NWQMC banner

San Jose, California
December 7-9, 2004


Note: Powerpoint presentations referred to in these minutes may be accessed on the Council’s website at http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/monitoring. Attachments identified in these notes are available in hard copy by request only.

Chuck Spooner and Gail Mallard opened the meeting and welcomed members and guests. Chuck described the Council’s activities and the task proposed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) to provide advice, counsel, and recommendations that address the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy recommendation regarding the creation of a coordinated, comprehensive national water quality monitoring network. The Council will focus activities at this meeting on preparations for beginning work on this project. Documents distributed at meeting regarding the CEQ proposal are (1) Draft Deliberative Document – NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION - National Water Quality Monitoring Proposal and (2) National Monitoring Network (NMN) Proposed products from San Jose NWQMC Meeting, and Memo to Co-Chairs, NWQMC, from Robert M. Hirsch, Associate Director for Water, USGS, subject: Request from the CEQ and National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) (Attachments 1, 2, and 3).

Welcome from City of San Jose
Carl Mosher, Director of City of San Jose, Environmental Services Department. Welcomed the group to San Jose and presented some history and activities of San Jose. (See pp presentation.) Slides from presentation show how the city looked 50 years ago as well as today. There are very few orchards left. San Jose is competing with Detroit to be the 10th largest city in the United States. Core services of the Environmental Services Department—manage potable water, wastewater, recycled water, urban runoff, manage recyclables collection and processing, garbage collection and disposal, protect air, land and energy resources.

San Francisco Bay Monitoring
James Cloern, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Menlo Park, California, gave a presentation on the San Francisco Bay Monitoring program. (See pp presentation.) The USGS has been involved in the research program in San Francisco Bay monitoring since 1968. This is the longest sustained program of coastal monitoring in the United States. What is the value of discovery from this kind of investment? Four examples are basic lessons of value for decisions of regulating and managing natural resources--Partnership with the San Francisco Estuary Institute; two estuaries, fresh water and salt water, river driven estuaries in the north. Proposed priorities of toxics are exotic species, mercury, copper, nickel, diazinon, PCB’s, selenium. No occurrences of low oxygen in the San Francisco Bay since investment in water quality in 1979. These investments have been worth cost. Nutrient over enrichment is a significant problem for the coastal regions of the United States. The National Academy of Sciences has a committee to assess nutrient over enrichment. They have published Clean Coastal Waters—Understanding and Reducing the Effects of Nutrient Pollution. Discovery from research—comparing Chesapeake Bay to San Francisco Bay.

San Francisco Regional Monitoring Program
Jay Davis, San Francisco Estuary Institute, distributed the publication “Pulse of the Estuary 2004, Monitoring and Managing Water Quality in the San Francisco Estuary” published by the San Francisco Estuary Institute. (Attachment 4) Jay gave presentation on the San Francisco Regional Monitoring Program. (See pp presentation.) There are 7 million people in the Bay Area. Some ingredients to the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) Success Story—stable funding, program began in 1993, $3 million per year; collaboration between regional water quality control board; clear mission having a statement of objectives and questions that you are trying to answer; we reevaluate every 5 years; adaptation being able to allow you to change water quality management needs; objectivity—different stakeholders involved-- it is important for every one to believe in the information being developed; sound science—involving top scientists, peer review, and rigorous quality assurance that is another essential ingredient. Using state of the art measurements, subject data to careful screens. San Francisco Estuary Institute administers the RMP. Program began in 1993—San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board to form comprehensive monitoring program for the Bay. RMP budget for 2005 is allocated to program management, status and trends monitoring; pilot studies; special studies; set aside--$3.1 million budget. Organizational structure is headed by steering committee, technical review committee with sections for sources, pathways, and loading work group; exposure and effects work group; and contaminant fate work group. Dave Tucker chairs the Steering Committee and one working group. All meetings are open to the public. Overview of water quality in the Bay—summary of information is accessible to managers and to the public. Last report was published in May 2004. Monitoring results are compared to water quality objectives; sport fish screening values; sediment effects thresholds.

California Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program. (Surface Water Ambient Water Monitoring Program (SWAMP))
Valerie Connor, California State Water Resources Control Board, gave presentation on water quality in State of California. (See pp presentation.) The California Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program is a comprehensive state program on surface water; coordinates all Board ambient water quality monitoring. Most of the watersheds have not been assessed. The California Water Board is using the Council’s framework in their processes. There are nine regional boards. The State of CA is working towards method comparability, consistent and objective sampling analysis, and assessment methods. The California Environmental Data Network consists of 50 entities. Establishing a Monitoring Council in the State of California – project for next 2 years.

Monitoring Trace Metals
Russ Flegal, University of California, Santa Cruz, Environmental Toxicology, gave presentation. (See pp presentation.) The University of California, Santa Cruz, is involved in a regional monitoring program—truly one that works--.including collaboration, challenges, and criticisms. San Francisco Bay is national model for metals. There has not been a systematic long-term study of metal in Chesapeake Bay. Only long-term metal studies have been done in the San Francisco Bay. There is not a single publication on trace metals in any estuaries. Consequences—no data and no measure of cost/benefits. Limited data--limited assessment, incorrect assessment. Sufficient data: focus on real problems and emerging problems.

Challenges of Long-Term Environmental Monitoring: NOAA’s Mussel Watch Project
Jawed Hameedi, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, gave presentation. (See pp presentation.) Jawed discussed National Status and Trends Program of NOAA, includes monitoring and assessments. The Coastal Monitoring includes mussel watch, quality assurance, specimen banking, and historical trends. Bioeffects assessments includes sediment toxicity, fish/bivalve biomarkers, sediment quality guidelines, ecological indices; regional and topical assessments.

Industrial Stormwater Monitoring Program
Michael Stenstrom, UCLA, gave presentation on the Industrial Stormwater Monitoring Program. (See pp presentation) Co-author on this presentation is Haejin Lee. Background of industrial monitoring-- the State Water Resource Control Board issued the statewide General Permit for discharges of stormwater associated with industrial activities. Permittees must collect water quality samples from two storms per year and analyze for four basic parameters. Currently there are approximately 3000 permitees within the Los Angeles County. The original goal of the General Permit was to identify polluters and improve their pollution prevention behavior; and to create a database.

Monitoring Study to Assist in Real-Time Decisionmaking (Bacterial Indicators and Risk to Human Health)
Stanley Grant, University of California at Irvine, gave presentation. (See pp presentation.) Program includes Standards for Ocean Bathing Water Quality in California; focus on Fecal Indicator Bacteria (FIB) relating to adverse human health outcomes linked to exposure to elevated FIB in ocean bathing waters. Discussed urban sources of pollution—natural sources, birds, growth, humans; offshore wastewater plumes; nuisance stormwater runoff; leaking sewer lines.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Proposal
Chuck Spooner described the proposed CEQ task for Council to develop a national monitoring network (NMN). Gail Mallard indicated that the basic concept is to first establish a steering committee and then working groups. The building blocks will be monitoring inventory; determining temporal and spatial resolution. There are many people who will want to be involved in this process of developing a national water quality-monitoring network. However, the Council through ACWI are the keepers of this proposal and the leaders for developing the NMN. Other organizations with special expertise, which are not at this table, might want to be involved. We need to develop a Steering Committee and work groups for the CEQ proposal—so these groups would be new within the Council. Work Groups could be designated to work on specific aspects of developing the NMN. USGS is ready to identify people to work on this proposal; we need other Federal agencies to step up and volunteer experts to work on the proposal. We need a group who would really tackle temporal and spatial resolutions. Other building blocks might be what are the goals of the NMN. The model for moving forward in the next year is to make decisions at this meeting, have Council pull this together for final report due in January 2006. The timeline for goals are:

  1. Report at Council meeting April 2005,
  2. Briefing in May 2005, Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality (SWAQ)
  3. ACWI Briefing in October 2005
  4. Council Meeting, November 2005
  5. Final report in January 2006

This could be an ongoing effort for 2 or more years.

2006 National Monitoring Conference Update
Linda Green proposed that we integrate the National Volunteer Monitoring Conference along with the Council Conference. It was suggested that we could be more proactive to organize sessions ahead of time and ask folks to submit their abstracts on specific topics so that we don’t spend too much time working on abstracts; have people submit abstracts be specific about what topic they wish to present on and others (not specific) will go to general session topics. Select themes that people are interested in based on previous conference. Conference Planning Committee should be identified; members who wish to volunteer were asked to please sign up by Thursday’s business meeting. We need to select the Chairs of the Committee and sponsorships. Industrial money gets tied up pretty quickly. Announcements will be made on Wednesday morning.



Watershed Components Interactions
Mary Ambrose reported for WCI. They reviewed their work plan and looked at what they could put on hold while working on the CEQ proposal. Decided that some of the activities would actually help support the CEQ monitoring network. The lead for WCI Workshop is Dan Radulescu. This will be passed on to the CPC. Ecosystem monitoring will be discussed at next meeting. Also discussed components for monitoring framework—identifying the goals—suggestions that the report on environmental indicators would be good to used for the monitoring design network. Discussed detailed and different medias for the monitoring network. We need to think more about atmospheric monitoring and total watershed approach. Believe the SC will have to keep the work groups focused. USDA should be at the table as well a USF&WL in designing the network. Difficult to have a single representative for the Tribes. Discussed some of the difficulties with some of the Tribes.

Water Information Strategies
Peter Tennant reported. There were two presentations on the Expert System. This is an important initiative and would like to have it on the web. IT vision paper prepared and would like to have this posted on the web for feedback and opportunity to add to this document. Discussed recommendations for the conference—and will forward those along to the CPC. The CEQ project—feel that we are the core group to prepare model for monitoring network.

Methods Board
Discussed the outcome of October meeting: MB is preparing 2-year work plans for each work group. Wadeable Streams Assessment-- working with EPA in implementing bioassessment comparability program. WQDEs—will finalize guide for approval of guide and biological data elements by ACWI. Vision statement in final form for NEMI. (See pp presentation.) Dan Sullivan will track various hits on NEMI. There were a fair number of hits internationally. We want to add some biological methods as a high priority. Field Activities Committee established for addition of field methods to NEMI. Integrate expert system (EMMA) into NEMI. Hach has offered funding. We may look for a cooperative agreement with a private company as a CRADA. Website is being updated and expanding the scope of the web. MB has special invitation to do article for IMPACT to focus on methods and data comparability. Jon van Soestbergen will draft paper on State accreditation of state laboratories—parallels Federal laboratory recommendations.

Collaboration and Outreach
Jim Laine reported. Action items to be taken care of soon. (See pp presentation.) Action items: Prepare thank you letters to vendors (Judy Griffin); sign contracts for hotel rooms (Dave Tucker).
Begin financial preparations for conference (facility contracts)
Organize committee structure
Call for papers prior to April 2005.
NALMS is going to get webpage with theme. Need to pursue talking to vendors and sponsors—who usually commit their funds a year in advance of event. Keynote speakers (California Governor or spouse)
Sponsorship for reception scholarship, conference item options
Reception – Tech Museum
Investigate field trips—Monterey Aquarium, Elkhorn Slough-kayaking, boat tour, Marine Science Institute (Redwood City); Railroad (Roaring Camp river), Winery, Redwoods in Santa Cruz Mountains.
Conference Structure—Set up Sunday, registration, field trip
Monday Workshops
Workshops being at 9 a.m. and end at 4 p.m. with lunch at 1:00 p.m.
Monday evening- Plenary Session and Fellows Award 5-6:30 p.m. 6:30 to 7:30 p.m. social and poster exhibition
Thursday—public presentation of the National Water Quality Monitoring Network
Possibly have Congressional attendance at Thursday’s presentation.

Conference structure:
Tuesday and Wednesday – am structure
7-8 am (continental breakfast)
8:30 to 10 a.m. - four 18 min presentations and 2 minutes each for questions with 10 minutes for panel questions, etc.
10-10:30 - break
10:30 to 12 p.m. – Four 18 min presentations and 2 minutes each for questions with 10 minutes for panel questions.
Lunch 12 – 1:30.

Afternoon structure similar to morning’s structure.
Thursday morning national monitoring in international arena;
10-10:30 break;
10:30 to 12 National Network roll out with questions and answers.
Possibly two field trips for Thursday afternoon.

Jim Cox suggested single session on reflections. Something for continuity from previous conference sessions.

Monitoring Network: Design and Implementation (See pp presentation.)
Send to all on Council and have responses or votes for theme.

Conference Steering Committee:
Chuck Spooner, Dave Tucker, Jeff Schloss, Linda Green, Quad Chairs
Publicity Sponsors
What will contractor do: (Need to confirm) (Tetratech)
What will NALMS do: (Jeff Schloss)

Judith B. Griffin
Executive Secretary

Al Korndoerfer
Jane Caffrey
Jawed Hameedi
Russell Callender
Garth Redfield
Herb Brass
Peter Tennant
Valerie Connor
Jim Cox
Art Garceau
Dan Radulescu
Fred Leslie
Don Dycus
Paul Currier
Mary Ambrose
Robert Ward
Linda Green
Chuck Spooner
Gail Mallard
Jim Laine
Judy Griffin
Toni Johnson
John “JJ” Baum
Jeff Schloss
Karl Muessig
David Tucker
Eric Vowinkel

Russ Flegal, University of CA, Santa Cruz
Michael Stenstrom, UCLA
Alexis Strauss, EPA
Stanley Grant, University of California at Irvine
Donna Myers, USGS
Jay Davis, San Francisco Estuary Institute
James Cloern, USGS
Sandy Williamson, USGS
Eleanor Eli, Volunteer Monitoring
Carl Mosher, City of San Jose
Meg Sedlak, San Francisco Estuary Institute
Mark Wiechmann, U.S. Army COE, San Francisco District

[an error occurred while processing this directive]