Intergovernmental Task Force on
Monitoring Water Quality

SUMMARY OF ACTION ITEMS:

Meeting started at 8:40 am with introductions. A copy of the agenda is attachment 1 and a list of attendees attachment 2

A

Status of National Council (USGS): Tim Smith discussed the progress of the establishment of the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI). This is the parent committee that the National Council will be under. Smith discussed the meeting between EPA and the USGS on getting this Committee formed. Smith handed out 2 items: a) Calendar of Package events (attachment 3); b) proposed draft agenda for the first ACWI meeting (attachment 4). The Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior has the package and they have decided that it does not need to go to OMB and will go to GSA for publication in the Federal Register soon. The draft agenda of the first meeting shows that we are suggesting the ACWI take up the establishment of the National Council at their first meeting. Attached to the draft agenda is a copy of the draft charter for the ACWI and the recommended list of members for the ACWI. After the ACWI is formed, all subgroups under it will be FACA committees but will not have to go through the chartering FACA charting process.

A.1

ACTION ITEM: Elizabeth asked all members to review the Charter for the ACWI and know what is in it and give any comments to Tim Smith by September 20, 1996.

A.2

ACTION ITEM: Elizabeth asked all members to review the Charters (copies located in the ITFM National Strategy Report Appendixes) for the National Council and Methods Board and know what is in it and give any comments to Tim Smith by September 20, 1996.

B

Design for Water Monitoring - Watershed and Statewide - Fellows briefly discussed the formation of a subcommittee to look into this design. (See Technical Appendix C of the ITFM Strategy Report)

C

Watershed - Prince George's County (Sam Stribling) He gave a presentation that was originally given at Watershed 96 that discussed the development of a comprehensive watershed monitoring plan for Prince George's County. A copy of the papers is attachment 5. Cleaves suggested that it might be best to have reference sites that are keyed to land use and look at their relative health. Chris Yoder has dealt with this in Ohio and suggested that there is a need for a graded scale to measure urban streams vs. other types of streams. Reference conditions need to be set at the local level and can't be set at a National scale. Fellows reviewed 4 key issues that need to be followed up on : a) Reference conditions, b) Selection of probability sites, c) use of targeted and probability data together, and, d) link hydrology to reference conditions. Nancy Lopez discussed the BLM's view point of classification of multiple use lands.

D

Nationwide 305(b) redesign (Barry Burgan) 305(b): Burgan reviewed the work of the Consistency Workgroup. A copy of his overheads are attachment 6. The workgroup consists of Federal, State, and Tribal members. He discussed the shifting to a 5 year cycle with annual electronic reporting. The workgroup is focusing on several major issues (see list in attachment 6). He discussed the new annual electronic reporting cycle. EPA is currently leaning toward not reporting on 303(d) water bodies in the annual 305(b) electronic report but no decision has been made on any of the issues yet. The full consistency workgroup meets again in Washington, DC on October 22-24. ITFM member are invited to attend.

E

Probability design monitoring tool (Sam Stribling) and compendium of approaches (Barry Burgan) Burgan discussed the Comprehensive Assessment Focus Group and the State concerns about this process. Normally this approach does not address the cause and effect issue. He passed out a table that addressed a draft matrix of items that might be addressed in comprehensive assessments (attachment 7). They anticipate filling out this matrix and supplying it to the states for help in developing their monitoring programs for 305(b). Its purpose is to help the states decide and not to dictate how they should do their monitoring. The Focus Group will have a conference call to discuss this table tomorrow (September 11) at 3 p.m. and anyone interested in participating is free to do so. They will be having a October meeting and Fellows will make sure all ITFM members will get an invitation.

E.3

ACTION ITEM: Anyone who has comments on the table of monitoring approaches and purposes to get their comments to Elizabeth Fellows by September 20.

E.4

ACTION ITEM: Fellows will see that all ITFM members get an invitation to the October meeting of the ITFM National Design Focus Group.

Sam Stribling discussed the probability design as a monitoring tool, what it can and cannot do, and what the major advantages of this approach are. A copy of his overheads are attachment 8. He explained the stratified random site selection process and how they may use it. Pete Jule stated that the COE has individuals that have been working on this issue.

E.5

ACTION ITEM: Anyone who knows of individuals that might be interested in working on the national design work group needs to get the names to Tim Smith by September 20.

Design for Water Monitoring - Nationwide

F

NASQAN redesign linked with NAWQA update (Bill Wilber) Wilber updated the group on the NAWQA program and its goals. A copy of his overhead are attachment 9. In 1995, because of a shortage in funding, 5 of the planned second 20 studies units were stopped. In 1996, the Federal/non-Federal advisory group will help select the new starts. He handed out a memorandum from Tim Miller that discussed the selection and prioritization of the Fiscal Year 1997 starts (attachment 10). In 1997, they will be starting 17 additional study units assuming sufficient funding will be available. Six remaining study units will not be started because funding will not be available to support them. A list of the 59 study units and their starting date is attached to the memorandum. Bill discussed the process they go through in the selection of sampling sites for a given study unit. He then discussed the NASQAN evaluation. Originally there were 518 stations in 1980 and this number dropped to 284 sites in 1994 and from the original monthly sampling to a quarterly sampling frequency. In 1995-96, a reassessment of the NASQAN and the Hydrologic Benchmark programs objectives and how they related to the NAWQA program was made. The decision based on this analysis was to use NASQAN to fill the gap in large river systems. The final redesign contains 66 sites at the outflow of major river basins. These sites have been prioritized in case there are further cuts. The redesign will include trace elements and pesticides. The NASQAN review team has pointed that there is a large gap in monitoring the coastal areas. Anyone interested in more information concerning the redesign should contact the USGS' Office of Water Quality (703/648-6862).

G

CENR (Owen Bricker) He discussed the July 8, 1996 draft of the "Integrating the Nation's Environmental Monitoring and Research Networks and Programs: A Proposed Framework." Copies were handed out to those members in attendance. A copy of his overheads is attachment 11. The report is still not ready for wide distribution. A new version of the draft document will be available for the September, 1996 National Workshop and will be distributed at that meeting. He reviewed the draft conclusions and recommendations. The final document will be developed after the National Workshop. Elizabeth Fellows pointed out that the ITFM has been written into the final report as a way to handle the implementation of the water quality side of this plan. This is to be done in cooperation with Federal Geographic Data Committee.

H

Coastal Monitoring sites (Eric Slaughter) Slaughter handed out a summary of the selection criteria for the coastal monitoring (attachment 12). The purpose of this group was not to finally select sites but to suggest a process by which sites could be selected and prepare some for discussion. The document covers only the estuary zone and does not include the coastal zone.

H.6

ACTION ITEM: Members are to review the selection criteria for the coastal monitoring and get comments in to Eric Slaughter (EPA, 202/260-1051) by September 25.

H.7

ACTION ITEM: OWDC will get Slaughter email address for those ITFM members that they have so that he can get information out to the ITFM. (Done 9/17)

I

Methods Integration and the USGS Drinking Water Initiative (Herb Brass, Bill Wilber) Bill Wilber discussed the USGS Drinking Water Initiative, giving the background and where this came from. This initiative was a result of a two day meeting where USGS' three operational divisions, EPA and other attended. He pointed out that the highest priority issues for the USGS involvement are: disinfection by products, vulnerability assessments/targeting, microbioloical threats, arsenic, and source water protection. Four selected studies were identified; Quality of drinking-water supply for metropolitan Atlanta, Ga.; Assessment of sources and loads for DOC and DBP's in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Deltas, CA.; Statewide assessment of the vulnerability of New Jersey water supplier to disinfection byproducts (DBP's) and volatile organics; and Arsenic in the ground-water supplies for southeastern Michigan. This is a start, he had hoped for more. Herb Brass discussed the methods component of the project. He is hoping that they can use the ITFM concept in the development of methods for this initiative. He discussed the potential activities that could cross agency lines.

J

Groundwater Monitoring (Rodney DeHan, Chuck Job and Bill Wilber) Chuck Job reviewed the conclusions developed during the development of the ground water monitoring framework that was published in the ITFM Final Report. A draft report has been developed and it has been through the review process. It is being processed by the USGS (Lehn Franke, USGS, Denver, CO) and should be printed by February 1997. Rodney DeHan stated that this report will be very useful to the states and will save them hundreds of thousands of dollars in development costs. This report will be published as an ITFM document.

J.8

ACTION ITEM: An information copy of the ground water report will be provided to those members who requested it. If they have any significant points they should contact Lehn Franke, USGS, Denver, CO, 303/236-2101 ext. 228. (The following requested a copy: Harthill, Lopez, Nicholson, Eggleston, Pollison, Chang, Jule, Deardorf.)

J.9

ACTION ITEM: A short report based on the ground water report is planned and someone needs to be identified to do the work. This report will be placed on the Internet on the WICP homepage.

K

John Osterberg, USBR, discussed The Western States Water Commission that he is on. They are assessing the current statues of water in the west and what the Federal role is in western water. A lot of concern was raised about the decrease in funding for monitoring both quantity and quality of water. He approached the USGS about preparing a report on the need for these monitoring activities. They are interested in doing it but so far no one has been able to get the funds to support this activity. Nancy Lopez pointed out that the Subcommittee on Hydrology, Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data, is looking into revising a program that will document the purposes for the streamgaging stations and to develop a National Streamgaging program. This may be of help to the Commission. Osterberg is looking for the ITFM view point as to whether or not someone else was interested and had any resources to commit to this activity. Currently the Commission does not have resources available to tackle this activity but would like to have a multiagency approach to this report.

L

Bill Wilber discussed an announced new Presidential initiative that will focus on 75 of the largest cities in the country. This would be done with NOAA, Public Water Utilities, EPA, and the USGS. They would be looking at public water supplies. It would be a four year program. Elizabeth Fellows read a press release that discussed this "National Right To Know" proposal (attachment 12.a).

M

National Watershed Assessment Project/Surf Your Watershed; Environmental Indicators (Elizabeth Fellows) Fellows handed out a workplan for National Watershed Assessment Project (NWAP) (attachment 13). The workplan points out the purpose of this project, the work elements, and a calendar of major NWAP events. The states will get a chance in November to review this and get their comments in to EPA. The initial reaction to this from the states was that this may not be a good idea to do and that the review and discussion period is not nearly long enough. There was considerable reserve on the members part that this is doable or should even be attempted to be done by January 15, 1997. Fellows agreed the time line was short, but if the initial product was a draft pointer to others information it could advance the program the ITFM was proposing and spotlight the need for better monitoring information. On October 9, 1996, EPA will hold a meeting of invited experts, including several states, to discuss options for form of index for overall NWAP watershed characterization. Elizabeth also handed out a paper on the National Environmental Goals for Water (attachment 14).

M.10

ACTION ITEM: If any member wants to come to the October 9 NWAP meeting contact Elizabeth soon.

M.11

ACTION ITEM: All members to review the NWAP handout, especially element 2, and get comments into EPA. Suggest any other data layers that need to be added to the list by October 1.

Wednesday, September 11, 1996

N

Update on Methods Board - Herb Brass, Chair of the ITFM Methods Board Workgroup, feels that it is time to start forming the full Board and may have a meeting in December or January. The Board will need a state representative to serve as co-chair.

Brass discussed the EPA's activities in privatizing the Performance Evaluation program. A handout on a public meeting to get public input was distributed (attachment 16). Public comments on this program are being solicited and can be sent to EPA until September 18. Glysson reported on his view of the public meeting. He reported that there was considerable confusion during the meeting because of the different definitions of the word standard and that people did not accurately define what definition they were using when they spoke. The PE problem may be something that the Method Board may deal with. Herb and Glysson briefly described the EPA activities in streamlining Clean Water Act Section 304(h). A copy of overheads used by Bill Telliard, EPA, in a presentation to ASTM's Committee D-19 on Water at their June 1996 meeting are attachment 17.

O

Safe Drinking Water Act: Brass discussed the amendments of 1996 to the Safe Drinking Water Act (Attachment 18 and 19). He stated that there was going to be a state revolving loan fund. An additional write-up on this is being developed at EPA and Brass will give to OWDC for distribution to the ITFM members. DeHan discussed the source water and well head protection aspects of the amendments.

O.12

ACTION ITEM: Brass will supply OWDC with the revised write-up on the changes to the Safe Drinking Water Act and OWDC will distribute it to the ITFM members.

State Monitoring Integration

P

Maryland Water Monitoring Council (Emery Cleaves) Cleaves distributed a pamphlet on the Maryland Water monitoring Council (attachment 20). Maryland DNR has accepted the official sponsorship of the Council and the Secretary of the DNR will appoint the Board. The Board will elect the Chair and Vice-chair at their first meeting next month, they will probably not be state representatives. He reported on the work, committees, and reports that have been produced so far by the Council. They are working with the USGS Maryland District, EPA Region 3, several state agencies, and the private sector including private consultants and volunteer groups. He is trying to get each of the committees to produce at least one product. He stressed that in order to make this go, county and local individuals need to buy into the process.

Q

Florida Ground Water Project (Rodney DeHan) DeHan showed a brochure that the Florida Department of Environmental Protection has produced, "implementing ecosystem management in florida." The pamphlet gives the members of the Ecosystem Management Implementation Strategy Committee. (It can be accessed on the internet at -- http://www.dep.state.fl.us/emsp/emis.html. He discussed the reorganization of several state agencies in Florida. He discussed the recently published Florida Water Plan. This Plan brings together the water quantity and quality sections of Florida water management. He gave an update on the Suwannee River Project (attachments 21, 22, and 23). As a result of the letter (Attachment 23), a meeting is being set for Oct. 3, 1996. The agenda includes development of a Suwannee River Management Plan and other items. He described the use of the Suwannee River as a pilot site for implementation of the water plan.

Q.13

ACTION ITEM: OWDC will establish web links from the WICP homepage to appropriate state homepages such as Maryland, Ohio, and Florida. (FL-- http://www.dep.state.fl.us/ --, OH -- http://www.epa.ohio.gov/ --, MD -- http://mgs.dnr.md.gov/ --.) Any one interested in having their site linked to the WICP homepage should contact Tim Smith.

Reports from other State Members:

R

Chris Yoder reported on some of the new items available electronically in Ohio. He reported on the status of their Bio-assessment Comparability Study and an EMAP study on wadeable streams. In conjunction with a USGS NAWQA study, they participated in a bio-assessment comparability study where each agency went out and sampled using their own protocol and will compare the results.

S

Mike Talbot: New member for Wisconsin DNR. Reported on some of the monitoring activities in Wisconsin. They have subdivided the state into basins by watersheds. They have not used any of the national systems for subdividing but have used one of their own.

T

Joanna Kurklin: Oklahoma has not set up a group yet. Emery Cleaves has agreed to come to OK in December to help set up a council. Several interstate agreements have caused some monitoring on the boundaries and they hope this will spread to the rest of the state.

U

Haig Kasaback - New Jersey reported that they have divided the state into 5 major basins and will be following the USGS cataloging units. The major state agencies are meeting at the Assistant Commissioner level to coordinate water activities. They are planing a 5 year cycle for monitoring, one basin per year. This would be more intensive monitoring than that which is being done now.

V

How to aid/encourage States to integrate water monitoring: EPA will be getting out the success stories submitted by the states. Tim Smith will develop a list of names of individuals that will help other states develop ITFM type programs. DeHan felt that funded pilot studies are the best way to develop ITFM type programs. Yoder suggested that we look into the incentives to monitoring and make some formal recommendations. He asked how we overcome the reluctance by some state to do monitoring because they are afraid of what problems it might point out. Some discussion on how to use the consolidated grant programs to increase monitoring. How this program is administered is really dependent on the way each state handles it. EPA is putting some flexibility in funding between compliance and ambient monitoring but inside of the states the same people as before are controlling the money and are not putting the money into assessment. Nancy Lopez brought up the idea again of a separate national conference. DeHan suggested that we use some national organization to help put on the conference. Elizabeth suggested we develop a subgroup to look into organizing the conference (volunteers: Michal Harthill, Dan Smith, Nancy Lopez, Rodney DeHan, and Elizabeth Fellows or Tim Smith) Tim Smith suggested that the ITFM develop a model that could be used to develop a state ITFM program.

V.14

ACTION ITEM: EPA will began to write the monitoring case stories that had been discussed at previous meetings.

V.15

ACTION ITEM: EPA will develop a paper on how to aid/encourage states to integrate water programs between compliance and assessment.

V.16

ACTION ITEM: Tim Smith will develop a list of names of individuals that may help other states develop ITFM type programs.

V.17

ACTION ITEM: Fellows requested that agencies and states look into requesting money in their budgets to fund a national conference on monitoring in early 1998.

V.18

ACTION ITEM: The newly formed subgroup on organizing the national conference will develop a suggested agenda and proposal for the meeting.

V.19

ACTION ITEM: Develop a model state ITFM organizational framework.

W

NRCS State of the Land Report (and influence on water) (Dan Smith) Dan Smith discussed the implementation of the recent Farm Bill. The rules and regulations that are being proposed can mostly be found on the web under different sites in USDA and are being published in the Federal Register. Fred Swader is Executive Secretary for a group that is coordinating water quality in USDA. This group is being reviewed as to whether it needs to continue or not and should the scope of the committee be broadened. NRCS is undergoing an additional reorganization to add a fourth deputy to cover soils. NRCS' RCA, which has been produced evey 5 years, the NRI, and the State of the Land are being combined into a document called "American's Private Land, America's Hope." This document will look at a wide variety of issues associated with agricultural land use. It will be published in 1997 and will eventually be on the web.

X

National Design Working group - Fellows handed out the minutes of the first meeting of the group (attachment 24).

Y

Summary of June 11 Action Items; Discussion of Next Steps Tim Smith handed out summary of the action items for the June ITFM meeting (Attachment 25). Item 9 - status item will be dropped; Item 11 - done; Item 15 - Fellows still working on this.

Next steps: OWDC will produce the draft minutes as soon as possible for review by meeting attendees. Smith reminded all state people to get their travel into OWDC very soon because the money runs out at the end of September.

Next meetings tentatively schedule Jan 7-8, April 8-9, and July, 15-16

Meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m..