Note: Powerpoint presentations referred to in these minutes may be accessed on the Council’s website at http://acwi.gov/monitoring. Attachments identified in these notes are available in hard copy by request only.
Co-Chairs welcomed all to the meeting with introductions around the room.
Leon Carl, Director, of the GLSC welcomed the Council to Ann Arbor and to the GLSC.
Chuck Spooner, Don Dycus, and Linda Green presented their comments on conference results. Don reported that many participants commented on the really good technical presentations. Surprisingly there were only 187 evaluations returned even though it was pressed upon participants to give us their evaluations. Seventy-five percent of the attendees at the conference were repeat participants of the Monitoring Conference having attended a past conference. There was a good mix of all types of participants—Federal, State, volunteers, internationals, public works, and private. Many people expressed their views that 15 minutes for presentations was not enough time for speakers to adequately make a presentation. Don also distributed a spreadsheet on finances, sponsors, exhibitions, registrants (Attachment 1). This was the first conference completely administered by Council member agencies. There was dual duty for Don’s time and salary during pre-conference and during actual conference. Myra Fuller’s salary was funded by TVA for this work. The Tetratech contract was approximately $150,000. Maggie Craig and Margo Anderson are writing some reports on weak points as well as successes of the conference. The Workshops were well attended on first day of Conference. This is reflective of opportunity for interaction—the more workshops, the better. There was a real effort at this conference to make the workshops actual working sessions rather than longer presentations of a topic. The two training courses were well received. Those attending the State and Regional Councils Workshop were actively involved in creating Councils in their States; for example, Florida, and Illinois. Some negative comments of conference procedures were: the plenary was too long, too short a time for presentations—presenters should be allowed 20 minutes and allow time for questions immediately after a presentation; ground water neglected; no specific time for posters; too many concurrent sessions; difficult holding questions until all presentations were completed; the Chattanooga site was difficult to reach—many had to take two flights to get there; poor time for plenary at 4 p.m.—less energy; plenary should begin in morning of first day; prefer an executive (key leader) for keynote speakers. Elizabeth Fellows Award should be presented at plenary rather than at poster session as was done this time; would like to see a newsletter for the Council, perhaps to be published twice a year as the Volunteer newsletter; expand the Award program to include minor awards. The Elizabeth Fellows Award could be the major award. More recruitment and announcements to go to ground water people; get the ground water listserves and also to Drinking Water groups.
Laura Gatz, GAO gave presentation. (See pp presentation, Watershed Management: Better Coordination of Data Collection Efforts Needed to Support Key Decisions”.) Discussion followed on GAO recommendations to Congress. Specifically, GAO recommended a lead agency to manage monitoring efforts with authority and resources to do so. An entity was recommended such as the Council or a Federal agency. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was mentioned in the report as offering to take on this responsibility. The Council is a volunteer organization; it was asked how this would affect members on Council if Council was named lead agency by Congress. Gail Mallard stated that the Council represents many organizations and would want to know what each representative organization would recommend. The question is “does the Council want to assume lead role for monitoring.” Council members need to do an intense review of GAO report. There was further discussion on how the Council reacts to this report but no decisions made at this time.
Peter Grevatt, EPA, opened and reflected on some of the GAO report given by Laura Gatz. Council members received the draft document “EPA/USGS Collaborative Strategy for Monitoring and Modeling” (Attachment 2). Flat funding for monitoring would be a difficult achievement; a monitoring initiative with EPA is being considered with an increase for states in water quality monitoring. $17 million would be very optimistic. Look at ways that we can build on what others are doing. It is clear that there are some things that we can build on with USGS. Peter indicated that discussion on collaboration began with Donna at the National Monitoring Conference in Chattanooga. How can EPA and USGS help the states with what they are doing on monitoring? Donna Myers, USGS, indicated that it is a good opportunity, and she is very open to working with EPA. There have been three meetings on this issue; looking for some reactions from the Council as to how to proceed and how the Council will be involved in the collaboration. We need more partners than just EPA and USGS. We are in the scoping stage and will collect a log of water quality data with USGS as well as EPA; we know we are not colleting data from everywhere and do not have all bases covered. How can we make the most of the data that we have collected? Resources are not there to do all that we would like to do. Really do need to work together to offset limited funds. Peter said in terms of future of Council; the Council has done a tremendous job in terms of the Methods Board and how different pieces fit together. To function together in the future, it is important that other agencies like GAO come to us with ideas and feedback and how to do these things. It is important to make the Council aware of what ideas (EPA and USGS) have come up with and work closely with the Council. Herb Brass stated that Council could provide recommendations as to what can be done for coordination of monitoring. The Council can provide specific recommendations about things that need to be done that may not have been discussed between EPA and USGS. We have to examine what we are doing and use existing resources. This document (Attachment 2)is very broadly stated as to our ideas, and we must get Council’s feedback before becoming more specific. There will never be enough funding to monitor everything so it is essential to maximize existing resources. Let’s try to integrate the NAWQA and EMAP programs. We need to support ongoing work at the State and Federal level. We have begun to scope out where programs overlap. (See spreadsheet to Attachment 2). We have a list of collaborative efforts for the Council to consider. Can we build on what we are already doing? Are there other things to be done with data already collected? Are there already opportunities to take advantage of what we have not done? One of the things the Council can do is to share this information more broadly with other states. Council needs to publish successes more broadly. Mary Ambrose asked if they were asking to coordinate more broadly with other Federal agencies such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Peter indicated that we do not want to expand too broadly at this time. Considerations include partnership or coordination—starting with coordination and looking for areas that partnership can develop. Assessment tools are available—where are we working and where are there overlaps. There have been some successful collaborations—lets make efforts to show these successes. Who is doing what—the monitoring Council can tell us who the critical partners are and what they are doing. We would like you to review our draft and let us know what we are missing that you might know about.
Gail Mallard and Chuck Spooner led discussion on future directions for Council. Create a template for monitoring data; a product with which Council is involved includes participation in creation of new State/Regional Councils. As you identify data not included in databases, consider how we we get these data. Ask for support from State Monitoring Councils. Start with small jobs to identify problems and how we solve them. GAO puts next step in the lap of Congress. Authority and funding is why this Council is not able to do much. What can we do now without that authority and lack of funding? Organize groups to prepare white papers and come together next spring to discuss what we are collectively doing without the authority from Congress. What can we continue to do with what GAO has suggested. Keep the dialog going. Deborah Patton stated that the Navaho Nation have hydrologists on staff. They (Navaho and Hopi) all have data but need help putting it together. Council needs to decide if they want to be the lead agency for monitoring. This would affect the operation of this organization for a long time if we take this opportunity to be leader.
Jon Scott was connected by phone and presented the powerpoint presentation. (See pp presentation: “Data Sharing: Progress Report”) Donna Myers said that Jon would provide the status of work. Jon presented current activities that are completed or ongoing and summarized the status of work. The overall workplan shows the first step is to create a web portal. Can we aggregate on the fly without copying data; can we avoid duplication of data. Window to My Environment is managed by EPA; integrates USGS data with map interface. We will have to coordinate on shared record list. Both USGS and EPA are continuing to modernize their databases. GAO Report does endorse the approach we are taking. Process will take time and resources. Meanwhile copying data is counterproductive. While in the process of developing portal, people will continue to get data from multiple systems.
Curtis Cude reported that the data management work group was abolished in 2000. It was absorbed in the Water Information Systems (WIS) work group and the Methods Board. The 2002 information infrastructure work task was established; many questions needed to be answered whether data management or IT. We have mulled over this in WIS; Karen Klima had been involved and then took a new job which did not include her continuing on the work group. So information infrastructure took a back place again. Curtis distributed the paper, “2004 national Monitoring Conference Information Infrastructure in Water Quality Monitoring Special Meeting Summary. (Attachment 3). Curtis will send an electronic version. We wanted to bring this to Council to see how to proceed further in information infrastructure. WIS has struggled to determine how to continue having the Council address the data management cog (on Framework); how to make that better. There is no one on the Council who has this as their specialty. This is one of those areas that if we do not have someone to co-chair such a group, we may not be able to handle a information infrastructure work group. Do we create a subgroup of MB; another work group; what is the decision for moving forward on information infrastructure? Could WIS create a subcommittee; we were not able to get co-chairs of such a group a couple of years ago. Charlie Peters suggested that perhaps we should reformat our work groups around the Framework.
There was proposal to craft work plans related to Framework cogs. Plan work groups that meet the needs of the cogs of the Framework. One of the charges to work groups is to look at cogs and think if a work group could be set up to deal with cogs.
Ric Lawson gave powerpoint presentation, “Coordinating Monitoring in the Great Lakes Basin.” Ric is a project manager and will introduce Great Lakes Commission projects. Ric stated that their thoughts on monitoring include sound management policies to build on reliable information; policies and management should scale to resource. Ecosystem management requires information integrated from a variety of field of study. Two issues of why we function are information collected according to political boundaries rather than resource boundaries. Information collection agencies focused on narrow fields of study. We try to consider things from a basin-wide scale. The Commission is a binational agency representing Great Lakes states and provinces; formed in mid-1950’s; mission is to promote water resources issues. We advocate our states and provinces on a national level.
Leon Carl, Director, GLSC, distributed paper on GLSC/Great Lakes Research (Attachment 4).
STATUS—REVISED DRAFT GUIDE ON WATER QUALITY DATA ELEMENTS.
Chuck Spooner
gave update. Draft was created in 2000; one version of document reflected adjustments.
Guidance was going to be EPA document or an advisory document with a tone more
reflective of our strong recommendations. The question now becomes should the
guide be confined to microbiological or revised to reflect all elements we
are planning to work on. It has been rewritten to take out EPA mode and does
not contain biology. Guidance is still not well written. Not a good document
for bringing people into the fold. Time for Council to agree on course of action
for publication. Chuck Job wants this printed as a Council publication. We
have to get approval from ACWI in September for two biological lists. This
document could then be out in October said Charlie Peters. This must have ACWI’s
approval before being printed. ACWI recommendation would mean that EPA would
pick it up. Once this list is endorsed by Council, EPA and others can say how
can you not put this in your standards. In the draft that exists, could we
acknowledge that it is going to be a work in progress because new data elements
will be put in for other methods. It needs to have language allaying the fears
of those believing they must have all (83) elements in database to obtain grant
monies. Possibly have staged implementation written into the document to answer
for this problem. ACTION ITEM: Between now and September we need to develop
a presentation and get information out to ACWI before the September meeting
so ACWI can review and comment in order to get approval at the meeting. We
need agreement from Council to go forth with this as outlined above for approval
of additional biological elements and full report. Council agreed to move forward
in that direction.
ACWI MEETING.
Judy Griffin reported on upcoming ACWI meeting. Meeting will
be held at the Days Hotel in Herndon, Virginia, September 14 and 15, 2004.
Announcement and preliminary topics for agenda was distributed (Attachment
5). There are three reports dealing with Council-- GAO report, NRC report,
and Ocean Commissions Report—that Council needs to comment on and which
need to be on the ACWI agenda. It was suggested a NWQM network be created.
That network might be focused toward the coastal zones. Someone could write
a summary of recommendations from those three reports. Comments and thoughts
on these issues and other agenda topics should be emailed to Toni Johnson asap.
STATUS—USGS CO-CHAIR FOR METHODS BOARD.
Gail Mallard introduced Eric
Vowinkel who was selected as the Co-Chair for MB from USGS. Announcement was
sent out by Toni Johnson via email this week.
PLANS FOR 2006 NATIONAL MONITORING CONFERENCE.
Proposals were presented for
consideration. Judy Griffin distributed the spreadsheet showing comparisons
of airfares/per diems for proposed conference cities. (Attachment 5)
San Jose, CA--David Tucker showed video for conference site in San Jose, California. (San Jose McEnery Convention Center). San Jose is 11th largest city in the United States; it is the third largest city in California; 2 hrs north is wine country; 40 miles north of San Franisco. It would be a great place for the Monitoring Conference venue because it is growing. There are three airports; there is $25,000 cash on the table from the host; City of San Jose; there is a backup with Jeff Schloss for the North American Lake Management Society (NALMS); pledges from three organizations, AMSA, San Jose, and a local organization. David reported that there will be an executive appointed by the Governor for water quality. The City would provide the same type of support for administrative support as was provided by TVA and Myra Fuller at the 2004 Conference. The support would be provided by the Conference Bureau of San Jose. The convention center is larger than what we would need for a 450 plus participant conference. Multiple conferences are held at each end of the building so there is buffer space in middle. The video showed the diagram of layouts of conference room space. There are many hotels connected with the convention center. The major hotels are the Hilton and the Marriott. David indicated that we should get many more vendors at this space and location. Linda mentioned that there might be a collaboration and some combination with the volunteer monitoring conference. David would have to check with hotels to see government rate would be provided for conference attendees. Potential for sponsorship in San Jose is very high.
Saratoga Springs, NY—Proposal presented by Beth Card via phone conference.
(Larry Bailey, NY Department of Environmental Conservation) along with Beth
Card is presenting this proposal. (See proposal, Attachment 6.) New England
Interstate Water Commission, Massachusetts, is sponsoring the proposal. A
big part of what we do is outreach. They have had quite a bit of involvement
in putting together regional and national conferences. In the past few years
we have done a number of conferences with participants numbering up to 400.
We will be doing online registrations; states are basically our clients.
For a lot of day to day planning, Larry Bailey is available. Beth’s
office is close enough to get to New York when necessary. The proposed venue
is Saratoga Convention Center and the hotel connected is the Prime Hotel.
The Holiday Inn is at the end of the street; within walking distance, there
are 39 other hotels. They will commit to the government rate. It is a 3-hour
drive from New York City and Boston to Saratoga Springs. Shuttle service
is available. Many possibilities for field trips and lake cruises. They anticipate
a government rate of $95 in 2006. NY DEC has offered to partnership without
funding for the event. To reach Saratoga Springs, you fly into Albany, NY,
with a ½ hour drive to Saratoga Springs. We would take up most of
hotel space with a big event.
The National Monitoring Conference will have local impact wherever the venue. A big city would provide more local participants. The west coast venue would get people from that area in for discussion on their issues—arid coast. Deborah said there are 144 tribes in the west; would get a good contingency from the west. Linda wants to combine a volunteer monitoring conference that would be good in a bigger venue.
Madison, WI, or other city-- Jeffrey Schloss reported that the North American Lake Management Society would be willing to co-host as sponsor and could handle issues dealing with cash transactions. NALMS can do this with any vendor we may choose. We will put aside the option of Madison as it is too soon to go back there. NALMS Conference is November 2005.
Portland, OR--Curtis Cude, OR Department of Environmental Quality, showed video. Curtis indicated that their sponsorship would include any city selected on the west coast. San Jose has some additional support (funding) that Portland does not. Curtis reported on the highlights and assets of Portland area including Portland International Airport, the light rail system which costs only $1.60 from airport; very convenient to getting places in the downtown area with free transport via the rail system. Travel to Portland would be easier than getting to Saratoga Springs, NY. The convention center is located on the waterfront where you can see the harbor area; dates are available for May 21-15, 2006; sufficient space; waived room rental for group sessions and breakout meeting spaces based on 80% room block pickup. $91 is currently the government lodging rate but will offer whatever the government rate is in 2006. Marriott Hotel (at convention center) is not on light rail line. Shuttles are available. It is about six blocks to light rail stop from convention center. Doubletree Lloyd Center (optional space) across from Lloyd Center Mall has dates available for 2006; meeting space complimentary. Each hotel has adequate ballroom, meeting space. The Hilton Portland and Executive Tower would waive meeting room rental for a contract an 80% filled room block, and is located right down town and on the light rail line. There are plenty of wineries in Oregon, ocean near by; lovely city. No sales tax! There are many field trip opportunities including Columbia Gorge; Willamette River. You can ski on Mt. Hood all year around. Opportunities for ballgames! Recommend September over May for Portland as May can be a rainy month.
It was decided to pick a site for 2006 and 2008. We would always be able to be one ahead. We can announce the 2008 meeting at the 2006 Conference. The final decision of location for the 2006 Conference was that we would go with San Jose, California, if hotel rates can match government per diem. The site for the 2008 Conference will be Saratoga Springs, New York.
WATER INFORMATION STRATEGIES. Robert Ward reported on continuing efforts and “leftover” paper from IMPACT September 2003 issue. If acceptable to authors, they are looking into developing a paper to be submitted as a journal article. We might want to develop NWQMC recommended glossary of monitoring terms. They are also going to pursue issue of budget allocations; have indicated percentage of budgets that should be allocated to each of the Framework cogs. Plans are to take a survey for collection of metadata in an online form, create data bank, and see how money is spent on monitoring. It would be useful if USGS and EPA would create a Memorandum of Understanding on collaborative efforts on setting up monitoring programs and infuse some standardizations. The group discussed a water quality index as means of communicating water quality conditions to the public, policymakers, and politicians. Canada is doing that. We want to continue to pursue the water quality index and plan for a session or workshop at the 2006 conference; examine current literature. Regarding the response to the GAO oceans report, we believe that Council should respond; a subcommittee should be formed to address this issue. As a following up to Chattanooga IT session, Curtis Cude will serve as lead for this issue and develop a listserve to continue the IT/monitoring dialogue initiated at the 2004 conference. We discussed developing a brainstorming session on joint high tech monitoring projects and possibility of bringing a group together before conference to develop a strong workshop. Using the location of the meeting, we discussed keynote speaker to address water availability to maintain healthy ecosystem and to meet restoration goals and monitoring objectives. Talked about organization of Council; Robert’s term ends in 2005. Need to look for co-chairs for the WIS. Given the fact that the work group takes care of many of the cogs; it was thought to divide the group up into information technology and data management from data interpretation. We need to talk about this with entire Council. We talked about developing each of those activities with an outline and develop as longer term work plan.
METHODS BOARD. Charlie Peters presented summary of Methods Board activities over the past 7-8 years that he has been associated with the Council and Co-Chair of the Methods and Data Comparability Board. New USGS Co-Chair is Eric Vowinkel.
COLLABORATION AND OUTREACH. Linda Green is going to look for compilation of pp presentations. Gail will work with Sandy Williamson to review pp presentations and review them via a cyber conference. Another p p on the framework; also pulling together material for State Monitoring Councils. Make recommended updates. Review links on websites to be sure they are up to date and active. We are going to post new Council brochure so that it can be downloaded. We are now on third draft of Monitoring Councils fact sheet; Valerie has taken the lead. Ric Lawson has offered to take lead in creating listserve for those who had attended 2004 conference. Conference calls to be set up for working on creating State Councils. Toni Johnson will attend the IL planning for State Council in IL. Prepare presentation for ACWI. Planning 2006 conference sending email to everyone who came to conference; we are thinking of doing some sort of evaluation of workshops that were presented there as short courses developed for people who cannot attend conferences.
WATERSHED COMPONENTS INTERACTIONS. Karl Muessig reported that Mary Ambrose and Chris Knopp were named new co-chairs. The group discussed the need to be clear about our purpose and good products. With little funding and staff time, it is important to clarify what we actually can do. The Draft Fact Sheet and work plans were updated, and all members were assigned jobs. Ground water is frequently overlooked; atmospheric deposition is being looked at as well as ground water runoff. Future directions must be more proactive.
MEMBERSHIP ISSUES. Chuck Spooner reported that Steering Committee is working to secure the membership of the Council. We plan to recruit people for the work groups to expand the number of participants. Work Groups are to discuss what Council has done and where we see the future.
UPCOMING MEETINGS. It was proposed that we meet the week of November 15 or the week of December 6 in San Jose, California. If San Jose is chosen as conference site, I would offer San Jose. Linda Green proposed that we try to end all of our meetings on Thursday following a format of traveling on Monday and Friday with meetings Monday evening (Steering Committee) through Thursday. The 2005 Spring meeting is proposed for the Washington, DC, area. We could meet with Federal agencies and also invite Federal upper level managers to the meeting. We hope to energize the higher level management participation. It was suggested that we meet before Easter 2005 (prior to March 27, 2005). We will look at possibilities for the meeting the week of April 11 or April 18.
We received request from Chair of World Monitoring Day that Council be a sponsor for World Monitoring Day. We have written a letter of support in past. They are developing their own data base for entering data collected on World Monitoring Day. They are presently working with EPA for press conference. It was suggested that we send a letter to ACWI to say that we have concerns in sponsoring World Monitoring Day. If we could say what it is about it that we support and what is important but it should not be misinterpreted—should be used as outreach and education. It was agreed to send similar letter as was done last year; offer the help of the Council if they would like to continue their improvement of the data base. ACTION ITEM: Linda Green will draft letter to send in support of World Monitoring Day.
Judith B. Griffin
Executive Secretary
National Water Quality Monitoring Council
Attendees:
Gail Mallard
Chuck Spooner
Charlie Peters
Don Dycus
Deborah Patton
Robert Ward
Herb Brass
Mike McDonald
Paul Currier
Art Garceau
Dan Radulescu
Karl Muessig
David Tucker
Jim Laine
Linda Green
Jeffrey Schloss
Curtis Cude
Jawed Hameedi
Valerie Connor
Mary Ambrose
Chris Knopp
Judy Griffin
Ami Mitchell
Guests:
Donna Myers, USGS
Peter Grevatt, EPA
Leon Carl, GLSC
Laura Gatz, GAO
U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological
Survey
This page is maintained by NWQMC Webmaster
Privacy statement || Disclaimer
http://acwi.gov/monitoring/minutes/mi_071904.html
Wednesday, 08-Aug-2007 15:04:01 EDT