Note: Powerpoint presentations referred to in these minutes may be accessed on the Council’s website at http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/monitoring. Attachments identified in these notes are available in hard copy by request only.
Minutes
WELCOME
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Michael Kenyon, EPA, Director, Chelmsford Lab, welcomed the group to New Hampshire. Bob Varney, EPA Regional Administrator, sent his regrets and thanks for the work that the Council is doing. Michael also recognized the local members from New England area. He stated that the work that the Council is doing is critical to the Nation. Federal programs that can’t show that they are effective will be impacted financially. The EPA Office of Water recognizes that water quality monitoring is a high priority. They are supporting state development of water quality monitoring activities. EPA New England has long recognized where they are succeeding and where there needs to be more work accomplished in water quality. EPA has developed the Wadeable Streams Project with strategies to help the waters in New England. Michael stated that they have terrific partners, citizen groups, Indian groups, and state groups. There is huge educational value to the state in letting them know when it is a bad air quality day. There is a big challenge in monitoring waters. There are more challenges with all of the organizations involved—state, federal, tribal, and professional organizations. It is in all of our interest to identify a common set of measures. Everyone brings a different perspective to the table. Blending all of the efforts will develop a better product in the end. We appreciate a set of measures that we can all adopt.
U.S. Geological Survey
Brian Mrazik, USGS, spoke on behalf of the USGS New Hampshire Water Science Center and welcomed the group to New Hampshire. The USGS NH offices are located near Concord, and their staff is working on water quality issues. Brian gave a brief introduction of water issues and particular issues concerning the seacoast. Brian stated that we are sitting in the fastest growing regions in New England. This area has grown about 20% in population. The rate of growth is pretty challenging for a rural state. There is a very high reliance on ground water in this region; about 70% of the population gets their water from groundwater and fractured rock. We reallyhave found with this amazing growth in the coastline that we need to do a much better job of water quality monitoring to help with the population growth. The USGS has a major study beginning that will look at ground water resources—there are three communities involved. They are doing a very detailed study of water use in the area and developing a ground-water flow model. On the water quality side, the seacoast of NH is not without its problems. There are sediment deposits with high levels of arsenic. Twenty percent of private wells have arsenic levels which exceed the level of acceptance. They are working with partners and collaborators to isolate arsenic contamination in this region—what are the controls and where do they come from. USGS is working with the National Cancer Institute because of the high level of bladder cancer in this area. Exposure to arsenic will be looked at. NH has law suit against oil companies for contamination. Forty percent of public supply wells have MTB contamination. We are currently involved in expanding that study. You will hear from Paul Currier about a collaborative effort with USGS and the NH Department of Environmental Services. .
UPDATE ON 2006 NATIONAL MONITORING CONFERENCE.
Jeff Schloss gave update. Jeff is tri-chair of the Conference Planning Committee (CPC) along with Linda Green and David Tucker. We are working with NAWQA and Volunteer Monitoring group as co-sponsors. The website for the 2006 conference is now up. All hotels are locked at the government rate in effect at the time of the conference. We are adding sponsors (see pp presentation, #1). New sponsors are Water Environment Federation and the San Francisco Estuary Institute. The conference rate schedule is set. Early bird registration is $350. After March 1, 2006, the registration is set at $400. The Call for Abstracts has gone out and abstracts are due no later than September 16, 2005. Also the Call for nominees for the Elizabeth J. Fellows Award has gone out. Technical field trips being set up are a San Francisco Bay cruise; field trips, Monterey Aquarium, vineyard tours, scuba diving, and more. The CPC is working on having a reception at the Technical Museum of Innovation which is in within walking distance of the San Jose Conference Center. We are now looking for workshop facilitators. We need vendor solicitations and exhibition design as well as incentives to get people around to the poster exhibits. Jeff distributed the draft conference agenda (Attachment 1). Mary Ambrose volunteered to take the lead in developing the Ground Water Workshop. Plans are to hold the closing plenary session for the announcement of the National Monitoring Network (NMN) project. Linda Green noted that timeslots for workshops on NMN are available. Chuck Spooner stated that we also are looking forward to the Sixth monitoring conference that has been scheduled for 2008 in Saratoga, New York. It is not too soon to be thinking about what we will be looking at in the future. Chuck thanked Jeff for getting the North American Lake Management Society (NALMS) sponsorship.
UPDATE ON NATIONAL monitoring network project
Chuck Spooner gave presentation on NMN project. (See pp presentation, #2.) In December, the administration presented an Ocean Action Plan. This plan is a very large document and interesting to see how wide and the things that it does cover. Two case studies are Chesapeake Bay and Gulf of Maine. The Monitoring Council was chosen to design the NMN by the Presidential Council on Environmental Quality. We developed the Council’s National Monitoring Framework-- all focused on understanding and protecting waters. A timeline for completion of the NMN will be posted on the website. The timeline document was distributed (Attachment 2). Key questions: What will be left unfinished after January report? What relationship do we want the Council to have as we move into the future?
NMN CHAPTER 5
Herb Brass gave presentation and distributed draft on Chapter 5 (not to be further distributed or forwarded). (Attachment 3). Interactions with Data Quality Objectives (DQO’s) – may relate to Design Work Group; also sorting out focus between Methods and Data Work Group. Importance of DQO’s and Management Quality Objectives (MQO’s) determined upfront with Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) project plan, so that data is useable and comparable and can be easily shared. For NMN either choose methods from NEMI or put your methods into NEMI, so it serves as a database for the NMN. Virtual network of networks – databases are “network compliant” (QA upfront) – who would actually do that? We have laid out the tools upfront but haven’t yet addressed this issue – but the Board has the capabilities to do that.
GUEST PRESENTATIONS:
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE INTEGRATED OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM
Betsy Nicholson, NOAA, gave overview of the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS). Betsy serves as regional coastal management specialist. NOAA is interested in coastal management issues. (See pp presentation, #3). Vision is coordinated national and international network of observations, data management and analyses that systematically acquires and disseminates data and information on past, present, and future activities. NOAAsupported for the National IOOS. Philip Bogden indicated that Ocean US is a very underfunded intity; the regions themselves are largely self-organized. Jawed Hameedi stated that at the coastal zone conference there was a three-hour discussion of capability of IOOS and how to link with coastal managers. It was the view of all there that IOOS is being promoted as a top-down system. It is important that state governments support activities. The national backbone will be relatively standardized.
GULF OF MAINE OBSERVING SYSTEM
David Keeley, gave presentation. The Gulf of Maine Observing System includes three states and two provinces of Canada— Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, and Nova Scotia and also invited Environment Canada, USGS, EPA, COE, NOAA. Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment – maps have no political jurisdictions. Just in Gulf of Maine identified 385 programs, including volunteer monitoring (see pp presentation, #4). David stated that we need a national system with all of the data that we have available and he distributed two documents-- Gulfwatch—Monitoring Chemical Contaminants in Gulf of Maine Coastal Waters; and Atlantic Northeast Coastal Monitoring Summit Fact Sheet (Attachments 4 and 5).
GULF OF MAINE OCEAN OBSERVING SYSTEM, (GoMOOS)/CENSUS OF MARINE LIFE, GULF OF MAINE OCEAN DATA PARTNERSHIP
Dr. Philip Bogden gave presentation. (see pp presentation, #5) GoMOOS was incorporated over 5 years ago with clearly defined mission as a service utility; governed by Board of Directors with by-laws; small staff, data management. GoMOOS is to identify and respond to user needs. Membership includes marine industry, private section, government agencies, and research and education. The website is www.gomoos.org. Activities that GoMOOS is engaged in include national Federation of Regional Systems, national backbone-Federal agencies, activities to address technical issues, Data Management and Communications (DMAC); Gulf of Maine’s Regional Association., Gulf of Maine Data Partnership (federal, state—how to become interoperable, well over 20 participants in that group); data partnership work plan working to make discoverable, authoritative, accessible, and accommodating; Marine Metadata Interoperability (MMI) Initiative. Need to apply what exists to systems. There is a lot to accomplish with existing systems. Real goal is support for the Global Earth Observing System. The more we can demonstrate that we are working together, the better justification for funding from federal government. It will involve federal, state, private sector, and research institutes. GoMOOS needs to lead by example.
USGS/EPA NEW HAMPSHIRE REGIONAL PROJECT
Paul Currier gave presentation. We have been working with Keith Robinson, USGS, and EPA. We are combining USGS and EPA technical resources to assist state in biological assessment. It took a while to get cooperative project set up and are now about to complete scope. With articulation of state needs, there are more efficient ways to do quality water assessments on state waters. There is a commitment to put together a NH NWQMC to encompass federal, state, local, and volunteer projects.We need more efficient way to do assessments, and information that EPA has developed on regional basis—wadeable streams. A year from now a presentation could be developed on results or at the national conference.
OVERVIEW OF NEW ENGLAND EXTENSION WATER QUALITY ACTIVITIES.
Julia Peterson, University of New Hampshire, gave presentation. (See pp presentation, #6). Since the late 90’s we have been working more cooperatively in the land grant system. Goal is to strengthen land grant system program. We need to work at national, regional, county, and community levels. There is a partnership with USDA/CSREES and universities. We will deliver integrated water quality programs and education for stewardship of water resources. There is capacity and strength in land-grant system to conduct research, to educate next generation scientists; extend science information to real people. Require multiple partners for products created and shared across state lines. There are seven identified focus areas. Key audience is those who make land-use decisions on local landscape that affect water quality.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES
Kathy Dalton, NOAA, gave presentation. (See pp presentation, #7) One goal is science component, “research and monitoring to provide information to inform management…” Initially, not much consistency nationwide. Now System Wide Monitoring Framework (SWIM) to get consistent and comparable results among sanctuaries. Ecosystem framework: water quality, habitat status, living resources, cultural resources. Final goal is Assessment Reports that answer all 17 questions. There are just one or two scientists plus couple of interns at each site. They relay heavily on volunteer monitoring. (Sanctuary Integrated Monitoring Network (SIMON), plus public education.) Each sanctuary has own website; look for research coordinator and/or sanctuary manager who will be aware of any ongoing water quality monitoring. It is hopeful that all reports be out within the year, not massive, response to the 17 questions, very user-friendly. Depth and level of science varies. Monterey Bay, very expensive, science advisory board of 20 people, universities, etc. That website will lead you to the various research and monitoring ongoing. Not all others as extensive.
WATER QUALITY MONITORING IN THE NATIONAL ESTUARINE RESEARCH RESERVE SYSTEM
Dwight Trueblood, NOAA, gave presentation. (See pp presentation #8.) Set of 26 reserves in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Hawaii. The one in Texas should be online in January 2006. Reserves are protected for long-term research and is a state-federal partnership. Land owned by state; the state provides staff, and program implementation; Federal role is funding (70%), national coordination, and technical assistance. Initiated in 1995; coordinators meet once a year. Monitoring goal is to identify and track short term variability and long term changes in the integrity and biodiversity of estuarine ecosystems. Program elements are water quality, weather parameters, GOES telemetry. Ecological monitoring includes habitat change and eutrophication; land use changes. Dr. Susan White is contact for the Sanctuaries Water Monitoring Program (SWMP). She can be reached at Susan.White@noaa.gov and tel 301-563-1124.
NMN DESIGN
Al Korndoerfer, Chair, gave update on work group activities and progress. (See pp presentation # 9.) The Work Group decided to concentrate on two environmental issues: oxygen depletion and nutrient enrichment. Next steps are to finalize design of first two environmental issues for all resource areas. Expand concept to remaining environmental issues. Not a lot of information on ground water as yet; ground water influences just to coastal waters. Assessing aquifers or effect on coastal areas. Gulf Breeze EPA lab putting a lot of information into resource area. We have some information from Great Lakes on coastal Wetlands. Estuarine – have basic information but will fill out more with ocean assessment programs from NOAA and EPA and core parameters from IOOS.
In each case, what comes out (e.g., oxygen depletion) has to be able to address Steering Committee management questions.
NMN INVENTORY WORK GROUP
Chuck Spooner gave update. (See pp presentation, #10.) Of four case study areas, we’ve done three, and several others we’ll want to make reference to—Gulf of Maine, Pacific Northwest, Chesapeake Bay, and Delaware Basin. Also have a number of major national programs: NCA, NS&T, NASQAN, etc. Out of 80 monitoring programs, not a wide availability of data. Not very many places have surveys with one-stop shopping (GOM does). Uphill fight to collect it. When we write final report, how do we do enough work in our inventories to provide a credible statement, so that we can reasonably state with some certainty the difference between what we have and what we need. The Work Group is small, only about nine people; Tetra Tech helps somewhat to pull inventories together. Of course, some existing programs are influencing what design should be, which is fine. Program statements of data management, what it is and does, not audit or analysis. Basically on-going programs we know about or can fund. Look closely at perhaps three parameters as an illustration, but not try to evaluate everything. Do what you can on priority issues, use that to work from. Treat processed-based data vs. routine measurements. In timeframe we have, inventory will focus on core parameters, that’s why we figured out early on the primary parameters. Jared Bales, USGS, shepherded a database-- the Kansas report that we’ve used. Jared working with members of work group to expand that; now can sift through state water quality perspective. Documented in Chapter on Inventory.
NMN METHODS AND DATA COMPARABILITY BOARD
Herb Brass gave update on work group activities. (See pp presentation, #11.) Next steps of work group will depend on reports of the other work groups. Gail suggested that the work group might actually look at data and methods of case study areas. This is an important foundation but becomes real when we actually look at a program (case study).
NMN DATA MANAGEMENT AND ACCESS WORK GROUP
Curtis Cude, reported that the new work group’s membership includes USGS, EPA, NOAA, New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services, and an industry consultant. They have reviewed timeline, reviewed charge; developed definition of boundaries and scope. A second meeting is planned for this week, and we plan to meet weekly. Those on the work group with ties to IOOS/DMAC are Ken Lanfear, USGS, Russ Beard, NOAA, and Stephen Hale EPA. Original IOOS/DMAC plan came out in March; another implementation initial draft out soon. An initial data management connection for ocean as well as other monitoring data. Key issue to connect data systems. Example: EPA/Office of Water, Water Quality exchange to feed into central warehouse; USGS/NWIS with EPA/STORET data; Pacific NW data quality exchange. Fully aware of what we need to do to and realize what we can actually do in the limited time.
OPEN DIALOG ON NMN PROJECT
Gail and Chuck led discussion on the NMN project and distributed a paper on issues to be discussed (Attachment 6). Tell us what you are concerned about. We would like to know so that this can be addressed fully in the work group meetings. Detailed discussions followed.
METHODS BOARD WORK GROUP REPORT
Herb Brass gave presentation regarding the lastest Methods Board meeting. (See pp presentation #12.) Herb discussed data components; meta data; primary data, derived data. Status of Data Elements approved by attendees of ACWI on May 15, 2001, and are being implemented and considered by several agencies. Biological elements were approved by Board and Council and presented to ACWI last year. Biological data elements are recommended by EPA for the Wadeable Streams Assessment. By early August, we will distribute biological elements to ACWI; and plan conference call to discuss with ACWI members in late August. Will send email to ACWI for approval of these elements by September.
NEMI—Vision statement was drafted. Funding proposal submitted to Green Chemistry Institute. CRADA development moving forward. Partners being shopped through advertisement; Hach management committed $20,000 per year for 3 years. Field activities committee being led by Franceska Wilde, USGS. Methods fields being assessed, and methods being added. NEMI CBR and expert system peer review completed. Public release late this summer subject to additional reviews.
An advisory group formed on March 8 for bioassessment comparability. Outreach—the next addition of “Across the Board” the MB newsletter will go out soon. (Herb distributed a copy of the newsletter (Attachment 7). Also distributed was the Revised draft final report, June 24, 2005, on Data Elements for Reporting Water Quality Monitoring Results for Chemical, Biological, Toxicological, and Microbiological Analytes (Attachment 8).
COLLABORATION AND OUTREACH WORK GROUP
Jim Laine reported. The C&O Work Group has been contacted by State of Arizona about initiating an Arizona State Council. Both Linda Green and Jim Laine will visit the group in Arizona sometime this fall to give them assistance in creating a State Council. Statement of proposed questions will be distributed to Council for comments in preparation for statement on NMN that can be distributed to the public. Also thinking about development of computer presentation showing with all the points where water quality monitoring is ongoing throughout the United States.
CONFERENCE PLANNING COMMITTEE
Jeff Schloss reported. (See pp presentation #13.) Let us know how the NMN plenary should be presented at the Conference—it had been suggested that this would be presented at a closing plenary but there was objection to that as the conference is meant to focus on the NMN effort. A full discussion followed. If it’s supposed to be a part of the meeting, and can be an important part, and want dialog and discussion about the meeting, makes more sense to roll out at beginning plenary, all at same level of dialog, people discussing all week. Final report could be released for public comment at the conference. Linda Green said that there can be a series of workshops or sessions about the NMN. Then a full report out at the plenary on NMN. So the NMN would be highlighted throughout the conference. Herb suggested an initial discussion of the NMN at an early plenary. Mike McDonald suggested that we might be held to a timeframe determined by CEQ. CEQ might not want us to talk about it at the conference. Jeff said the CPC really needs to know what Council wants before moving ahead on the conference planning and the position for NMN in the conference. If we are successful in submitting a report to ACWI and CEQ, we have four months to determine how to present it at the conference. Jeff said that is not enough time for planning and NMN recognition at the conference. Toni indicated that the conference is a time to release information about the NMN even in a draft form. It will be a much longer time before it would be blessed by CEQ and the Administration –prior to a presentation in final form by May 2006. It was suggested that we talk to CEQ and see what part they might play in the conference. Al Korndoerfer stated that however we do the rollout of the NMN in May, we must be very careful that this is not identified as“the” network. It could come across that way. It is a proposal, and we need to get public comments on it. We have to explain what we have done and emphasize it is a draft report and still willing to get critique on it from participants at the conference. If it is released for public comment at this meeting, there would be plenty of opportunity to receive comments. Eric suggested that it be presented in the beginning of the conference because no matter what our objectives are to reach everyone to encourage them to stay, some will not be able to stay for the full conference. A vote among members indicated that the NMN plenary should be early in the conference. Fred Leslie suggested that when the NMN is discussed, the audience should also be told why it was developed as it was. This might make the participants understand why the NMN is designed as described.
Jeff continued presentation with the format for the conference. Discussed field trips and formulating them and getting up on website; scholarships, program committee; workshop facilitators; vendor solicitations and exhibit design; poster incentives. We want to make sure that each Council work group should have voice for their concerns. Mary has volunteered to do the Ground Water Workshop. Workshops cover training to special sessions. We will send out definitions for workshop, training, special sessions. Need help with getting vendors to exhibit at the conference. Trying to get more people to view poster sessions; we are coming up with novel ideas to get people to the poster sessions. Forty percent of the people that came to the conference in 2004 had either a paper or a poster. If you have in your subgroup an interest in a tract or series of sessions, identify the subject or session where it should appear. Please send this type of information to Maggie Craig or Abby Markowitz at Tetratech. There are no placeholder abstracts. This has been a problem as sometimes they do not come through and then there is a blank slot.
WCI WORK GROUP REPORT
Chris Knopp gave report. The group made some adjustments to proposed fact sheet. Discussed work plan and other purposes of work group for future. They held discussion of conference and role of work group in context of NMN. Focus clearly on estuaries, start there and work upstream in phased process, toward higher resolution of information. Recognized not much open discussion of monitoring objectives – improve that.
Talked about integration and synthesis being a key issue for this group, 305b, 303d, TMDL’s, models…what happens after this network is in place and we can identify conditions and areas that may be contributing to degraded water quality. Issues of nonpoint pollution, and effectiveness of controls will be a significant role for this group. Group will work to get a handle on things like BMPs and how to monitor implementation and effectiveness. The group concluded that we would continue these discussions with a series of sharply focused conference calls. Also provided input to CPC on conference topics and will encourage solicitation of abstracts.
WIS WORK GROUP REPORT
Curtis Cude reported for the WIS Work Group. EPA/OW Water Quality Exchange being developed to provide an alternative method using web services to populate STORET, and to eventually retrieve data from STORET using web services access point to be able to get data out from various databases. The group took some time to look at website to recommend changes and updates. The main problem with NWIS STORET collaborative project is that parameter codes have multiple elements that aren’t easy to separate into well-documented data elements. Lockheed Martin, USGS, EPA all examining tracking parameter codes – not good information on the use of them. WIS recommends meeting with Joe Wilson, EPA coordinator, get information on OW/WQE, Ken Lanfear, USGS, and others via WebEx before next Council meeting. The group spent some time reviewing the current WIS Fact Sheet to ensure it covered the full scope of activities and to ensure consistency with monitoring framework language. The fact sheet will be reviewed and approved prior to further printing. A WIS representative will work with webmaster to ensure better links between WIS page and WIS fact sheet. WIS will pursue development of Framework Expert System for Council consideration. Current chair, Robert Ward, will step down after next Council meeting scheduled for November 2005. At that time the group will discuss structure of work group and nominate and elect a new chair.
MEMBERSHIP
Dave Shepp was recognized as the new member from COE. A Certificate of appreciation was presented to Herb Brass who is retiring. We need to reinvigorate membership with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Toni stated that there is a new Memorandum of Agreement between F&WL and USGS. Toni has initiated conversation with a new representative of F&WL who is working at the USGS about potential membership on Council The current member Greg Masson has not been able to participate. Vacancies in a few regions, look it over, please provide any suggestions of good people who would fit for Council in terms of vacant regions.
BUDGET
Highlights on budget. We do have a solid commitment for 2006 that NAWQA will continue to support Council-- about $100,000. This will also support NEMI. The full ACWI meeting will be held in January 2006—postponing the full meeting until FY 2006 provides cost savings for this year. We hope for at least level funding and perhaps more but no guarantee on this as yet. We do have continuing support of the Council as in the best interests of EPA. EPA getting support from OMB for monitoring, but very targeted, so vote of confidence on one hand but inconvenient for programs like Council on the other hand. EPA will increase emphasis on characterizing water quality through representative monitoring programs. Must continually make the point that support of the Council is in EPA’s best interest. We formally acknowledged Jawed Hameedi and Russ Callender and their financial assistance from NOAA for travel expenses for non-Federal members, and hope that this will be a continuing trend. The more participating agencies in the support of the 2006 National Conference gives EPA and USGS managers support for Council budget in the future.
UPCOMING MEETINGS:
ACWI MEETING
Toni Johnson reported on upcoming ACWI meeting. Mini ACWI meeting on September 14, 2005 , for local members along with a live webex presentation of the meeting for out- of-town members. Gail is planning to come in for that meeting along with Chuck Spooner. Presentations from SWAQ. We plan to have the WQDE guidance paper distributed for approval to ACWI members prior to the September meeting. This will also be presented at the meeting. We will take the vote of the members in the room along with an email request to the members. First report on criteria and indicators for water resources—all contributing to CEQ project for sustainability of water resources. Forest Service will be presenting a report. Cooperative Water Task Force will present report on how well the USGS is doing on implementing those recommendations. A lot for a 1-day meeting, and it will be tightly structured. In January 2006, we will have a full 2-day meeting in Reston/Herndon area. Exact date has not been decided—middle of month of January. The NMN report will be presented to ACWI for approval prior to submitting the report to CEQ.
FALL COUNCIL MEETING
We are locked into the date of November 1-3, 2005 , in Pensacola , Florida . More details will be provided by September as arrangements are finalized with the site hotel. Depending on hurricane season, it is possible the site for the meeting may have to be changed. So any alternate hosts for this meeting, please let Judy know. November meeting is crunch for NMN.
SUMMER COUNCIL MEETING (2006)
Saratoga , New York , was suggested for a meeting after the Conference to deal with conference input. Typically, we only have two council meetings during a Conference year. Members agreed that this was acceptable. Saratoga would be a good site as it is the site of the 2008 Conference. However, if the meeting is to be scheduled for summer, Saratoga might not meet government per diem. We will followup on this at a later meeting. It would be better to have fall meeting in Saratoga, like November 2006.
Judith B. Griffin
Executive Secretary, NWQMC
Attendees:
Eric Vowinkel
Gary Rosenlieb,NPS (for Barry Long)
Jim Laine
Jeff Schloss
Carl Lucero
David Shepp
Al Korndoerfer
Mike McDonald
Don Dycus
Gail Mallard
Chuck Spooner
Art Garceau
Linda Lindstrom, SFWMD (for Garth Redfield)
Paul Currier
Linda Green
Herb Brass
Mary Ambrose
Judy Griffin
Jawed Hameedi
David Wunsch
Chris Knopp
Rachel Noble
Curtis Cude
Peter Tennant
Toni Johnson
Guests:
Jerad Bales, USGS
Dwight Trueblood
Kathy Dalton, NOAA
Diane Switzer, EPA
Susan Holdsworth, EPA
Betsy Nicholson
Julia Peterson, NH Sea Grant/Cooperative Extension
Abby Markowitz, Tetratech
Elizabeth Herron, URI
Trish Garrigan, EPA, New England
Michael Kenyon, EPA
Brian Mrazik, USGS
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/nh_072605.html
Wednesday, 08-Aug-2007 15:03:32 EDT