Send Ken Lanfear's PP Presentation from Baltimore meeting to Council members JUDY GRIFFIN (DONE)
Chuck Spooner proposed that the current guidance (draft guide on water quality data elements) be redrafted as Gail suggested - referring to them as simply data elements-not core data elements-that we produce that guidance and prepare to extend it through the biological elements. MB to look at lab standards and that we consider asking MB whether aspects of old WQDES be reconsidered and brought to ACWI with the next set of biological elements. redraft should go to Council for review by January 10. CHUCK JOB
Chuck Spooner will work with Chuck Job, Charlie Peters, and Herb Brass to edit draft fact sheet on WQDES. CHUCK SPOONER
Peter will send information to Judy for distribution to Council on the 2003 World Water Monitoring Day. PETER TENNANT
Chuck Spooner Will send information to Council regarding Elizabeth Fellows Award nominations.
Arrange conference call with GAO Task Force regarding report on collaboration of water quality monitoring among government agencies. TONI JOHNSON -- Toni talked with Barbara Patterson, GAO, and received GAO statement of facts for review (not for distribution).
Arrange conference call for designating meeting site and meeting with Canadians for July 2004 meeting. JUDY GRIFFIN -- Call scheduled for January 26.
Note:
Paul Slyman, Deputy Director, OR DEQ, welcomed the Council to Portland. Paul gave a brief history on Portland. Rivers were used as open sewers in the early 1900s, and the Willamette River was no exception. The DEQ was established, and OR has responded to water quality protection. The quality of the environment is very important to OR. It is an important part of what it means to be a Oregonian. Water sports are enjoyed by thousands each year. OR has developed water quality management plans and is monitoring long-term trends in water quality. Monitoring is critical to identifying problems and addressing them.
Greg Pettit, Watershed Assessment Section, OR DEQ, gave presentation on activities of OR DEQ. (Reference presentation) Greg indicated his appreciation for the opportunity to talk to Council about monitoring in Oregon. There are challenges and opportunities for cooperation. The 1997 OR legislation adopted initiatives to address endangered salmon and water quality (TMDL) issues. The OR DEQ seeks to enlist the support and collaboration of other agencies. In thinking about what is the fundamental use of the collected water quality monitoring data, Greg stated that he would like the group to think about this complexity. How will the data be used; what scale will the data be analyzed; what are the logistical constraints; what are the budgetary constraints? In project planning, the OR DEQ is working with headquarter programs and regional offices. We do a preliminary draft of what it would take to meet those needs. Inevitably we end up doing about a third of what was planned. We support voluntary monitoring. We provide equipment and technical support to various state groups. In order to achieve results we have ambient monitoring network; watershed assessments (TMDL studies); compliance-mixing zones, split sampling, enforcement; spill response; biological and habitat monitoring. Other monitoring is ground water management areas, amibient groundwater studies, compliance enforcement; toxic studies; special studies; estuaries, coastal EMAP, estuary TMDLs beach monitoring. Monitoring approaches are targeted, TMDL assessment; census (ambient monitoring network); and probabilistic, (EMAP, REMAP, CEMAP). The last 4 years, the OR DEQ has approximately 600 sites with 16,000 samples collected.
Bruce Newton, NRCS, gave an overview of what the NRCS National Water and Climate Center (NWCC) does. (Reference presentation) Headquartered in Portland, OR, their primary mission is snow survey and water supply forecasting. They also have a fledgling network for soil climate analysis that, along with the climate data, is used by NRCS for conservation planning and technical guidance for field staff on hydrology, air quality, and irrigation. Most of the staff is stationed in Portland. In the West, 50-80 percent of useful water is from mountain snowpack. Snow monitoring and water supply forecasts are essential to the western economy. There are water supply forecasts for 709 basins in 12 states. NRCS continuously monitors mountain snowpack and climate using the SNOTEL (SNOwpack TELemetry) network to forecast water supplies. This program dates back to 1935 when manual snow surveys were conducted; about 1000 sampling sites were sampled 2-4 times a year. Now, there are about 650 SNOTEL stations where climate data is collected using automated remote-sensing equipment. About 300 stations are still sampled manually, mostly by cooperators, such as state agencies. Some sites are so remote they can only be accessed by helicopter when they require servicing. SNOTEL uses meteor burst communications technology to collect and communicate data in near-real-time. VHF radio signals are reflected at a steep angle off the ever present band of ionized meteorites existing from about 50 to 75 miles above the earth. Satellites are not involved; the SNOTEL sites are polled by 2 master stations operated by NRCS in Boise, Idaho, and Ogden, Utah. A central computer at the NWCC controls system operations and receives the data collected by the SNOTEL network. Snowpack is measured by weight on a pillow. Accumulated precipitation is also measured. SNOTEL is moving to a more enhanced configuration where wind, air temperature, snow-depth, snow-water equivalent, solar radiation, and relative humidity data are collected. With global warming, there is tremendous demand for this type of data. Monitoring soil moisture and assessing drought risk are NRCS activities supported by using climate information collected by the expanding NRCS SCAN (Soil Climate Analysis Network) comprised of 49 stations in 32 states. Phil Pasteris, Lead Meteorologist at NWCC, spoke briefly about the cooperative efforts at NWCC, including cooperation with other nations. This even comes into play during floods, and relationships have been developed with Canada and Mexico. Water supply forecasts are very important aspects of our international treaties. Pamphlets on these programs are available from Bruce and Phil. (Attachment 1.) The National Water Climate Center is a semi-finalist for the Innovations in Government Award.
Dennis Lynch, USGS District Chief, gave overview of selected water quality activities in the State of OR and the OR District activities. (Reference presentation) There is a need for studies on forest practices; agriculture and grazing; urbanization, industrial, mining, water use, ground water and surface water, and dams. Studies that drive the OR program are safe drinking water standards, state water quality standards, human health. They have about eight or nine major activities. City of Salem's drinking water system is providing real time warning of large pulses of turbid water coming to Salem's raw water intake to determine sources of sediment and turbidity. La Pine, OR, is a town of about 8,000 1-acre lots; most are on septic tanks and wells. Modeling will show what kind of development can take place in this kind of an area. They are working on mercury in the Willamette River Basin (National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) study). They are doing work on sources of mercury (geothermal springs); looking at historic cinnabar mines; water sampling; strict protocols; sediment; and fish sampling for fish tissue; studying water quality and survival of adult suckers in Upper Klamath Lake. There are 11 continuous water quality monitors that will help us understand what is killing this endangered fish because of the poor water quality, wind speed, temperature, and dissolved oxygen in the lake. Water quality data will be combined with fish telemetry data to determine if suckers seek refuge areas to quantify the effects of lake level management and weather conditions on poor water quality and fish kills. Wood River Ranch Wetland is a parcel of land about 3000 acres operated by Bureau of Land Management and being restored to improve water quality and improve sucker habitat. What are the best strategies for reestablishing and reconnecting former wetlands? Will restored wetlands continue to be nutrient sources? What is the potential for wetland limnohumic substances to control monocultures of AFA? Summary of water quality activities are safe drinking water standards; Clean Water Act (TMDL provision) human health standards; Endangered Species Act; wetland protection. Our job is to provide data for others to make decisions on these issues.
Toni Johnson reported the results of ACWI meeting of September 9-10, 2003, including some recommendations from ACWI for Council Action. (Attachment 2, Recommendations to Council from ACWI September 2003 meeting.) Toni mentioned that the first item is a compliment to the Council and the work already being done such as NEMI and State and Regional Councils. They are looking forward to the Council continuing those activities. There was a recommendation to do more to emphasize the value of volunteer monitoring. ACWI felt that this list would be useful for Council in topics discussed at meetings and conferences. Please review these recommendations and how they might fit into your work group. Chuck Spooner said two organizations very important to work with Council is Sedimentation Subcommittee and Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable (SWRR) and proposed we work to have an identifiable voice on sedimentation. Water Information Systems (WIS) Work Group is up to speed on what they are doing on water information management. Peter Tennant suggested that we assign these recommendations to the appropriate work groups. Toni requested that Council review these recommendations and come back with ideas as to assignment of these recommendations to the work groups.
Toni gave an overview of the ACWI. Any recommendations that this Council makes or products produced are taken to the full ACWI to be sanctioned or approved. Those recommendations are submitted through all member agencies not only to USGS or DOI but to all Federal water related agencies. The Advisory Committee is chaired by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Water and Science, Tom Weimer, and Bob Hirsch, the USGS Associate Director for Water, is Alternate Chair. (Reference presentation)
Gail Mallard distributed information on NWIS/STORET (Attachment 3). Ken Lanfear gave a briefing at our last meeting. For this meeting, Ken was not able to attend but sent this progress report. We can have dialog about any state issues to pass on to Ken. For direct information, you may write to Ken at lanfear@usgs.gov. My understanding from Ken is that things are proceeding on time. Agencies are sensitive to the concerns of Council. This agreement gets the attention of Federal Agencies by going through ACWI. Ken will have updates at the National Conference in May 2004. There will be a live hookup to play with this system at the National Conference. STORET Warehouse is now functioning. The data system is now spitting out data with nice performance and can be accessed for an area that you want. Not everything in STORET is gauged through the warehouse but 98 percent of data can be accessed. Ken has an American Water Resources Association (AWRA) meeting and as outgoing president, must attend the AWRA meeting; therefore, he cannot be at our National Conference.
Send Ken Lanfear's PP
Presentation from Baltimore meeting to Council members.(Judy
Griffin)
Chuck Spooner presented an overview on coastal issues. (Reference presentation) Recent reports are National Coastal Condition Report; Heinz Centers State of the Nation's Ecosystems; Europe's Water: An Indicator Based Assessment; The Report of the Pew Oceans Commission; and upcoming report on U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Data is largely collected from estuaries; seven indicators are water clarity; dissolved oxygen; coastal wetlands; eutrophic condition; sediment; benthos; fish tissue. (See Attachment 4) Heinz report focuses on farmlands, forests, system dimensions.
Mike McDonald, Director of EMAP gave overview on the program. (Reference presentation) EMAP was originally developed for consistent unbiased information for nation's ecosystems. States and Tribes are charged for doing the monitoring and data is available for public and into STORET. We are starting to upload recent coastal information on STORET. There are six major components: we are working with 12 western states and 3 EPA regions. As we are starting to get states involved, we looked at EMAP to help with an integrated monitoring approach. Working on a number of aquatic resources-coastal population is increasing; it is of high interest; working on streams with Office of Water initiative of 2003. Currently 53% of the U.S. population lives in the coastal zone. One issue of increasing importance is the quality of the landscape information. USGS and EPA are major players in this work; they make sure this information gets updated. Coastal areas are West Coastal Region, Great Lakes, Central Region, Northeast Central Region, Southeast Coastal Region and Gulf Coast Region. We are working with other Federal agencies, States, Tribes and Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). EMAP symposium will be held first week in May 2004, partnering with Council of State Governments. We have seen an improvement in national coastal conditions.
Ken Dzinbal, Washington Department of Ecology, gave presentation on Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program and WA DOE Coastal EMAP. (Reference presentation)
Chuck Spooner discussed background on WQDEs and the Guide for Implementation of WQDEs for chemical and microbiological analytes. The Council, other agencies, and Methods Board are asked to review this list and whether it should be a formal list, a casual glossary, or what approach to take for publication. It is essential that we come to a decision about the resolution on this document. We will go back to ACWI with the biological portion of this. Gail Mallard stated that the draft report basically repeatedly refers to the list as a core set of data elements. Gail stated her understanding of the ACWI document is that it is a glossary. You can read this report and understand that the core set should consist of 86 data elements. There is an expectation that different groups will phase this in over time. This is a lot to expect--having a common set of data elements is a good thing, but having it required may be overstepping our bounds in saying they must be used. A simple fix would be to delete "core." Charlie Peters said the Methods Board would use WQDEs and add some text about the process the Board went through. The emphasis was on establishing the core set of data elements. We don't expect everybody to use the entire list but if you do not you are giving up expected results. Another 20 elements may be added to the list. Curtis Cude indicated that the Environmental Data Standards Council said their list is slightly different from the NWQMC WQDEs. It is developed with EPA programs. These NWQMC water quality data elements were a basis for the EDSC Environmental Sampling Analysis, and Results (ESAR) data elements. The ESAR data element lists are coming up for review this week or next. We encourage the Methods Board to take a look at that when it comes out. Look at old data standards and be sure new standards do not conflict with old ones. WQDEs need to be flexible. Those sets of data elements will change over time.
Chuck proposed that the
current guidance be redrafted as Gail suggested-referring to them as
simply data elements-not core data elements-that we produce that
guidance and prepare to extend it through the biological elements.
METHODS BOARD will look at ESAR standards and consider whether aspects
of old WQDEs be reconsidered and brought to ACWI with the next set of
biological elements. Redraft should go to Council for review in early
January. (Chuck Job)
Barry Long suggested using "recommended" rather than "core" elements. Chuck said we should clarify our point and go back to ACWI. This data glossary is recommended to all entities involved in water quality data collection. A fact sheet is in draft about whole process on WQDEs stated Charlie. Current resolve is to put this Fact Sheet out--need to get both things on table.
Chuck Spooner will work with
Chuck Job, Charlie Peters, and Herb Brass to edit draft Fact Sheet on
WQDEs.
WORLD WATER MONITORING DAY - Peter Tennant reported that WWMD was highly successful.
Peter will send information
to Judy on the WWMD for distribution to Council.
Attached is Fact Sheet "State Monitoring Priorities Survey. (Attachment 5) Initial survey was sent to those who participated on task force.
RESULTS OF METHODS BOARD MEETING IN ALBANY, NY - Charlie Peters reported that Methods Board in Albany. Discussed some issues and resolutions related to FACA. Larry Keith provided an overview on NEMI. Two workshops on phosphorus and NEMI chemical biological process and where we are and where we are going. Various work groups met (5 work groups). Number of significant things happening-looking for new chair for NEMI. There was several hours discussion on conference; there are about a dozen place holders on abstracts; important for Board to comment on at conference; resources are limited for Tetra Tech support. Without Tetra Tech, there will be a fair amount of stalling; next meeting focused on just a few work groups and let others slide until we address resource issue.
POSSIBLE MEETING WITH CANADIAN WATER QUALITY COORDINATING COMMITTEE AT SUMMER MEETING - Charlie Peters reported on plans for meeting with Canadians at July 2004 meeting. Couple of contacts with Environment Canada; they invited Charlie to recent Nova Scotia meeting. Charlie was not able to attend nor to send someone in his place. There is interest in meeting with us; however do not know details as yet on meeting site. Charlie put together an abstract with John Klein on how various countries and organizations in North America are looking at coordinating. We have a group of abstracts for conference from Canada--good way to strengthen relationship with Canada. If we can get them to the 2004 National Conference, the Council's summer meeting would be good way to improve cooperation. No host as yet for July meeting-Michigan was suggested. The core of the group is from Ottawa. No objections to Michigan site.
RESULTS OF SUSTAINABLE WATER RESOURCES ROUNDTABLE and TMDL CONFERENCE, NOVEMBER 2003 MEETINGS - Toni Johnson distributed written report on meetings of SWRR and TMDL Conference. (See Attachment 6)
COUNCIL MEMBERS PARTICIPATION AT 2004 NATIONAL CONFERENCE - Toni Johnson proposed offering funding to non-Federal members who would not otherwise be able to attend the meeting. The Water Information Coordination Program (WICP) budget could sustain those travel and conference expenses for non-Federal members to attend the conference. The other issue to make you aware of is that we want to ensure that the non-Federal members would be able to attend the July meeting if also attending the National Conference. The National Conference is just 2 months prior to the regularly scheduled Council meeting in July. We can discuss these issues on a case-by-case basis. Contact Judy Griffin or Toni if funding is requested in order to attend the National Conference. However, to reiterate, we would not provide this funding if it would mean that your agency would not permit your travel to attend the Council's summer meeting.
EXPERT SYSTEM AND HOW IT RELATES TO FRAMEWORK - Curtis Cude reported that Larry Keith has submitted an abstract that would provide an update at the National Conference.
USGS CO-CHAIR FOR METHODS BOARD - Charlie Peters reported that because of his new responsibilities as District Chief, WI, USGS, he would have to give up position on Methods Board as the Co-Chair. Gail said that Bob Hirsch, the USGS Associate Director for Water, would appoint new Methods Board Co-Chair from the USGS.
Chuck Spooner gave update on conference planning committee activities. Discussion took place as to time of Plenary Session--either Monday afternoon or Tuesday morning. There was a discussion of whether to have four or five 15-minute oral presentations for each session. Each session runs an hour and half. Group also discussed having Posters associated with oral sessions. There are 251 abstracts; 45 posters included in that number. Gail Mallard went over the matrix showing four 15-minute presentations and considering five 15-minute sessions--if four presentations, then 30 minutes for discussion and if five presentations, then 15 minutes for discussion. If there are 35 sessions, we can accommodate 140 or 175 for five 15-minute sessions. If there are 30 sessions, you can accommodate 120 15-minute sessions or 150 5-minutes sessions. Posters-depending on other decision, we will have minimum of 70 and maxiumum of 125 posters (45 requests plus 25-80 leftovers). Should the posters be associated with oral sessions? Same day? Highlighted during oral session?
Council then broke into the preassigned groups for review and finalization of abstracts. Selections and results of meeting today will be presented on Wednesday.
Linda Green said based on psychology and human nature, it is just too much for people to handle five presentations in a session. Linda is against five presentations and Abby Markowitz agreed. Art Garceau agreed with Linda and found that giving a 15-minute presentation is difficult; 20 minutes would be more reasonable to allow for further discussion or questions. Jim Cox agreed with that stating that the difference between 15 minutes and 20 minutes can make a good talk. Think about four 20-minute talks per session. Chuck indicated that we should have four 15-minute talks with time block of time at end of session for discussion. Gail said she would be happy with five 15-minute talks and thinks that you can get this done; if a person is not interested, leave, then come back. This is done frequently at conferences that she has attended. Most people could listen to 20 papers in one day -16 papers do not seem to be that much. We need to find a way to stimulate conversation at the end of the session. How many papers were submitted at Madison and how many were accepted as oral and how many accepted as poster presentations?
At the Madison Conference, we had something on the order of 200 abstracts submitted. We do have more to select from at this conference. Huge space at Chattanooga; we could all do poster sessions. Concensus is that we are going to have four presentations per session.
The Plenary would be better positioned on Tuesday as arrival of most people will be on Monday except for those attending workshops on Monday. If plenary is important, it sets the theme; it is more difficult for people to miss it if it is on Monday rather than Tuesday morning. At last Conference, workshops were held all morning the first day; the plenary was in the afternoon--50% of attendees did not attend plenary.
If we have a very good plenary session planned, it is important to get everyone there said Charlie Peters. Reception is Monday evening with Elizabeth Fellows Award-probably do that in association with plenary said Chuck.
Conference "Monitoring Tailor-Made IV." Robert Ward stated that he has become involved in the European monitoring conference integrating the eastern European nations. Water environment was not managed in a consistent manner. One of the efforts was instituted through a Dutch organization called RIZA. They organized workshops on water quality monitoring which is not unlike our NWQMC. They are now in the position of putting up guidance on water quality monitoring. One interesting feature is the fact that their law does what we want to do in this country but our law is not set up to do. The meeting Robert attended looked at integration across disciplines as well as governments-local, counties, country. They acknowledge that they do not have the data to do what they want to do. We may want to think about inviting those people into our National Conference in doing assessments. Look under UNESCO for what is being done. Are we spending our resources in ways to support the type of information that we want. Four sub-themes-water assessment programs and international cooperation; role and sources of information; integrated assessment; public participation; and monitoring processes. Chuck stated that information about the European programs is that they are doing things advanced beyond the United States. Robert said that from a legal and policy perspective, they are putting into law the management of water resources in a sustainable way. What is interesting is to observe is that those countries with laws in place for water management still struggle with the same scientific issues or sound science approach to management.
Checklist of International Issues. Chuck Spooner said he was quite pleased to see the diversity and number of abstracts submitted from other countries-about four from Canada, four from Europe, and other countries for a total of about 15 abstracts internationally. In looking through these abstracts the teams are sensitive to the views they present. Consider or reconsider a Workshop on International. Charlie Peters said he thought we should treat international as any other abstract and integrate them into the subject matter. Robert Ward indicated for an international workshop, we would have to have invited key speakers and key themes and have a more targeted approach.
Council regrouped for discussion of selection of abstracts. Discussed master list for each team. Thirty-five sessions for conference. It was decided that Plenary session will be held on Monday. (Conference is Monday through Thursday, May 17-20, 2004.)
Chuck Spooner indicated that EPA has signed contract with TVA for conference work. The conference costs are being reviewed by a selected panel to prevent cost overruns. Jerry Liner, TVA, indicated that online registration should be available by first of January 2004. Don Dycus discussed the workshops; most will be half-day sessions. There will be a cost associated with the Workshops--$100 for two short courses and $30 for each half-day workshop. (Cost of all-day workshop includes lunch and breaks.) We need information on minimum number and maximum number of participants that could be handled; audio visual needs. If under minimum for registration, would workshop be cancelled? There needs to be more discussion about how this will work based on maximum number or minimum number of participants at workshop. All of these decisions must be made as soon as possible in order to get information on website for online registration by January 2, 2004.
Chuck Spooner will send
information by email to Council regarding Elizabeth Fellows Award
nominations.
Sponsors for short course should contact Charlie Peters. Mary Ambrose said that the Ground Water Protection Council might be interested in sponsoring the Ground Water/Surface Water course. They should contact Charlie Peters. Tetra Tech is collecting names of potential sponsors. Complementary registration was discussed for trainers or instructors for workshops (if they are paying for travel). Charlie will set up call for next week for Charlie, Don, Chuck, Mary, Tetra Tech--December 18, 12:30 p.m. EST
Robert Ward reported for WIS work group. First item discussed was followup to AWRA Impact issue. Glossary is online. We will try to use that to move to more consistent and comparable language. The data management paper was written with two parts; store and retrieve data; second part was a new approach to information technology and the framework. We would like to take that part and continue to work on it through a task force; highlight the monitoring framework as it is currently helping to improve monitoring. Naomi Duerr used it in a monitoring program in her organization. We need to bring forward speakers at conference to highlight that. Fact Sheet revisions are underway. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) of NWIS/STORET was reviewed. Progress seems satisfactory, but we will continue to review that MOU. Discussed how the framework is influencing work. Curtis Cude has lead on developing workshop on data sharing. Karen Klima may be in a position to take a proactive role in the task force along with Curtis. We will develop a draft mission statement; identify potential members--representatives of data management improvement efforts-and identify dedicated leadership. We would then invite people to join task force. Task Force would meet on regular basis. They would periodically meet with Council. Potential members-- Office of Environmental Information, EPA, Ellen McCarron, Ken Lanfear, STORET EPA; Larry Keith, NEMI; MB, ECOS, and States involved. Robert will track the following reports-- General Accounting Office (GAO) Report in February and National Research Council (NRC) report on need to increase participation on coordination. Continuing activities are data analysis board proposal; will try to identify dedicated leadership; bring it forward for Council approval and take it to ACWI; desire to have the group look at history and overview of approaches to do data analysis. New tasks being considered are amount of resources that should be committed to the monitoring framework. Council members should consider the ideal breakdown of resources among the different cogs; what is your organization doing about the various cogs; have this as a talk at National Conference and how the framework works. Chuck Spooner has student who will work on Glossary. Roy Irwin, National Forest Service, has had criticism about the glossary. Charlie Peters indicated that we should get him involved in the update of the glossary. Barry Long works with Roy and can discuss with him. It would be good to have the Glossary printed as a Fact Sheet.
There was discussion about speaking to Barbara Patterson, GAO, (through conference call) about report on collaboration of monitoring activities among Federal Agencies. GAO report due in January 2004.
Set up conference call with
GAO re report on collaboration of water quality monitoring among
Government agencies. (T. Johnson)
Charlie Peters reported on meeting of Methods Board. Discussed their flow chart of activities. Developed 2-year strategic plans; point toward conference, products; workshops and sessions; new strategic plans after 2004 conference; NEMI co-chair is Dan Sullivan and other chair is vacant; they are looking for another person--possibly a state representative. There have been 55,000 visits to site since release in October 2002. We are spending a lot of time in reinventing the data base and working on online forms. There are 200 methods in data base; hope is to get other 200 methods into the data base before 2004 conference. Trying to focus on improved methods; working on how to add field methods through a 5-6 member team. NEMI CBR -create a central system for locating, evaluating, and retrieving analytical methods for chemical, biological, and radiochemical warfare. Trial version of EMMA has three parts available on the methods selection advisor on the NEMI website. A trial version of WATER has been developed for homeland security component of NEMI. Merle Shockey is Accreditation Co-Chair and there is vacancy for other co-chair. This group is assessing how the labs operate and how people in field implement methods. They drafted a State lab accreditation paper and continue to work with NELAC. New work group being started to make sure NEMI has new methods. Outreach Work Group has vacancy for Chair. We have put out two board newsletters; third is in the works. Fact Sheets put together and hoping to get printed before the Conference. Speakers bureau being developed to make products available for use by Board and Council members. Methods Board has USGS co-chair vacancy-we will work with Gail Mallard, Toni Johnson, Tim Miller, Bob Hirsch, and Chuck Spooner to make selection.
Linda Green reported that we have a draft letter of support for signature by Robert Hirsch and EPA, Diane Regas, and has been edited--will go to USGS Regional Directors and State District Offices to be sent out with C&O Fact Sheet. We are working on finalizing all other fact sheets for publication before National Conference. All Fact Sheets will refer to NWQMC as "the Council." Karl Muessig reported on a non-official State Council in New Jersey that is hoping to get off the ground. Leslie McGeorge, alternate at meeting for Al Korndoerfer, is also working to develop this State Council.
Jeff Loser reported for WCI. This group spent a lot of time on conference planning activities. Mary Ambrose is coordinating the Ground Water/Surface Water training session; confirmed three presenters and concerned about a couple others; do have people lined up as backup. Charlie Peters will speak and encourage Tom Winter to be presenter. Steve Fisher and Dennis Lynch are confirmed as instructors at that particular session. Regarding the Wetland Assessment workshop, now working with third coordinator, Chris Faulkner, EPA, who has responded and has two instructors lined up. Anticipate these workshop participants will be provided notebooks with useful information; working on educational credit units, too. Reviewed ACWI's recommendations; the Council could report to ACWI that there will be some Council emphasis on the items that ACWI recommends. WCI will incorporate in its work plan some of the issues ACWI recommended. Finalizing the WCI Fact Sheet and will pass this on the Linda Green for publication. Barry Long reported on Watershed Assessment Report that was an action item from Baltimore meeting.
It was announced at the meeting that three of our members will finish their participation on the Council after the National Conference. They are: Jeff Loser, who will retire from NRCS (Federal representative): Jim Laine, Co-chair of the C&O Work Group and Alternate Representative for Region 3 from WV) who may resign due to increased responsibilities on TDML work at WV/DEP; (Jim has been asked to remain as Alternate for Region 3 and he will check that possibility with his agency) and Charlie Peters who will resign as Co-Chair of the Methods Board due to increased responsibilities and new position with USGS. We need to pick up the pace on replacing these important people. Jim Cox agreed to continue membership for another 4 years; Cliff Annis, American Chemistry Council has resigned as representative; Jim Harvey resigned and will send a nomination from American Water Works Association after January; there are vacancies in Region 7 and 8; we will double up Regional representation with alternates; moving to get Mike Houts as the Alternate for Mary Ambrose, Region 6; members should call Gail Mallard, Chuck Spooner, Judy Griffin, or Toni Johnson re potential nominees for Council membership. We would like to have representation from USGS Regional Water Quality Specialists; Columbia Lab or biological resources. Academia also should have more representation. Conference is our best avenue for soliciting membership.maybe a signup sheet at conference. (This was done at last conference but not much was done with information received.) We should scan the abstracts and people associated with those abstracts re potential members; draft a letter about joining the Council including duties and expectations of Council member. It was proposed that a membership committee be developed to discuss ways of getting new members. Probably the best way to get new members is through invitation to the work groups as a first step.
Charlie Peters reported that he would stay involved on working with the Canadians for our summer meeting. We talked about engaging the Canadians in what we are doing and what they are doing; what other issues are in our catalog of shared interests and how to prepare to address these issues. It might be interesting to meet somewhere in the Great Lakes or on the other side to go somewhere else and not talk about the Great Lakes. Barry mentioned cooperation with British Columbia and OR and WA participation. Do we deal with Environment Canada or the provinces-discussed homeland security. Bill Backous said that Canadians are much more advanced in protection efforts than States of WA or OR. International Joint Commission (IJC) considering a rotational approach to monitoring the Great Lakes. Robert Ward suggested that we could jointly meet and explain what each group has been doing. Ann Arbor, MI, was mentioned as possible meeting site as well as Albany, NY, and St. Paul/Minneapolis. Logistically we have some decisions to make. Need to know where they live-maybe we have to meet in border cities-one meeting a year devoted to meeting with Canada--or one meeting in United States and one in Canada. Let us know if anyone has ideas or would host the July meeting. It was suggested that we have a conference call to work on these issues--Bill Backous volunteered to help. We should get someone from Canada on a conference call.
Arrange Steering Committee
conference call for designating meeting site and meeting with Canadians
for July meeting. (Judy Griffin).
Judith B. Griffin
Executive Secretary, NWQMC
Attendees:
Jeff Loser
Jon van Soestbergen
Karl Muessig
Leslie McGeorge, Alternate for Region 2
Curtis Cude
Charlie Peters
Linda Green
Jim Laine
Don Dycus
Chuck Spooner
David Tucker
Toni Johnson
Judy Griffin
Peter Tennant
Art Garceau
Jim Cox
Barry Long
Fred Leslie
Robert Ward
Dan Radulescu
Jeffrey Schloss
Valerie Connor
Gail Mallard
David Denig-Chakroff
Mary Ambrose
Barry Long
Mike McDonald
Chuck Spooner
GUESTS:
Dennis Lynch
Bruce Newton, NRCS
Sandy Williamson, USGS
Adrienne Froelich, ASLO
Gretchen Hayslip, EPA Region 10
Ken Dzinbal, Washington Dept. of Ecology
Paul Slyman, OR DEQ
Greg Pettit, OR DEQ
Jerry Liner, TVA
Phil Pasteris, NRCS/NWCC
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/or_120803.html
Wednesday, 08-Aug-2007 15:03:14 EDT