MINUTES

December 4-6, 2007
San Diego, California

Note:  Powerpoint presentations referenced in these minutes may be accessed on the Council’s website at http://acwi.gov/monitoring/ppt/sandiego_1207/.  Attachments referenced in these notes are available in hard copy by request only.

DECEMBER 4 - YSI/SONTEK

Group Introductions
Welcome by Chris Ward, Sales and Marketing Director, welcomed the group to YSI.  Gail Mallard and Chuck Spooner greeted attendees and group introductions were made. 

YSI/SONTEK
Presentation on YSI was given by Chris Ward, who previously worked for NOAA on tides and currents. YSI does all research and development (R&D) and applications in house. Global ecosystem interest of company. Instrumentation focused on measuring and monitoring (outside the lab and treatment plants) the environments. USDA funds some small business grants. They outsource some manufacturing to other locations. They employ water-quality specialists and surface-water hydrologists to help with R&D and testing. Complete monitoring sensors have been a big seller and business is up 20% in 2007. There are numerous water-quality applications – dredging, lakes, run-off, reservoirs, aquaculture, river sampling, and waste water. Instruments can be used for acoustic river flow, irrigation monitoring, flood monitoring, and discharge measurements. Oceanographic monitoring includes surf-zone studies and also ship mounted, moored, shore and bottom mounted instruments for water current information among others. New products include profiling buoy and EcoMapper AUV (underwater robot with water-quality sensor). Other new products include SL Package for bank measurements of river velocity, it is a side-looking Doppler flow meter with a smaller size and weight. New software includes FlowPack-Velocity-Index rating software, developed in collaboration with University of Illinois. There is a new Smart quality control flow tracker, acoustic way of doing same thing as pygmy meter to measure discharge with intelligent design built into instrument to prevent collection of “bad” data. Have several communication options and can even store data for users/clients. There are sensors for nutrient monitoring. They can download SmartQC package to some existing equipment. Virginia Tech wants to start an outdoor water-quality lab for teaching and monitoring. Company recognizes the need for software development to be user-friendly.

NEW MEMBER UPDATE
Jeff Ostermiller, Utah Division of Water Quality, gave presention. Jeff is a new member from Region 8. Jeff is a stream ecologist by training; developed first IIVPACS models for bio assessments. Jeff developed a bio assessment program for State of Utah. Jeff lead monitoring section for Utah, helping to bring in new methods and ideas to this section. Developed a multi-metric index. State of Utah has extreme environmental gradients and geological drivers in state, so some of these measures were not working.

Update from Members on new activities and products

• Barry Long, Representative, National Park Service.  Barry asked about WQX workshop, where it was announced that four web services are coming out of QX, and USGS announced web services coming out of NWIS. Chuck Spooner provided information on the parameter (P) codes is the issue between EPA Storet and USGS/NWIS.  EPA Substance Registry System (epa.gov/srs). Projects in Waters Network (aka CUAHSI or Cleaner). EPA hopes to fund this once congress appropriates and once Bob Hirsch, USGS, meets with Shapiro, EPA. This marks first time these web services can be available on the desk top. Application with an overlay with Google Earth and who else is monitoring at the same location. Barry says that state users concerned that parts of STORET have changed but pleased USGS is taking steps to coordinate pcodes. Jeff Ostermiller has concern on how to migrate data. Reporting functions are not clear. Leslie McGeorge recognizes merit of this effort and would like Curtis Cude to call into this meeting or at least the work group.

• Jane Caffrey, Representative for Industry (American Society of Limnology and Oceanography).  Jane noted that NMN Nutrients Work Group has produced final report including final list of analytes and detection limits. Monitoring such vastly different hydrologic media with varying salt contents, so recommended each lab use standards procedures to get method detection limit and set a percentage amount as a goal, caveats included.

• Eric Vowinkle, Co-Chair Methods and Data Comparability Board.  Eric attended USGS water-quality workshop. Presentations are posted on an internal web site, but he will try to get presentations posted externally. John Scott, Nate Booth, and Jerad Bales gave talks on data bases. Long-term combined data sets for both EPA and USGS presented and show trends over time.

• Sandy Williamson, USGS.  Sandy indicated that Google released mapping format (kml for maps). Sandy indicated that we will find map data using this system in the future. Functionality of ARC but for free.

• Don Dycus, Representative for Tennessee Valley Authority.  Don spoke on global climate change effects on other water programs. How is the committee (headed by Shapiro) meeting timelines and evaluation. Chuck Spooner has no updates on this. EPA has a special group doing this work inside the R&D office. The Office of Water now coming into this, but not as advanced.

• Art Garceau, Representative for Region 5, from Indiana.  Art spoke about the Indiana  Department  of Environmental Meeting.   There recently was a meeting to develop an Indiana water monitoring council with around 50 stakeholders. Bob Shedlock, USGS, attended and gave a talk. Developing a plan with subcommittees. Starting to develop fact sheet, web site, virtual rolodex on who to contact. Jane Frankeberg doing a GoogleEarth.  

• Neil Kamman, Representative for Region 1, from Vermont.    Neil reported that EPA Region 1 States and New York issued a TMDL on mercury which relies on models and assumptions that EPA has on mercury. Industry has comments and concerns. Some reductions have to occur out of this region. Leslie McGeorge says State of New Jersey is waiting to see where to go – TMDL or other options.  Update:  TMDL approved 12/20/2007.

• Linda Green, Alternate for Volunteer Monitoring.  Linda visited with Citizen Science group at Cornell (which has a big National Science Foundation grant). Top down scientist directed program. Goal on science literacy. Different philosophy. Water quality is not the only issue for this group.

CALIFORNIA PROGRAMS.

• Presentation by Goeff Brosseau, Executive Director of the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA).  (See pp presentation #1)  This is a control board in California on stormwater quality, and it does program effectiveness and research priorities. CASQA formed in 1989 and is a non-profit, educational organization to manage and advance science. Members include cities, counties, industry, and developers. It has a technical focus and is not a lobby organization. Program forces local city to become a “watershed manager.” Uses an iterative management style for the goal of clean stormwater. Indentifies outcome levels from pollutant sources to MS4 (municipal systems) to receiving waters (example;  San Francisco Bay, local creeks). Trying to draw a cause-effect relationship. Levels of effort and achievement with a numeric or quantifiable scales. Uses an action-outcome for BMPs. Case success study on TMDLs and phase-out on diazinon and chlorpyrifos. Now it is hard to find diazinon in most creeks in California. Similar example of lead of gasoline in 1980s and soon saw a big reduction in air concentrations. Lead related lung disease and lead in stormwater also went down. Research priorities and big management questions. Top priority of interest was BMPs; second was runoff characteristics and assessments; and third was regulatory development and assessment. There are 31 priority projects. Top pick was methods for estimating load reductions for BMPs and establishing standards for demonstrating TMDLs and NPDES permits. Looking for funding for these projects. Geosyntek helping to develop an online database. Looking for new members.

Chuck Spooner asked if there other similar associations.  Brosseau stated that  Florida is more like California now but still more advocacy based. Washington State is interested in establishing a similar association. Strong need to network and learn from each other. National level has a group, but it is a lobbying group with less research and monitoring projects.

• Valerie Connor, Representative for Region 9, from California gave presentation for Emily Reyes on Surface Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP). (See pp presentation #2.)  Over 40 agencies control water quality. There are 9 water boards which are semi-autonomous. SWAMP initiated in 2001. Goal that water quality be comprehensively measured to protect beneficial users and to evaluate protection and restoration efforts. Lacked a Quality Assurance (QA) and data management program, so adopted framework of NWQMC. Had an external review of program and strategy. Developed a data management and QA approach based on suggestions by NWQMC. Organized by planning matrix and grouped by beneficial water uses. Status and trends programs. Pyrethroids are now causing problems in urban stream sediments. 3Cs: communication, collaboration, and comparability. There is a Memo of Understanding (MOU). Communication strategy with full time coordinator for information exchange for better management decisions by users. Plan to continue with intra-organization collaboration and get them to be SWAMP comparable. Will give more information about SWAMP at National Monitoring Conference at Atlantic City in May, 2008.

Eric Vowinkle commented that this is a great example of how Council  and State can evolve together (this is a performance measure for the NWQMC). Leslie McGeorge commends formal communications strategy. How to communicate legistration that is public friendly? Connor said they are looking to partner agencies for help and giving information to public at a lay-level. Legislator responded to external program review. Data management needs improvement.

State Water Quality Assessment Procedures

• Chuck Spooner presented talk on State Water Quality Assessments under the Clean Water Act. (See pp presentation #3.)  Overview of EPA. 303d listing lead to total maximum daily load calculations - process of indentifying impaired waters. How water quality standards lead to assessments. Development of TMDLs follows this. Process circle with WQS in middle. 303d deals with pollutants (see definition in slides). Integrated report includes 303d, 305b, and 314. 47 States now do this integrated report. There are five reporting categories. Geography needs to be considered. State defines segment of water. This varies dramatically state-to-state. National picture of assessed and impaired waters. 38,000 listed segments with more impairments. 64,000 waterbody-pollutants. Mercury, pathogens, sediment, other metals, nutrients, dissolved oxygen depletion are on the top for pollutants. State driven process. States identify, establish priorities, schedule, long term plan, and right to approve or disapprove.


•  Note:  EPA holds ultimate approval on 303d lists, 4Bwaters, and WQS.  Tennessee has everything done for 2004. Goes to regional EPA offices.

Question from Gail Mallard - Where do organic chemicals come out (pesticides to be specific)? Answer - there is no criteria and we find these mostly in fish tissue and sediment. Also, analyses are expensive.

Question: What is commonly reported in terms of measurement of river/stream miles or segments? Do we need info to characterize whole watershed? Answer: most States are reporting on miles.

Question: How many States have credible data laws that play into this process? States emerge from court orders. States may have policies with implementation plans (ex: Utah and NJ).

• Lindsay Griffith, Brown and Caldwell Environmental Engineers & Consultants, gave presentation on Critical Evaluation of Waterbody Assessment  Processes, WERF Project 04-WEM-4. (See pp presentation #4.)  WERF is research arm and has stakeholders involved in wastewater treatment plants. This study evaluated how States are performing these waterbody assessments. Project started in 2005 and used 2006 methodology. Determine impairments to waterbody and provide recommendations so States can use the document. Concentrated on category 5. Critical evaluation matrix which included 50 questions to survey States’ methodology. Conducted telephone interviews then came up with the evaluation matrix. Sent back out to States for review and comments and then revised matrix and published it as part of report. Research findings: States are in varying stages of methodology refinement. Limited monitoring and assessment resources. Some States depend on other States data. Leadership needed for research and guidance on hard issues (example: what statistics or evaluative techniques should be used?).  Most States have a minimal sample size requirements (for at least one set or criteria). Ten percent rule stems from the idea that one sample that exceeds a standard is not enough to say the waterbody is impaired, so if over 10% exceed, it can then say it is impaired. Other States using a probabilistic model or an uncertainty assessment. Weight-of-Evidence approach is done in some States (regional pattern). States in regions sometimes talk and adopt approach and also personality driven within region. Some States solicited public comment during methodology development. Some States very focused on public comments due to their state legislative process.

Recommendations:

1. Publish minimum data requirements and what are QA/QC requirements, States need to publish how States can meet this for waterbodies, and guidance needed on how to deal with non-detects and outliers, give raw data.

2. Integrate monitoring with assessments, need long-term commitment to state base-line monitoring and also for 303d and 305b. Need biocriteria development since more States are doing bio monitoring. Need info on why they are monitoring.

3. Develop standardized data extrapolation techniques in determining assessment units. Georeferencing data is important to determine if locations are the same (from various studies) and to link to other data sets (ex: USGS trends data).

4. Develop numeric water-quality criteria to reduce disputes in assessment results. 

5. Advocate using stats approach instead of simple counts, for quantitative measure.

6. Include public in methodology development.

Question: what about probabilistic surveys? Answer: they did address this in terms of who is doing it and for what purpose.

Question: what is next? Answer: WERF is stakeholder driven and need to satisfy that community. Webinar with many participants from States. Consider recommendation chapter of report as a self-standing recommendation.

To get an extra copy of report—can order a bound copy for around $65, or become a subscriber and get report for free. To  request a pdf version of report, contact Lindsay at lgriffith@brwncald.com.

Tony Shaw, indicated that Pennsylvania is contracting with Nature Conservancy. Has a small water-quality monitoring program. Water bottling companies are buying lands with naturally occurring springs for good-quality sources for commercial distribution of bottled water (example: Deer Park label, 200,000 gallons per day). Good for the economy and important to recognize water quality. Standards set-up for bottled water industry to follow.

Curtis Cude, called in via conference line about Water Quality Exchange Conference in Austin recently. Tools which EPA and others have now for getting data in and out of exchange. Nate Booth demonstrated USGS/NWIS tool that will be open to public. Dwane Young showed how an excel spreadsheet can be used to get data, specify the HUC. Folks should be able to collaborate more now between agencies. Region 8 tribes have been strong STORET users in the past. Peer training network with Tribes is a good concept which can go to councils and other groups. STORET group developing geo-referencing tools and link to national hydro data (NHD) set. Also offering a geospatial QA/QC system (example: detect when station data may be “bad” and return and error back). CUHASI gave presentation on how they scrape data from many providers.

TOUR OF FACILITIES OF YSI/SONTEK
Chris Ward led tour of facilities that was excellent.

WORK GROUP MEETINGS - DECEMBER 4
Collaboration and Outreach Work Group and the Water Information Strategies Work Group met for rest of afternoon at YSI/Sontek. 

WORK GROUP MEETINGS – DECEMBER 5 and 6
Conference Planning Committee worked on review of abstracts for National Monitoring Conference and National Monitoring Work Group, for review of pilot results.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA COASTAL WATER RESEARCH PROJECT
Steve Weisberg gave presentation on Southern California Coastal Water Research Project (SCCWRP).  SCCWRP does coastal monitoring.  Created a regional monitoring system (See pp presentation #5.)  Steve distributed copy of Executive Summary, Southern California Bight 2003 Regional Monitoring Program.  (Attachment # 1) 

BUSINESS MEETING

Sixth National Monitoring Conference.  Chuck reported on the Monitoring Conference.  Committee has been impressed with the number of abstracts that have come from the State of New Jersey.  There are nine vendors signed up so far.  Lara Hughes, WEF, will send the Council the names of the vendors signed up so far. 

2010 Conference.  It will be very useful to determine where the next conference will be before this meeting ends.  Need local sponsor as well as location.  In thinking ahead to the 2010 conference we want to consider a location fairly easy to get to such as  Denver, Colorado,  or Salt Lake City, Utah—places that we have not been and, of course, would have people we could count on there.  The northwest has not been a conference place for us—Portland, Oregon, was also mentioned.  It was suggested that we should vote on Denver or the Northwest.  Lara Hughes and Chuck Spooner will head up committee to look at potential facilities for the 2010 conference.  Toni noted that we can get a USGS person to join the committee.  May 17, 2010, would be third week in May as potential date for conference.  The third full week in May is May 17-22. 

Plenary speakers—we are hoping to have a short slot for the National Monitoring Network and maybe 15-20 minutes to remind people what is happening and to remind them of NMN sessions.  It’s very important to have an exciting speaker for the closing plenary said Chuck.    Leslie McGeorge has arranged for a NJ/EPA official and Congressman for opening plenary.  Chuck has asked the Assistant Administrator of Water, EPA, to attend.  Robert Hirsch contacted Kameron Onley, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, who is interested in participating.  She could do what Bob Hirsch did last year, and we want to confirm what plenary in which we will ask her to speak.  We cannot confirm until we know what the CPC wants.  We need to confirm where we want these speakers scheduled prior to confirming this with them on their calendars.  Last year we had three keynote speakers at beginning and two keynote speakers at end of conference.  WEF publication can include presentations from the 2008 meeting—a peer reviewed journal that will be online by 2009. It is possible that we may get some 2006 presentations in this WEF publication.

Elizabeth J. Fellows Award—Six nominations have been received.  Linda noted that the last recipient, which is Elle Eli, should also be on the awards committee. 

UPDATES/UPCOMING MEETINGS
ACWI Meeting. Toni Johnson gave update on ACWI activities and upcoming meeting for February 20 and 21, 2008. Any Council member that wants to attend is welcome although we do not pay for travel costs unless a presentation for the Council is being on the agenda. One of the most significant presentations at this ACWI meeting is a report of the National Monitoring Network and conference planning for the Sixth National Monitoring Conference. The Methods Board usually provides an update. Other subcommittees of ACWI should be providing updates. We might do a Federal roundtable on what their budgets and programs look like. Each Federal member will have an opportunity to give a report.  This will be a 10 year anniversary for ACWI. 

Summer Council Meeting.  We need to determine date for summer meeting. The weeks of July 14 or 21 have been suggested. It makes a big difference in costs in having a host for the meeting.  Jeff Ostermiller suggested that Utah may be able to host and will get back to us. Chuck suggested that we might want to meet in the DC area more often because of all the host facilities of Federal agencies. Barry Long suggested that they may be able to host a meeting at the National Park Service, Ft. Collins, Colorado. Sandy Williamson also suggested that we may meet in the State of Washington, USGS, office. This will be turned over to the Steering Committee to decide. We also have Richmond, Virginia, suggested as host. 

Membership Update.  Chuck said that we are looking for new State members.  Some representatives and or States have alternates.  Categories of membership can be adjusted under “Other” associations and industry.  We should have a replacement for the National Association of State Conservation Agencies (NASCA).   Jim Sadley has been named by NASCA to serve as representative.  There will be vacancies in Regions 4, 5, and 9 after May.  Tribal—there are numerous committees in EPA involved with tribes.  Chuck hopes to have a progress report next week. 

Methods and Data Comparability Board Report.  Eric Vowinkel reported. Steve Wendelken is EPA Co-Chair. Dan Sullivan is Executive Secretary and does a great job with the web pages. They met in Portland, Oregon, in October. Another meeting is being planned for  March 2008.  (See pp presentation #6.). The CRADA was signed to support NEMI.  There is a new webpage on Physical Habitat work group. The Board plans to come up with white paper to outline approach on sensors.  Statistical methods is a high priority and will need to compile an inventory; need approval of Council. 

Collaboration and Outreach Work Group Report.  Linda Green reported for Val Connor.  The work group has rewritten the C&O Fact Sheet. We will be looking at others to format the same.  They are working with Lindsay Griffith to set up State Council conference calls.

Conference Planning Committee Report.  The committee is just days from first cut of  program on abstracts/sessions. No one is formally invited to the conference. Some people expect payment of conference fees and travel costs if given a formal invitation to attend. Gail Mallard gave a word of caution about this aspect of talking with people about coming to the conference. Need to get moderators for sessions. Call for moderators needs to go to all Council members. 

                                                                                    Judith B. Griffin
                                                                                    Executive Secretary
Attendees:
Chuck Spooner
Gail Mallard
Toni Johnson
Judy Griffin
Neil Kamman
Tony Shaw
Mary Skopec
Don Dycus
Linda Green
Art Garceau
Tamim Younos
Val Connor
David Wunsch
Tracy Connell Hancock
Dan Radulescu
Jane Caffrey
Eric Vowinkel
Jeff Ostermiller
Jawed Hameedi
Peter Tennant
Leslie McGeorge
Fred Leslie
Barry Long
Jeff Schloss
Mike McDonald

Visitors:
Chris Ward, YSI/SONTEK
Steve Weisberg, Southern California Coastal Water Research Project
Geoff Brosseau, California Stormwater Quality Association
Lindsay Griffith, Brown and Caldwell Environmental Engineers & Consultants
Lara Hughes, Water Environment Federation
Maggie Craig, Tetra Tech
Rob Schweinfurth, Water Environment Federation
Sandy Williamson, U.S. Geological Survey                   

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/san_diego_120407.html
Thursday, 31-Jan-2008 13:40:25 EST