Minutes of the Second Meeting
January 25-27, 1999
Denver, Colorado

Attendees
Location
Attachment1
Attachment2
Attachment3
Attachment4
Attachment5

Attendees:

Task Force Members - - Craig Albertson, Bureau of Reclamation; Thomas Baumgartner, National Weather Service (2nd and 3rd days only); Tom Bruns, American Water Works Association; Ed Burkett, Corps of Engineers; Richard Burton, National Association of Counties; Randall Duncan; International Association of Emergency Managers; James Enote, Pueblo of Zuni; Fred Lissner, Oregon Department of Water Resources; Fred Ogden, University of Connecticut; Don Phelps, American Society of Civil Engineers; David Pope, Kansas State Board of Agriculture; Jonathan Price, Nevada Bureau of Mines & Geology; Tom Looby for Robert Roberts, Environmental Council of States; Larry Rowe, Western Water Inc; Jim Shotwell, American Institute of Professional Geologists; Earl Smith, Interstate Council on Water Policy; Charles Spooner (1st day only), USEPA; Alan Vicory, Ohio Valley Water Sanitation Commission; Leslie Wedderburn, South Florida Water Management District; Don Woodward, USDA

U. S. Geological Survey - - Steve Blanchard, Task Force Executive Secretary; Dave Lystrom (1st day only), Regional Hydrologist - Central Region; Betsy Daniel, Facilitator; Bill Horak, District Chief - Colorado District (1st day only), Doug Cain, Assistant District Chief -Colorado District (1st day only)

Absent: FEMA representative; Peter Mack, NY Department of Environmental Conservation;

Location: U. S Geological Survey, National Training Center, Denver, Colorado

The meeting closely followed the meeting agenda (attachment 1). The meeting started with overview presentations by Don Woodward on the ACWI Streamgaging Task Force activities and Chuck Spooner on the ACWI National Water-Quality Monitoring Council activities. The morning of the first day of the meeting (January 25, 1999) primarily focused on the Federal-State Cooperative Program of the Colorado District. Bill Horak (District Chief) and Doug Cain (Assistant District Chief) made the Colorado District presentations. The topics they covered included (1) an overview of the Colorado District program, (2) how cooperative projects are developed, and (3) how indirect costs are determined and applied. The Task Force had questions about how the District determined the appropriateness of projects to take on and how the USGS indirect costs compared to those of the private sector.

The afternoon sessions included a presentation by Lew Wade (Chief of the Office of Information) and Greg Allord (Chief Cartographer of the Publications Management Program) on USGS products and information. The Task Force spent the remainder of the afternoon in their subgroups discussing a survey of cooperators to be conducted by the Task Force. Most of the Task Force members and some USGS staff participated in an informal group dinner on the evening of January 25, 1999.

The second day (January 26) of the meeting started with a presentation by John Briggs (Chief of the National Water Information System Testing, Data Transfer, and Maintenance Unit) on WRD databases. This presentation was followed by a panel discussion between the Task Force and a panel of individuals representing agencies that cooperate with the Colorado District. The panel was composed of the following individuals:

Cooperators Panel - Ms. Janet Bell, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, Golden, Colorado; Mr. Russell Forrest, Town of Vail, Vail, Colorado; Mr. Alan Hamel, Board of Water Works, Pueblo, Colorado; Mr. David Holm, Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado; Mr. David Merritt, Colorado River Conservation District, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; Mr. John Porter, Dolores Water Conservancy District, Cortez, Colorado; Mr. Phil Saletta, Colorado Springs Utilities, Colorado Springs, Colorado

The discussion with the cooperator panel focused on answers to questions from the list of questions in attachment 2. The questions in bold text were the questions asked of the cooperator panel.

The afternoon included another panel discussion between the Task Force and a group of individuals that represented users of Cooperative Program data and products. The panel was composed of the following individuals:

Data Users Panel -- Mr. Neil Grigg, Head, Department of Engineering, Colorado State University, Ft Collins, Colorado; Mr. Reed Dills, Four Corners Expeditions, Buena Vista, Colorado; Mr. Ralph Clark, Gunnison Basin POWER, Gunnison, Colorado; Mr. Chuck Haines, Wright Water Engineers Inc, Denver, Colorado; Mr. Jim Sharkoff, State Agronomist, NRCS, Lakewood, Colorado; Mr. Allen Davey, Davis Engineering Inc, Del Norte, Colorado

The discussion with the data-users panel focused on answers to questions from the list of questions in attachment 3.

The third day (January 27) started with presentations about and a tour of the WRD National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Arvada, Colorado. Bob Williams (NWQL Chief) presented information of the mission, operation, and unique characteristics of the lab. Leroy Schroder (Chief, Branch of Quality Systems) provided an overview of the activities used by the Water Resources Division to monitor and ensure the quality of its data, especially water quality data and laboratory analyses.

A portion of the Task Force (Don Phelps, Larry Rowe, Fred Lissner, Randy Duncan, and Alan Vicory) did not attend the lab tour and remained at the training center to work on developing and completing two surveys (verbal and numerical) that could be used to survey USGS cooperators to get their opinions about the Coop Program.

The remainder of the day was spent by the Task Force finalizing the plans for the use of the surveys, planning the next meeting, and making assignments for the subgroups for the period in between meetings.

The Task Force adopted a verbal survey (attachment 4) that each Task Force member would use to interview at least two cooperators. The verbal survey was based on the questions used during the cooperator panel discussion. The Task Force also adopted a numerical survey (attachment 5) to be mailed to 400 cooperators pick at random in proportion to the number of cooperators in each state.

During the period between the Reston and Denver meetings and at the beginning of the Denver meeting, there was minor rearranging of the subgroup membership. The subgroup membership established at the Denver meeting is as follows:

1. Federal-State Cooperative Water Program Mission (Terms Of Reference - Element 1 of the Scope)
   
   Craig Albertson
   Thomas Baumgartner
   Dick Burton
   Randall Duncan
   Fred Lissner
   Peter Mack
   
   
2. Federal-State Cooperative Water Program Prioritization and Conduct of Work (Terms of Reference - Elements 2 and 3 of the Scope)
   
   Ed Burkett
   Fred Ogden
   Don Phelps
   Jonathon Price
   Larry Rowe
   Earl Smith
   Jim Shotwell
   Charles Spooner
   Don Woodward
   
   
3. Federal-State Cooperative Water Program Products (Terms of Reference - Element 4 of the Scope)
   
   Tom Bruns
   Jim Enote
   Dave Pope
   Alan Vicory
   Leslie Wedderburn

The next meeting location was selected to be the Arizona District Office in Tucson, Arizona. The Task Force laid out the general format for the meeting as:

Day 1

• District overview presentations by 2 District Chiefs -- AZ District and an eastern District
  
  - District overview
  - what's unique about the program in that district
  - indirect costs
  - explain variation high, med, low
  - difficulties in the program and what's right about the program
  - ideas for improving report timeliness
  
  
• Presentation on how new technologies and methods are being developed and incorporated into the coop program - Hydro21 and research

Day 2

Panel on competition - invite ACEC and AIPG
Panel of Cooperators - include Tribes

Day 3

Task Force deliberations Action Items: 27 January 1999

1. Table of overhead rates by District - Blanchard by next meeting. Cost of field personnel vs. total budget.
   
   
2. FACA rules for reports; example of reports done for ACWI - Blanchard by next meeting
   
   
3. Subgroups begin drafting responses to Terms of Reference. TF members get products to Blanchard by 1st week in March
   
   
4. Blanchard to distribute compiled products to TF members at least 10 days prior to Mar mtg.
   
   
5. TF co-chair make presentation to next ACWI meeting on status of TF - May
   
   
6. Final copies of verbal survey to TF members (by email) so that they can be used to interview cooperators - Blanchard

1. Each TF member will survey a minimum of 2 cooperator organizations and members may do more.
   
   
2. In selecting organizations for interviewing, members will avoid organizations that have only 1 gaging station and will attempt to interview representatives of different categories of (i.e., not all the same) organizations.
   
   
3. Members will complete their interviews by 3rd week in February. Interview results will be summarized in bullet form and submitted to Blanchard by 3rd week in February.
   
   
4. Subgroups should begin the analysis of survey results before the next meeting.

1. Survey will go to 400 randomly selected cooperators. The number of cooperators selected in each state will be in proportion to the number of total cooperators in that state.
   
   
2. Survey results should be distributed by the 1st week in March.

Task Force to Review the Federal-State
Cooperative Water Program
Agenda
January 25-27, 1998
Denver, Colorado

Monday, January 25, 1999

8-8:30 Opening remarks/discussion - meeting agenda and Task Force (TF) directions Larry and Fred

8:30-9:30 Presentation/discussion of ACWI stream flow and water quality subcommittee work - tentative presenters would be Charlie Spooner for the National Water-Quality Monitoring Council and Don Woodward for the Streamgaging Task Force. The goal of these presentations is to help the Coop TF understand the scope of the work of the other two groups so that the Coop TF won't duplicate the other groups efforts.

9:30-9:45 Break

9:45-10:45 Presentations by the host District Chief (as much paper info as possible, on the topics below, will be handed out prior to the meeting)

• overview of coop program in district
• how a coop project is developed
• how overhead is determined
  

10:45-12:00 Questions and answers - TF with the District Chief

12-1 lunch

1-2 presentation on WRD products - - reports, fact sheets, etc

2-3:30 subgroup deliberations on survey question; subgroup plans. The goal of this session is for the subgroup to (1) review their plans and strategy and develop further as necessary and (2) review the consolidated list of survey questions.

3:30-4:30 TF deliberations to finalize survey questions, plans for use of the survey, survey data analysis, etc.

4:30- 5:30 Overview/tour of National Training Center and District Office

Evening - group outing/diner

Tuesday, January 26, 1999

8-9:00 Presentation on WRD databases

9:00 -11:30 TF meeting with cooperators from host district - want diversity of types of agencies, geographic locations, and types of programs on the panel

11:30-1 TF deliberations and working lunch

1-3 TF meeting with non-cooperators - private sector, academia, other product users, etc

3-4:30 TF deliberations

Evening - subgroup deliberations if necessary/desired??

Wednesday, January 27, 1999

7:30-11:00 Tour of National Water-Quality Lab - including presentations from Methods Development Group and Branch of Quality Assurance

11-2:30 Subgroup deliberation and working lunch

2:30- 4 Combined TF deliberations

4:00 Adjourn

ATTACHMENT 2

Cooperator Panel Discussion Questions

A. General Introductory Questions

1. What is the primary role of your organization (i.e., regulatory, water management, scientific, etc.)?
   
   
2. What is your position and how does it relate to the USGS Coop Program?
   
   
3. Your organization participated in the Federal-State Coop Program for more than 5-years?
   
   
4. Has your 's organizations level of participation changed over time? If yes, how so?
   
   
5. What types of programs/projects are you involved in with the USGS under the Federal-State Coop Program (i.e., stream gaging, water sampling and testing, interpretive studies)?
   
6. Does your organization foresee a change in the programs/projects requested of the Coop Program in the future? What are the reason(s) for the change(s)?

B. Mission - Historically, the Coop Program has been designed to develop hydrologic data and technical analysis needed to assist in meeting the USGS mission of continuously assessing the Nation's water resources, and to provide technical assistance to state, tribal, and local water management agencies in seeking solutions to water-resource issues of national concern through a matched funding arrangement.

7. How important is your organization's participation in the Coop Program to accomplishing the activities, goals, and responsibilities assigned to your organization? Is the need increasing or decreasing?
   
   
8. Is cost sharing a necessary element in your organization's participation in a cooperative agreement with the USGS?
   
   
9. What is the minimum USGS cost share acceptable to your agency?

C. Prioritization - In Fiscal Year 1997, the Congress appropriated $64.5 million dollars for the Coop Program. State and local agencies provided an equal amount of matching funds plus an additional $28.5 million dollars of unmatched funding.

10. Is there adequate funding in the Coop Program to meet your short and long term needs? If no, please explain the needs that are not being met.
    
    
11. Do you have any suggestions for broadening support for the Coop Program?
    
    
12. How do changes in the USGS Coop Program, such as loosing long-term data collection stations, affect the mission of your organization ?
    
    
13. What means, if any, does your organization use to involve other possible cooperators who may have an interest in your Coop Program activity as a way to improve study results and lower costs?

D. Conduct of Work - Nearly all of the work performed in the Coop Program is done by USGS scientists and technicians. This arrangement is designed to enhance quality control, provide national consistency in data collection and methods of analysis, and provide a stable core of experienced water scientists nationwide.

14. What would be the implications of altering current work arrangements on the Coop Program and water management nationwide (such as the cooperator performing a portion of the work, contracting out some of the work, etc)?
    
    
15. If appropriate USGS quality assurance was made available, would your organization (1) be able to, and (2) want to perform the data collection portion of a coop project so that the project costs would be reduced? If yes, what interest would your organization have? If no, please explain.
    
    
16. Why does your organization go to the USGS for assistance rather than to other sources (i.e., consulting firms, academia, etc.)?
    
    
17. What services does the USGS offer that you cannot get elsewhere?
    
    
18. What is your opinion on the USGS outsourcing (contracting out) parts or all of the work you asked it to perform?

E. Products - The products developed in the Coop Program need to be useful to cooperators and other users. These users include representatives of governments, the scientific community, the private sector, and the general public. The products also fulfill national needs by building long term national data bases, augmenting activities in other USGS programs, and providing a national picture of water resources through synthesis of information from individual projects across the country. In addition, the Coop Program advances the development and application of new approaches and methodologies relevant to water resources issues.

19. Is the USGS using the appropriate, applicable, and most cost effective technology to satisfy your organization needs?
    
    
20. In what areas does the USGS need to develop and apply new approaches, methods, and technologies?
    
    
21. Is the USGS conscious of and sensitive to the needs of the cooperator in areas such as:
    
    a) types of data collected,
    b) documentation of data,
    c) timeliness of products,
    d) cost/value of products, and
    e) other?
    
    
22. Does your organization use real-time data? If yes, are you satisfied?
    
    
23. Do you routinely have access to data you need to make to make informed decisions?
    
    
24. Do you see changes in the products to be delivered to you in the future?

F. General Closing Question

25. Do you have any other ideas for improving or changing the Coop Program?

1/25/99

ATTACHMENT 3

Discussion Questions for Data Users Panel

1. Briefly (3-5 min) provide:
   
   • your name
   • your position
   • a description of your organization (if appropriate)

2. What types of USGS information/products/data do you use?
   
   
3. How is the information used?
   
   
4. How often do you access and use USGS information?
   
   
5. How do you usually obtain this information?
   
   
6. Why is the information important?
   
   
7. What are the most important USGS products for you? The least important?
   
   
8. How would the value and/or the usefulness of the information change if contractors produced it for the USGS?
   
   
9. Do you have any suggestions about ways to improve the information or method of deliver?
   
   
10. Would you access USGS information and data if there were a cost to you for using it?
    
    
11. Have you ever been approached about participating in or supporting the USGS Cooperative Water Program?

ATTACHMENT 4

TASK FORCE TO REVIEW THE FEDERAL-STATE
COOPERATIVE WATER PROGRAM

Cooperator Survey

A. General Introductory Questions

1. What is the primary role of your organization (i.e., regulatory, water management, scientific, etc.)?
   
   
2. What is your position in the organization and how does it relate to the USGS Federal-State Cooperative Water Program (Coop Program)?
   
   
3. Has your organization participated in the Coop Program for more than 5-years?
   
   
4. What is your organizations current level of financial participation? How has it changed over time?
   
   
5. What types of programs/projects are you involved in with the USGS under the Coop Program?
   
   
6. Does your organization foresee a change in the programs/projects it requests of the Coop Program in the future? Do you see the need increasing or decreasing?

B. Mission - Historically, the Coop Program has been designed to develop hydrologic data and technical analysis needed to assist in meeting the USGS mission of continuously assessing the Nation's water resources, and to provide technical assistance to state, tribal, and local water management agencies in seeking solutions to water-resource issues of national concern through a matched funding arrangement.

7. Explain how the Coop Program assists your organization in accomplishing its activities, goals, and responsibilities?
   
   
8. Is cost sharing a necessary element in your organization's participation in a cooperative agreement with the USGS? Please explain
   
   
9. What is the minimum USGS cost share acceptable to your organization?
   
   
10. Explain whether your coop program is meeting your needs in the areas of groundwater and surface-water quality, quantity, and use data, and analytical tools, etc.?

C. Prioritization - In Fiscal Year 1997, the Congress appropriated $66.2 million dollars for the Coop Program. State and local agencies provided an equal amount of matching funds plus an additional $33 million dollars of unmatched funding.

11. Ls there adequate funding in the Coop Program to meet your short and long term needs? If no, please explain the needs that are not being met.
    
    
12. Do you have any suggestions for the appropriate level of funding for the Coop Program?
    
    
13. What is the proper balance between routine long-term data collection and interpretive studies?
    
    
14. How do changes in the Coop Program, such as loosing long-term data collection stations, affect the mission of your organization?
    
    
15. How does your organization involve other parties in your Coop Program activity to improve study results and lower costs?

D. Conduct of Work - Nearly all of the work performed in the Coop Program is done by USGS scientists and technicians. This arrangement is designed to enhance quality control, provide national consistency in data collection and methods of analysis, and provide a stable core of experienced water scientists nationwide.

16. If appropriate USGS quality assurance were made available, would your organization be able to and/or want to perform the data collection portion of a coop project? Please explain.
    
    
17. How do you believe the quality and credibility of the Coop Program would be impacted if data collection and analysis were not performed entirely by the USGS staff?
    
    
18. Why does your organization use the USGS for assistance rather than other sources (e.g., consulting firms, academia, etc.)?
    
    
19. What does the USGS offer through the Coop Program that you cannot obtain elsewhere?
    
    
20. What is your opinion of the Coop Program contracting out parts or all of the work you have asked them to perform?

E. Products - The products developed in the Coop Program need to be useful to cooperators and other users. These users include representatives of governments, the scientific community, the private sector, and the general public. The products also fulfill national needs by building long term national data bases, augmenting activities in other USGS programs, and providing a national picture of water resources through synthesis of information from individual projects across the country. In addition, the Coop Program advances the development and application of new approaches and methodologies relevant to water resources issues.

21. Is the Coop Program using the appropriate, applicable, and most cost effective level of technology to satisfy your needs?
    
    
22. What suggestions do you have for the Coop Program to improve approaches, methods, and technologies to enhance the usability and effectiveness of products?
    
    
23. Is the Coop Program conscious of and sensitive to the needs of the cooperator in areas such as:
    
    
    6. types of data collected,
    7. documentation of data,
    8. timeliness of products,
    9. value of products, and
    10. other?
        
        
24. Do you have timely access to the data you need?
    
    
25. In what form will you want Coop Project output delivered in the future?

F. General Closing Question

26. Do you have any recommendations for improving or changing the Coop Program? 2/2/99

ATTACHMENT 5

This questionnaire relates to your overall experience with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Division (WRD) Federal-State Cooperative Water Program (Coop Program). For each statement, please mark the appropriate box. If a statement does not apply to your experience, please check the not applicable (NA) box.

The United States Geological Survey, through the Cooperative Water Program...

Please rate the overall expertise offered by the USGS through the Cooperative Water Program in the following areas:

Section 2: Proposals

Proposals from the Cooperative Water Program...

Section 3: Data Collection

E=Excellent; AA=Above Average; A= Average; BA= Below Average; P=Poor; NA= Not Applicable

Hydrologic Equipment and Instrumentation...

Section 4: Data Analysis and Interpretation

E=Excellent; AA=Above Average; A= Average; BA= Below Average; P=Poor; NA= Not Applicable

Section 5: Products

Requests for data, reports, and information...

Reports (e.g., Water-Resources Investigations Reports, Open-File Reports, Data Reports)...

I have sufficient access to hydrologic data and reports...

Section 6: Support

I receive sufficient support in...

Section 7: Summary

Section 8: Cooperator Information

The following questions will be used only to identify similarities and differences among groups of customers. Thank you for your cooperation in providing the following data.

Please indicate your affiliation: (please circle)

Please indicate your area(s) of specific interest: (please circle any that apply)

Please indicate your organization's involvement with the USGS: (please circle one for each column)

(Optional Information): Your Name: _______________________________________

Your Organization: _______________________________________________________

Section 9: Comments

Are there any other comments that you would like to make regarding the Federal-State Cooperative Water Program, or any clarifications of your responses? (Attach additional sheets as needed.)