Introductions
Summary of Actions
Recommendations and Advice
Presentations
Public Comments
Special Events
Next Meeting

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS: The ACWI reviewed and approved terms of reference for a variety of activities that will be initiated over the next few months:

1. National Water-Quality Monitoring Council Draft Work Plan for 1999-2000. The ACWI approved the priorities and general direction that the Council proposed. The Council will complete its work plan at its meeting on October 26-29, 1998, and the ACWI will review and approve the final document by mail. {NOTE:The Council's revised workplan will be distributed to ACWI members at the upcoming May 1999 meeting.} The cochairs of the National Council are Chuck Spooner of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and John Klein of the U.S. Geological Survey. The executive secretary is Toni Johnson of USGS.

2. Terms of Reference for the Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data. The ACWI approved the Terms with some revisions. The approved version is attachment 3. This action establishes the Subcommittee as a permanent coordination mechanism. The work of this Subcommittee is closely related to the activities of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). Therefore, the Subcommittee is jointly sponsored by the ACWI and the FGDC. As a next step in the approval process, the ACWI will request that the FGDC approve the Terms. [The FGDC Coordination Group approved the Terms at their meeting on September 4, 1998.} The contact for this Subcommittee is Nancy Lopez of USGS.

3. Terms of Reference for the Subcommittee on Hydrology. The ACWI approved the Terms with some revisions and agreed to sponsor the Subcommittee as a permanent coordination mechanism. The approved version is attachment 4. For more than 50 years, the Subcommittee on Hydrology has operated as a coordination mechanism among Federal agencies to address technical surface-water quantity issues and standards. This historic ACWI decision opens the membership to organizations from all levels of government and the private sector. The contact for this Subcommittee is Don Woodward of the Natural Resources Conservation Service.

4. Terms of Reference for the Task Force on Stream Gaging. The ACWI approved the Terms for the Task Force on Stream Gaging with revisions. The revised Terms are attachment 5. The Terms require that the Task Force prepare a National Strategy for Stream Gaging by December 31, 2000. This group has been operating under a variety of charges from the ACWI since 1997 and will complete their efforts under the newly adopted Terms. The cochairs of the Task Force are Tom Stiles of the Interstate Council on Water Policy and Tom Yorke of the USGS.

5. Terms of Reference for the Task Force to Review the Federal-State Cooperative Program (Coop Program). The ACWI approved the Terms of Reference for the Task Force to Review the Coop Program. A copy of the approved Terms and the list of members is provided in attachment 6. The Task Force will complete its report to ACWI by June 1999. The Executive Secretary of this Task Force is Steve Blanchard of the USGS. [The first meeting of the Task Force is scheduled on October 14-15, 1998, at the National Center of the USGS in Reston, Virginia. The meeting is open to the public.] {NOTE:The first meeting of the COOP Task Force was held on October 14-15, 1998 as planned}.

RECOMMENTDATONS AND ADVICE. On the morning of August 19 meeting participants broke into four smaller groups with facilitators to discuss selected topics. In the afternoon, the ACWI met in plenary session to consider the results of the break out group discussions. The resulting advice to the Federal Government is presented below:

1. Water Resources Monitoring Sectors and Roles. Emory Cleaves/Association of American State Geologists cochaired this group and presented the draft recommendations to the ACWI. The resulting advice is as follows:

   1. Work with the various monitoring sectors to document their roles, interests, capabilities and data holdings.

      1. Go to the various monitoring sectors and ask them about their roles, issues and goals.

      2. Within defined geographic areas, identify all the monitoring interests. This documentation should include each sector's capabilities and strengths, barriers that hinder their effective action and their interests that overlap with other sectors.

      3. Define the data users and their uses including the types and quality of data that they need.

      4. Prepare a report that describes/documents the complex public/private process for monitoring water resources in the United States.

   2. Develop an inventory of available data holdings and foster the use of meta data.

      1. Develop an inventory of data, meta data and data collectors or sources that is web-based, provides information by watershed, and uses geographic information systems (GIS) technology. Note: The National Council is developing a web-based Master Water Data Index.

      2. Encourage data collectors to establish data quality objectives that will meet all (or multiple) monitoring needs.

      3. Ensure that the quality of data that are collected is known and documented. Identify reasonable minimum standards for meta data.

   3. Support the establishment and activities of water monitoring councils nationwide.

      1. Support the activities of the National Water-Quality Monitoring Council (National Council) and help provide adequate funding and resources.

      2. At each meeting of the ACWI, include a breakout group on National Council activities.

      3. Support the establishment and operations of State and regional monitoring councils.

      4. Use the National Council as a model for addressing other kinds of water monitoring activities.

   4. Involve local community watershed groups in the interpretation, reporting and outreach for water monitoring results. Also, include local groups in the development of recommendations effecting their watersheds.

2. Local Watershed Information and Decision Support Priorities. At the request of cochair Don Potts/American Water Resources Association, Wendy Coleman/U.S. Environmental Protection Agency presented the results of this breakout group to the ACWI. The group's major recommendations are presented first and then other recommendations follow:

   1. Create higher resolution watershed units based on the existing standard Hydrologic Units.

   2. Geo-reference all information products/activities by local watershed.

      1. Raw data
      2. Water Quality Standards
      3. Federal and State products

      4. Publications and reports

   3. Characterize local watersheds in a regional context.

   4. Listen to local watershed groups and respond to their concerns.

   5. Provide information that is relevant to specific local watersheds.

   6. Survey a large sample of watershed groups to identify their information needs.

   7. Facilitate training for local watershed groups by focusing on people that are leaders and " influencers" in the groups.

   8. Help fund training for local watershed groups through multiple outlets.

   9. Take action to make Federal people more sensitive to the information and technical assistance needs of local watershed groups.

   10. Locate sources of information about local watersheds and create a directory.

   11. Investigate methods to archive records and photographs in digital formats.

   12. Provide summaries of monitoring findings and interpretations in both paper and electronic formats. Members of the group provided the following statistics about Internet access.

       1. Of 300 county/local agencies participating in the Beach Survey, 10 percent had Internet access.

       2. Of 1100 watershed partnerships affiliated with the Conservation Technology Information Center, 55 percent had ready access to Internet -- often through children.

       3. Of 60 watershed groups informally contacted by the USGS, 44 had Internet access.

          
          

   13. Provide websites, newsletters and other mechanisms to improve awareness of available information.

   14. It is easy to get lost in complex websites. Provide better maps of website organization and content to assist users in locating exactly the information they need.

3. Other Stream Gaging Activities. Tom Stiles/Interstate Council on Water Policy cochaired this group and presented their report.

   1. The work group recommended the following approach for assessing the stream gaging network and recommending improvements:

      1. Define the goals of the National Stream Gaging Network.

      2. Identify deficiencies in the current network that hinder accomplishment of the goals identified above.

      3. Determine other sources of stream gaging data in addition to the USGS.

      4. Evaluate the quality and availability of the data provided by other sources.

      5. Develop priorities for upgrading data quality and availability.

      6. Determine the costs for upgrading stream gaging data and recommend how organizations can share responsibility for funding the needed improvements.

   2. Regarding goals, the group indicated that the Network should support the following functions:

      
      

      1. Basin-scale water budgets for at least each Hydrologic Accounting Unit and, as funding permits, each Cataloging Unit.

      2. Hydrologic forecasting for water supply, navigation, recreation, flood mitigation, and seasonal runoff prediction. For flood forecasting, meet National Weather Service requirements for gages at flood forecast point on rivers and at points critical for operating models to predict flood events. Also, provide communities that have Flood Insurance Rate Maps gages that can be used to warn people about flooding.

      3. Federal Reservoirs that have a storage capacity greater than 50,000 acre-feet and any reservoir designated unsafe with a storage capacity greater than 5,000 acre-feet.

      4. Operations and maintenance for rivers used for commercial navigation.

      5. Estimation of flood risks for communities that are part of the National Flood Insurance Program.

      6. Long-term stations for ecological monitoring. These stream gages should include areas that have natural flow conditions without reservoirs or diversions and areas that have representative land uses.

      7. Other functions and requirements identified by the Stream Gaging Task Force.

   3. Regarding other sources of information about stream gaging, the group recommended that the Task Force contact the following organizations:

      1. Use the USGS Stream Gaging Network Analysis as the basis for identifying deficiencies.

      2. Integrate other state and local goals and requirements into the analysis of overall deficiencies in stream gaging for decisionmaking.

   4. Regarding other sources of information about stream gaging, the group recommended that the Task Force contact the following organizations:

      1. USDA Agriculture Research Service
      2. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
      3. Bureau of Reclamation
      4. U.S. Forest Service
      5. National Weather Service
      6. Universities
      7. Flood-Control districts
      8. Irrigation districts
      9. Power Companies
      10. Mining Companies
      11. Indian Tribes
      12. Water and Wastewater Utilities
      13. State Resource Agencies
      14. State Environmental Agencies
      15. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
      16. Bureau of Land Management
      17. International Boundary Waters Commission
      18. Regulated Industries
          
          

   5. Regarding the quality and availability of other (non-USGS) streamflow data, the group recommended the following:

      1. Identify existing stations that fulfill the identified goals or requirements.

      2. Determine the need to upgrade the quality or availability of such gages.

      3. Recommend new stations that are needed to meet identified goals and requirements.

      4. Determine the associated costs for new stations and upgrades that are needed.

      5. Recommend how the costs and responsibilities for operating new stations and upgrades should be shared among the sponsoring organizations and users.

4. Relationship with the Private Sector. Dave Carlton/Association of State Flood Plain Managers cochaired this group and presented their report. Mr. Carlton is a private consultant and member of the American Consulting Engineers Council. The recommendations are presented below:

   1. The Task Force should examine the criteria used to determine whether USGS should become involved in a specific project. This examination should include:

      1. Review of USGS Policy Memorandum No. 95.44 that contains the criteria for determining appropriate and inappropriate work.

      2. Examine the entire decision process for selecting projects.

      3. Develop a clear mechanism for obtaining public input.

      4. Develop a process for resolving conflicts about what work should be done and who should do it.

      5. Develop a process for routinely assessing the appropriate role of USGS as condition change.

      6. Ensure that the Task Force uses an open process for conducting the review that provides public access and opportunities to provide input.

   2. Review the way USGS projects are staffed.

      1. Recommend ways to increase flexibility in staffing USGS projects.

      2. Ensure a staffing approach that provides continuity for completing, documenting and communicating project results.

      3. Evaluate the long-term financial and other costs of using a more flexible staffing approach.

      4. Develop a process for ensuring that applied science, technology and information developed during work efforts remain available to the public, rather than becoming proprietary.

      5. Determine the implications of contracting out on the credibility of results that are used in complex decisionmaking processes.

   3. Improve communications between all involved parties when issues arise. Keep these issues out of Congress and the courts.

   4. Report back regularly to the ACWI on these issues.

   PRESENTATIONS. Dr. Penny Firth, the Program Director for Ecological Studies in the Division of Environmental Biology/National Science Foundation, was the keynote speaker for the meeting. Her topic was "Information, Knowledge and Wisdom for Watershed Decision Making." Dr. Firth presented invaluable insights about multidisciplinary information and understanding needed to manage, restore and protect watersheds.

   Karol Keppy arranged and moderated a panel discussion about "Local Watershed Information Requirements. " Ms. Keppy is the Manager of the Know Your Watershed Initiative sponsored by the Conservation Technology Information Center. Representatives of selected watershed groups from across the country discussed activities at the local level to assess, restore and preserve watersheds. These panelists highlighted the differences in local organizations and issues from place to place. They were inspiring proof of the outstanding commitment in local communities to work together on watershed issues. Many of these groups depend on volunteers with widely varying training and expertise, and their information needs and priorities are diverse. The three panelists are listed below:

   1. Beth Seibert of the Ottawa River Coalition in Ohio,
   2. Steve Lewandowski of the Canandaigua Lake Watershed Task Force in New York, and
   3. Thomas Schott of the Garcia River Watershed Project in California

   On the second day of the meeting, the Advisory Committee reviewed the activities of its subordinate groups. See the Summary of Actions above for information about these presentations.

   On the final morning of the meeting, Dr. Schaefer and a few other Federal participants provided brief updates on the Fiscal Year 1999 Budget process. At the time Congress was still deliberating on the budget, so the information was preliminary. As of the meeting, the house had passed 11 of the 13 appropriation bills and the Senate had passed 8. The Administration was threatening to veto 7 of the 13 bills. Dr. Schaefer reported that the President requested $7.1 billion for the Department of the Interior. The house mark was $6.65 billion, and the Senate mark was $6.78 billion. On the positive side, Dr. Schaefer indicated that both the House and Senate proposed an increase for land operations over the FY 1998 appropriation. Also, both legislative bodies approved some funding for uncontrollable costs. The Office of Surface Mining received a $2 million increase for the Clean Streams Initiative. However, at the time of the meeting Congress was not supporting Clean Water Action Plan funding in other Interior bureaus. Late in the appropriations process Congress did include some additional Clean Water funding. Other Administration budget concerns related to cuts in DOI Ecosystem Restoration.

   PUBLIC COMMENTS. Two representatives of private sector consulting organizations provided public comments on the subject of USGS relationships with the private sector. Thomas Fails spoke for the American Institute of Professional Geologists, and his remarks are captured in a letter to Nancy Lopez provided after the meeting (attachment 8).* David Stewart provided public comments on behalf of the American consulting Engineers Council, and his remarks are contained in Attachment 9.

   SPECIAL EVENTS. On the first evening of the meeting, member organizations of the ACWI presented exhibits on the theme of " Information and Decision Support Systems for Watershed Assessment and Restoration". A list of the exhibits is provided in Attachment 10. On the afternoon of the second day, the Cherry Creek Basin Water Quality Authority and State Park Office jointly hosted an outstanding field trip to the Upper Cherry Creek Watershed. Community work in the Basin is an outstanding example of the coordinated approach to local watershed management, and the ACWI was able to talk with the leaders of the project and to see innovative practices for improving water quality in local watersheds. Both of these events helped the ACWI to prepare its advice on the last day of the meeting.

   NEXT MEETING. The ACWI discussed its next meeting and tentatively agreed to hold it in the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area during the week of February 14, 1999.{NOTE: Due to changes in the ACWI membership, this meeting was postponed until May 18-19, 1999 in Reston, Virginia.} Upon successful conclusion of the business, Dr. Schaefer expressed his appreciation to the representatives of the ACWI member organizations, speakers, facilitators, and other attendees and then adjourned the meeting on December 19, 1998, at approximately 4:00 p.m.

• Please review this document prior to April 23, 1999. Any revisions to these Aug 98 minutes, please promptly send changes to us by calling, by faxing, or by emailing to Carol Lewis.

• Where possible we have provided a hotlink to the attachments that reside on the WEB. If you want to request paper copies of the attachments please write, fax, or call us. See the mailing address, fax no. and phone no's below.

• U.S. Geological Survey
  Water Information Coordination Program
  417 National Center
  Reston, Virginia 20192-0001
  Phone no. 703-648-5676
  fax no. 703-648-5644 or 703-648-5295
  Email address is: cilewis@mailqvarsa.er.usgs.gov
  

ATTACHMENT 1 - AGENDA
Linked to Aug 17-19, 1998 - Denver, CO. Agenda

ATTACHMENT 2 - LIST OF ATTENDEES
Linked to August 17-19, 1998 - Denver, CO List of Attendees.

ATTACHMENT 3 - TERMS OF REFERENCE for the SPATIAL WATER DATA
Linked to Spatial Water Data Terms of Reference

ATTACHMENT 4 - TERMS OF REFERENCE for the SUBCOMMITTEE OF HYDROLOGY
Linked to Subcommittee of Hydrology Terms of Reference

ATTACHMENT 5 - TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE TASK FORCE ON STREAM GAGING
Linked to the revised Terms of Reference for the Stream Gaging Task Force

ATTACHMENT 6 - TERMS OF REFERENCE AND LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE TO REVIEW THE FEDERAL-STATE COOPERATIVE PROGRAM (COOP PROGRAM)
Linked to Approved Terms of Reference and List of Members of the Task Force to Review the Federal-State Cooperative Program (COOP).

The following attachments are available in paper copy only.

ATTACHMENT 7 - CHARGES OF BREAKOUT GROUPS

ATTACHMENT 8 - THOMAS FAILS SPEECH AND COMMENTS
He spoke for the American Institue of Professional Geologist.

ATTACHMENT 9 - DAVE STEWART - PUBLIC COMMENTS AND HIS REMARKS
He made public comments on behalf of the American Consulting Engineers Council

ATTACHMENT 10 - INFORMATION AND DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEMS FOR WATERSHED ASSESSMENT AND RESTORTATION - List of exhibits