<Please send email comments to Toni Johnson at tjohnson@usgs.gov>

Wednesday, January 18

Welcome and Introductions (Bob Hirsch, USGS)

Bob Hirsch opened the meeting, welcoming members and guests. Bob recognized the Water Quality Monitoring Network (WQMN) strategy and those in the room who have worked on that project. Bob expressed his appreciation for the participation of non-Federal partners and provided a brief overview of the agenda.

Bob introduced Mark Limbaugh Assistant Secretary for Water & Science (ASWS) to ACWI. Mark previously served at the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and is responsible for two bureaus within the Department – USGS and BOR.

Opening Remarks - (Mark Limbaugh, Department of the Interior (DOI) / Hale Hawbecker (DOI)

Mark Limbaugh: Mark provided brief background information on himself; noting that as a fourth generation member of a farming family, water resources are very important to him and his family. It is important that we have good information and data in terms of accountability for this precious resource. Mark welcomed all members to the Washington area and stated that DOI is appreciative of the time and energy that ACWI members put into the FACA committee.

• Noted the importance of FACA committees and their recommendations – recommendations are taken seriously
• ACWI is a Presidential Advisory Committee, thus, raising the importance of what ACWI does.
• Noted Interior’s appreciation of broad participation in the committee.  Interior is pleased with the accomplishments and products that have come out of the committee – Mark noted biological indicators, reports…
• It is important to have good data in order to produce good programs for water resources
• Brief discussion of what Interior does – statistical description – DOI manages 1 out of 5 acres of land in the United States (US); recognize 502 Indian tribes; oversees federal lands. Responsibilities lie with USGS and USBR.
• With USGS, interested in water… Mark will be going to Austin with Bob Hirsch to meet with stakeholders – work on new ways to do business in managing the streamflow information program and other cooperative programs.
• Flat budget at federal level.
• In terms of USBR, Mark is more familiar with what the agency does
• Noted a report from National Academy of Sciences
• Administering a water program, Water 2025, to get ahead of future conflict and crises on water in the west.
• Hot spot map of the west helps recognize areas of potential conflict; improvements to water and conservation; using these tools where there is a lot of competition for water.
• We need to get a head start on issues such as population growth, endangered species, etc…
• Challenge Grant Program – improvements to water infrastructure, water marketing… Conflict management is not effective, need to get ahead of this.
• Projects worth over $60 million already implemented in areas they feel will have future problems. Facilitates local agencies getting ahead of potential conflicts.
• Safety law enforcement program for protection of USBR infrastructure. Dynamic dam safety program to deal with design flaws
• One of the more successful efforts of DOI is Gail Norton’s 4 Cs Philosophy – ensure every decision made is made through the 4 Cs -- communication, consultation, cooperation, all in the service of conservation. Cooperative conservation – partner with Federal, state, local govt. and private citizens.
  
• The Department is committed to working cooperatively with ACWI and looks forward to ACWI’s recommendations.

Q – Sue Lowry: Appreciate comments on Water 2025. Is there an incremental plan envisioned regarding infrastructure? A large amount of money will be required. How will priorities be weighed – fix old/develop new?

R – Mark Limbaugh: Challenge grants to leverage limited dollars with private groups, states, etc… focused areas. Trying to get ahead of conflict will save money in the long-term. Infrastructure is aging and it costs more to operate and maintain. The National Academy Report looked at this. Reclamation is poised to start that effort. Tools are in place for rehabilitation of aging infrastructure… money is another problem. There is no longer a loan program.

A new approach is looking at federal loan guarantees to contractors (low interest guarantee loans with low interest rates) – Fees are collected up front, with no expense to tax payers. Loans are paid back by users. There is a great track record on repayment and minimal impact on appropriations. There is a bill in Congress for USBR to have a loan guarantee program – loan guarantee authority (Senator Domenici).

Q – Bob Hirsch: What do you see as the role of Reclamation in the development of technologies – desalination, etc… and in reconstruction?

R – Mark Limbaugh:  Water 2025 philosophy is focused on technology – There are economic ways to get more water out of resources. We are looking for the next generation of technologies that would make this more cost effective. The FY07 budget (February 6) will highlight desalination – it will be very focused due to limited funding. Research grants, pilot projects. Reuse – Title 16 program has not been well focused, and we will be working on that this year. Refocus the program to promote reuse… stretch water supplies in a focused manner. Focus on how to rejuvenate Title 16 and make it work for the priorities set.

Q – Emery Cleaves (AASG): Comments have been made regarding water supply and technology… Fundamentally, we need to know what is there first, however, efforts are fiscally challenged. How and/or where can we create funding sources? We have to find a way to keep networks funded and keep them from shrinking, ie. keep what we have, and not lose ground. We need to expand our useable waters and monitoring networks. Adequate financing is needed as a pillar of this.

R – Mark Limbaugh:  Knowledge is power. We need to get ahead of needs through good data and water management. DOI is committed to working with states and partners now rather than waiting until the problem is overwhelming.

Bob Hirsch – Government ethics are prevalent in the papers these days. It is Important to consider our responsibilities as a FACA.

Introduction of Hale Hawbecker – FACA and Ethics

[FACA and Ethics Presentation - PPT 49KB]

Hale Hawbecker: Hale spoke briefly on his background – has over 16 years experience in ethics counseling in the Federal Government and also legal issues on funding, etc… (Reference profile). Thank you to Bob and Toni, Designated Federal Official (DFO) for the invitation to speak about the ethical issues of FACA committees.

Q – Doug Mclaughlin (NCASI): Request to expand on how one demonstrates representation of their constituency.

R – Hale Hawbecker: Important for there to be evidence of communication to the groups you represent – not necessarily formal, but you should keep the group notified about what is happening with this committee. Know what the constituency viewpoint is and represent that viewpoint. Don’t be here just to render your own individual views. Any evidence that you have done this is good to keep you out of the non-government employee category.

Comment – Bob Hirsch – Find ways to communicate with the leadership of your organization, for example, ACWI met, here are the issues, here are the decisions that were made, and here are the products you might be interested in… Get communications out to a large community and bring their views back to the committee.

Comment – Hale Hawbecker – Committee members should have a vested interest, but the important thing is to represent your organization – there is no conflict of interest in that case. We expect committee members to have opinions and broad views… bring this to the table. Phone – 202-208-7960; speak with Hale or Shayla Simmons.

Introductions –
Members and guests introduced themselves and who they are representing.

ACWI Report: National Water Quality Monitoring Network (NMN) for US Coastal Waters and Their Tributaries
Presented By: Gail Mallard, Chuck Spooner
Expected Outcome: Presentation of NMN Report, Review by ACWI, Next Steps

http://acwi.gov/acwi_intranet/monitoring/network/design

Reference PowerPoint Presentation

• This effort has involved many people who have worked over the last year to put this report together.
• Recognized: Eric Vowinkel, USGS; David Denig-Chakroff; Don Dycus, TVA; Bob Schreiber, Jawed Hameedi, Tod Dabolt, Gail Mallard, Toni’s staff – Mike Ierardi, Ami Mitchell; Donna Myers, USGS NAWQA Program; Peter Grevatt.
• Diverse effort with a lot of activity.
• Proposed ACWI Action – Draft of report to ACWI. Identify needed revisions. Ask that ACWI approve report or agree on a plan to improve the report. Discuss next steps for implementation.

Chuck presented background of the creation of the report.

• stems from the Ocean Act of 2000 (Reference Slide)
• Commission on Ocean Policy report – 31 chapters…
• Chapter 15 recommendations –Develop a National Monitoring Network
• The plan was formally accepted last February, and the NWQMC was charged with developing the plan.
  • Coordinate and Expand existing efforts
  • Ensure adequate coverage
  • Ensure that monitoring network has clear goals
    
  • Showed a map with over 80 participants throughout the United States.
  • Design will not: provide data on all water resources—no small rivers, lakes, reservoirs, local aquifers; replace state clean water act use abatements monitoring – 305(b), 303(d), compliance monitoring.
  • Structure of design involves nine resource compartments, fixed station and probabilistic designs, stations identified, parameters and sampling frequencies specified, provisions for data comparability, management and access

Goal: Finalize report by January 2006

Gail Mallard continued with the presentation with a more detailed report on what the monitoring network will look like.  Gail stated that they will talk about issues related to data management. She also stated that much of what she would say is in the Executive Summary of the report. The Network design committee has specified in the design what is core.

• Constituent categories – physical, chemical, biological
• We want to know about estuaries as to how they are changing over time. Be mindful that a continuum exists.
• Monitoring Estuaries – have concentrated on actual numbers, not regulatory limits
• 11 IOOS regions
• Select 50 sites in each IOOS region – 500 sites monitored every year
• Estuaries – it was important to specify what is needed in the design
• Identified 149 estuaries – based on a selection by NOAA and augmented by Design group efforts
• Each of the 149 would be monitored intensively over 5 years.
• Recognize that this plan may be ongoing in other areas, but provides a broad snapshot of what’s going on in the estuaries.

Gail provided additional details about the proposed monitoring strategy. Taking an approach in the Network that will allow the use of appropriate tools for each area.

• Transect of 15 sites that go from input to outflow to ocean. These sites need to be sampled monthly for a variety of constituents for as long as we can do this. Keep track of constituents coming in.
• Estuaries – includes sub estuaries; may not monitor all estuaries extensively every year, but there will be some monitoring every year
• Monitoring near shore – 50 sites for each IOOS region (0-3 nautical miles); select sites based on a probabilistic approach; 500 sites.
• Will also use sites that are have been in place for many years
• Aware that there are many buoys…. Continue use of remote sensing.
• Offshore – 3 nautical miles to exclusive economic zone
• Great Lakes – sample 50 sites per Great Lake per year.  Probabilistic approach – sample1 time per year, repeat every 5 years. There is a lot of work ongoing in the Great Lakes already.
• Also look at some embayments in GL – separate design that selects sites in GL embayments every year…. Focus on the areas where human activity is most likely to have an impact.

Graphic of proposed riverine stations –

• Inland – based on HUC6 – focus is on coastal issues
• Does not include interior drainages
• AK and HI included – still finalizing selection of sites;
• Capture downstream most drainage point from HUC6s.
• Need 258, currently 197 active gages. Knowing something about what’s going on in a particular area will allow managers to go back up into the drainage units.
• Similar approach to Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia study
• Propose monthly sampling and high flow
• USGS has had some success with this method
• Periodic sampling for water quality
• Drain directly to estuaries
• Drain directly to GL – 250 square miles or more; capture 90% of flow to GL… would require using very small drainages. Instead, not 90%, but capture flow from very large river systems.

Also include GW and Atmospheric Deposition

From the interim ACWI meeting in September, we heard ACWI indicate that the Network needs to deal with GW. Bob Schreiber has been a tremendous help in this area. There is a set of criteria in the report for managers to determine that aspect for their region. Professional judgment and local expertise are needed to determine where and if to monitor ground water resources.

Expand on existing NADP network. Capture major rainfall events, but not every storm.

Other components –

• Coastal Beaches
• A very large network underway that is conducted by states.
• EPA beaches program.
• How do we aggregate and use the data available?
• Need to conduct more research into how this database can be used.
• Wetlands
• There has been no consensus on how to monitor wetlands;

Coordinate with IOOS

• Involve IOOS Regional Associations in management of the proposed monitoring.
• Design has a data management plan that is consistent with the IOOS data plan.
• Design relies on IOOS plans for monitoring offshore component.

Implementation

• “A Network of Networks”
• Rely on existing networks to the extent possible
• Federal backbone can be augmented with state and local data that are network compliant – USGS, EPA, others have existing data available
• Network needs metrics to track implementation – finalize design to determine the “whole”
• Complete inventory to determine what part is on-going

Example: streamgages
Need 258 sites downstream point of HUC6 basins
Have 197 streamgages in place (USGS gages operated by USGS and its cooperators)
METRIC: 76% of total in place

Data Management

• Needs attention
• Emphasize the need to access and store data;
• Built on ACWI’s WQDE for content and metadata;
• Assumes USGS and EPA data warehouses
• Assumes web services will be the data exchange mechanism.

Next Steps to keep momentum going –

• Engage broader monitoring community in dialogue about the Network
• National Monitoring Conference will provide an opportunity to present the concept to the monitoring community and get feedback from them
• Locate and inventory monitoring sites
• Negotiate use of on-going monitoring efforts
• Develop a set of status implementation metrics
• Finalize design details
• Finalize the list of constituents and measurements, define methods performance requirements…..   (See Slide)
• Identify resources needed by federal and non-federal agencies for Network implementation
• Work to secure those resources.

What does the NMN design group want from ACWI?

• Transmit to CEQ in form that it is currently in…. subject to ACWI approval
• Either approve, or make a plan on approval from ACWI
• What role will ACWI and the Council play?
• Would like for ACWI to shepherd the report, not just deliver it to CEQ…

Questions, Discussion, and Clarification to questions about the report:

Q: Emery Cleaves – Clarification – It is vital that the report be submitted to CEQ on time. That means that we have a week or two to look at the report and provide formal comments. The comments will be included without a report back and submitted to CEQ? Is this the intent?

A: Toni Johnson – CEQ deadline – Original intent and ideal plan is for ACWI to get a couple weeks to submit detailed comments, major issues. Then steering committee will work for another week to incorporate comments into report or include in next steps as appropriate. At this meeting, the design group is asking for concurrence on approving the report with modifications – or we can receive a formal vote by email..  The report needs a formal editor review. Submit the report to CEQ in next few weeks…. We can set up a schedule, but want to hear from ACWI members first.

Comment – Bob Hirsch (USGS) – We need to take a little time to talk about the content of the report rather than the process. There will be time during the meeting to outline the process and dates.

Discussion of content –

Q: Bob Goldstein (EPRI) – An important first step in implementation is determining what data already exists? After this, what is the strategy for filling in the gaps? What is the continuing role of the committee?

R: Gail Mallard – To the extent why it does not exist, identify that there is some activity in an area. If there is no effort being made in an area, then more needs to be done. In that case, we would need funds to move forward.
 
Q: Bob Goldstein (EPRI) – What will be the strategy for prioritizing filling in the gaps? This is very ambitious.

R: Mallard – Need to strategize…. Continuing role of Council…. Pick IOOS region and look at where there is on-going monitoring and no data… Involve IOOS in the process of determining how to fill in the remaining areas.

R: Chuck Spooner (EPA) – There is the capacity to monitor and there are procedural issues as to whether data management practices are in place. Determine if there are systems in place to help us. There are a lot of dimensions to how this could be done. Use regional associations….

Bob Goldstein (EPRI): Bob recommended revealing some of these strategies/ideas in the Executive Summary. Show these options to indicate that the report is feasible.

Q: Charlie Hunsicker – Coastal orientation… Did you think of when and where to apply fiscal resources (for resource planners)? Charlie stated that he did not see discussion of monitoring and predicting the impact of sea level rise on coastal dynamics.  impact on physical habitats… tidal dynamics and transport, estuarine circulation, salinity, “dyking.” These impacts are critical and affect long-term decisions to apply resources. Was sea-level change considered in captioning your project?

R: Gail Mallard – No, report preparers are aware of the potential for sea-level change. No mention of change in sea-level or change of level in Great Lakes. The type of monitoring being proposed may be a useful mechanism for tracking sea-level change.

Q: Charlie Hunsicker – A rise in sea-level can impact our planning and is a concern for Florida, Texas, and the Gulf states. The mid-Atlantic states are represented by three stations, can you capture that with just three stations?

Chuck Spooner (EPA) – No, cannot. Have dealt with rough estimates of number of stations, estimated at 200… We have not put dots on map yet. We recognize that this is important and is done by IOOS. We are leaving that to them. It is a substantial area that we are examining. Linkages…. With IOOS

Steven Heiskary – In Network is there an allowance for volunteer monitoring?

R: Gail Mallard – Yes, Network has requirements for metadata and data systems… Network doesn’t “care” about where the data came from as long as it meets these requirements. The Network may serve as a springboard for volunteer monitoring entities. Volunteer monitoring would be included in the right areas. All data would be accepted at the correct scale.

Steven Heiskary – Good for gaining public support.

Bob Hirsch (USGS) – Look at potential partnerships between Federal agencies and volunteer groups; volunteer groups suited to having people to distribute out and help – well-suited for local sampling. Partnerships to make this happen have a lot of potential.

Gail Mallard – Agrees… This would be good to put in the report. It would also be good to bring this up at the National Monitoring Conference where volunteer monitoring groups will be well-represented.

Steven Heiskary – observation – mention of remote sensing… suggests remote sensing might not be valuable with some of the biology…. May be an excellent tool

Gail Mallard – Good suggestion

Edith Stevens – Follow-up to question… Who do you define as the “volunteer monitoring community,” and how do you hope to get them involved beyond the conference?

Chuck Spooner – One mechanism to get the audience you need is to place a public notice in the Federal Register. We have extensive knowledge of those that are involved in volunteer monitoring and know who to talk to in other areas.

Gail Mallard – One reason the NWQMC was selected is its representation within the monitoring community – 35 members with others behind them – Federal, state, local, volunteer, academia.

David Denig-Chakroff – How is the network coordinated? Who is going to coordinate? Next steps – What are the roles of the NWQMC and Federal agencies? Add to the report, the resources that are needed to coordinate… Will there be a core staff to call up? How many? There needs to be a core staff somewhere that has oversight on what is happening. What does that require?

Chuck Spooner – Good suggestion. We can make an estimate of that.

Doug McLaughlin (NCASI) – You talked about specific numbers of sampling sites – 15 sites along a transect. Can you expand on that? What discussions led to those numbers? Give us a better understanding of the work behind the design.

Chuck Spooner – The principle design is centered around the need to accurately describe resource compartments with a stratified sampling effort. There has been a lot of discussion on how this is a modular concept… The map starts to get dense enough to see if it can serve other needs… Sites are designed to help identify components you are trying to sample and then see how the design will expand to examine further needs. Fifteen sites was the determination on what was needed to provide this overview. Statistical summaries are always needed. To aid modeling efforts, examine trends; it goes beyond just strict interests and concerns of characterizing coastal resources. The design has some overlays, and table 3-2 in the report examines these topics.

Doug McLaughlin (NCASI) – How is the design fluid in real terms as it becomes implemented on an estuary by estuary basis?

Chuck Spooner – One size fits all does not work here; does not reflect the diversity out there. Using IOOS regions, we look at site density, different site plans, etc… We propose to continually refine the Network.

Bob Masters – Concentrated brine is discharged back into the ocean. Is there a thought process about that and does the plan adequately address that concern?

Gail Mallard – Not appropriate scale for the Network, but monitoring includes salinity and would detect results to guide local efforts. Generalized statements should fall out.

BREAK

ACWI Report – Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data – Tod Dabolt (Filling in for Bob Pierce)

[Spatial Data Presentation - PPT 830KB]

Subcommittee of ACWI and also of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC).

• Request to ACWI to allow a subcommittee co-chair for this work group – Tod Dabolt has put himself forward in doing this
• Request to establish a watershed boundary steering committee
• WBD steering committee will guide the technical coordination team, set priorities and manage project schedule and budget

Progress from fall work group meeting:

• Continued boundary delineations and certifications
• Revised work plan and schedule to finish the rest
• A steering committee would help to guide the subcommittee’s efforts

Hurricane Katrina response – developed relationships while working on spatial data to meet the needs for response. These relationships were a key asset to leverage Federal data – USGS – EPA – USACE – FEMA.

2006 goals – Establish a national water information clearinghouse to improve access to data
   Each agency agrees to and then populates Geospatial One-Stop (GOS) with their data
   Put metadata into the portal so others can find it.
   Each agency will establish accessible web services for the most critical spatial water data sets
     Part of network design as well.
     Access from the network…. Doesn’t have to be available on your desktop.
       Maximizes collaboration.
     Improve collaboration with other national groups involved with spatial water data activities such as the Consortium of Universities for the Advancement of Hydrologic Science (CUAHSI) and National States Geographic Information Consortium (NSGIC).
     Evaluate the utility of national spatial water datasets to meet the needs of the water community
     Increase participation from key stakeholders – need new members from the private sector to better meet non-government business needs
     Update the HUC standard – have standard for 10 and 12 HUCs
     Review and potentially expand the Federal Enterprise Architecture Spatial data profile (how all the pieces fit together)

Discussion:

Q: Hirsch – In percentage terms, what is the HUC completion?

A: Tod Dabolt – Completeness of the 12-digit HUCs is nearing 75%; not necessarily verified…but lines are delineated to a point we are comfortable with. The NRCS verifies the process.

Katherine Lins – NRCS holds the key – some states have completed within their state. USGS and NRCS verify and certify representing the subcommittee. Data are provisional until edge-matching takes place. Requirement is to be complete across the state boundary and it’s verified. The data are certified correct as soon as all data are in place. The goal is to have this complete within 6 months to a year. A lot depends on cooperation of the states.

Q: David Denig-Chakroff – Clearinghouse – Is there a component for ground water data?

A: Tod Dabolt – Geospatial queries for ground water are available. The portal is open to any agency to put their data in. Users can search geospatial one stop. This has been successful for USGS. There has been excellent progress made in delineating and making critical enhancements to NHD Plus. That data will be available in the spring.

Comment: Doug McLaughlin (NCASI) – The existence of a one-stop water base would be extremely valuable to NCASI.

Katherine Lins (USGS) – CUAHSI interested in having a comparable portal to water data… idea has not materialized yet, but interest has been shown.

Bob Hirsch – Request for ACWI approval of SSWD co-chair.
Emery Cleaves moved to approve co-chair.
David Hart seconded the motion.
ACWI consensus.
Motion approved.

Steering Committee – establish a management committee to help oversee the work being done and drive the job to completion. Interagency team and full charter are available -- essentially USGS, EPA, and NRCS. A committee is established, but SSWD is requesting agreement for the committee to be active.

Emery Cleaves made a motion to approve the steering committee
David Carlton seconded the motion.
ACWI consensus.
Motion approved.

Bob Hirsch – NHD streams interconnected to HUCs?

Tod – There are EPA and USGS managers that oversee – last year, excellent progress, NHD at 1:24,000 scale. NHD Plus -- helps folks calculate streamflow for every reach. Complete by spring. Members of the modeling community are excited about this. Integrates other data (atmospheric deposition, land use, etc…) with stream data for modeling.

Q: Bob Goldstein (EPRI) – A one-stop water data portal would be valuable. Is there anything that ACWI can do to move this forward?

Bob Hirsch – One-stop for spatial aspects of water data is a great idea. Bob’s question about time series data…. A positive step forward is in the development of activity under CUAHSI. Led by David Maidment, UTX, and a couple other universities. Work on the idea of Web services to draw information together. There has been success with NOAA and USGS data. We are exploring STORET and other discrete data. Need to agree on a common language (XML, for example) to index their information for this consortium.

Mike Shapiro – Establishing common data elements will be key – ACWI played a big role. Basis for work with EPA and states for common data flows. Align with EPA – USGS as well. There could be a key strategic role for ACWI. 

Tod Dabolt: This is no longer a geeky computer issue. The technology is there. Agencies and partners need to agree to use common resources.

Bob Masters: Is this too daunting a task? Data work is important. One-stop location for the data, but data is not necessarily of the same quality. Can still link or put up the data

Mike Shapiro: The metadata should be of known quality. What data meet the needs for the decision processes an agency is involved in?

Bob Hirsch: No disagreement that all types of data types and quality can be accessible through a query system or portals. Need for an agreed upon dictionary…. Key all data in databases to that dictionary… fits a certain code.

Doug McLaughlin: Interested in perspectives of individuals in Federal agencies regarding interagency cooperation. We are moving in a positive direction.

Bob Hirsch: Bob encouraged bringing forth success stories, continuing frustrations – hills we can’t get climbed.

ACWI Report – NAWQA National Liaison Committee – Donna Myers (NAWQA)

[NAWQA Presentation - PPT 414KB]

Maintain outreach with state and local liaisons with each study

Background – Committee is made up of federal, non-federal, industry and professional groups that are represented on ACWI – WEF, NACO, USDA-NASS-NRCS, EPA, ASIWPCA, USGS, etc... Attendance varies according to topic.

Liaison committee update – Donna reminded ACWI that in each program, there is outreach and they engage in discussions of products before being released to the public.

• New Publications –
• Fact Sheets
• Health based screening levels (HBSLs)
• Tool NAWQA has been developing since 1999
• NAWQA approach to putting these into human health context
• May leave USGS domain and become subject to regulation by other agencies
• Help program communicate water quality findings for unregulated contaminants
• Have worked with CDC, EPA, and state agencies to pilot the effort in NJ
• Have found that by applying standard method – method is in public domain – can replicate our findings
• Takes to 92%, the number of pesticides that can be analyzed in terms of human health
• 23% -- for personal care products and pharmaceuticals
• PAH sources in paving sealants – January 2006
• Back from printer on Friday – a copy will go out to ACWI members next week
• Available on-line at http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa
• Explanation of PAHs – urban areas; motor oils, tire rubber.
• Sealcoat used on driveways and parking lots – not on roadways
• This information combined with other NAWQA data – trends (uptrends); puts spotlight on PAHs being an important contaminant in the environment. PAHs are increasing whereas other contaminants have been decreasing.
• Successful at addressing challenges in the past, but this leads to new challenges.
• Basis was cover story for ES&T Aug. 2005
• Capitol Hill briefing – Dec. 2, 2005
• Circulars – synthesis of work done in the last 10 years
• Pesticides – March 3, 2006
• 2nd circular on pesticides, first was done in 1996
• communication plan
• ACWI will be notified by email
• FS planned for both of these studies
• Work with Water Science Centers
• http://ca.water.usgs.gov/pnsp/
• VOCs – mid-April 2006

Liaison meeting was held January 13, 2006, in Washington DC. A wide range of organizations were represented at the meeting. Update and meeting notes will be posted to NAWQA NLC Website under ACWI.

Gives us insight into how others view our work and into what type of information the water community is looking for. Helps us fine-tune our data.

NAWQA is a co-sponsor for the National Monitoring Conference this year… making over 80 presentations and having 3 workshops to introduce folks to the tools being used. Share tools with practitioners of water quality and other state and local agencies. This will be NAWQA’s biggest outreach activity this year.

Q: David Denig-Chakroff – David is extremely interested in HBSL project. Stress how important accurate information is and how it can be used. David referenced environmental working group on drinking water quality data – HBS levels on drinking water that do not correlate to EPA. Aesthetic vs. health vs. lifetime use. General public and press do not pick up on details. There is great concern among the drinking water community. It is important to know where to draw the line between what’s important and what’s not -- context. Wondering if there are any drinking water representatives?

Donna: Yes, ASDWA, EPA, AWWA, WEF, NACO… Started developing this in 1999. Partners engaged in formulation of tool and writing first report… chosen only to use in GW (domestic wells, largely untreated). Slow, collaborative approach. Frequent discussions with EPA.

Bob Goldstein (EPRI): NAWQA conference is part of the National Monitoring Conference?

Donna Myers (USGS): NAWQA is meeting as an integral part of the conference.

Bob Goldstein (EPRI): Will you be distributing information on these workshops/conference?

Toni Johnson (USGS): Yes, there are fliers at the back of the room, and conference information is posted on the Website. The workshops will be part of the agenda.

Charlie Hunsicker: Thanks for your efforts. Charlie expressed appreciation for the health screening levels for their organization. We need to address health concern efforts to our constituency. Very difficult, but the work is needed.

Donna Myers: USGS is working in collaboration with cities and engineering firms on removing waste water compounds before discharging.

Subcommittee on Hydrology (SOH) – S. Samuel Lin, Wil Thomas, Jerry Webb

[Hydrology Presentation - PPT 101KB]

S. Samuel Lin, Federal Interagency Commission provided a brief overview of the SOH activities. Subcommittee goal is to improve the availability of surface water quality information needed for hazard mitigation, water supply and demand management, and environmental protection.

Terms of Reference are valid through September 2007.

Subcommittee meetings are held quarterly. Last year, the committee met four times. The next meeting will be held in Reno, Nevada, March 31, 2006, in conjunction with the Joint Interagency Conference. Steve Blanchard is Vice Chair. SOH is a diverse group – Nuclear Regulatory commission is a new member with over 14 federal agencies in partnership to improve water information.  Work Groups have accomplished a great deal through their diverse membership and their participation.

[Proposal - PPT 51KB]

The upcoming Joint Interagency Conference was noted. There will be approximately 120 papers on hydrologic modeling, 4 field trips, www.jifc.org

Jerry Webb – We have talked a lot about the data side of things, but it is also important to get information disseminated.

The Satellite Telemetry Interagency Work Group has been in existence for a long time; background info…. Users group for all users of the GOES data – Bureau of Reclamation, USGS, NOAA, US Forest Service.

2005 Activities:

• DOMSAT – from Wallops Island to users. Federal services, with Web services
• One stop satellite data
• Funding for this project by USGS, NOAA, and other Federal agencies through 2008
• No backup for the DOMSAT, had to use phone lines, etc…Need backup!
• Working to get backup, letter via NOAA and the Weather Service
• NOAA does not have a line item for DOMSAT or GOES satellites
• ACWI has the issues of funding and backup on the table -- Support for GOES may be lost without funding – states and feds use GOES
• Prototype in place of systems talking together and using Web services (joint USGS/NESDIS)
• NESDIS = National Environmental Data Satellite Information Service
• Have to assure that GOES data is there and gets out to users to then implement prototype.
• Primary vehicle for USGS serving data
• Critical system that ACWI could assist with sending it through

How do we proceed from here?

Charlie Hunsicker – What is NESDIS?

Wil Thomas – Baker Corp. / Association of State Floodplain Managers – presented on Hydrologic Analysis Frequency Work Group

Bulletin 17B – workgroup meets twice a year; formed in December 1999

• 3 tasks
• Prepare FAQs on bulletin 17B
• Develop guidance on regulated and ungaged watersheds

Bill Kirby was influential in getting Bulletin 17B questions assembled.

29 of 43 bulleting 17B references are on the USGS Web site under the Office of Surface Water Web site.

No objections to updating Bulletin 17B

There are a number of people who don’t want the bulletin to be changed. How can we justify this work?

Bob Hirsch (USGS): This is a public policy question. Significant impact on community decisions related to the 100-year flood. Do we stick with the information from years ago or do we use new technology – base decisions on the best science available. There needs to be a high level of scientific evidence to prove validity – lots of review and analysis of others. Make sure there is a firm science underpinning, regular review, and there could be court room challenges. The effort needs to be well-documented.

Emery Cleaves: Comments about the GOES system -- the system that gets the telemetered data to the satellite. If GOES “go’s, do gaging stations on telemetry have a backup system so that stations on GOES still get data? Historical data is still okay, but lose real-time capability. Is ACWI being asked to support anything at this point? If GOES isn’t in any agency budget, what’s the actual risk?

Bob Hirsch (USGS): There are other capabilities for storing and transmitting data – other techniques… Many gages, especially critical gages already have redundant systems in place, and many techniques (i.e. cell phone, land lines, etc.) are used at other stations that are of a critical nature. There are many instances where agencies have seen the importance of having a variety of means for transmitting data. From an ongoing operational standpoint, we are not concerned about the loss of GOES capability. NOAA has budgeted for new satellites, equipment, upgrades.

Bob noted areas that are of concern – capacity – as the value increases, more people will use it, value of real-time capabilities, weather-related concerns – hurricane land fall; value of the committee to address planning for these questions.

It is a good idea to have redundant capabilities in place -- have a satellite far away from the Wallops Island area. Agencies are working together to make the system work. Not asking for any action out of ACWI.

Emery Cleaves: Emery expressed Interest in the people uses…

Bob Masters – request to move on

Bob Hirsch:  Bob requested motion for revision of Bulletin 17B;
David Carlton made the motion for the SOH to work on revision of Bulletin 17B
Fred Bloetscher seconded the motion.
ACWI concurrence.

Publish statement of work in the Federal Register about doing this. Anticipate having non-Federal entities involved. Product will be reviewed.

Motion approved!

 Public Comment Period –
No requests received for public record.
No response.

Member Announcements –
Toni Johnson – National Monitoring Conference, San Jose, May 06 – Information at the back of the room

Doug Glysson (USGS) – Joint Interagency Sedimentation and Hydrology Conference. Reno, Nevada, April 2-6, 2006.  Hotel rates are reasonable – lower than the Government rate. This is the Joint Eighth Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conference and Third Federal Interagency Modeling Conference. There will be an overview on the effects of Katrina, commercial exhibit hall set up for 29 booths (almost sold out. On Wednesday, computer demos and a poster session will be held. Dinner will be associated with that session. Other items of interest include field trips and short course. Doug referred to the Web site.

Bob Masters (NGWA) – 5th International Conference on Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Water, March 13-16, 2006. (NGWA); invite all to come to the meeting; 3-day event; MTBE and Perchlorate conference done this year…. Reference NGWA Web site for 2005 proceedings.

Mac McKee (UCOWR): UCOWR annual conference July 18-20, 2006Santa Fe, NM; preliminary agenda will be ready soon.

Toni Johnson made an announcement about including meetings in What’s New and Meetings of Interest listings.

Sue Lowry (ICWP): Cooperators meeting regarding streamgaging  – Austin, TX – Jan. 30-Feb.1; Followup to a smaller group of cooperators concerned about erosion of funding for streamgaging. Barney Austin has more specifics. Brochure… questions to Sue and/or Barney. Info on meeting is at icwp.org; annually, ICWP – interstate water organizations (USGS funding, EPA, and Corps) meeting March 2-3 – DC area

David Hart – brochures on table on ESA publications – state of the science; Millenium Assessment Report – 1300 scientists world-wide. Global, local and national input….Status and trends, human activity impacts on ecosystem services… out on the Web; repeating at 5-10 year intervals

Bob Goldstein: EPRI – March 13-14, Palo Alto – Market-Based approaches to Environmental Management. Speakers represent multiple industries, EPA presentations. Contact Bob for the announcement and current agenda. Bob will send a copy to Toni for posting to Web.

Ross Braun – USDA / EPA co-hosting 2nd National Water Quality Trading Conference – Implementation at the Watershed Scale; covers policy at all levels; highlight fundamentals, experiences, etc. An announcement is available on USDA, NRCS, and EPA Web sites.

Harry Zhang – AWRA activities; noted Specialty Conferences; Adaptable Management of Water Resources, Missoula Montana, June 2006; upcoming publication – special issue on water sustainability

Fred Bloetscher – AWWA sources conference – Albuquerque, New Mexico, March 2006 – track on sustainability issues

Greg Good – ASIWPCA, April 25-27 Conference; Chicago, IL

National Water Quality Monitoring Network (NMN) Report – Continuing Dialog

[NMN Presentation - PPT 2,976KB]

Continuing discussion and questions about the NWQMN. Take our analysis of the structure to further propose how the network is managed – this was addressed at the Pensacola, Florida NWQMC meeting. Some members thought that this was beyond the charge originally given by CEQ. I would be reluctant to go to our Steering Committee (SC) unless that is what you would like in your ACWI report. There are issues as to how Federal science organizations do things.

Emery Cleaves: How do you think it should be managed? We need to take that next step. So many things that we need the data for. We cannot afford to collect data that is not managed.

Don Dycus (TVA): There was a long discussion; the Council should continue to be involved in an advisory role. It was beyond what we should be doing as to what further actions should be taken. We are looking forward to further discussions after it goes on to CEQ.

Jerry Webb: What is the bottom line? What is the implementation plan—includes management and funding. Demonstrate and identify the data available. What doe it cost for core implementation?

Don Dycus (TVA): Those concerns are of importance, but we need to get design of the network questions and issues resolved before moving to the next steps of cost and implementation.

Fred Bloetscher: Fred commented that he could not hear what was being said.

Steven Heiskary: On technical data storage – would we be working with STORET or NWIS?

Robert Masters (NGWA): Question on ground-water monitoring. Many estuaries contain ground water monitoring. Would you be willing to help with a subcommittee on ground water?

Gregg Good: 50 states and 50 sets of water quality data. Part of the goal would be what is good, bad, or ugly. State of the nation document that would say the network is telling Congress what water quality is in the nation.

Chuck Spooner (EPA): We believe that each state would want to look at the data the network portrays. We would be able to tell you what the levels are that we saw, the trends indicated by the data.

Doug McLaughlin: Doug commented that he was not able to hear.

Mike Shapiro: Extremely impressed with the work and the report that was done in a minimal timeframe. People who have worked on this need to be commended. Highly supportive of what the group has come up with. There are a lot of other people at EPA that need time to look at the report. To be endorsed is to allow at least 3 weeks for further review followed by written correspondence for approving and forwarding on to CEQ. There may be some comments and written changes. This could be done by email. It will go well beyond the initial time required for submission to CEQ.

David Denig-Chakroff: Implementation issues are beyond the scope of what NWQMC were required to do. The key is that the report is not clear that this is just the network and not implementation issues is required. It is not appropriate to include implementation and issues that need to be addressed. It needs to be clear that is not the scope of our request from CEQ. Whether or not anything else is to be included in the report. If there is agreement among the committee as to what it would take to include this information in the report, to come up with a guesstimate of the cost. Maybe there could be some way to come up with some numbers so someone reading the report would have the scope of how big this would be.

Gail Mallard: That is a monumental task until we know what is going on. We could envision negotiations. Gail stated that she would be reluctant to put a price tag on this until she knows what those negotiations would be in the technical issues that would be included.

Chuck Spooner: Perhaps a pilot study would be a way to address the cost, management, program oversight/coordination/tracking issues.

Bob Hirsch (USGS): It is crucial that there is a program office to handle the project/network. This is something that happens gradually. It cannot be achieved without a program office. Bob stated that he is sure we know how to estimate the size of the program office or where it resides. It costs real money with salaries, etc. It would need someone to report back to. Bob said he believes the Council would be that entity to report back to. Council would have oversight.

Charlie Hunsicker: It would be helpful to request some guidance on what you want our committee to do tomorrow. What actions can we take to move the document forward. Take it up by committee motion.

Bob Hirsch: Exactly right. Changes in the report and processes in where we go in the next month or so.  A proposal early on and have the principals of this discussion stay after today’s formal meeting ends to come up with such a proposal.

Joe Lee: Joe stated that he would like to see more ground water issues addressed in the report.

Jerry Webb: Jerry stated that he doesn’t have a problem with what the group is proposing to do – well let’s say in the report what we are not doing. Anyone looking at this report for the first time would want to know this.

Robert Masters: This is a really nice job. Don’t be overcritical of what the report is.

NMN
Distributed “feedback paper: from NMN SC members as to how to proceed with the report and to request concurrence on this document from ACWI members. Gail asked that members take time to review this and come back this afternoon for formal concurrence.

We are proposing three weeks (February 10) for further comments and a consolidated response from your member organization. In the meantime, the NMN editors will be working on further editing of the report and incorporating comments. NMN will address your concerns/comments and answer as to whether these can/cannot be incorporated into the report by March 10.  Final vote on the report is requested no later than the 15th of March by email or phone. The report will be submitted to CEQ with an ACWI cover letter by March 22, 2006. (Reference proposal for ACWI concurrence and proposed schedule for comments and submission to CEQ.)

 Thursday, January 19, 2006

Welcome New Participants

Feedback to ACWI regarding the NMN – Gail Mallard
Reference feedback handout for later today.

Requesting concurrence on NMN points:

• Current report to serve as a Network design and planning document for the National Network. Implementation issues are pending. Includes program management and resource needs.

• Report will recommend Regional Pilot(s) as a proof of concept – a way to move forward to test the Network Design.

• Report will recommend creation of a small interagency program coordination staff, with dedicated FTE to provide guidance and oversight for pilot(s), track next steps, develop and track metrics, document process and progress. Program staff would report progress to and seek guidance from the NWQMC.

• Schedule a joint interagency briefing at the Executive Office level to further inform CEQ, NS&T Council/SWAQ, Joint Subcommittee on Oceans, OMB.

• Prepare a Cover Letter to transmit Report from ACWI to CEQ laying out agreed-upon next steps and proposed process.

Proposed Schedule for Comments:

• Comments to Network Steering Committee in 3 weeks – by 2/10/06.
• Each member organization should submit a single set of consolidated, consensus comments.
• During this period, Steering Committee and USGS staff will work to improve the report, considering comments already received, fixing identified problems and passing through a publications editor.
• To SC to review 

Ground Water Level and Quality Monitoring – Bob Masters (NGWA Conference Manager)
Presented By: Bob Masters
Expected Outcome: Ground Water Discussion

[Ground Water Level and Quality Monitoring Presentation - PPT 2,130KB]

Bob requested a commitment on ground water level and quality monitoring. We feel there is not enough money toward this effort. NGWA programming includes information transfer, research, and professional efforts. 15,000 members – mainly scientists and engineers; others include contractors and suppliers. Prepared a white paper for the White House.

75% of the earth’s water is tied up in ice.

Be sure Susan Seacrest sees this,

David Wunsch – NGWA Government Affairs Committee, NH State Geologist, and also a representative on Council for Association of American State Geologists.

David discussed a survey of NGWA; indicated State Geologist response; member response; map showing responses received. Most responses were received from contractors. 41 of 43 states responded with ground water shortages in their states. Very few states reported no shortage.

GW scope and needs not clearly outlined.

Reference maps in PowerPoint

Most important data to expand – Combined response (reference slide)
Accurate water use data

Need for on-line aquifer data and maps

Top 5 desired federal actions – Reference Slide

• Increase funding for cooperative ground water quality data collection
• Increase funding …..
• Fund public education and outreach on water conservation – develop a national ground water clearinghouse (based on geospatial one stop portals)

We need new measured water use numbers.

Mercury fallout from power plants in NH – into ground water? Unknown

Expand aquifer mapping
On-line aquifer data
Increased funding for ground water quantity and quality data collection (COOP)
Aquifer mapping – research

Ground water clearinghouse – NGWA/AWWA
Data – peer-reviewed
More accessible

SWAQ report – NGWA asked questions from OSTP
See slides regarding recommendations (handout)

Federal Role:

• Support collaborative framework
• Ground water monitoring subcommittee under ACWI

Have Mary Ambrose review for NWQMC

• Develop guidelines for data collection, quality control, storage, and retrieval
• Federal (USGS) Coop funding  - similar to state geological mapping program
• Establish national clearinghouse to share data

Survey conclusions – highlight these (Reference slides)

Emery Cleaves: Maryland water – would like a database where existing raw data is assembled… instead of “sifting” through the data contained in reports. A state clearinghouse would be an excellent idea.

States need a state/county level clearinghouse.

Sounds like EPA data exchange with states.

Robert Masters: Give time to review documents. Propose that ACWI vote for formation of ACWI subcommittee on GW.

Bob Masters moved to vote on formation of a ground water subcommittee.
Robert Schreiber seconded the motion.

Bob Hirsch (USGS): In general, we have groups draw up a charter, etc…. important issues have been brought up. You need to define a mission for a subcommittee to be formed. Distinguish between the mission for a ground water subcommittee versus the NWQMC… Development work needs to be done to frame up a mission and purpose to such a subcommittee. There will be time during the lunch hour to discuss this further.

Toni Johnson (USGS): Give proposal to Mary Ambrose. Draft Terms of Reference…. Toni suggested that a Council member sit with the GW folks at lunch for further discussion. Watershed components interactions group in council… used to be a GW group.

Gail Mallard reminded everyone that Dave Wunsch is Council member.

Table the motion for further development.

Followup from lunch roundtable – Dave Wunsch is a Council member. Prepare draft Terms of Reference for such a subgroup and ask NWQMC to consider and evaluate and respond back to ACWI.

Encourage some effort/group to focus on status of ground water resources.

Chuck – San Jose conference much more coverage for ground water than previously.

Emery Cleaves Question: Given that the Council focuses on quality…. Major issue is water supply issue. It’s a jurisdictional issue…. Would such a group be better in ACWI where emphasis doesn’t have to be on quality.

The National Monitoring Conference in San Jose, May 7-11, 2006, has more emphasis on ground water and additionally, a workshop on ground water issues.

Panel on Emergency Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita
<This was an excellent and Interesting discussion.>

The panel was led by Robert Mason, USGS, Office of Surface Water.

Scott Kiser (NOAA) – Hurricane Program Manager 
Mission of NOAA’s National Weather Service is to provide the best meteorological and hydrologic information. Major role for NOAA before a weather event is forecasting and issuing watches and warnings.

[Scott Kiser Presentation - PPT 1,655KB]

• Katrina forecast track was a challenge
• Katrina will be well remembered for a long time – decades.
• Great effort in improving track forecasts for hurricanes – reference map showing predictions from the 1960’s to present
• 3-day record for forecasts has improved by 50%!
• NOAA was able to forecast the track 2 days in advance
• Still a bit of challenge with forecast program.
• Working to improve the intensity of forecasts
• Need to be prepared for errors
• Tremendous storm surge with Katrina and Rita… no river flooding – typically this is what causes greatest loss of life. NOAA does storm surge forecasting.
• Above average hurricane activity this season – 27 events

Discussion of the steps NOAA takes in forecasting weather events—
Before event:

• Liaison team
• Regional operations centers to coordinate across all offices
• Equipment and staffing checks
• Briefings to decision makers
• Hydrologists to inland NWS offices
• Staff to state emergency operations centers

During event:

• Maintain mission – don’t leave
• Communicate and brief decision makers
• Invoke backup if needed – continuity plan in place – offices back up offices; computers, training, etc…. if coastal office, a coastal office backs you up…

Post storm:

• Establish communications
• reroute data and radar information
• incident meteorologists to support rescue and recovery operations
• assessment of operations – go back and review what was done

Katrina report should be available in a couple months.

We are in a period of multi-year long-term above average hurricane activity… this trend will probably continue for the next 10-15 years.

La Nina and El Nino – La Nina promotes Atlantic basin hurricane activity.

Vulnerable areas –
Houston/Galveston
New Orleans (again)
Tampa Bay
Southwest Florida
Florida Keys
Southeast Florida
New York City/ Long Island

Thanks to all the partnerships we have.

Russell Callender – Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment (NOAA)

[Russell Callender Presentation - PPT 4,057KB]

• Focus on Interagency Response
• Challenge to NOAA – how do we understand and manage trust resources?
• Reference problem issues slide

Primary mission was to assess impacts on marine life. NOAA Chartered fishing vessels for sampling. Data that are out now focus on shrimp… low levels of hydrocarbon compounds. Sampling in Lake Ponchertrain was led by the USGS.

Interagency response –
NOAA Cruises – mid to early September

• Foster – Get early information for potential impacts.. contaminants, particularly in marine fish; started on a Friday, folks mobilized by that Sunday
• 154 samples of fish…. None showed E. coli, no indications of elevated petroleum contamination; none indicated recreational guidelines for EPA

EPA, USGS, NOAA, FDA Bold Cruise
OSV Bold – EPA led survey – 20 initial samples late September early October…. Additional samples mid-October

Water suitable for recreation – including swimming

Reference graphic showing status and trends for National Mussel Watch Program.

NOAA National status and trends – Mussel Watch

EPA is leading the effort to develop shared databases for Katrina data

Thanks to primary points of contact…

 John Durrant (ASCE)

[N/A PPT Presentation]

Civil Engineer magazine predicted an event such as Katrina several years ago.
ASCE has a tradition of responding to events where information can be learned.

Wetlands have been lost by the storm… wetlands would have mitigated the effects of the hurricane.

Concerns on how the profession responded – ASCE received contact from many people asking how to help.

Have never had the funding needed to get members trained to respond to these types of events.

Not prepared… concerns about liability for volunteers…

Response in 3 areas:

• Response to our members in the affected areas – a lot was done in that area
• Responsible for explaining to the public actions that were taken – numerous contacts from media to explain what happened. Worked with TISP – The Infrastructure Security Partnership -- http://www.tisp.org/tisp.cfm
• How do we respond technically? What do we need to know from what happened?

• Sent staff from specialty institutes
• Worked collaboratively with Society of Wind Damage (?)
• Teams to look at levees

Preliminary report available on-line.

IPET (Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force) – Interagency effort to review repair improvements for the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System. Refer to http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/releases/Interagency_Eval.htm

http://www.asce.org

Tod Dabolt – EPA:

[Tod Dabolt Presentation - PPT 4,491KB]

Tod experienced the event working first hand working in the emergency operations center – focused more on water issues. It was energizing to help the American public in this time of need. EPA and Corps of Engineers will stay until cleanup is done. EPA has 1000 people still deployed in the Gulf Region working on cleanup.

Types of Activities – sample collection, site safety, potable water, stabilization of spill events, evidence collection with special agents in the field, temporary relocation.

Short-term Activities – Office of Water

• Track operational status of systems
• Mobile labs
• Coordinate with FEMA

Long-Term Activities

• Set up agreements with utilities – great response from communities
• Participate in interagency work groups
• Ecosystem restoration
• Funding

We are working with Louisiana and Mississippi on water monitoring and assessment processes – assessing health risks. There is a need to work on coordinated efforts to improve turnaround in getting information out. Information exchange is critical!

Timeliness and quality assurance of monitoring results is challenging. EPA is working with DOD, DOT, and others to coordinate information electronically.

Reference slides…

Reference closing remarks slide.

Kevin Morley – AWWA

[Kevin Morley Presentation - PPT 2,040KB]

• Hurricane Help Center Website – provides a place for people to get information.
• Hold on delivery of AWWA Publications to impacted areas
• Constant communication with affected members and sections in impacted areas  when means were available; this was challenging.
• Facilitating the establishment of Intrastate Mutual Aid Networks
• Members entered town by town to reconstruct pump systems.
• Beginning steps to regain normalcy

National Response Plan (NRP) implemented for the 1st time
NERP – pilot program holds promise for the future.

Barriers to willing assistance priorities –

• Current mechanisms not designed for public works
• No clear chain of command
• Victims of triage due to NRP organizational structure

Jerry Webb – USACE

[Jerry Webb Presentation - PPT 45,995KB]

• Hurricane bigger than what the protection system was designed for.
• Damage to approximately 64% of the system
• ASA(CW) approved one time deviation from policy to undertake permanent rehabilitation of federal and nonfederal projects at full federal expense using their funds. (Reference slide)
• $1.6 billion to restore previous levels of protection
• Well-over 3000 people temporarily assigned to New Orleans
• Still have over 1000 employees there.
• Mission was to provide water and ice (completed now).
• Generator installation immediately after the hurricane, debris removal – ongoing, temporary breach closures (sandbagging) due to significant rainfall causing levy breaks post Katrina, worked on pump stations after the storm with international help from the Netherlands and Germany
• Local communities are not supporting temporary structures as they want permanent rebuilding
• Reference graphics from presentation
• Map of New Orleans showing significant areas of flooding
• Many groups involved to assess interagency performance and synthesize facts.
• National Research Council Independent Review Panel

Hundreds to thousands of contracts in place to help with recovery efforts

IPET (Interagency Performance Evaluation Team)

Path Ahead –

• Congressional briefings
• Interim levels of protection (12/05)
• Complete repairs to levees pre-storm conditions (June 06)
• Uncertainties
• --upgrades to levels of protection?
• Supplemental?
• Coastal policy?
• Levee portfolio? – will become a huge issue in terms of certification.. may play into ACWI

Conduct system performance analysis

Robert Mason – USGS

[Robert Mason Presentation - PPT 25,815KB]

• USGS prepared for an event along the scale of storms in North Carolina
• Surge was the issue – Katrina
• Rita – “wet”
• Remote systems are backed up so that we can report data out. Can make updates and edits, etc….
• Phone outages – managed to get Direcway satellite linkages for field computers
• Late in Fiscal Year there could have been major problems

LIDAR surveys

GIS Support for responders – (911 maps) – used GPS as regular maps don’t work when streets are under water.

It was a challenge to learn how to have communications in the absence of local infrastructure… better communication and coordination.

Temporary streamgages established to help Corps and Bureau of Reclamation with dewatering – helped with figuring out the draw-down time

Rita – deployment of 41 experimental storm-surge gages

Collected water-quality data for rivers – bacteria data (2 weeks after storm); tremendous declines in coliforms

Water quality and bottom sampling

• Generally, felt that concentrations of contaminants in New Orleans were not unusual
• Sampled sediment deposits
• Assessing impacts of Katrina and Rita on wetlands
• Rescued, aided, and comforted – deployed 13 boats
• Aid to HIF

David Denig-Chakroff – to Kevin Morley and Tod Dabolt – references to a Warning System; how does one go about getting that set up? Improving water monitoring in post storm situation…

Response – Kevin Morley:  Interstate system important
Q: from Penn Joe Lee -- We have started to create better network communication for recovery response. Do you see that as important?

A: Yes we need the infrastructure of a network communication network set in place before any catastrophic event occurs.

In Delaware, we have some systems in place, but the Army Corps of Engineers did not know about these systems. Developing data for disasters takes a lot of effort, did you have this already in place?

Todd: We had some of the data in place, but we did have to do some heroics to get the data to stream in. We learned as we went.

The main problem was that there was no one there after the hurricane hit. We could not get the answers to the most basic questions, where things were, etc.

If you are tied into the phone service, you have no link to your data. Satellite connections to the data were available.

Eileen O’Neill (WEF) – check Website for lessons learned.

Masters – 93 was the wettest year in history… Can Scott Kiser comment on trends? Don’t think global warming is cause of what we’re seeing this year.

Subcommittee on Sedimentation – Jim Renthal (BLM)

[Sedimentation Presentation - MSWord 32KB]

Manages Soil, Water, and Air Program for BLM – came to Washington from AZ;

SOS Website [http://acwi.gov/sos/index.html]

• Mentioned formation of a Workgroup
• Work group long-concerned over long-term monitoring of sediments
• Twice yearly meeting coming up March 31 – right before the joint conference.
• Updating their prospectus
• State of summary of TMDLs for sediment management
• White paper on removing sediments…. Calls out for other ideas for the Subcommittee
• Doug hosting a table at lunch on the Joint conference.

Q – Emery: Comment – the quality of sediments trapped behind dams is an issue briefly mentioned. In MD, consideration for dredging dams on the Susquehanna in MD…. Issue has been raised that the sediments behind the dams are contaminated. Disposal requires that it goes to a certified facility for disposal -- need to keep this in mind. It’s probably significant issue in other states. MD – remind people that should consider sediments before removal of dams, etc…

Methods and Data Comparability Board – Eric Vowinkel (USGS)

[Methods Board Presentation - PPT 1,206KB]

Future directions and activities plan
Short term – NMN and National Monitoring Conference

Dan Sullivan – Exec. Secretary for MB Web page

Action: Find new EPA co-chair – replace Herb Brass, who retired.

WQDE Workgroup co-chair – Revital Katznelson, CA will take over that position.

NMN – participated on Steering Committee
Chapter 4 – recognition of Jerry Diamond, Ed Johnson, Ed Santoro for their help.

Next Steps…. MB is there for next steps… folks can mobilize quickly…

National Conference – May

• Booth as part of the Council with live demos of WQDE and NEMI
• Vendors
• Wadeable stream project

Activity Plans –

• 3 face-to-face meetings
• Monthly full Board conference calls
• Bi-monthly or monthly conference calls, as required
• Recruiting at the NWQMC Conference
• Keep Web page up-to-date
• 2 Across the Board Newsletters in 2006
• Concentrate on what has been successful – NEMI, WQDE, Wadeable Streams Assessment, Accreditation (for sample collection process)
• Looking toward sediment methods
• Outreach tools – publications will be forthcoming
• Possible new topic – event monitoring
• NMN implementation – is there a role?

NEMI Updates – http://www.nemi.gov/ -- a One-Stop “shopping” place for environmental methods

• User friendly
• Reference Slide

New methods to be entered into NEMI – popu