Attendees
Location (and General Information)
Attachment 1 (Agenda)
Attachment 2 (Cooperator Survey)
Attachment 3 (Summary - March 24,1999)
Attachment 4 (Discussion Points)
Attachment 5 (Summary - March 25,1999)

U. S. Geological Survey - - Bill Alley, Chief Office of Ground Water; Steve Blanchard, Task Force Executive Secretary; Bob Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist; Nick Melcher, Arizona District Chief; John Vecchioli, Florida District Chief; Tim Hale, Southeastern Region Program Officer

Absent: A FEMA representative; Randall Duncan, International Association of Emergency Managers; Peter Mack, NY Department of Environmental Conservation; Dave Pope, Kansas Department of Agriculture; Earl Smith, Interstate Council on Water Policy; Chuck Spooner, U.S. EPA.

Location: U. S Geological Survey, Arizona District Office, Tucson, Arizona

The meeting closely followed the meeting agenda (attachment 1). The meeting started with presentations by Nick Melcher (Arizona District Chief) and John Vecchioli (Florida District Chief) on the Arizona and Florida District's Cooperative Water Programs, respectively. Nick Melcher highlighted the Arizona District Cooperative Water Program areas of emphasis in work for Indian Tribes, collecting groundwater information, developing new methods, participation in public consortiums, and development of a ground-water database. John Vecchioli presented information on the Florida District's Cooperative Water Program areas of emphasis in studying ground water and surface water interactions, conducting lake studies, studying and modeling the factors that influence salt water intrusion and its impacts, and studying the susceptibility of ground water to contamination through various techniques including ground water age dating.

Following the presentations on each district's cooperative water program, John Vecchioli discussed the costs that are included in a district's indirect costs and explained why there is variation from district to district. Nick Melcher then described what the Arizona District and the Water Resources Division are doing to improve report timeliness. Both Nick and John discussed their thoughts about what is working well in the cooperative program and what difficulties they have with the program.

The afternoon sessions was a panel discussion between the Task Force and a panel of individuals representing agencies that cooperate with the Arizona District. The panel was composed of the following individuals:

Cooperators Panel - Michael Block, District Hydrologist, Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District, Tucson, AZ; Dave Gardner, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Phoenix, AZ; Katharine L. Jacobs, Director, Arizona Dept. of Water Resources, Tucson, AZ; Bruce Johnson, Chief Hydrologist, Tucson Water, Tucson, AZ; Allon C. Owen, Director - Floodplain Administrator, Cochise County Flood Control District Bisbee, AZ; Greg Wallace, Chief Hydrologist, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Phoenix, AZ

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 Task Force summarized the information they heard from the panel discussion and the initial TF response to the information in bullet statements as listed in attachment 3.

The second day (March 25) started with a presentation by Bob Hirsch (WRD Chief Hydrologist) on the proposed FY2000 budget and its impacts on the Cooperative Water Program.

During the next session, the TF deliberated and developed the major points to be presented in a status report to the ACWI Alternate Chair at the end of the day. The TF also discussed different options that might be used for developing their findings and recommendations. Options such as reaching consensus and majority voting were discussed. No decision was made but the TF members were asked to consider which options they would prefer and to be prepared to discuss it at a later time.

The afternoon session began with a panel discussion between the Task Force and a group of individuals from the private sector to discuss the issue of competition with the private sector and the appropriate role of the USGS. The panel was composed of the following individuals:

Panel on competition and the appropriate role of the USGS -- Ed McGavock, Montgomery and Associates, Sedona, Arizona (Representing AIPG local); Tyler Gass, Geologist, Blasland Bouck & Lee Inc, Golden, CO (Representing AIPG National); Jeff Bradley, West Consultants, Bellevue, WA; Bob Weaver, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Boulder, Colorado; Martin Nicholson, Vice President of Water Resources, CH2MHill, Reading, California

The discussion with the competition panel focused on answers to questions from the list of questions in attachment 4. The Task Force summarized the information they heard from the panel discussion and the initial TF response to the information in bullet statements as listed in attachment 5. In addition, the TF summarized criteria proposed by the panels to be used by the USGS for project selection to avoid competition. The proposed criteria are also presented in attachment 5.

The TF discussions with a panel of private sector individuals on the issue of competition was followed by TF discussions with a panel of USGS staff to provide the TF an opportunity to ask the USGS question related to competition. The USGS staff on the panel were Bill Alley, Chief of the Office of Ground Water; Tim Hale, Southeastern Region Program Officer, Nick Melcher, Arizona District Chief; and John Vecchioli, Florida District Chief. The TF asked the USGS panel various questions related to how projects are selected for inclusion in the Cooperative Water Program and why the USGS was involved in a few specific projects.

The Day ended with a presentation by Larry Rowe, Chair of the Coop Task Force, to Bob Hirsch, the Alternate Chair of ACWI on the status of the Cooperative Water Program Review. Larry described the activities the Task Force has conducted and the information the Task Force has gathered to date. The Task Force believes it will complete its work by the June 30, 1999 deadline.

The third day (March 26, 1999) began with a presentation by Nick Melcher on the WRD project titled "Hydro21" which is investigating new technologies that could be applied to the stream gaging program to determine river stage, water velocity, and river channel configuration through non-contact methods. Bob Hirsch then presented information on new water resources related technologies and methods that have been developed though the National Research Program. The remainder of the day was spent in subgroup meetings with the subgroups working to develop preliminary findings and recommendations.

The next meeting location was selected to be the Massachusetts District Office in Marlboro, Massachusetts or the New York District Office in Troy, New York. The Task Force laid out the general format for the May 5-7, 1999 meeting as:

Day 1

District Overview Presentation

• No description of the organization, funding allocations, etc. Presentations should be focused on issues
  
• Write-ups of district information sent to Task Force members before the meeting would be helpful.
  

Panel 1 - Cooperators Panel for Eastern Districts with Tribal Rep - it is assumed that water quantity will not be an issue

Panel 2 - Competition Panel

• Try for a more "balanced panel". Include some non-critics - seek private sector reps who are representative of "typical" private consultants - those who have not lodge specific complaints (?). Also include ACEC and a university perspective on competition.
• The intent is to get a realistic sense of what the magnitude of the problem is.
• Would like more stories of successful collaboration between USGS and private sector
  

Day 2

Subgroups meet to develop consensus within Subgroup

Day 3

Subgroups report to the combined Task Force to reach consensus

Action Items:

• Description of MA Coop projects
  
• Background info on the Coop allocation
• Summary sheet of district issues
  
• Verbal and numerical survey results
  
• Denver & Tucson meeting minutes
  
• Description of the process USGS uses to advertise for contract work
  
• Participants on the MA competition panel should provide a written statement to TF members ahead of time with both opinions and facts of examples illustrating inappropriate competition

8:10-8:30 Opening remarks/discussion - meeting agenda and Task Force (TF) directions - - Larry and Fred

8:30-11:00 Presentation by Nick Melcher - AZ District Chief and John Vecchioli, FL District Chief, (as much paper info as possible, on the topics below, will be handed out prior to the meeting) (includes a break)

• overview of coop program in district - emphasize what iS unique
  
• difficulties in program and positives (what's right) with the program
  
• compare your indirect costs to all districts and explain why it is higher or lower
  
• ideas on improving timeliness of products
  

Questions and answers from the TF after each segment of the presentation

11:00-12:45 Subgroup deliberations and working lunch -- The goal of this session is for the subgroups to (1) review th`e status of their work to date and progress on assignments (2) discuss and report on results of verbal survey, (3) continue working on consensus statements and findings related to the questions in the Terms of Reference, and (4) draft summary bullets that can be shared with the rest of the TF.

12:45-1:00 Break and prep for panel

1:00-3:30 TF meeting with cooperators from host district want diversity of types of agencies, geographic locations, and types of programs on the panel (include a break) Larry Rowe

3:30-4:00 TF discussion and summary of panel

4:00-4:15 Break

• Status of verbal survey
  
• Status of numerical survey
  
• Each subgroup will report on the status of their work and preliminary findings (10 min per group)
  
• Begin drafting summary bullets for report to ACWI Alternate Chair

5:30 Adjourn

Evening - group outing/dinner

Thursday March 25, 1999

8:00-8:45 Tribal perspective/issues - Jim Enote

8:45-9:30 FY2000 WRD budget - Bob Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist

9:30-9:45 Break

9:45-10:45 TF deliberations - prep questions for competition panel (note: I suggest that subgroup 2 use the questions from the non-cooperators panel from Denver and, prior to the AZ mtg, modify them accordingly for use with the competition panel. This list would be a starting point for the combined TF to review and modify.)

• summarize progress and status - prepare summary bullets for report to ACWI Alternate-Chair
  
• decide on TF decision making rules - how will "consensus" statements be decided on and adopted (Betsy draft proposal prior to meeting)
  

11:45-12:45 Lunch

12:45-1:00 Prep for panel

1:00-3:30 TF meeting with those concerned about competition with the private sector (include a break) - Fred Lissner

3:30-4:00 TF discussion and summary of panel

4:00-4:15 Break

4:15-5:00 TF Questions about competition to USGS (AZ + FL District Chiefs, Bill Alley -
Chief Office of GW, Tim Hale- SE Region Program Officer)

5:00-5:45 TF status report to Alternate-Chair of ACWI (Bob Hirsch) -- Larry and Fred

5:45 Adjourn

Friday March 26, 1999

8:00 - 9:00 Presentation on Hydro21 and new technologies from the National Research Program - Melcher for Hydro21 and Bob Hirsch for NRP

9:00-9:15 break

9:15-11:00 Subgroup deliberations - subgroups continue working on consensus statements and findings related to the questions in the Terms of Reference (include a break)

11:00-11:45 Subgroup 1 report on preliminary findings - rest of TF comment and discuss

11:45-12:45 Lunch

12:45-1:45 Subgroup 2 reports on preliminary findings - rest of TF comment and discuss

1:45-2:00 Break

2:00-2:45 Subgroup 3 report on preliminary findings - rest of TF comment and discuss

2:45-4:00 TF deliberations - review status, pick next mtg locations, plan next meeting, make assignments

4:00 Adjourn

1. 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?

2. 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.?

3. 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. 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.

   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?

4. 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?

5. 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:

       1. types of data collected,
       2. documentation of data,
       3. timeliness of products,
       4. value of products, and
       5. 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?

6. General Closing Question

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

1. Cooperators view GS as relatively unbiased. Cooperators are willing to pay a premium for GS credibility.
2. The same may not be true on the East Coast.
3. There's a real issue with communication and the process of converting hard science to information the public can understand.
4. If GS moves too far into homogenizing information, they may be perceived as biased.
5. Cost sharing is an important part of the credibility of the Coop Program.
6. The importance of cost sharing argues against the concept of Unmatched Funding.
7. There is a need for an increase in funding for the Coop Program.
8. GS may need a line item appropriation for increased national stream gaging data network.
9. It would be very difficult to contract out long term projects (those lasting three years or longer) because of the potential loss of institutional memory in the private sector.
10. GS could outsource maintenance and administrative work.
11. Data collection and interpretation and report writing can not be outsourced.
12. GS needs to have a better understanding of the need for timely data by local communities and be more sensitive to their needs and how their results are communicated.
13. Technology is important ("overkill" is good).
14. Applying new technology is important.
15. The effect of using the merit-funding program was problematic. GS needs to inform cooperators that the merit-funding program is no longer operating.
16. There should be a way for the GS to release provisional reports.
17. Each GS District needs a Public Information Officer (PIO).
18. There is pressure for the GS to be more involved in local issues and not just to do science.
19. If GS is more involved in local issues, they run the risk of becoming advocates and loosing their credibility.
20. GS is a facilitator to bringing communities and Tribes together.
21. The cooperators had a strong positive response to the topic of peer reviews.
22. Funding to Districts should be on the basis of need not past history.
23. Cooperators were confident they could get preliminary data from GS if they asked for it.
24. GS needs to be more visible.
25. GS has developed and uses cutting edge technology.

Discussion Points for the Panel Dealing With Issues Related to Competition and the
Appropriate Role of the USGS

1. Discuss where you see the USGS competing with the private sector? Can you provide specific examples?

2. Describe criteria the USGS should use to decide whether a project is appropriate for them to undertake?

3. Discuss the advantage you perceive USGS personnel to have over individuals in private practice with regard to such items as liability insurance, registration issues, etc.?

4. Discuss the appropriate role for private sector individuals in long term data collection efforts?

5. Discuss what role the USGS should be taking relative to National, Regional, and Local issues?

6. Discuss how the private sector could assure that the same consistent standard of excellence was applied to work conducted by them - over a period of 20 - 40 years?

7. Given the federal procurement process, discuss how the private sector could maintain the level of expertise required to perform the services offered by the USGS?

8. Describe how the USGS could better involve the private sector in its operations?

9. How can USGS communicate with private sector to avoid even the appearance of competition with the private sector?

10. What services and products can you provide that USGS can not?

11. Discuss how you've collaborated with the USGS on projects. Are there ways for the USGS to transfer technology through using consultants that may not have the expertise already?

1. There needs to be more opportunities for teaming (USGS/private sector).

2. Scopes of work tended to expand when USGS became involved to be consistent with mission (effect: to eliminate the consultant's opportunity).

3. Quality/QA of USGS work slipping.

4. You can't pay the USGS to slant conclusions.

5. There is a need for a cooperative program clearinghouse for private sector to lodge complaints.

6. Too much competition could lead to a backlash against USGS core programs.

7. Competition conflicts are almost always over work that has a local scope.

8. Competition is a BIG issue involving multimillion of dollars.

9. USGS has criticized consultant's proposals.

10. Consultants are afraid to complain because of the potential for it to impact their relationship with the cooperator (ramifications from the cooperator).

11. USGS is becoming more aggressive (the competition problem is increasing).

12. A level playing field (i.e., issues around certification of GS employees and insurance) is not a big issue.

13. USGS should not submit proposals if consultants have already been negotiating with the client.

14. USGS should open up a dialogue on the non-competition policy.

15. Private sector consultants have no interest in competing for work involving high levels of policy or procedures.

16. USGS should make an effort to identify key sites for their core programs

1. Is USGS conduct of work
   • A benefit to the private sector?
     
   • An advance to the profession?
     
2. Can the work be accomplished by the private sector?
3. Is there an opportunity to collaborate with the private sector?
4. The transition between interpretation and implementation is a cut-off for USGS involvement.
5. How work products will be used by community?
6. What are expectations of the cooperator?
7. If recommendations are expected, should be private sector.
8. Is the perception of being unbiased needed in a contentious situation?
9. Are the issues being addressed regional in scope?
10. Private consultants should do projects of short-term duration to answer immediate questions. Short term - less than 3 years.
11. Water supply development, bridge scour, and application of models without modification are examples of work that should be outside the purview of the USGS.