SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS (UPDATES IN PARENTHESES)
ACTION ITEM - Give Ms. Fellows before lunch on the 13th any comments and ideas on the Watershed 96 workshop draft agenda. Also give edits on the workshop announcement (Attachment 5) at the same time.
ACTION ITEM - All members who have information on the internet about their ITFM related activities should give Doug Glysson the URL for it and he will link their pages to the WICP homepage. Many are already listed and linked on EPA/OWOW homepage.
ACTION ITEM - All review the CENR/OSTP report and give comments to Tim Smith by January 4, 1996, so that he can consolidate our response by the January 8 review deadline. Members can send comments directly to Ruggerio or to Dr. Smith . If sent directly to Ruggerio, send copy to Dr. Smith . Email address is mike_reggerio@nbs.gov or NBS, 1849 C St. NW, M/S 3660-MIB, Washington, DC 20240 (ITFM was not able to complete this action).
ACTION ITEM - All review indicators report and get comments to Ms. Fellows by December 20.
ACTION ITEM - Revised agenda for the pre-conference, Watershed 96, workshop will be sent to for review and comments to all members. Members are asked to look at agenda and if they have case studies relevant to the agenda, they should contact Mary Belefski in Ms. Fellow's office.
ACTION ITEM - Mr. Pickering (USGS) will supply USGS State Representatives with a list of who got copies in those states.
ACTION ITEM - USGS will send out the final report distribution list and the members will add groups onto it that need to have presentations made to them as a means of getting our message out. Make a list of what transmittal letters need to be written.
ACTION ITEM - EPA will prepare a set of overheads to be used by all members to give briefing and presentation to other agencies and professional groups and organizations. Each member should make a presentation on monitoring, collaboration, and the ITFM to at least one group.
ACTION ITEM - EPA will draft a write up on reference conditions
ACTION ITEM - Ms. Fellows requested that Hood get 20 copies of his field manual for distribution to the members, he will try.
ACTION ITEM - Neil Carriker will get a copy of draft charter of the Southeastern Regional ITFM and send to Mr. Pickering (Glysson) for distribution to the ITFM members.
Purpose for this meeting - Ms. Fellows explained that the purpose of the meeting was to go over where we are, to continue to develop the national plans for implementation of the recommendations made in the final report, and concentrate on monitoring design issues at the National and State scales.
National Implementation - Tim Smith handed out an (Attachment 2) update of the status of the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI). The plan is to have the National Council under the ACWI. The ACWI will be at a higher lever of representation (i.e. at the Assistant Secretary level) than the IACWD. The ACWI will include both Federal and non-Federal members and keep the Committee at a manageable number of members. Currently, the approval process of getting the ACWI approved as a FACA committee, the Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, DOI, or her representative, will chair the Committee and OWDC is reworking the approval documents and will shortly resubmit it for approval. Dr. Smith described the old and new structures, he discussed the National Performance Review as a means of conducting business in the interim. Dr. Smith announced that Jim Biesecker will be retiring at the end of 1995. The GS will name a replacement for Jim, but there may be some reorganizing at headquarters prior to the naming of a replacement. Ed Pickering, Executive Secretary, also will be retiring at the end of 1995. Dr. Smith assured the group that the survey will continue to support the ITFM.
Ms. Fellows briefly decribed the status of EPA's FY 1996 budget. Currently they are working under a second continuing resolution. EPA may suffer a reduction in its budget for FY 1996. She repeated that EPA is firmly committed to the support of the ITFM and the National Council. EPA is trying to insure that State grant money will not be cut.
There was a general discussion of the impact of the decline of the EPA and USGS budgets on the State programs.
Status of Advisory Committee and National Council New Members - Ms. Fellows handed out a suggestion for members (Attachment 3) that outlined the categories of members and nominations so far. She discussed how the members will be selected. She asked that everyone take a look at the list and give suggestions to Mr. Pickering. Dr. Smith discussed the USGS State Representatives and that they should be used to help nominate candidates. They have a significant number of contacts in their states and he will contact them for their input. EPA will do the same with the EPA Regional Monitoring Coordinators.
Ms. Fellows discussed in detail the selection of state members. Rodney DeHan suggested that the state members have a direct involvement in monitoring so that they can contribute to the Council. The question was brought up about having a single representative for a large Federal Department, such as USDA, when they represent a wide variety of interests. Ms. Fellows said that efforts will be made to bring in all the major Federal interests as called for in the proposed charter of the National Council. After the ITFM review, the outline of the list of categories will be circulated to a wider group for input. A draft cover letter will be also drafted for review by the ITFM.
ACTION ITEM - All members, review the draft membership list and get comments back to Ed Pickering by December 19, 1995.
ACTION ITEM - USGS to draft a cover letter soliciting National Council members for ITFM members to review. Letter will contain criteria and categories for membership and a list of present members.
ACTION ITEM - Ms. Fellows will draft a short article for State newsletters etc. She will get this to the members before Christmas.
ACTION ITEM - Mr. Pickering will supply State representatives with a list of who got copies of the final report in their states.
ACTION ITEM - Chuck Job will send an article he wrote on the ITFM to Mr. Pickering for distribution to the members.
-ES&T Article - Copies were sent to the members in the pre-meeting package.
-Success Stories, Ideas - Ms. Fellows reported that she has gotten several inputs and will get them written up. Delays in EPA's budget has put this effort on hold but she hopes to get to it soon.
-Water Resources Bulletin Article - Water Resources Bulletin has requested an article be written for them. Ms. Fellows will work on trying to get this article written.
-Federal Programs Summary Table - A condensed version was sent to the members in the pre-meeting package
Watershed 96 Pre-Conference Workshop - June 9, 1996 - Singleton/Fellows/DeHan - The ITFM proposal to host a one-day pre-conference monitoring workshop before Watershed 96 have been accepted. It will be held in the Baltimore Convention Center. Ms. Fellows discussed the committee that has been formed and consists of Singleton, DeHan, Fellows, and Belefski. Two handouts were given out; one on the proposed distribution (Attachment 5) and one was a draft agenda (Attachment 6). DeHan discussed the draft agenda in detail. There will be two other pre-conference workshops going on at the same time as this one. Suggestion was made to see of there would be an opportunity to report the recommendations of the pre-conference workshop to the conference. Mary Belefski reported on the draft announcement (Attachment 5) that will used in the conference announcement. It was noted that there was probably too much planned and will have to be cut down to fit the time constraints. Because of the "nuts and bolts" aspect of the other pre-conference workshops, we may want to stress the collaborative aspect of monitoring and use case studies to show how this collaboration works. There needs to be a balance between technical and collaboration aspects of monitoring at the workshop. Mary Belefski will be coordinating this activity (202) 260-7061 and fax (202/) 260-1977. Pete Juhle and Doug Glysson were added to the planning committee.
ACTION ITEM - Before lunch on the 13th, all members give Ms. Fellows comments and ideas on the workshop draft agenda, also give edits on the workshop announcement (Attachment 5).
Mark Schaefer, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water and Science, Department of the Interior - Dr. Smith introduced him. Mr. Schaefer stated that the DOI is very interested in expanding the communication with states and private sector. He pointed out that the better informed the public is, the better decisions can be made. He discussed several examples of how this communication worked in recent flooding events; effects of the 1993 Flood on the Mississippi River, the recent flooding in the Pacific Northwest, and the USGS real time streamgaging data from the internet. He stressed the usefulness of the data being on the internet and available to the general public and with real time data, how it can save time and effort by the local USGS offices in answering requests for data. He expressed support for the ITFM and a successor, the National Council.
-Maryland - Cleaves - Handed out a summary of the Maryland State scale ITFM activities (Attachment 8). He discussed the Maryland Water Monitoring Committee and the Committee's first annual conference held November 16, 1995. A total of 153 people attended the meeting. The conference was strongly supported by Region 3 EPA and the USGS District office in Maryland. The conference attendees decided to go ahead with forming a statewide monitoring committee and accepted the purpose and goals as shown on the handout. Five task groups were formed and 50 volunteers agreed to participate in these task groups. The Steering committee has formed and selected chairs for the task groups. It was agreed that a state agency should lead the group and the committee will select its own chair.
-Washington - Singleton - Instituted a statewide watershed initiative. They are trying to get more involved with local level people. They have established local field offices to deal directly with the local people and in some cases they have dedicated individuasl in their regional offices to work directly with the local people. Washington is realizing that their major product is information. Singleton is heading up a task force to develop a system that will allow them to enter data into a single source. They are looking at 10 different agencies to see how to integrate their data better. Their motto is "our data is yours." They are taking small pieces at a time and trying to fix them.
-Wisconsin - Sanford - Wisconsin Natural Resources agency is being reorganized and they are trying to put all the water agencies together. They are trying to centralize all of their monitoring programs but are trying to move the monitoring decisions to the watershed level. They have the final report of their pilot study in draft form. Major finding is that different monitoring procedures, if effectively quality assured, can produce similar results. Long-term monitoring for trends need to be coordinated better. Major outcome was a higher respect for different agencies among agencies. They had a statewide monitoring meeting and had over 80 people to attend. They do not have a lead agency that has time to keep this movement going and will have to do small projects instead.
-Arizona - Hood - Nonpoint source program is on going in several watershed in the state. He discussed their problems with on-site septic systems and their effects on ground water. They are quite involved in the NAWQA program and the local liaison committee. A statewide group of agencies has been formed to help coordinate the development of statewide GIS programs. He discussed a very successful program where they have been working with the Friend of the Santa Cruz, who have been conducting a monitoring program for several years, on the NAWQA project in that area. They are working with Mexico on well design. They have some problems reaching agreement with Mexico on sampling procedures. He showed a water proof field manual for sample collection that is bilingual (English and Spanish). They are working on getting it approved by Mexico.
ACTION ITEM - Ms. Fellows requested that Hood get 20 copies of his field manual for distribution to the members, he will try.
-Regional presentation - Carriker - Southeastern Monitoring Council - They are still working on their charter and have general agreement on the scope and purpose. Key issues in the charter are: the number of members (maximum of 25); how to balance between different interest groups; and how to be officially recognized. They are trying to coordinate the sampling schedules between states. Selection of officers was delayed until all the members have been selected. A steering committee will lead the group until the officers are selected. Next steps: revise charter; obtain a letter for the EPA Regional Administrator endorsing the group; next meeting in January, and will have session at a regional meeting in March. Rodney DeHan is also involved in this effort.
ACTION ITEM - Mr. Carriker will get a copy of the draft charter and send to Mr. Pickering for distribution to the ITFM members.
-Oklahoma pilot - Kurklin - Representatives of the U.S. Geological Survey, EPA Region 6, and four State agencies (Oklahoma Office of the Secretary of the Environment, Water Resources Board, Department of Environmental Quality, and Conservation Commission) discussed by conference call November 27, the monitoring guidance for EPA 106 and 604(b) grants (modeled on ITFM guidelines) and approaches to enhance the State's ability to assess Oklahoma's waters. Currently only about 9% of the State's streams are assessed.
The DEQ, formerly part of the Department of Health, dropped ambient monitoring program, except for a limited biological program using fish, and diverted the funding to the permits program. When the network was redesigned, the Survey dropped all the NASQAN sites in Oklahoma. The Survey, through its program with local agencies, the OWRB, and the OCC collect chemical, physical, and biological data, some of which is used in the DEQ 305(b) assessment. DEQ accepts data that includes acceptable meta data. It wasn't clear what standards they apply, except they are comparable to the Federal Spatial Data Standards.
The primary barrier to data sharing identified was the multiple steps to transfer data between different data management systems. The Survey explained that it was not desirable to consolidate all State data in the National Water Information System because the states would continue to maintain their own databases for convenience; duplicative data bases almost always ultimately result in conflicting data as one data base is updated and revised and the other isn't. It was explained that mechanisms to ease access to each others data when needed for a purpose, such as the assessment, is more desirable. Then each agency can maintain its own data. Internet is recognized as an approach to improving data transfer. The State agencies are gradually gaining access to Internet.
Although the OCC identified the lack of an ambient monitoring program in the State as a problem, DEQ said monitoring is not their mission and that as long as issuance of permits is the priority requirement, 106 funds will be used for permitting. However, if the new requirements will be for environmental indicators, and not number of permits, the priorities will change to fund monitoring.
It was agreed to meet to discuss the proposed 106/604(b) guidance. Charlie Howells, DEQ, will send a draft agenda and proposed dates to the participants.
Subsequent to that teleconference, at a recent Arkansas River Basin Commission meeting, it was decided that the way monitoring was done on the river be looked at and coordinated better.
-Florida - DeHan - They are using Ecosystem management system. Most of the programs are water oriented. Ecosystem Management Implement System report is based on 2 years of work. A major problem with the system is scale of the studies. The ecosystems are in some cases too large to manage and they have drafted a system for breaking up the state into watersheds. There are based on HUC (53 in FL). This classification does not take into account ground water. The pilot study include ground water into the watershed approach. Florida Aquifer Vulnerable System is being developed and the maps will be published in the near future. Ambient monitoring is being done but assimilative capacity is not being monitored. DeHan discussed in some detail their proposed design for monitoring based on a 3-D watershed approach. The state has been looking into the effective exchange of data and using a single ID for each well.
Discussion of how to encourage and support State level activities - All Members - Internet was discussed as a very good means of getting the information out to more people. Also it was discussed that the reorganized EPA regions become more aware of the need for monitoring collaboration and active in ITFM regional and state groups
ACTION ITEM - All members who have information on the internet about their ITFM related activities should give Doug Glysson the URL for it and he will link their pages to the WICP homepage. (Note: Many are already listed and linked on EPA/OWOW homepage)
Data Management - Glysson - reported for Tom Yorke. The working group has not met recently and no plans are to meet until the National Council is formed. However the plan for an ITFM homepage on the internet has been implemented and he showed examples of pages from the Water Information Coordination Program (WICP) homepage which contains an ITFM section. The ITFM main report is on the internet and the appendixes will be up soon. He also reported that the ASTM has approved its standard based on the ITFM general outline for designing a monitoring program. Three other monitoring standards (wetlands, sediment, and nutrients) have been balloted at the subcommittee level.
Ground Water - Job - Subgroup has not met in some time. They are still working on some of their products and are continuing to develop the ground water framework. They are also working on the ground water section of the ambient and compliance water-quality monitoring coordination plan. The group will meet Wednesday morning to discuss future plans. DeHan handed out an abstract (Attachment 10) that discussed the pilot study and the abstract has been submitted to the Watershed 96 Conference. USGS is preparing a fact sheet on this project. Wilber - Recommendations for a National Ground Water Monitoring Strategy report is getting ready for publication (Attachment 11). Lehn Franke, USGS, is working very hard on getting this report done and it should be ready for review by the ITFM Ground after Focus Group early in 1996.
Methods - Sherer and Brass could not attend. Ms. Fellows reported for the group (Attachment 12). They have been working on the membership for the Method Board under the National Council. They are also looking at a nutrient preservation pilot study that Mr. Sherer is heading for South Carolina. EPA responded to Mr. Sherer's letter agreeing to seriously consider the results of the pilot.
Indicators - Fellows - Handed out a draft of the first water quality indicators report (Attachment 13). After incorporating comment from the ITFM members, the draft will be released for public comment, at which time, the ITFM members will have a chance to make additional comments.
ACTION ITEM - All members give Ms. Fellows comments on the indicators report by end of December.
Status of Future Groups-Water Use - Solley - Gave a brief overview of the USGS National Water Use Program. It was started in 1978 and is under the USGS Federal/State Cooperative Program. They publish a compilation of water use statistics on a 5-year cycle. They have a homepage on the internet. He feels that water use data are becoming more important because of the decline in the construction of reservoirs and the increase interest in instream flow. He stated that no one agency has the responsibility for determining instream flow requirements or monitoring instream flows. Conclusions are that demand for water use information will increase, more detail information is needed, there will be opportunities for studies, and there will be opportunities for cooperation, standards, sharing of data, and all other areas identified by the ITFM for water quality are need for water use data in the near future. He passed out the USGS fact sheet on water use (Attachment 14).
NASQAN/Benchmark Network Redesign - Dave Rickert, Chief, Office of Water Quality, USGS, discussed the evolution of the NASQAN Program. From 1992 to 1995, funding has fallen in actual dollars from $4.6 million to $3.2 million. Station numbers were reduce in 1992 from 518 to 284. He discussed the redesign of the program (Attachment 16). The new design of the program has 35 stations in four major river basin and some coastal area (Mississippi, Colorado, Rio Grande, and Columbia River Basins). Objective is to measure flux on large river basins. He also discussed the Hydrologic Benchmark Network program and the changes that are contemplated for this program. He explained that recently eight stations were dropped because they no longer fit the objectives of the program. The states representatives felt that there was a good opportunity to monitor the effects of man's activity in these basins. It was explained the USGS Districts do look for additional funding to continue these stations when they are proposed to be discontinued.
Report of the National Monitoring and Research Network Team; CENR/OSTP - Ruggerio discussed the origin of the Monitoring Team. He handed out the drafts of the Executive Summary (Attachment 17) and their Final Report (Attachment 18) and discussed in general the report. The report is titled "A Framework for Monitoring the Nation's Natural Resources." He also discussed the required actions to implement the framework. He feels that the implementation needs to be done in at the individual agency level. They would like to have two pilot studies, one in the east and one in the west. In 1996, they will establish a geo-referenced database of ongoing environmental monitoring programs that will be on the internet. Emery noted that mineral resources have been excluded from the report. Rodney suggested that they call it assessment rather than monitoring. Ruggerio pointed out that the words used were a result of consensus among the committee. He welcomed any and all comments on the report. Ecosystem Work Group that Jim Andreason is working on (an interagency group), developed a framework for doing a ecosystem assessment. Anyone interested in the framework should contact Jim.
ACTION ITEM - All review the CENR/OSTP report and give comments to Tim Smith by January 4, 1996, so that he can consolidate our response by the January 8 review deadline. Members can send comments directly to Ruggerio or to Dr. Smith . If sent directly to Ruggerio, send copy to Dr. Smith . Email address is mike_reggerio@nbs.gov or NBS, 1849 C St. NW, M/S 3660-MIB, Washington, DC 20240.
Indicators Report - Ms. Fellows discussed the National Water Indicators report (Attachment 13) that EPA has taken the lead in preparing. A total of eight states including Ohio are trying all or some of the indicators to see how well they work in obtaining the information needed. The report covers environmental goals, objectives, indicators, and milestones for water quality. There are 16 indicators described in the report. Chris Yoder discussed their work in Ohio concerning these indicators. The pilot study in Ohio was to test the use of these indicators. Ohio used EPA's hierarchy of indicators with six levels. These level changed for level one which is considered "administrative" in nature to level six which is "true environmental" indicators. He discussed the Ohio 5-year basin monitoring and assessment approach. By using this approach, reports, such as the 305(b) report, are byproducts of this activity, not something extra. Ms. Fellows will do a internal review on the indicators report and next month it will go out to external review.
ACTION ITEMS - All review indicators report and get comments to Ms. Fellows by December 20.
State level - Who takes the responsibility for getting this process started in the states? Need a contact who is interested in this. It was requested that EPA identify a contact in each EPA region who will be the focal point for the ITFM processes. At the National level, we can reward or recognize group and states that are making progress in implementing the ITFM system. National and State organizations are working together to try to encourage the implementation of ecosystem watershed management approach to monitoring. It was suggested that the USGS District could act as a support resource for the implementation of state ITFM's. It is more effective if the states get involved and not be dominated by USGS, EPA, and/or other agencies.
We need to be able to get not only to agency head but also to the working level individuals that will make the idea go in their state.
ACTION ITEM - Revised agenda for the pre-conference, Watershed 96, workshop will be sent to for review and comments to all members. Members are asked to look at agenda and if they have case studies relevant to the agenda, they should contact Mary Belefski in Ms. Fellow's office.
ACTION ITEM - USGS will send out the final report distribution list and the members will add groups onto it that need to have presentations made to them as a means of getting our message out. Make a list of what transmittal letters need to be written.
ACTION ITEM - EPA will draft a write up on reference conditions.
For additional information concerning this or any other ITFM meeting, contact Chief, Office of Water Data Coordination at 417 National Center, Reston VA 22092
Return to the WICP Homepage
This page is maintained by lkendrix@usgs.gov
Last modified: 1508 29MAR96