOI issues. Many find way into headlines. Scientific information is important ingredient-provides better platform to resolve conflicts. ACWI is part of larger spectrum of conversations about relationship of information to other knowledge systems. Why are these efforts important?
And why are efforts to use this information challenging? Information is important for evaluation-e.g., is water healthy? Important as feedback-What's working? The framework selected reflects choices: What's important? What's meaningful? We must think about systems' concepts. Sustainable development of water resources is itself a model.

Ocean Commission's report sets forth information needed on ecosystem framework. This begs question-what are the boundaries?
Another issue is sediments. USGS has long generated scientific knowledge in a geologic framework. Ocean Commission focuses only on the narrow concept of dredging.

Recent GAO report about water quantity and water quality:
15 federal agencies collect water quality information
3 federal agencies collect water quantity information

"Information is everywhere but knowledge is rare" There are three challenges in a world of scarcity: 1. Which information is needed?:
2. How to access information?
3. How to coordinate different information sources? ACWI is central to answering these questions.

Data have different purposes, different protocols. Money is limited and much data needed. Potentially useful data is unlimited. Executive order "Facilitating Collaborative Conservation" (August 2004) challenges agencies to coordinate and collaborate on information.

Nature is complex, dynamic. Ecological and human interactions are important. Much is relevant to decision making. What information we need depends on how we want to use it. We must consider data richness versus data reach.

Natural environmental indicators can cover a spectrum of data and information.

All depends on perception of what matters. Herman Karl, USGS, worked on issue of oyster disease in Tomales Bay. Water-quality information available at time couldn't tell us sources of problem. Community got together through joint fact finding process.

Consider risk reduction and the abandoned mine program. How do clean-up actions reduce risk to humans, plant and wildlife? One way to get answers is to use proxies to measure this, like acres of cleaned-up lands.

Everyone in room knows this already. It's your bread and butter. Information availability can't determine where and how we act. Ultimate focus on performance depends on cooperation across mosaic of organizations.

DOI has federal and location-specific management responsibilities. Need coordination from multiple sources. ACWI's charge is to help achieve this coordination

Questions:
1) Water data collection- USGS is premier civilian agency DOIng that. It has a marvelous Cooperative Water Program with over 1200 cooperators throughout country. Water activities aren't recognized well enough to keep the Program's head above water. Flat funding means losing money to inflation. The American Association of State Geologists speaks to this. To help achieve GAO report goals, would like greater Cooperative Program funding. Response: You're right. That program is flat funded. She has hope despite perennial constraints. Traditionally congress focuses funding on the highly visible, such as actual management of parks and refuges. We must underscore that we need data behind scenes. One trend that will help-increase focus by OMB (and hopefully Congress) on performance. Our aspiration is to emphasize performance. Then the kind of information USGS generates will be recognized for its centrality and focus. There are promising signs with the Council on Environmental Quality working on environmental indicators. Hope they result in growing investments.

2) Appreciate mention of indicators. How to engage scientific community in developing indicators? Response: The challenge with indicators, like other information challenges, is that what you want and need depends on where you sit. Fire director in BLM is thinking about fuel reduction. The kind of information you need can be derived from understanding how forests function, but there are approaches that require less rich information. Cast challenge differently-doctor taking temperature. If indicator shows problem, then look deeper into it.
Need tiered indicator framework. How to find level of information relevant to everyone? Instead think in tiered approach. Heinz Center report already suggests tiering. Seems to be direction CEQ is taking. There is a fallacy in relating environmental indicators to human health indicators. We have so little information. Especially relating the cellular level to the ecosystem level. We should actually set up index sites in different ecosystems to get idea of normal range of ecosystem health. Complexity depends upon the knowledge you have. So that's not the issue-humans aren't more complex. Scientists try to understand how world works. Manager in field wants to know what allows her to move in direction she wants to go. Public wants to know if their neighborhood is ok-needs less refined info. There are tiers of richness of scientific information needed. We need to figure out how to tier and use different protocols and coordinate across disciplines.

Bob Hirsch USGS
Thanks Beverly Getzen for bringing Army Corps of Engineers ( ASACE) to table. Welcome American Association of Limnology. Introduces Eric Vowinkle, USGS, new Methods and Data Comparability Board co-chair. He also introduces the federal roundtable. Welcomes newest Advisory Committee on Water Information member

FEDERAL ROUND TABLE:

Bill Dawson ASACE
Corps has three major programs-

• One function is reimbursable work cleaning defense sites.
• Civil Works Program, which has 3 functions, works with Energy and Water on Hill. This group does: infrastructure construction, maintaining navigable water ways and activities involving port and dam maintenance and construction.
• Congress may add a fourth -- water supply. Water supply is incidental to flood control so water supply will become more important to Corps work.
• ASACE is signing agreements with EPA and others to use watershed approaches to water management. They are calling this approach integrated water management.
• Civil Works requires cost sharing. This tends to produce a piecemeal approach to things, but since 50% Civil Works Program is contracted out, this allows them to stay on top of and to utilize the latest and greatest thinking of an environmentally prudent nature.
• Nine generals run Corps operations. The watershed approach will be different for them because they won't be in charge of the watershed. However, they want to move toward integrated information that leads to sustainability and the watershed approach helps in this regard. Funding is $20B; $12B spent in Iraq
  [See also PowerPoint presentation]

Don Dycus TVA

• The organization has employed a watershed approach since its inception (70 years).
• TVA no longer receives any Federal funding; it is entirely funded by rate paying customers.
• Key infrastructure includes Hydro power plants, dams and other flood control structures.
• Public access to information via internet for a range of data including watershed flow levels and other management related items (increasingly in real-time) is a recent emphasis.

Other facts:
TVA operates large system of reservoirs with many uses.

Have 49 dams, many plants. Use an integrated approach. New operating policy was approved May 2004. Each water use was examined, and the best combination was chosen to support the people of Tennessee Valley Management is flow driven. Most individuals want to know flow and elevation at their reservoir.
We use a balancing curve concept. We make up-to-date temporal - geographic balance information available to public.
Norris Reservoir most heavily used reservoir. People focus on weekend releases for recreational purpose. "Everybody gets something on the weekends". TVA is moving more to real time information versus projected information.

TVA provides a variety of information types. We take an ecological and human use perspective on monitoring. Our "Vital Signs" screening program is based on indicators, including bacteria and fish tissue. The Douglas system is in the Asheville area. Hurricane Francis, and next Ivan, impact the area. The thinking is that if we keep people informed then we're less likely to be criticized.

Jody Eimers USGS
Presented USGS funding for FY 2004 and President's proposed FY 2005 funding.

• $938 million is the new USGS budget--this represents a modest level by DOI standards, but water is the largest component.
• Also, while it appears to be flat this is somewhat deceptive because some aspects have been offset via IT restructuring and congressional earmarks being stripped out.
• Coop and NAWQA programs are the largest water programs.
• For USGS as a whole 2/3's of Coop type program funding now is provided by cooperators and 1/3 is federal. (used to be closer to 50/50)
• In fact most USGS funds are from reimbursable sources of one type or another including state, other federal accesses and local sources
  Water receives about 55% of its funds overall from reimbursable sources.

Mike Shapiro EPA
FY 2005 President's budget stresses monitoring.

• Office of Water currently has a budget of 2.9 billion dollars
• An emphasis on monitoring is one of the biggest focal points in the new presidential budget for this office.
• The Heinz Commission, GAO, and others have stressed the importance of a monitoring emphasis for this office.
• Another key development has been forward progress in developing external access to joint EPA/USGS water data and information.

Carl Lucero USDA/NRCS
Increased budget due to Farm Bill

• Focus of the FEMA Strategic Plan is implicitly on water although that is somewhat obscured by the many land-based resource items in the plan.
• The funding for water is on the rise with 400 million earmarked for water issues in the plan including: Wetlands, aspects of the Wildlife habitat Program, and others.
• We have a new project to help assess effectiveness of programs, the Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP). We have a national assessment for annual accounting of environmental benefits of programs. Will focus on one land use group this year, and bring in other resource uses in following years.
• Water quality is at the top the list of data/indicators in this effort
• There is an annual report component of CEAP which will report progress of the program over the next 3 years.

• A key development under the current leadership (Admiral Laughtenbacher) has been the insertion of program planning at the front-end of the budgeting process. Unfortunately, funding is relatively flat.
• Top level emphasis is now clearly on developing water resources and water quality prediction capability. Certainly, the traditional things like flood prediction are part of the mix, but the emphasis has shifted to include environmental systems and quality. This has also been influenced by a push from the Ocean Commission.
• Hydro-services components have already seen a "bump-up" in this direction with probabilistic water information forecasts, including river level forecasts, increasingly appearing on the web.
• In '05 they anticipate the advent of more distributive modeling such as stream-level and soil moisture forecasts with resolution as high as 4km in some areas.
• Also, there is now new emphasis on partnerships in NOAA, e.g., FEMA and other public safety entities, an emphasis on customer feedback efforts, and other public safety initiatives.
• We're looking at vision and strategy for national water quality forecasting Long-term goals include economic benefits from water forecasts and information, including improved ecosystem management.
• The Advanced Hydrologic Prediction Service (AHPS) implementation is progressing. This year have a new accomplishment-- standardized webpage for AHPS information, see http://weather.gov

Questions:

• Q to FEMA; Are you attempting to quantify water conserved through your program's efforts? Lucero responded that they are DOIng so to some extent.
• Q to EPA: What systems support Watershed project; on- line under "Window to My Environment"? Shapiro responded that a number of data systems are involved including Storet, USGS data sets, and other EPA map-based data systems.
• Q to EPA: What is the status of the internal research program (ORD)? Shapiro responded that it hasn't been growing in budget, but that it has been able to "add-value" fairly well by drawing from sources outside the program including EPA's own Grant Program in ORDer to fulfill program goals.
• Q to FEMA: What is the technical approach to monitoring the effects of various Ag. Programs on FEMA program efforts in the water arena? Lucero indicated that they use other entites information and data as much as possible, such as, secondary sources. However, USDA does have a set of "select" watershed studies that will provide primary data to measure effects in some key geographic area.; it's a collaborative process. Also, there are 12 new watersheds at which data will be collected.

[See also PowerPoint Presentation]

Bob Hirsch USGS
Emery Cleaves has requested time to speak, to Advisory Committee on Water Information on behalf of the Association of American State Geologists (AASG)

Emery Cleaves AASG
Water is our single most important resource. Ideally we should have collaboration among all levels of government. One key is USGS Cooperative Water Program. Mission of program is to provide reliable impartial and timely information to understand nation's water resources through shared efforts Problem with Cooperative Program is that federal funding is flat - no significant changes, but with inflation and pay raises, buying power declines. Maryland District announced Cooperative Program funds had declined 1% FY 2004-2005. On top of pay raise and inflation, match went from 50:50 to 47.5:52.5. Situation in other Districts is similar. Unmatched funds are growing. Some projects not matched at all.
Some states are reducing funding for streamgages and ground-water level monitoring Consequences as unmatched funds increases-USGS has increased reliance on soft money. Also restricts options that the USGS has-options are dictated by available money.
The irony is that with continued growth of USGS unmatched funds, what incentive does Congress have to increase federal appropriations? This imbalance compromises USGS image-- USGS appears to serve as federal consulting agency.
What can be done?
Local and state water resource issues should get wider attention. Communicate concern to Congress in order to get them to match currently unmatched funds. American Association of State Geologists (AASG) is developing a position paper on this.

[See also PowerPoint presentation]

Break

Peter Grevatt EPA
How should we coordinate among water-quality data collectors? For example, how should we better coordinate between EPA and USGS? We've crafted plans for demonstration pilot project. Use this to better identify waters that need protection.
Four-part purpose:

We want to better integrate with state monitoring agencies and try to develop refined geographic databases.
We need to improve many databases to improve environmental context for decisions being made. Also improve watershed models like SPARROW. We need to focus on finding efficiencies, particularly in landscape modeling. Also need to bring NWIS and STORET to all users.
We may be piloting in New Hampshire. States should be the leader in this. Federal agencies should support the states.

Questions:
Interested in partners other than states? Potentially, e.g., Electric Power Institute. Open to any partners at this point-- wouldn't turn anyone away. How would SPARROW move in that direction? National SPARROW now scoped to regional. SPARROW has been applied in New Hampshire. Would like to test capability of SPARROW scaled to finer resolution-- can SPARROW be used to address watershed scale issues?

The science of water quality is moving to the area of regional inference. It's long been known we can build regional inference models of streamflow. Not so with water quality to date. We are moving now to regional inference based on fundamental principles.It's also important to quantify uncertainty. Information is needed on local zoning authority level. We need to develop information transfer techniques on local level. This should include small watershed level. Water quality and setting are being used in a new phase of water quality assessment.

National Water Quality Monitoring Council (NWQMC), Recent Activities and Accomplishments.

Chuck Spooner EPA, Gail Mallard USGS, and Don Dycus TVA
The goal is to coordinate consistent scientifically defensible methods. The framework for monitoring is collaboration coordination, communication.

Recently completed the 4th conference at Chattanooga Tennessee. Among the major issues were-

Metadata is necessary
Volunteer monitoring is an integral part of programs.

The conference had international contributors-Canada, Holland, New Zealand and others.

Theme 1 was ensuring data and information comparability. Recommended metadata templates. See the National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI)

Theme 2 was changing expectations of monitoring. The number and diversity of stakeholders is increasing. Also provide greater public access to data. There is dissatisfaction with limited coverage. We expect the data to do more, and we have a higher burden of proof. The increased use of bioassessment is a principle focus of monitoring.

Theme 3 was promoting collaborative efforts. Council has a role in moving collaboration forward.

Theme 4 was volunteer monitoring. It's critical to confirm the validity of volunteer monitoring. It's important to address training needs. Council will keep advancing volunteer monitoring.

Theme 5 was new and emerging technologies. There is great concern about continued use of outmoded methods.

NWQMC offers support for state and regional councils; NWQMC helps focus programs on areas where monitoring councils can help ensure success. Several state monitoring councils exist or are being formed. Also some states are collaborating but haven't formed a council; see North Carolina.

[See also PowerPoint presentation]

Bob Hirsch USGS
A NWQMC conference is uniquely valuable, not just another water conference. Central focal point is monitoring. To develop better coordination in monitoring this "building of human capital" at the conferences is important. In this way a cadre of folks is developed who have knowledge of these monitoring issues.

Gregg Good ASWIPCA
I got a lot from the last conference and will take this information back to my state. Can EPA fund states to develop local councils? Florida is also developing a state monitoring council.

Toni Johnson USGS - ACWI Executive Secretary
We have an opportunity now for guests or observers to make a statement And we have an opportunity for member announcements.

Gregg Good ASWIPCA
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control (ASWIPCA) is sponsoring World Water Monitoring Day October 18, 2004-- see ASWIPCA's webpage.

Will Thomas ASFPM
Floodplain experts will discuss minimum standard for floodplain mapping at meeting at NAS next week. Should standards be raised?

Beverly Getzen ASACE
December 6-10, 2004 ASACE is meeting in Orlando to discuss national priorities.

Steven Heiskary NALMS
November 3-5, 2004 Annual North American Lake Management Society (NALMS) Conference in Madison, Wisconsin

Luncheon speaker:

Laura Gatz GAO
Report was requested by House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
Found better coordination of data collection efforts is needed to support key decisions, to make the best use of the limited resources of agencies that collect water-quantity and -quality data.
GAO staff made site visits to Colorado, Mississippi and Virginia when working on this report.
GAO suggests there be a lead coordinating body to address coordination and identified barriers. This could be a federal agency or a coordinating agency such as NWQMC.

No feedback yet from House Subcommittee. Need to assure data and information comparability.

Why didn't GAO bring in agencies' staff experts? USGS and probably other agencies reached-out to staffs to work with GAO.

Lack of awareness of available data is a barrier to coordination. A goal should be to develop a water-quality data clearinghouse, perhaps by enhancing and developing portals like Environmental Protection Agency's Window to My Environment. Building a clearinghouse is an incremental process. ACWI has approved several steps already.

Shouldn't we look at data collection and data access? GAO found data availability is the big issue. Improved access would improve availability.

Maryland Monitoring Council has clickable map to facilitate coordination and collaboration among water-quality data users.

NWQMC is already working on these issues of water-quality data coordination and collaboration. Recommendation is that some lead agency organization be selected. Because NWQMC is well on the way, suggest using NWQMC.

What's the process Congress will use to select lead coordinating body? EPA and USGS are already progressing toward better coordination via NWQMC. NWQMC talked about this at the last meeting, decided would like to offer a briefing to Rep. Duncan after the election. NWQMC requests backing of ACWI to do this briefing.

Has shrinking streamgage funding come up? Was it in report? Yes, streamflow and precipitation.

Because the instrument to achieve coordination is already in place, recommend working through NWQMC. GAO knows resources and authority are important issues. GAO doesn't make prescriptive recommendations.

One recommendation has to do with authority-what kinds of authority are needed to make improvements, e.g., authority to get folks to use metadata clearinghouse?

Report has general comments only.

Example: There are 1200 entities involved with water quality in Maryland. Left up to users to contact whoever had collected data. Clickable map is useful just to find out who's DOIng something.

Why didn't GAO suggest a lead coordinating body, ACWI and NWQMC, which already exist? GAO asked participants for feedback, but there wasn't consensus about who should be the coordinating agency; got mixed signals. Best action then was for GAO to present the options they heard to Congress and let Congress decide.

What should ACWI do to inform Congress?

[See PowerPoint Presentation]

Break

Resume meeting Bob Hirsch USGS We have questions in response to GAO report Are GAO findings substantially correct? If yes, is ACWI / NWQMC the right coordinating mechanism? Do we want to say so either as individual organizations or as ACWI? What authorities/resources/other are needed to succeed? What changes would we need to make? Do we want to provide information to Rep. Duncan? If not, what else?

Are there volunteers to bring something like a resolution back to ACWI tomorrow?

Bob Invited Speakers

John Haines USGS
Will speak about two things-US Commission on Ocean Policy (COP) and Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). Last major review of ocean policy in 1969 had a big impact.

Questions:
Does COP have State representation? Not sure, but States are engaged and comment on report. Also, the law dictated the process.

Final report will be delivered this Monday. Administration has 90 days to respond. Response will be coordinated by Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). CEQ has set up several subgroups

Where are opportunities to merge interests?
1) Flood hazards, and 2) Nutrient losses to Gulf of Mexico hypoxia and Mississippi River Basin Herb Buxton USGS
Mississippi River / Gulf of Mexico (MR/good data on management actions SPARROW was useful. It shows nitrogen load actually contributed to Gulf.

Questions: Is SPARROW useful for research or for management decisions?

Response: SPARROW has been reviewed numerous times, including publication in Nature. SPARROW model has also had extensive USGS internal review. Management questions about the watershed and the Gulf include other issues such as socioeconomics, issues not addressed by SPARROW.

Monitoring framework has four levels-mouth, large river, small river, smaller still. Smaller wa GOM) Watershed Nutrients Task Force has accomplished monitoring, modeling and reporting activities. Causes of Gulf hypoxia-- primarily excess nitrogen delivered by Mississippi River in conjunction with stratification of Gulf. The hypoxic zone, measured since 1985, is correlated with rainfall. Nitrogen loads, primarily as N-NO3, increase with increasing rainfall and increasing streamflow. Another factor is draining wetlands that once removed nitrogen. MR/GOM watershed nutrients task force DOI representatives include Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and USGS. See CENR Science Assessment-Integrated Assessment Report May 2000 about receiving water near delta. Nutrient loads reduction takes advantage of things already being done to reach water quality goals. Information to calculate nitrogen loads from 1980-96 comes from continuous streamgaging and water quality observations across transect of stream with temporal consideration. USGS monitoring is used to calculate loads. In particular, nitrogen yield for 1980-96 used USGS monitoring at 42 small sub basins, representative watersheds. Used ancillary information about components of nitrogen inputs, e.g., fertilizer input and atmospheric deposition. We also built models to infer conditions at unmonitored sites. Need also to have tersheds give helpful information needed for regional inference.

Did you monitor multiple nutrients or just nitrogen? Response: We monitored for multiple nutrients. An important question is-- which is the limiting nutrient? Phosphorus and nitrogen are both important.

What were the costs of monitoring? Response: Upper Mississippi Basin (above Missouri River) monitoring was $3M. Includes restoring stations and a limited number of new stations.

Texas will begin desalination pilots. Need model for hydrodynamics of receiving water. NOAA and EPA are working on these.

We expect maximum loadings in the wet years. But 1982 was record dry year in the upper basin. Was SPARROW calibrated for wet years?

Peter Tennant ORSANCO
We're making efforts toward integrated monitoring in Ohio River Sub-basin. This region has a large percent of the country's combined sewer overflow. Since the early to mid-1990's we've experienced taste and odor problems. Water utilities collect the data, which are limited to water supply intake sites. ORSANCO does the analyses. The program is driven by water supply concerns. In particular, we must pay particular attention to taste and odor concerns. We have static resources to work with. Already we work with three USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) stations. We should take flow regimes into account by developing an "index period".

[See PowerPoint Presentation]

Speakers, Cont'd.

Malka Pattison DOI on detail to CEQ Oceans Task Force Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) is coordinating Administration's response to the Ocean Commission's report. The bad news is-I can't give the report to ACWI now. The good news is-the sticking point isn't ACWI. ACWI should address Chapter 15. CEQ would like to look at the Gulf of Mexico as a pilot. How can we find a piece of this area that's workable, so that we're best able to succeed?

ACWI is at the top of everyone's list to look at issues raised by the Coastal Commission and GAO. Links to the broader community are needed. We want an integrated water quality monitoring network. The Administration knows monitoring isn't where it should be. Monitoring means more than stations-it also encompasses modeling, research and data management.
Whatever is done in the Gulf of Mexico should lead to the next step. Even the Ocean Commission put out a memo that said the network needs regional flexibility. (That Commission also forgot water quantity, ground water, and other issues.)

We all need to take a next step.
The Gulf needs study. Herb Buxton described recent reports of the Task Force. They've done a lot to identify management questions that need to be answered, and they've done a lot to put data needs in the context of management questions. We should address the issue of managing the harmful algal bloom CEQ will soon send a proposal to ACWI regarding this.

Discussion of Proposed Task to ACWI's National Water Quality Monitoring Council to develop a National Monitoring Network

Questions/Issues: Recommend building on the work of the National Estuary Program. But CEQ wants to integrate a bigger picture. Suggest we hear again CEQ's question to the group. How should we develop a pilot in the Gulf of Mexico that would allow us to develop a monitoring framework that could be replicated at a larger scale? The monitoring network should include ground water and water quantity.

CEQ asks rhetorically who will pay for this? A lot of this monitoring needs to be done anyway. CEQ encourages ACWI to think about what's being done already. Is there any duplication? We'll need more information. Suggest considering moving or altering stations to meet more than one need.

CEQ needs a monitoring framework from ACWI. CEQ wants a draft framework by January 2006. Please plan an interim report product, too. Report product will include-- what about current monitoring network works? Why? What are the gaps in monitoring? How can we eliminate the gaps? The monitoring framework plan should be based, first, on better use of resources, and only then an increase in resources.

More Questions/Issues: Do you mean monitoring in the Gulf or monitoring freshwater discharges to the Gulf? Both-- ACWI is best positioned to do this work inland, coastal and in the Gulf.

Suggest focus in on one component, like eutrophication. Suggest look at water beyond hydrology. Include biology and ecosystems, e.g., invasive species. Yes, monitoring should include indicator species.

The management questions are crucial. CEQ asks us to design a network that can be replicated elsewhere. But we have to design the network to pay attention to these management questions, and management issues are not necessarily transferable. CEQ asks ACWI, on CEQ's behalf, to focus this process more. Malka would like input before she sends a proposal to ACWI. So CEQ would like our help framing proposal? We want you to say yes to our proposal.

There is a contradiction. The Oceans Commission envisions a monitoring council, yet suggests responding to one management question, such as the hypoxic zone. But in a civilized society, a monitoring council would recognize the need to monitor certain basic things? No, CEQ doesn't want to address a single issue. The design should be scoped broadly.

The Chesapeake Bay experience is relevant. What may be important as input to Chesapeake Bay isn't necessarily an issue to people way upstream. We ask people far removed from the problem to pay. Are you asking states to relocate stations to suit the needs of a larger issue? As Peter Tennant said, there is a distinction between monitoring for local taste and odor issues versus monitoring for a national issue such as mass transport. To say locals must pay for that all along the way won't work. There's an art to putting a proposal together. Local monitoring could be enhanced to deal with a national issue. The Bays and Estuaries Program in Texas will look at freshwater inflow needs to support healthy bays. We can help out CEQ with our experience.

How can we help you when we're trying to get EPA funds to continue existing programs? We should invest in work that helps us understand underlying causes.

Did I hear that the group responding for the President plans to bring a request to ACWI? That it's to be a product that will build on an abstract framework developed by ACWI? That they want a report about what a national monitoring network would look like based on how ACWI would make it work in the Gulf? Help us be clear about what ACWI's task would be? What would you like CEQ to address in this matter in their request to you? CEQ would like to work out our differences in the next two weeks. Then, within a month, we want ACWI to show how the plan would work with existing resources like the Task Force.

Toni will distribute drafts by email. Malka wants response from ACWI by Christmas.

ACWI doesn't have expertise on some of the marine questions. Reaction to CEQ's proposal so far-ACWI can take on some of these questions.
Can this be remedied by a more active role by NOAA?
The value of ACWI is that we are a collection of lots of agencies and groups. Rather than just bringing in one more agency, suggest we use a task force like Herb Buxton described. Build on what that Task Force has already done.

CEQ wants this to be more than a federal effort.

The report says we need a national network. We have the challenge of conveying this important message-we're all in it together. Suggest an educational component to make everyone be a part of it.

ACWI doesn't have the legal authority to make anyone do anything. How can CEQ make this happen? A good idea will be sufficient. Implementation of good proposal will be funded.

ACWI needs to see a proposal. The National Ocean Commission posed a question. We would like CEQ to tell us what fundamental knowledge is needed, particularly in the receiving waters. Using the Gulf Task Force, ACWI would decide how to apply that to the Gulf, deciding what enhancements would be needed and what it would take for local monitoring to become part of national effort. We've all wanted to develop a "backbone monitoring system" for some time.

Toni Johnson USGS
Tomorrow we'll be hearing subgroup reports. For each subgroup's action items, please respond to the resolution. Read these things to be prepared to respond tomorrow.

Adjourned for day

Day 2 Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Heinz Center Report, The State of The Nation's Ecosystems: Measuring the Lands, Waters, and Living Resources of the United States (See http://www.heinzctr.org/ecosystems)

Overview: We ought to know what’s going on with the nation’s water resources. This means we should have indicators to track over time.
We’ve identified a set of strategic indicators of the condition and use of US ecosystems and we report these to a wide, nonpartisan audience. We remain politically neutral. We report on state and let the audience decide what’s good and bad.
“Insufficient data” may mean the data is there, but collected / analyzed using inconsistent means—that is, the data are not synthesized and organized. For example, rangelands and urban and suburban areas are less-well monitored than water or forested areas.

• Current activities
• Questions and Discussion
• Identify indicators that we can track over time
• Put in place a mechanism to output information on a regular basis
• Condition of resources as it pertains to their livelihood
• Discuss "state" or condition of resources that people care about
• Initial questions - What should we know and can we report about it?
• Sets of indicators for major ecosystem types and a "picture" of the nation as a whole
• 4 major characteristics for each system (chemical/physical, organisms, what benefit do people receive from the system - recreation, timber, etc… ecosystem services)
• 103 indicators of which they were able to report on half. The other half did not have the data or were not able to be quantified
• Insufficient data - we collect data on these things, but no one has taken the position of gathering the data together and organizing it on a national level
• Water indicators
• Overall, water was reported on more than any other indicator
• Rangelands and urban/suburban areas are paid less attention than water
• Graphic of non-native fish species in watersheds
• Graphic of source of water withdrawals and water use
• Comparison of nitrate in streams by ecosystems – forests cleanest, farmlands have the most nitrate in streams
  
• GAO is looking at whether federal agencies will keep collecting these data. Perhaps transition these to operational systems. Also sorting out institutional issues about how to keep reporting the indicators. The GAO report should be wrapped up in March or April next year. Goal is to issue a new report every 5 years, in the interim, web-only updates to keep the data fresh.
• Goals by next publication
  • Refine indicators for consistency across ecosystem types
  • Monitoring and data system – not managed consistently
    
    • Identified data gaps that we can’t currently report on
    • Need to find ways to report on these areas
    • Do not assume that existing data sources will be available forever – identify why these resources may not be available in the future (i.e. Budget cuts, programs move on to other issues, etc…)
      
  • Institutionalize issues – should this type of activity be inside government instead? Heinz Center is a think tank – is this the right place? Should an advisory committee such as ACWI be in charge?
    
• Good that data gaps have been identified, but how should $$ be spent?
  • How much does it cost?
  • Feasibility? Can we do it? Techniques available?
  • Importance? What should we do?
• Need a set of “doable” indicators


• Questions –
  • Q: There are boundaries around things. Has the boundary issue been left hanging? How do you deal with overlap?
  • A: likely that the next report will have less focus on specific indicators for an ecosystem, but will describe how indicators flow through ecosystems. Move away from “packaging” information in boxes.
  • Q: GAO timetable?
  • A: Supposed to start last November, but will hopefully be ready by next March/April
  • Q: Who is the audience?
  • A: In the short-run, people who can and will make decisions on whether we still do this. In the larger sense, decision-makers and opinion-leaders.
  • Q: Do other nations do this?
  • A: Australians and New Zealanders are best at doing this. Canadians are starting with six indicators. English and Dutch have done some work. Lots of countries are doing interesting work. There may be also other “rising stars” coming up in last few years who are committed to understanding data and getting it out. Canadians struggle with a small number of indicators. British and Dutch (integrating into policy arena). A lot going on in the U.S. Trying to reach folks who control resource allocation in the country.
  • Q: Thoughts on increasing the frequency of reporting?
  • A: Need a good forum for debating trends. Trying to foster dialog that’s not relevant to a specific piece of dialog. Multiple cycles of getting the information out.

Curtis Cude, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, and Alternate, National Water Quality Monitoring Council

[See PowerPoint Presentation]

Pacific Northwest Data Exchange

• Very few in the group had read the GAO document or it has been a while
• The document is in existence and needs to be addressed
• Is ACWI or the Council the correct entity for this? After discussion, yes, it is logical that the Council is the correct entity for these duties
• Issues of the Council align with GAO issues
• Suggestion is to form an ad-hoc group (ACWI/Council members) or hand the issue over to the Council to discuss what kind of changes need to be made
• Do we want to provide information to Representative Duncan? Yes, the how of this should come out of the recommendation from ACWI ?
• Make sure to note that there is currently progress underway – in front of the final sentence – “This council, with membership from Federal, State, Local, and Tribal organizations is currently making progress on the issues…
• Other concerns: Do we think the findings are substantially correct? Group disagrees with some of their findings. Don’t dance around issues. What does the authority mean? Coordination and collaboration; not telling anybody what to do. Should meet with folks who directed this project—the director and deputy director of project. What does “authority” mean? Ask GAO for explanation about what they meant. Gatz was asked about this yesterday. Wasn’t total agreement among agencies interviewed by GAO, and also a group like the Council hadn’t the authority or resources to go forward. Just being subgroup of a federal advisory committee doesn’t give the committee much pull. Also what authority would the Council accept? Congress will redefine authority. Is the Council comfortable taking on role in which quality has been removed and Council is dealing with quantity too? Council as constituted wouldn’t want to do that. May want to change. Can you really separate quality and quantity? All water information is an ACWI thing not a NWQMC thing. The examples in the GAO report are less worrisome than the broad language used. The examples are us. However there are certain confusions—three confusions including quantity v quality. Gives us entrée to discussing this with GAO. Suggest some statement come out today. Make resolution that Council is capable of taking on the challenge of doing the three things listed here.
  

Dick Engberg,
American Water Resources Association

• Water Policy, Dialog II, February 2005, Tucson, AZ
• Results of First Water Policy Dialog
• Plans for Second Dialog
• Questions and Discussion
  
  
• Invitation to AWWA Policy Dialog
• Follow-up to 1st Policy Dialog
• Objective – hold meeting that is completely objective that represents all sides of policy issues
• Participants represented all water resources disciplines
• Focused on 16 issues

On website in 2-3 weeks— See www.awra.org

Break

Judy Campbell-Bird,Consultant to the National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA)

• National Liaison Committee for NAWQA
  
  Update and acomplishments
  Questions and Discussion
  
• Large list of active participants – Judy listed many of these groups
• Meetings – topics of interest, policy issues currently being debated, sharing of information that will be helpful to NAWQA
  • Example – mercury deposition and methylation
• Meeting in October – next generation of policy issues
  • Recent changes in NAWQA program
  • Purpose: where do information needs for the future coincide with potentials for changing the program to adapt to the budgetary needs

  [See PowerPoint Presentation]

Robert Goldstein, Electric Power Research Institute, and Co- Chair of the Steering Committee of the Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable; Ethan T. Smith, Coordinator, SWRR

• Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable
• Update and Accomplishments
• Indicators and Criteria
• Questions and Discussion

[See PowerPoint Presentation]

Tim Smith -- Upcoming meetings including one at University of Michigan, a research meeting.

Donald Frevert, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, and Co-Chair of the Subcommittee on Hydrology

• Subcommittee on Hydrology
  
  • Update and Accomplishments
  • Resolution regarding needs for precipitation frequency updates and streamgaging
  • Questions and Discussion
    
• Streamflow data network is of extreme importance
• Network is heavily funded by USGS partners
• Other agencies rely heavily on USGS data
• Program maintained at or above the current level and USGS should remain in charge
• Recommendation - be specific about USGS budget information about streamgaging. There are two USGS line items that have to do with streamgaging
• Amendment - Add COOP program to make it "programs"
• Motion passed
• Questions and Discussion -
  • Q: Is there a presentation available?
  • Yes, with approval, presentations are made available on-line, later with minutes, as well

[See PowerPoint Presentation]

John R. Gray, U.S. Geological Survey, and Chair of the Subcommittee on Sedimentation

• Subcommittee on Sedimentation
  • Update and Accomplishments
  Resolution to update and place on-line the REServoir Information System (RESIS-II)
  • Questions and Discussion

  • Relevant project?
  Endorsement of project? Send additional information to agencies who have concerns/interest in National security issues
  •Even if not on-line, a valuable resource
  • Modification – consideration of water rights issues
  • Seeking endorsement from ACWI that this is a good thing to do. Yes, several suggestions made by ACWI members.
  • Motion passed.
  • Questions and Discussion –

• Q: How many reservoirs in database?
• A: All Federal reservoirs
• Q: Storage?
• A: 1, 819 reservoirs
• Q: When was the last survey?
• A: 1985
• Q: Data available to anyone?
• A: Want to put it on-line
  • Report on-line as a GIS dataset; shows location of dams; the report has additional information
• NID contains 76,000 dams (larger than x and/or high hazard); plus, 1-2 million smaller dams – is this duplication of work already done?
• Update database – endorsement from ACWI, some agencies have come forward with resources
• Security issues? NID was taken down due to issues of National security. Corps has had to conceal some information.
• Concern about water rights in terms of posting this database to the Web--- Endorse with proviso that property rights concerns of groups such as ICWP and WSWC be addressed. Even if not online it would be a valuable resource. Modify to remove interactive web-based application.
• Subcommittee is aware of the security issues

• Q: Who will have access to the database? Ownership?
• A: Needs to be determined
• Q: Any communication with dam safety officials?
• A: subcommittee has not had this contact yet. Suggestion that this solely Federal subcommittee reaches out to all ACWI member organizations forparticipation in that subcommittee. Get more people on board and participating. (Coordinate with states’ dam safety organizations. Sue Lowry will provide this contact. This is the only subgroup that’s purely federal. It’s imperative to include nonfederal groups. Work to develop sales pitch to go to ACWI and NWQMC to solicit participation in Subcommittee on Sedimentation. This will help develop consensus.)
• EPRI would like to participate

[See PowerPoint Presentation]

Break – Move to Ballroom C
Keynote Speaker: Mike Tidwell, Filmmaker and Author of the book Bayou Farewell

Bob Pierce, USGS Geographic Information Office, and Chair of the Spatial Water Data Subcommittee

• Spatial Water Data Subcommittee
  • Update on Watershed Boundaries
  • Geospatial One-Stop
  • Request to ACWI Member Representatives to act as “Channel Stewards for Inland Waters” for Geospatial One-Stop
    
    > Motion passed
    
• Questions and Discussion
  > Questions and discussion –
  • 8 digit hucs since early 1970’s
  • watershed boundary dataset effort to go 2 levels deeper – 10 to 12 digits
  • 160,000 watersheds referenced
  • graphic of what has been completed so far – approximately 50% (blue and green areas on map are complete)
    
    • blue = certified
    • green = still working on metadata; should be finished by the end of this calendar year
    • yellow = active (working on these areas – completion by end of 2005)
    • red = having difficulty (approx. 8 will not be done by the end of 2005)
  • technical team that works to keep the states working on the data
    
    • have been working on efforts with IJC – Canadian boundary area
    • EPA Region 5 – helping work with states to complete in the shortest amount of time
  • Help increase awareness of the framework of databases
  • Discussion of specific watersheds will be off-line
    
    Ken Lanfear--Geospatial One-Stop
    
  • Inland water channel
    • Geodata.gov
      • Next generation of NSDI site
      • 17 channels of data
      • inland water – hucs, national wetland inventory, NHD
      • drainage – national elevation dataset,
      • Issue – how do you get your geospatial data featured?
        • Contact Ken Lanfear – lanfear@usgs.gov
      • SWDS – Ken proposed they become the “Board of Directors”
        • Subcommittee can provide guidance on whether to put data on the site
        • Consult with Ken and recommend sites to put on-line

  >Q: Number of members on committee?
  > A: 14
  > Q: How many non-Feds?
  
  [See PowerPoint Presentation]

• Mike Shapiro and Chuck Spooner-- EPA funding slides
  There is a drop in President’s proposed FY 2005 funding, a $37M cut to EMAP
  
  

  Don Dycus TVA- updated ACWI Position Statement about GAO report Maybe add 3rd area of clarification-what resources are available? Send with cover letter from ACWI to Rep. Duncan.
  What are we trying to get out of this? Answer: For Congress to name this group, and give it any needed authority and resources.
  Since '92 the executive branch has endorsed ACWI. So cite FACA in resolution. For example, "this advisory committee receives its authority from … and is a federal advisory committee…". Approve draft as amended.

  Council and 3 federal agencies were proposed as possible water quality data coordinating agencies. Let these and a nonfederal representative attend the proposed meeting with Duncan.

Barney Austin, Western States Water Council, and Steering Committee of the 2004 Coop Task Force

• 2004 Task Force to Review the USGS Cooperative Water Program
  • Status of Task Force Activities
  • Update on USGS ImplementationUpdate on USGS Implementation
  • Questions and Discussion

  Overview of the COOP Program: CWP created 1895, funded first in 1905
  The previous Coop Task Force met in 1998. Culminated in publication of Circular 1192; there were 59 findings in that report. Gale Norton wrote to ACWI responding to the findings.
  > 1999 Task Force culminated in publication of a Circular
  >2004 Task Force – review findings from the 1999 report; will form the basis of 5-year USGS Program plan
  >1 meeting and 2 conference calls
  >1 additional meeting and a couple of conference calls will wrap-up the task force
  >24 recommendations fully implemented
  > Priorities –

  • 4.1 – full match for COOP stations + inflation
  • 9.1 – NSIP – 100% funds
  • 9.3 limit loss of long-term streamgaging stations
    

> These first three depend on funding issues. Data quality has improved. For example, there’s been an increase in the amount of real-time information. The average rate of increase in the cost of streamgage operation and maintenance is 3.8%

• Reference presentation for additional priorities
• Report will have intro, USGS progress since 1999, conclusions, recommendations
• Hoping to have draft report ready for ACWI by Christmas
• Are there additional issues that ACWI would like to address?
  • Comment – response from non-Feds about why there should be full funding
  • We are finding that in certain areas of the country, there continues to be strong funding and in some cases, the number of stream gages is growing; however, in some areas we are seeing a decrease in gages due to individual funding issues. Long-record stations are in a minority of the states are increasing; most are declining.

David Denig-Chakroff, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

• Water Information Sharing and Analysis Center (WaterISAC)
  • Overview
  • Questions and Discussion
    
    
• Executive Order designated 8 critical infrastructure issues
  • Water, etc…
  • Urged these areas to create information sharing and analysis centers (ISACs)
  • WaterISAC was launched in 2002
  • EPA provides funding through AMWA
  • More than 1000 individuals have access – subscribers
    • Pay a fee based on the population that they serve
    • Highest fee is $1000
    • Fees have increased by 75% due to $2 million in funds
  • Trying to coordinate with NEMI – get some of that information into the ISAC
  • Collects and analyzes security incidence reports. Subscribers access information using a smart card. (This is the only service of its kind. Some of the services are--Receive email alerts about attacks on water systems; access to database about certain contaminants such as radiological; notice about cyber vulnerabilities; guidance about emergency response; summary of security open source information.
  • General information is available on-line at
    http://www.waterisac.org

  Pete Ruhl, USGS National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program

  • NAWQA Data Warehouse
    
    • Overview: To make more data available to a more sophisticated user—quantity, quality, biology. Trying to serve a growing community outside of the USGS. Suggest you google “water quality data” to find these data. Can be used to generate maps. Can search either locations or constituents by keyword.

      • Internet Demonstration
      • Questions and Discussion

  • NAWQA data warehouse developed for internal use in the USGS -- http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/data/
  • Quantity, biological issues, and quality
  • Pete runs a biological database; reference handout for contact information
  • Data collected from 1991 to the end of last year
  • 609 constituents and thousands of samples, 11 million plus records
  • Algae samples will be loaded soon
  • Questions: How much have we communicated with biologic community that data are available? Information was put on mailing lists, etc. Suggest publicize that data to a broader community.

    [See PowerPoint Presentation]
    

  Toni Johnson, ACWI Executive Secretary

  • Meeting Summary
    >Review of Action Items
  • Process for interim next steps
  • Date of next meeting
  • Final comments and suggestions from Members
  • Thank you all for your active participation on ACWI!
    • Toni gave a brief presentation highlighting Action items generated from the meeting – reference Toni’s presentation
    • Thanks to members for participation in a productive and successful meeting
    • Thanks to Toni’s staff for meeting support

    Action Items 2004

  2004 Annual Meeting of the ACWI Adjourned