Attendees (See last page of Minutes)
Tuesday, February 6, 2001
WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
Sam Becker, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 6, welcomed the group to the Region, and Chuck Spooner, Co-Chair, of Council also welcomed guests and members to the meeting.
CONSOLIDATED ASSESSMENT AND LISTING METHODOLOGY (CALM)
Margarete Heber, Office of Water, EPA, gave a presentation about the CALM program. Margarete stated that the concept behind CALM is to come up with better water quality standards attainment. One issue is to reduce the burden of the State reports. CALM is in Phase I for all assessment activities including 305B and 303D. Margarete distributed a paper on Water Quality Data Elements - Monitoring Data Standards. EPA has been working with Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators (ASWIPCA) regarding gap analysis. The piece that is not done is how your program should look in each state and where we want the programs to be in 10 years. Council is doing a survey to ascertain the status of monitoring activities that states are now doing. The survey should answer the questions as to what exists and what the states' needs are. Ground water is a component of this study. Congress has not funded EPA for CALM at this time. ASWIPCA needs some technical assistance as they develop their survey stated Jon Craig. If any member of the Council has a particular interest, let Chuck Spooner know. Jon said he would know by February 15 whether there will be something to review. Significant progress should be made by summer 2001. Ellen McCarron said that the State of Florida would really like to be involved in this project and offered her assistance. EPA is working with ECOS on water quality data standards.
REGION 6 PROGRAMS AND WATER QUALITY MONITORING
Charlie Howell, EPA Region 6, gave a presentation on the Region 6 monitoring design of water quality programs.
Forrest B. John, EPA Region 6, Watershed Management Section, continued the presentation. Many changes may be made in EPA as to the water quality standards. These standards were written for monitoring and permanent actions and are not for ambient areas. In effect, we are obligated to abide by these standards until the regulations are changed. Forrest suggested that the Council can act to initiate changes to these standards. This region has discussed defining risk to monitoring and assessment. Agencies have developed much good quality assurance data but have not implemented it well. The number of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDLs) and law suits emphasizes the lack of quality assurance. It has forced us to evaluate what we are doing and how we are doing it. As a consequence, we are revising our findings related to quality assurance. We are losing credibility with elected officials and with the public. We need to define what we are supposed to do and come up with standarized methods. We need instructors and experts to deal with these topics. This is an area where the Council can play a large part.
Philip Crocker continued the presentation of the EPA 6 Region. Philip stated that there is a need for monitoring assessment of non-priority pollutant pesticides. Atrazine is a priority of Region 6. There has been a relatively high incidence of Atrazine in drinking water. In Louisiana, the USGS found elevated levels of Atrazine in ambient waters. This is the biggest level of Atrazine found in the United States. It is an emerging issue. We are getting more information on pesticides being used. We have not done all the monitoring necessary. Under the 106 funding, we have requested that states develop monitoring strategies. The intent of the work group is to focus on surface water. However, it is a concern of ground water as well. Primarily this is an issue to human health. There is an interagency agreement with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on non-priority pollutants pesticides. EPA is required to do TMDLs in Louisiana. We don't have criteria for most of these modern pesticides. Many of these pesticides are focused at particular crops. States could customize the monitoring based on the crops grown in the area. There is much potential in cooperative efforts. The monitoring being done in Louisiana is through the TMDL funding. It is important to coordinate between state agencies. USGS has been very useful in supplying EPA with information on pesticides. Currently, registered pesticides are showing up in waters. The pesticides office is in discussion about this issue. Chuck Spooner noted that it would be good if this group would talk to us at theJune or October meeting. ACTION: Chuck Spooner to contact the EPA Pesticides Office in regard to pesticides and Federal water quality criteria to have someone speak at an upcoming meeting of the Council.
TEXAS WATER MONITORING COUNCIL
Robert Bradley distributed the by-laws and charter of the Texas Water Monitoring Council that describes some of the history of the Council. The Texas Water Monitoring Council covers all types of water monitoring-- ground water, surface water, and water quality. In 1995, representatives from the main state water agencies in Texas along with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)met for the first time. Robert gave a brief history of the development of the Council. Members include the Texas Water Development Board, The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, The Texas parks and Wildlife Department, the USGS, the COE, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, The National Weather Service, The Lower Colorado River Authority, The Brazos River Authority, the Sabine River Authority, and The Houston Galveston Area Council. Public outreach and quality assurance and quality monitoring are work groups of the Council. At the latest Congress in 2000, funding was inadequate, but more focus groups were added to talk about data management and how the data is acquired. The proceedings were sent to the State legislature. Specific recommendations were made that data be made available to the public. Volunteer monitoring efforts for the Texas Water Monitoring Council were discussed at the last Congress. Challenges for continued existence is to sponsor the Congress every two years and coincides with meetings of the Texas legislature. There needs to be more innovation in getting new participants to the Congress and greater participation of monitoring personnel. For present activities see the website at URL: http://www.txwmc.org/.
OKLAHOMA WATER QUALITY MONITORING COUNCIL
J. D. Strong gave a presentation for the Oklahoma Water Quality Monitoring Council. This Council looks at physical, chemical, land habitat. They focus on all areas of water with extensive focus on surface water. Activities and functions of the Council are to convene meetings and symposia. They do not have funding from the state. This group was formed to bring diverse groups together who were doing monitoring. It is an advisory body to the Secretary of the Environment. A brochure of the Oklahoma Water Quality Monitoring Council was distributed to the group. Education and Outreach is an important group to the Council. This group plans to publish documents and create a speakers bureau. The Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Sampling Design Committee has been a very important group to the Council. This year they hope to look at all monitoring programs that are operating in the state. The Geographic Information System (GIS) and Data Storage Committee is charged with completing a clearinghouse for all water quality data and information.
USGS DISTRICT PROGRAMS.
Bill Andrews, USGS, Oklahoma District, discussed High Plains water resources investigations. There may be an increase in nitrate in the acquifer. Contained Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO's) in Oklahoma are mostly confined to one county. Most of the data is from the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), High Plains Study Unit. Due to the CAFO's, there is a high vulnerability of the water. Bill distributed USGS Fact Sheet 137-00 regarding the High Plains Aquifer, a study done by the NAWQA High Plains Study Unit.
Barbara Mahler, USGS, Texas District, gave a presentation about the sediment coring program and suspended sediment sampling. The sediment coring program is part of the NAWQA Program. One goal of the sediment coring program is to determine trends.
UPDATES ON MEETINGS AND ACTIVITIES
2002 Monitoring Conference-David Dening-Chakroff gave an update on the planning for the 2002 Monitoring Conference. The three co-chairs for the conference planning committee are Chuck Spooner, Linda Green, and Charlie Peters. The committee has secured the Monona Terrace Convention Center, May 20-23, 2002, and rooms in three hotels within three blocks of the convention center. Planning is well underway. Chuck was able to get the Ground Water Protection Council involved and secured the funding for the deposit to the convention center.
TMDL Science Conference,March 2001-Albert Gray, Water Environment Federation (WEF), gave an update on the upcoming conference. The program has been published and distributed; the conference is scheduled for March 5-7. There is a pre-conference workshop on March 4. There are close to 70 sessions. The expanded agenda is on the website at www.wef.org . The conference will be held at the Adams Mark in St. Louis, Missouri. The keynote speaker is Dr. Robert Hirsch, USGS, and closing speaker is Dr. Dominic M. DiToro. We anticipate 500 participants for the conference. We are starting to get our first tabulations, and it looks good. The hotel block is 90 percent committed. The conference is funded by USGS, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI), and the COE. With the level of interest in TMDLs, we should get the 500 participants as planned.
ACWI Annual Meeting, May 15-16, 2001-Judy Griffin announced that plans for the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI) Annual meeting is underway even though the committee is not rechartered as yet. The ACWI charter expired in October 2000. In December, the recharter package went to the Department of the Interior awaiting action from the White House Liaison. The White House Liaison approves all FACA's. The meeting is being planned for May 15-16 at the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Bechtel Conference Center and will be hosted by ASCE, which is an ACWI member organization. A block of rooms is reserved for participants at the Sheraton Reston Hotel that is close both to ASCE and the USGS. Judy distributed a paper giving detailed information on the planned meeting, other news highlights of ACWI, and listing websites for a number of member organizations of ACWI.
International Association of Great Lakes Research (IAGLR)- Charlie Peters gave an update on the meeting scheduled for June 2001, see website at URL: http://www.iaglr.org/conference/conference.html. Charlie distributed conference information
North American Monitoring and Assessment Task Force, March 27-29, 2001, Downsview, Ontario, Canada-Charlie Peters gave an update and distributed draft agenda.. Three different papers have been developed. Copies of all those papers are available from Charlie. There is some funding to support travel. Andy Robertson is also a member of this Task Force.
Regional Environmental Database Initiative-Fred Van Alstyne reported that this initiative grew out of the remediation programs. The idea was developed to begin electronic deliverables. There are a couple of pilot areas that will be used to input the data. Fred will provide information copies on this initiative. The budget is just under $1 million in Region 2. Region 5 has a similar interest said Chuck Spooner. It allows the rapid modeling of underground sites and allows a site manager or remediation manager to plan well locations to most efficiently sample. There is a user group that developed in Region 5 to learn how to make it work. STORET is interested in this program.
REDESIGN OF THE NATIONAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Tim Miller, Chief, of the National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program gave an update on NAWQA. Tim discussed the first decade of the program. There will be two years to concentrate on report writing for the Study Units in Cycle II. There is a ground water assessment of the Ogalala area. Early data received shows high nitrate and high pesticides concentrations. The nitrate is not due to poor well construction. Looking ahead for the upcoming 10 years, plans are to rescope the program from 60 to 42 study units; determine status of water quality, trends, and explain those conditions and trends. In implementing the plans, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) will do the 4th review of the program; we anticipate a report from them in September or October 2001. We will be publishing reports from the 1994 study units. Those will be distributed about the end of March. The print run will be about 40,000. From the first group, we have distributed about 39,000 reports. Four of the study units have been combined. There will be 14 study units in each region. The program will determine the effects on streams and waters in those areas. What is difficult is chemical use, crop patterns, and other agricultural practices. What we want to do is to put more emphasis on sources of contaminants; contaminant movement from land surface to ground water; contaminant movement from land surface to reservoirs, and esturine environments. Tim distributed a paper entitled "Moving the NAWQA Program into its second decade of investigations-The Programmatic and Scientific Context Driving its Evolution." Tim addressed questions from the group after his presentation. In the first three national meetings of NAWQA, they invited State, local, and Federal agencies for comments to see if the program met their needs and what these agencies needed from NAWQA and other sources. NAWQA tries to create a liaison in each study unit. At the national level, we have five people working as liaisons with state and other agencies. In particular our work has been with the EPA Office of Drinking Water and the EPA Office of Ground Water.
HEINZ CENTER REPORT ON FRESHWATER ECOSYSTEMS
Gail Mallard presented information about a report that is being prepared on the status of the nation's freshwater ecosystems. The core principles of the report is that it be scientifically credible and politically non-partisan. The design principles for the report are to focus on decision makers as the primary audience, be succinct, and present a broad range of goods, services, and ecosystem conditions. A prototype produced in 1999 focused on three ecosystems: croplands, forests and coasts and oceans. . . The six ecosystems that will be covered in the new report are farmlands, forests, coasts and oceans, freshwater, grasslands/shrublands, and urban/surburban. There will be an executive summary with 10 national core measures and a report on filling the data gaps. A draft of all material should be available this summer with planned release of the final report in December 2001. Gail distributed copies of her overheads on this presentation Additional information can be found at these two websites: www.heinzctr.org/ and www.us-ecosystems.org/
UNIFIED FEDERAL POLICY FOR WATERSHED APPROACH TO FEDERAL LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT (UFP)
Warren Harper gave a presentation on the UFP. UFP is a consistent approach to land and resource management. It is not a fixed proclamation or regulation and not an attempt to change the Clean Water Action Plan (CWAP) and not applied to non-Federal lands. The draft policy was published in 2000. Sessions were held in four cities, Portland, Milwaukee, Atlanta, and Denver. Participants are the following Federal agencies: Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, Tennessee Valley Authority, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is the watershed approach-streams and other bodies of water are a result of the lands that drain to them. Federal land management needs to be consistent across agencies. The goals of the proposal are to provide a common approach to watershed management, consistent with individual agency mission, responsibilities, and resources. Elements of the proposal are four: Common science based approach to Federal lands, watershed management approach; compliance with Clean Water Act requirements; and collaboration. The policy only applies to Federal lands and most are in the western United States managed by the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. The policy is signed and now needs to be implemented. The Federal Watershed Management Team was formed in order to implement the policy. There have been two meetings of this group.
WATER QUALITY DATA ELEMENTS-METHODS BOARD WORK AND COORDINATION WITH STATE/EPA ENVIRONMENTAL DATA STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Herb Brass gave a presentation of the activities of the Methods Board. There are a number of products coming to fruition. Chuck Job will give the presentation on the Water Quality Data Elements (WQDEs) and Harold Ardourel and Bart Simmons will give a presentation on Federal Lab Accreditation. Chuck Job stated that there are some new faces and this presentation will give some history on how we got started and specifics of WQDEs. The objective is to move forward to a public comment stage on the WQDE standards. The Intergovernmental Task Force on Water Quality Monitoring (ITFM) final report was issued in 1995 and recommended that we set a minimum of WQDEs. The technical appendices recommends 114 items. The same report states that we were spending billions of dollars for water quality monitoring but cannot easily share results. The EPA Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water said we must include reliable data. There is a list of Federal and private agencies that worked on the WQDEs. We also looked at other data bases for this information. It was not exhaustive, but we tried to look at major data bases to look at a set of core elements to see if we were on the right track. We sponsored a workshop at the Monitoring Conference at Austin, Texas, April 2000. This was a real cross section of Federal, State, and private sector organizations. Chuck Job distributed the proposed Recommendation of the MDCB and Council and the proposed data elements for reporting water quality results of chemical and microbiological analytes. Chuck also distributed the paper on Proposed Recommendation of the Methods and Data Comparability Board to the Council of the Core Set of Data Elements for Water Quality Monitoring Reporting. The proposed schedule is to obtain agreement to move ahead; we plan to get this out to the public (via the Federal Register) by February 23 and will have 60 days for public comment response. We plan to sponsor some public meetings across the country. When comments are received; we will revise this proposal and get it back to the Council. Council could act and then take it to the ACWI for the May 2001 meeting. Formal announcements will be made to other agencies and then present results at the National Monitoring Conference in 2002.
Chuck Spooner thanked Chuck Job in following an issue and bringing it to a point of resolution. One of the issues we will be addressing is whether the meta data listed here is actually needed. Everyone needs to be content that this is ready to be released to the public. This is a core set of WQDEs, and we expect to be reviewing this core set to pare it down again. Chuck Job stated that there is current testing underway. Chuck Spooner asked that Council endorse this list, schedule as planned so that it could get to the ACWI in May 2001. Robert Ward made a motion to approve the plan to publish the WQDEs in the Federal Register; there was some discussion and Linda Green recommended that the words "volunteer monitoring" should be left out. Gary Ingman seconded the motion, and it was approved by Council.
FEDERAL LABORATORY ACCREDITATION
Harold Ardourel of the USGS National Laboratory distributed the four papers on Accreditation of Federal laboratories for Water Quality Monitoring-Position Paper 6.4, Executive Summary, The Value of Uniform Accreditation, and the overheads of the presentation. We are going to be talking specifically about Federal Laboratory Accreditation which came from the Council and MB. The goal was to identify the need for accreditation. We are hoping to get Council approval at this meeting; take this proposal to ACWI for approval on May 15, 2001, and present to the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP).
COUNCIL WORK PLAN AND PRIORITIES
John Klein reviewed some of the past accomplishments of the Council. Under the umbrella of the Methods Board, there is a tremendous amount of activity. Some of the products were reviewed yesterday including the Laboratory Accreditation and the Water Quality Data Elements. There has been significant progress in our goals and framework. The framework document is something that we want to incorporate into all the work groups. We must remain steadfast, and we need to meet accomplishments under those goals.
Jeff Loser stated that the development of the State Councils is an outgrowth of this Council and a wonderful accomplishment.
Chuck Spooner stated that monitoring is a growing activity. More efforts are required in order to achieve accomplishments. Chuck reminded the group of the volunteer sheets that were received at the last Monitoring Conference. We need to think of ways to engage with other groups to find how the Council can be helpful or how they can be helpful to us. This will help us with accomplishments for years to come.
Warren Harper stated that early in our monitoring we looked at sediment; we are looking at other kinds of monitoring, some might be water quality but not in the traditional sense. We are looking at physical channel characteristics. Will this Council look at a broader context of monitoring rather than just water-quality samples? Chuck Spooner stated that the Watershed Components Interactions work group might be a good place to look at this issue. The work of the UFP might find some unique ways of monitoring. This committee getting involved with the UFP will be good.
Tim Kubiak distributed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between EPA, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Marine Fisheries Service Regarding Enhanced Coordination Under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act. It was not signed by all the parties until January 18, 2001. Major parts of the MOA might fit in with monitoring activities and the CWAP. The overview of the MOA describes major elements focusing on water quality criteria proposed by EPA over the years and the mechanism to look at individual permits with issuance and compliance. Those permits are not considered Federal actions if issued by States. There is also a mechanism for coordination for agencies to jointly develop data gathering plan and gap issues. The extent that we can cooperate with State, Tribes, and Territories is open. There will be a small list of species proposed, less than 20, that are affected by water quality. Majority of effort will be focused on those species endangered. It is not a rule but important coordination aspects. This MOA should be reviewed by the MB biological subgroup.
Linda Green said that what we are really concerned with are aquatic health and water health. There are a number of monitoring techniques that can give a good idea of what is going on in the watershed. The efforts that this group has made into volunteer monitoring is admirable. Volunteer monitoring can make the public relate to how what we are doing can affect the water quality.
The revised Work Plan and Priorities were distributed. Herb Brass said that one of the things he noted on the Work Plan is that there are goals but no resources indicated. All the work groups need to set priorities and resources required to meet their goals. Chuck Spooner stated that there are plans to get TetraTech back on board to help with the Council. At some point you need funds, contractors, and grants to move activities along and keep volunteers involved. USGS and EPA are tapped out; we need to get other agencies involved. Mike Houts said that one aspect in his job is to find resources. We need to look for available monies and how we can tap those sources. There are opportunities to get grants from AWWA, WEF, and those folks are interested-not always dollars but in-kind services. Jon Craig said that if we choose to seek outside funding, we could use our Work Plan and our Priorities to see if some of the priorities would be better served if we have available funds; if not, proceed on other projects. One of the decisions would be to carry out the goals or change some of the goals to secure funding. Tim Miller stated that as an outside observer whose program has funded the Council; there needs to be a product identified that has value or outcome. Council members or their organizations could assign work to their organization or staff; such as assigning staff one day a month to work on a project for Council. It is a proposal for a product that has value. Identify what you want to accomplish. There are many more projects that are denied than approved based on success of completing the project. Fred Van Alstyne suggested that the Steering Committee should take on the issue of getting funding. Gary Ingman suggested that work groups estimate costs of their proposed projects; these estimates should be returned to the Steering Committee to see if resources are available and for which projects funding would be available. Resources would include funding, contractors, and in-kind service. ACTION ITEM: Work Groups provide costs estimates of projects to Steering Committee for review of available funding and approval of project. Steering Committee to consider ways of securing funding for projects.
COUNCIL AND ACWI INPUT ON MAJOR WATER-QUALITY ISSUES INCLUDING THE ANNUAL COOPERATIVE WATER PROGRAM PRIORITIES
Gail Mallard distributed the package on Council and ACWI Input to Major Water Quality Issues. Gail requested that any major water-quality issues that you have, the USGS would appreciate receiving by next summer as that is when the USGS begins work on the memo for priority issues for the Water Cooperative Program
MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO WORK PLAN AND PRIORITIES
Gail Mallard responded for the USGS. Gail said the comments provided today are from Robert M. Hirsch, Associate Director for Water, Tim Miller, Chief, NAWQA Program, and Janice Ward, Acting Chief, Office of Water Quality. All of these managers are very supportive of the Council. Gail invited all Council members to review the new fact sheet on the National Streamgaging Information Program (NSIP). This fact sheet was just approved and sent for printing. USGS has put a great deal of funding into sampling. There are tremendous opportunities in having endorsement of comparative studies. This is another way to bring in resources. Improve communication with those who are to be your supporters. It is important for the USGS managers to know how you developed goals and their timelines; and established priorities. Give us your best success story. USGS leaders will be talking to many new political appointees We want to tell them why is it worth supporting this Council. Gail suggested that a few examples of successes from each work group would be important to communicating the value of the Council-The best examples would be those that someone new to Washington could understand and recognize as important.
Lyle Cowles stated that if you look at the agency responsibilities--what USGS and EPA does--the resources are there to do what the Council needs to accomplish goals. Merge what some of our purposes are-EPA and USGS could do this. Lyle suggested that the Council revise the statement of purpose in the Work Plan relative to Gail's comments.
Chuck Spooner gave the response to Priorities for EPA. Chuck stated that EPA is suffering quite a bit from the loss of Elizabeth Fellows who carried the vision for this Council. With CALM there are two needs that originated from the Council which are high priorities-What monitoring is going on so we can understand where we are today. We need to be thoughtful in justifying that need for the Congress.
NEMI PRODUCT STATUS
Charlie Peters lead a presentation on NEMI through a Methods Board password protected site. Dan Sullivan and Larry Keith assisted Charlie via phone to provide direction through the website. NEMI will be sent to the Steering Committee for review. An alpha test is planned for Friday, February 9. ACTION ITEM: Ellen McCarron and Linda Green volunteered; they could go to State and Regional Councils for testing.
MISSISSIPPI RIVER BASIN ACTIVITIES AND COUNCIL'S INVOLVEMENT WITH COORDINATION OF MONITORING ACTIVITIES
Charlie Peters gave an update. Chuck Spooner mentioned that the fate of the Mississippi initiative is undetermined at this time. In planning the 2002 National Monitoring Conference, we could have a Mississippi Gulf Hypoxia session.
WATER QUALITY FIELD WORKSHOP
Charlie Peters gave an update on this workshop which was held in New Orleans. About 300 people attended the workshop. Charlie is working with the Office of Water Quality, USGS, to get copies of all the presentations. In reviewing ways to check our water-quality data, there are a number of new programs being developed
RECOMMENDATION FROM TRIBES FOR COUNCIL/ACWI SUPPORT
Seth Makepeace gave an update. It is a challenge to reach out nationally to a tribe. Individual tribes have very focused issues that they are dealing with. Some issues are aboriginal land issues, sovereignty authority, water rights, and environmental management. We are trying to teach tribes very basic information; for example, how to enter data in a computer. We are encouraged by EPA and other Federal agencies with CWAP and 106 programs. It would be good to have a core environmental management program. Tribal folks have trouble working within the construct of an organization such as ACWI, or the Council. They have trouble working within such a framework. They will not maintain contact. Their philosophy is this is our reservation, our water, we will deal with it. They have difficulty seeing the relevancy of a Council. Their sense of scale and sense of time is quite different. They have trouble meeting deadlines. Seth said he works to meet the timelines for them. They will push for economic development programs at the expense of the environment in certain circumstances. Some of the recommendations from the Region 8 Tribes are tribal sovereignty and recognition as individual nations. Working and personal relationships take time and patience. Tribes tend to be quite suspicious; you need to build bridges over time. We are developing a TMDL with Gary Ingman. There would be some value in patterning that process. Tribes appreciate when someone comes to their reservation or the work of a volunteer monitoring group that protects their watershed Agencies working with native people should think seriously how this Council could support their work with Tribes. Relationships are very important; selection of a person with very special talents and patience to deal with tribal issues is critically important. A special personality is needed to gain Tribal trust. Technical skills can be learned; select your person on the personal characteristics initially; then train them in the technical skills required. The personality and communication is the foremost value. ACTION ITEM: Seth will prepare whatever papers are necessary for recommendations from the Tribes to ACWI. Jon Craig stated that once Tribes deal with Federal agencies, they do not want to deal with State agencies.
WORK GROUP REPORTS
Meeting reports of the work groups are attached.
Water Information Strategies (WIS)
Robert Ward gave the report for the WIS work group
Methods Board
Herb Brass outlined objectives and progress of the work group. Long-term activities should be prioritized. The Methods Board is now beginning to deliver products discussed earlier. Available resources will in part determine accomplishments. Funding from other Federal agencies should be pursued. DOE has provided support to the Methods Board.
It is recommended that all Federal agency labs performing analytical water testing (and commercial labs employed by Federal agencies) be accredited under a recognized program in order to better establish comparability of data. The National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) is the Board's recommended program.
David Dening-Chakroff made a motion to approve Accreditation of Federal Laboratories; Jon Craig seconded the motion; it was approved and will be sent to ACWI as a recommendation.
Collaboration and Outreach
Linda gave a report for the group and discussed the Assessment of State, Interstate, and Regional Councils. There was a motion to approve the assessment which was passed.
Toni Johnson is working on expanding the Council's web presence. Preparation of fact sheets are being developed by various members of Council. It is important to contact people who signed up for work on the Council. Linda talked to the group about the various logos and banners that are in final preparation for use on Council documents.
Watershed Components Interactions
Seth Makepeace gave the report for this group. There is a short proposal for a ground water monitoring compendium. It is a watershed framework describing the monitoring including geology, hydrology (ground water and surface water) geomorphic, topography, biology, land use. There will be a review of the document, the Groundwater Monitoring Guidance Manual. This document was prepared for one of the states; we are going to put the Council logo on it for the web page.
COUNCIL BUSINESS MEETING
Terms of Reference
Chuck Spooner distributed the revised Terms of Reference that included the incorporation of the Charter of the Steering Committee; also included were minor revisions to the section on membership. We would like to present this to ACWI for approval.
David Dening-Chakroff made a motion for approval of the revised Terms of Reference; Jim Cox seconded the motion, and it was approved by Council
Issues to be presented to ACWI.
The issues to be presented to ACWI are:
Terms of Reference
Accreditation of Federal Laboratories, WQDE's, NEMI--we will ask ACWI to make recommendations to Federal agencies.
Provide an update of Priorities of the work groups.
Status of National Monitoring Conference for 2002.
Toni Johnson joined the group via telephone and discussed the annual meeting of ACWI being planned as a 2-day meeting and possibly breaking into work groups. On the recommendations for ACWI, we are proposing that there be a workshop along with the 2002 National Monitoring Conference. Relating to the WQDE's to be presented, the sooner we can provide advance reading materials to ACWI, then the better job we can do to anticipate ACWI members' needs. The faster we may get their approval on these issues. There was discussion of a contingency plan if the recharter documents are not signed before the proposed May meeting. It is important to get people briefed who will be working with the Co-Chairs of the Council. We will be doing briefings for Interior; I would think that same sort of thing would need to be done in each member organization. If we can identify key issues, we should be proactive in setting up these briefings. We have already invited Emery Cleaves to be part of the Cooperative Water Program briefing.
Membership Issues
Vacancies for Council membership were discussed. Dave Pollison has retired. Peter Tennant has ascended from alternate to representative for River Basin Commission. Region 3 is vacant since Emery Cleaves resigned; Chuck Spooner will have a representative by the June meeting. We have not had much representation for minority groups. We have a problem with one or two people with non-attendance; the Terms of Reference delegates this problem to the Steering Committee. Chuck Spooner is still looking for a representative of the Agriculture (non-Government) seat on Council. We have never had a non-Federal person for Region 7; Lyle Cowles is planning on recruiting for Region 7. Dave Chestnut has been mentioned as a good candidate for Region 4; Lyle has noted that there are one or two monitoring coordinators who would be very interested in what we are doing. We need a replacement for Wayne Hood, Region 9. Members should consider tasks the work groups have laid out and consider folks you know who might work on these tasks. Susquehanna would be willing to participate as an alternate for River Basin Commission; Peter Tennant also will be talking to people to find an interest to serve on the Council as alternate for River Basin Commission.
Memorial for Elizabeth Fellows
Chuck Spooner circulated the memorial program for Elizabeth Fellows that was held in January. The group discussed possible ways to honor Elizabeth. Gary Ingman suggested an award such as a scholarship award; we could do a scholarship for the Monitoring Conference; we could restrict it to those people who submit papers to the conference; recognize the value of outsiders participation. Linda Green suggested that the award be for someone who is new in their work. If it is an award connected to the Monitoring Conference, it would be once every other year. After papers are accepted, then applicants would get an invitation to apply for the scholarship award; award would be sponsorship of attendance at conference (all expenses paid connected to attending the conference). ACTION ITEM: David Dening-Chakroff suggested that we should form an awards committee. The first award would be dedicated in Elizabeth's honor and then we need to decide whether future awards would be a permanent award in her name.David noted that the loss of Elizabeth has had a profound affect on people who knew her for only a relatively short time and in a professional way. She was destined for great things; things that were important in natural resources and water and environmental management. The impact of her loss represents the loss of what is not going to be accomplished. All of these proposals are great to do in her honor; all of these things do not give the full honor that Elizabeth deserves. The only way we can honor Elizabeth is to continue to carry on with the work of this Council to which she dedicated herself. NEMI, Lab Accreditation is to her credit. I think Elizabeth would be very proud of this Council; we should continue to work toward the goals which she established; I think that our continuation to work diligently for this Council is a permanent way of honoring Elizabeth.
Revised Priorities.
ACTION ITEM: Work group chairs will get Priorities to Judy within a couple of weeks (by February 23).
Meeting in Madison
There was a brief discussion of field trips for the joint Methods Board/Council meeting in Madison. Charlie Peters distributed the draft agenda for the joint meeting. Let Charlie know what you would be most interested in doing. Lake Michigan Council would be good to invite suggested Peter Tennant. There is a possibility of an evening session; we could request the convention center to cater something so we can have an impression of their services for the 2002 Monitoring Conference. ACTION ITEM: Review carefully the draft agenda for the June meeting and give comments back to Charlie Peters.
| Judith B. Griffin Executive Secretary, NWQMC |
| Charles Spooner,EPA, Co-Chair John M. Klein,USGS, Co-Chair |
Documents distributed at meeting:
1. CALM
2. WQDE - Monitoring Data Standards
3. By-Laws of Texas Water Monitoring Council
4. Charter of Texas Water Monitoring Council
5. Oklahoma Water Quality Monitoring Council brochure
6. Fact Sheet, No. 137-00, NAWQA High Plains Study Unit
7. ACWI Information
8. IAGLR Update
9. NAWQA Update and Study Units for Cycle II
10. Heinz Center Report on Ecosystems
11. Methods Board overheads
12. Proposed WQDE's
13. Accreditation of Federal Labs, Position Paper 6.4
14. Accreditation of Federal Labs, Executive Summary
15. The Value of Uniform Accreditaiton
16. Accreditation of Federal Labs overheads
17. Memorandum of Agreement, EPA, FWS, and NMFS, Regarding Enhanced
Coordination Under the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act
18. Council and ACWI Input on Major Water-Quality Issues Including Cooperative Water Program Priorities
19. USGS Priorities
20. Fact Sheet No. 005-01, National Streamgaging Information Program
21. Memo to State/Interstate and Regional Monitoring Councils (National Assessment)
22. Draft agenda, North American Monitoring and Assessment Task Force for March 27, 2001
Attendees:
Bill Backous
Herb Brass
Jim Cox
Lyle Cowles
Jon Craig
David Dening-Chakroff
Don Dycus
Albert Gray
Linda Green
Judy Griffin
Gregory Gross
Warren Harper
Mike Houts
Bill Ingersoll
Gary Ingman
John Klein
Tim Kubiak
Jeff Loser
Seth Makepeace
Ellen McCarron
Karl Muessig
Charlie Peters
Andrew Robertson
Charles Spooner
Peter Tennant
Fred VanAlstyne
Tony Wagner
Robert Ward
Guests:
Gail Mallard, USGS
Tim Miller, USGS
Margarete Heber, EPA
Harold Ardourel, USGS, NWQL
Sam Becker, EPA
Chuck Job, EPA
Robert Bradley, Texas Water Monitoring Council
J. D. Strong, Oklahoma Water Quality Monitoring Council
Bill Andrews, USGS
Barbara Mahler, USGS
Charlie Howell, EPA
Forrest John, EPA
Philip Crocker, EPA
Roger Lee, USGS (on detail to EPA Region 6)
Bart Simmons, State of California
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/tx_2001.html
Wednesday, 08-Aug-2007 15:02:41 EDT