(Chet Zenone - May 21, 2002)

Day 1 - Tuesday, April 2, 2002

Introductory Remarks

Bob Hirsch (Assoc. Director for Water, USGS; and ACWI Alternate Chair)

• Welcomed participants and pre-viewed agenda and highlights of the meeting.

• Invited everyone to ask questions and discuss activities of their organizations as they related to the topics under discussion.

Chris Shabacker (Counsel to the Asst. Secy. for Water and Science, Department of Interior (DOI); representing Tom Weimer, Dep, Asst. Secy. for Water and Science, DOI; and ACWI Chair)

• Briefly summarized the duties, charge, and responsibilities of ACWI as spelled out in its charter, which was renewed by Secretary Norton on March 12, 2001.

Toni Johnson (Chief, Water Information Coordination Program (WICP), USGS; and ACWI Executive Secretary)

• Reviewed organization of ACWI; summarized subcommittees and work groups and their issues and goals, and the make-up of the ACWI and USGS/WICP staffs.

  ACWI Organizational Charts

  Johnson's PowerPoint Presentation to ACWI Members

• Reminded attendees about upcoming renewals of ACWI memberships.

Federal Roundtable - Comments on current status and outlook of agency budgets and water programs and plans

Bob Hirsch (Associate Director for Water, DOI/USGS)

• No major changes in amounts or distributions in FY2001-2003 budgets for the larger DOI agencies, though some smaller agencies (USGS and Office of Surface Mining (OSM) have suffered some reductions.

• USGS budget for FY2003 is down 5 percent from FY2002. Water programs constitute about 20 percent, or $178 million, of the total USGS budget for FY03, down 14 percent from FY02. For individual water programs, the President's FY03 budget shows the following: NAWQA - down 9 percent; Ground-Water Resources- up 18 percent (for US-Mexico water issues); National Streamflow Program - down 15 percent (which translates to a decrease of 138 stations). Two USGS water programs are eliminated in the President's budget-- the Water Resources Research (Institutes) Act Program, and the Toxics Substances Hydrology Program. It has been proposed that most of the monies ($10K) now in the Toxics Hydrology Program would be transferred to National Science Foundation to be used for competitive grants to academia. There is no change in the Cooperative (Water) Program, but the 50-50 matching arrangement is almost a relic; funding for most studies within the Coop Program now consists of two-thirds State (or local) dollars and one-third Federal dollars.

Jim Hanlon (Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water, USEPA)

• Most of the agency's budget goes to support water infrastructure activities- treatment plants, Drinking Water Act (DWA) programs, 319 grants (local community demos of non-point source programs), Tribal grants, State grants (to facilitate exchange of environmental water information between States and the EPA), and implementation of "Beach Act" (local coastal water-quality monitoring).

• Recent budget changes include FY2003 reductions in funds for State programs, Clean Water Act activities, and 106 Program grants; and increases ($300 million FY02 and 03) for Homeland Security issues (vulnerability assessments of water sources and treatment facilities).

• Other issues - Implementation of the final TMDL rule has been delayed, but the states continue to work on establishing TMDLs ; guidance documents on the consolidation of "impaired waters" list, and on reissuance of state monitoring requirements will be issued soon; the proposed 10 ppb limit for arsenic will stand, and funds have been marked ($20M over two years) for pilot projects to develop new treatment methods to reduce As in small water systems.

• Jim will be leaving his present position to become Director of the Office of Wastewater Management at EPA

Greg Mandt (Director, Office of Climate, Water, and Weather Services, NOAA/NWS)

• National Weather Service (NWS) - Slight increase (7.8 percent: $743M to $800.8M) in overall budget (FY02 enacted to FY03 request). Changes in water-related items include an increase from $1.5M to $6.2M (413 percent) for accelerated implementation of Automated Hydrologic Prediction Services, loss of $4.0M for North Carolina flood mapping (a 1-time earmark), and loss of $1.3M in data-collection in Susquehanna River basin. There was no change in the $0.9M IFLOWS program.

• National Ocean Service (NOS) - Decrease of 18 percent ($512 to $411) in overall budget (FY02 enacted to FY03 request). Changes in water-related items include a decrease of 9 percent (from $20.3M to $18.3M) in the National Water Level Network, though funds are earmarked for upgrade of the water-level network in the Great Lakes, and the base program is unaffected. Other programs remain at level funding: implementation of National Estuarine Research Reserve Water Quality monitoring; monitoring and detection of harmful algal blooms (MERHAB); and monitoring and bioeffects assessment of toxic contaminants at coastal sites.

• NWS is working on improving models to predict water flows and flooding. Greg showed a video clip that simulates the progressive inundation of an area as floodwaters rise, which will be a valuable tool to emergency response planners.

Tom Christensen (Director, Animal Husbandry and Clean Water Programs, US Department of Agriculture - National Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS)

• Most USDA initiatives are multi-disciplinary (water quality, water quantity, soil erosion, wildlife, flood prevention, etc) and serve multiple purposes. Programs and information are delivered by a wide spectrum of agencies in 4 main mission areas: Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services; National Resources and Environment (wherein resides the U.S. Forest Service and the Natural Resources Conservation Service); Research, Education, and Extension; and Rural Development.

• For FY03, USDA's proposed $74.4 billion budget represents an $11 billion increase over its FY02 proposal. Estimated actual expenditures for FY02, however, are $76.6 billion, due to increased expenditures for homeland security response, and uncontrollable expenses (such as fighting forest fires).

• USDA is providing additional data, information, and an agricultural systems perspective to help EPA develop Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) and Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Rules that achieve environmental objectives in manner that is workable for agriculture.

[Also see Christensen's Microsoft Word Handout]

Mike Buckley (Director, FEMA Hazards Mapping Program)

• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) FY03 budget will be double that of FY02, with most monies going to address homeland security issues (grants to state and local government 1st responder.

• A major initiative is to update flood hazard maps, and to make them available/accessible on-line. Most maps are more than 10 years old, and all are on paper. Plan to use new technology (Remote Sensing, GIS, and GPS) to update and digitize the maps. Currently have 100 agreements, which will affect more than 1,000 communities, in which State and local agencies are involved in the map updates; a partnership with North. Carolina is a success story.

• Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) goals include: reduce age of flood maps from 14years to 6 years (a 3-yr effort), initiate flood mapping in 50 percent of high-priority areas, and leverage Federal monies through partnerships

• Updated and thus current maps are expected to save an estimated $26 billion in flood losses over 50 years.

• Goals for remainder of this year - Launch map modernization effort, work with states to identify areas to re-map, contract out work (Fair Act Friendly), gain support for effort from USFS, COE, and NRCS, increase state and local involvement.

Chuck Bach (Project Manager, Data Systems and Inspection, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)

• TVA has no appropriated monies -- all funds are from power sales, which are estimated to be $71M in FY03 (no change from FY02).

• TVA's standing water-related programs address the issues of navigation, flood control, power supply, water quality, recreation, and land use.

• Current issues and plans include a river operation study, hydro-modernization (updating dam structures to make more effective use of water), automation of powerplant operations, and improvement and standardization of processes.

[Also See Bach's PowerPoint Presentation]

Bob Hirsch posed the question: How can ACWI present to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the need for additional funding for activities and information programs of water agencies?

ACTION ITEM: Toni Johnson will work with the Federal Agencies in ACWI to compile funding information on water related activities in a consistent format, working by email and conference call.

National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program

Tim Miller (Chief NAWQA, USGS)

The National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has completed its 5th review of the NAWQA Program. The review looked at the accomplishments of the first 10 years (Cycle I) of NAWQA and evaluated the transition to and the goals of Cycle II.

Some highlights of the review:

• Process used to reduce the program from 59 to 42 study units was appropriate, but recommended that the number of study units should not be further reduced;

• Topics of the National Syntheses (Nutrients, Pesticides, etc) are appropriate and encouraged additional work on the and recommended that NAWQA foster application of study findings.

• The full review is presented in NRC report "Opportunities to Improve the U.S. Geological Survey National Water-Quality Assessment Program," which was distributed at meeting and is available from USGS-NAWQA.

• The long-term mission of NAWQA, progress on program goals, and future plans and priorities are summarized in USGS Fact Sheet 071-01.

The National Liaison Committee is focusing on what NAWQA is finding in urban areas: the rapid deterioration of ecological systems (e.g. Anchorage, Alaska), system changes are most rapid and dramatic as a result of deforestation and stream habitat disturbances, and that there is a relation between historical land use and the magnitude of change when an area is urbanized (e.g. more dramatic if land-use change is from forest to urban than if agricultural to urban).

NAWQA is compiling transactional biological datasets, which are currently being QA'd internally and should be available within a few months.

Water Issues for Homeland Security (Special Panel)

Overview - National Activities on Water System Security

Jeff Mosher (Director of Technical Services, Assoc. of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies - AMSA)

• Challenges to water and wastewater systems include threats to the safety and integrity of those systems and how to get information about threats; assessments of vulnerability to various types of threats; emergency response to acts of terrorism and other intentional sabotage; and incorporation of security features or safeguards in new system design.

• Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) -- established by Presidential Decision Directive 63 in May 1998 (President Clinton) - with goals of assuring continuity and viability of critical infrastructure, and eliminating significant vulnerability to both physical and cyber attacks. On Oct. 16, 2001, President Bush signed an executive order that established a Presidential Critical Infrastructure Protection Board.

• In January 2001, AMWA formed a Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Group (CIPAG) to

  1. coordinate and integrate efforts on critical infrastructure protection issues,

  2. develop policy and project recommendations on water and wastewater security needs,

  3. provide needs assessment to appropriate entities,

  4. coordinate with other sectors, and

  5. develop an action plan to coordinate tasks.

[Also see Mosher's Microsoft Word handout]

Release of Information - Balance of Open Access vs. Security

Jim Hanlon Acting Assoc. Admin. for Water (USEPA)

• Focus of EPA's efforts is to make most systems as safe as possible as quickly as possible - 17,000 publicly owned water or waste treatment facilities, and as many as 170,000 drinking water suppliers -- while facing the challenge of reconciling the "right to know" with information security. EPA has no authority to classify information (thus making it unavailable).

• Multi-pronged approach will include provision of tools - training - assistance - information - and research. These involve vulnerability assessments (what are the threats to facilities and systems and how can they be minimized or eliminated) and grants to make those assessments; and training sessions and videos on making vulnerability assessments and on system security for utility managers and operators.

• Protection of sensitive information includes actions such as removing from Internet access the risk management plans for specific facilities, and working with states on restriction of information on water-supply source locations.

Site Security - How do we Protect Water Intakes and Structures?

Alexandra Dunn (General Counsel, Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies (AMSA))

• The "events" of 9-11-2001 were a wake-up call. Although there may have been no immediate changes in regulations applicable to water suppliers and wastewater treatment facilities, there certainly were immediate changes in the mindset about and awareness of potential threats to our water and water treatment facilities and systems.

• Early focus was on drinking water systems, to the neglect of wastewater collection and routing systems, which can be conduits for the travel of people, chemicals, and explosives, and which are relatively insecure.

• AMSA is providing software (free via the Internet) for making vulnerability assessments of wastewater facilities, to include identification of threats and how they can be minimized or eliminated. Issues to be considered include informing customers on how they can be alert to potential threats and how to respond to emergencies; assets such as the knowledge base of staffs of utilities, any long-term crisis preparedness plans in place; existing information-transfer platforms.

• Other issues - Background checks of employees must be made within the laws ensuring protection of individual rights; and protection of sensitive information must comply with "government in sunshine" rules, some of which are even broader than Federal FOIA rules.

Tom Curtis (Dep. Executive Director for Government Affairs, American Water Works Association - AWWA)

• AWWA had been looking at risk assessment before 9-11-2001-- we knew we had risks -- but what has now changed is our "level of comfort."

• Deliberate contamination of an entire water system is not a very efficient way to directly harm a large segment of the population. The disruption of the distribution facilities or supply lines would be more devastating, perhaps by destroying pumps (in lightly protected buildings) or water pipes under pressure. One possible consequence - no water at hydrants to fight fires.

• Of the $30 billion designated (President's Budget) for Homeland Security, just $16 million (or less than 1/20th of 1 percent!) marked for protection of drinking-water systems.

• AWWA working with EPA (funding and resources) to provide training (via videos, websites, manuals, field guides, workshops, etc) on system protection and security to utility operators.

[Also see Curtis's Microsoft Word Handout]

Infrastructure Security Training for Wastewater Utilities

Eileen O'Neill (Assistant Deputy Executive Director, Water Environment Federation - WEF)

• WEF's national meeting (October 2001) drew large numbers of scientists and engineers involved in wastewater collection and treatment, particularly the 2 special sessions on the security of water-related infrastructure. Questions addressed in those special sessions included: How real are the threats? How should we respond to them? How should the threats (and risks) be communicated the the public?

• This year, WEF and USEPA are co-sponsoring several workshops on "Wastewater Infrastructure Assessment," which will focus on orienting w-w facility operators to identify and prioritize vulnerabilities of their facilities and which approaches to put in place to minimize threats. Will look at the impacts of natural hazards and vandalism as well as security measures to prevent acts of terrorism. Operational and procedural changes, and increased employee awareness of the need for security, may be more effective than engineering and equipment changes in increasing security.

Updates on Interagency Activities

Unified Federal Policy

Warren Harper (USDA- U.S. Forest Service)

• Unified Federal Policy for managing Federal lands and resources completed by USDA and USDOI in October 2000. The policy provides a framework for watershed based management; a consistent approach to that management; and a way to improve water quality, the health of aquatic ecosystems; and the sustained used of our natural resources.

• The several participants in the policy are committed to implementing the policy as individual agency laws, missions, and fiscal and budgetary authorities and resources permit. (Comment by Emory Cleaves - Policy has no provision for conflict resolution. Warren acknowledges this, but UFP also seeks local agency participation to avoid conflict insofar as possible)

[Also see Harper's PowerPoint Presentation]

Ground Water/Surface Water Interactions Workshop

Jeff Loser (USDA - Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)

• Re-capped proposal made at last year's (2001) ACWI meeting for a "hands-on" workshop on the topic of ground-water/surface-water interactions and their implications for watershed health and management. However, no further planning has occurred in the past year.

• The Watershed Components Interactions Work Group of the NWQMC supports the idea of a workshop, suggests it be a working meeting of a larger, perhaps national symposium or conference, and has agreed to "re-initiate" planning for such a meeting.

• The working meeting would convene perhaps 20-25 invited experts on the topic of GW/SW interactions, who would identify, among other issues:
  -Current knowledge and understanding of the principles of GW/SW interactions;
  -The tools that are available to model the interaction, including their strengths and weaknesses;
  -The programs and resources that are available to work on these concerns;
  -The gaps in our knowledge, tools, and programs on this issue; and
  -How we can use this information to improve our policy decisions regarding watershed health.

Comments on the workshop proposal:

[Also see Loser's Microsoft Word Presentation]

Luncheon Keynote: Year of Clean Water and National Monitoring Day

Robbi Savage (Executive Director, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators - ASIWPCA; and President, America's Clean Water Foundation)

• The Year of Clean Water 2002 will celebrate 30 years (since passage of the Clean Water Act) of successes in improving water quality, and a recommitment to work yet to be completed. Several brass national events are planned, including:
  

  • Presidential proclamation and joint Congressional resolution (of Y of C W);

  • a youth watershed summit and a senior watershed summit (both in October 2002);

  • a symposium on improving public participation and governance in watershed management;

  • a world watershed summit (Oct 30-Nov 1, 2002 in Washington DC);

  • and a National Water Monitoring Day (Oct. 18, 2002).

  • State and local events throughout the Nation are planned.

• The celebration is being sponsored by several Federal agencies and other non-government entities.

[Also see Savage's PowerPoint presentation]

Cooperative Efforts of the Subcommittee on Spatial Water Data

Bob Pierce (Chief, Geographic Information Program Office USGS)

• Progress on completion and integration of key national spatial water datasets: elevation, hydrography (hydrologic units), hydrology, and watershed boundary.

• The hydrologic units dataset is projected to be completed by the end of 2002, but it will take added effort - larger review teams, full-time coordination, full-time help with coastal watershed definition. Regarding the latter, there is a need to issue a stable guideline for delineation of coastal watersheds. Lead agencies have been identified in key states, and NOAA'NOS will assist the states.

• Geospatial One-Stop is an Electronic Government (EGOV) initiative, providing fast, low cost, reliable access to geospatial data needed for government operations (including Homeland Security issues)

• The ARCHydro Data Model is complete. The model brings together all data sets to address hydrologic problems & issues in planning and management. Books and user manuals are available.

• A Water Resources Consortium Symposium "Digital Elevation for Water-Resources Applications" is scheduled for September 2002

• In answer to a question about who owns the data, Pierce emphasized that there are no owners per se, only managers of the data, which are served to the public at no cost. Users are free to add value to the data and sell the resulting product.

[Also see Pierce's PowerPoint Presentation]

Overview of 3rd National Monitoring Conference - Building a Framework for the Future

Charles Spooner (USEPA/Office of Water, and Co-Chair, 3rd National Monitoring Conference)

• Themes - collaboration, new and emerging technologies, and new expectations of monitoring - and structure of the conference, which was held in Madison, Wisconsin, May 20-23, 2002. The conference was dedicated to the leadership, energy, and the memory of Elizabeth Fellows.

[Also see Spooner's PowerPoint Presentation]

Water-Quality Data Elements (WQDE)

Update on WQDE

Jim Hanlon (USEPA)

• Provided an update on WQDE from USEPA's perspective:

  -- The data elements are to be adopted as USEPA's standards for data to be entered in STORET. Such standards allow information to be moved easily across EPA (and other agency programs), and thus be used for various purposes.

  -- Trends in managing environmental information - expansion of the Internet, integration of information from Federal and non-Federal sources, the need for EPA to interact with partners.

  -- Challenges posed - It can be a burden on partners to "feed" information to EPA, there are some inherent barriers to the integration of data from different sources, and there is a risk of attrition of data quality.

• The WQDE Network/System increases the efficiency and flexibility to use and integrate data. It increases security of the data, provides access to the most current information, encourages a voluntary exchange of data (amongst agencies), and provides for data to be stored just once and in one place. The network attaches qualifying attributes to data, yet doesn't judge the quality of the data per se.

Next Steps for Biology (re WQDE's)

Jerry Diamond (Tetra Tech; member of NWQMC Methods Board)

• The WQDE Network/System increases the efficiency and flexibility to use and integrate data. For various reasons, the biological data elements are not included in current approved WQDE: There is no consensus on the very diverse and complex sampling methods and associated metadata; it is not clear how to best incorporate habitat characteristics; and more discussion is needed to address the broad range of data types and organism types.

• The Biology Data Elements Workgroup is addressing the above issues. A work meeting was scheduled for mid-April (Reston VA area), and a draft framework for Biology DE's was to be presented at a WQDE workshop at the National Water Monitoring Conference in Madison in May. NOTE to Toni - Presume that happened? The results of the workshop would than be used to develop a revised framework that would be presented at the NWQMC Methods Board meeting in June 2002.

[Also see Diamond's PowerPoint presentation]

ASIWPCA Surveys of Water-Quality Monitoring Programs

Charles Spooner (USEPA, Office of Water)

• The USEPA will require each state to have an adequate monitoring program (section 106) The surveys were conducted because of the increasing importance of monitoring to water-quality management programs, because there is evidence that some state programs have eroded in the past decade, and that more resources will be required to "restart" and continue the programs.

• The surveys will set a 2001 baseline of activities (amongst states), identify recent enhancements to state programs, identify monitoring costs and levels of effort, share way to improve capacity, and provide a common framework for presenting information to decision makers.

• Results of the surveys were to be sent to the states in April, and a final report prepared this summer.

Follow-up comments (re data that would be provided by adequate monitoring programs) - For most of the country and for most of the estimated 20,000 stream segments for which TMDLs must be developed, we do not have the data to do that. Bob Hirsch (USGS) emphasized that data are critical to the determination of TMDLs, and that TMDLs cannot be defined/determined with models alone (although those models might point to streams or stream segments where TMDLs might be exceeded).

[Also see Spooner's PowerPoint Presentation]

Day 2 - Wednesday April 3, 2002

Laboratory Accreditation: Revised Recommendations

Herb Brass (USEPA Office of Ground Water, and Co-chair of Methods and Data Comparability Board) and Jerry Parr (Catalyst Information Resources)

• The basics (the what and why) of laboratory accreditation - an independent assessment of a laboratory's technical competence and quality system - are summarized in "The Value of Uniform Accreditation," a White Paper developed by the NWQMC's Methods and Data Comparability Board (MDCB); the paper was included in the handouts for this meeting. The "takeaway message" of the paper is that uniform accreditation.
  -- Enhances our ability to make sound decisions
  -- Promotes data consistency
  -- Provides and independent, objective assessment (of a lab's performance)
  -- Promotes uniform quality systems
  -- Unifies certification requirements
  -- Increases efficiency, potentially lowering costs,
  -- Encourages data sharing and use, and
  -- Promotes flexibility.

• A second handout at the meeting was the MDCB's position paper "Accreditation of Federal Laboratories for Water-Quality Monitoring," which describes the results of a review of three existing national accreditation programs. On the basis of the review, the MCDB selected and recommends the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program (NELAP) be adopted.

• In response to comments at the May 2001 ACWI meeting, an earlier recommendation that would permit Federal agencies to be accrediting authorities for laboratories within then own organizations was deleted. Such authority was viewed as a conflict of interest.<.P>

• Approximately 1200 labs, in 45 states, have been accredited by NELAP.

• Important future tasks of the NDCB is to review the language on performance based standards, and to revise NELAP standards to conform to Water-Quality Data Elements.

Comments © and Responses ® at this meeting:

© Costs for accreditation by small labs could be prohibitive
® Cost studies show that nattional accreditation IS cost effective, and labs could be allowed gradual, tiered implementation of requirements.

© NELAP is not internationally recognized.
® Agreed, there are fundamental differences 'twixt US and other countries in laboratory accreditation requirements and procedures, but accrediting is not inherently a governmental function, and it is still important to do this in the US.

[Also see Brass's PowerPoint Presentation]

ACTION ITEM: Laboratory Accreditation -
ACWI members unanimously adopted the revised recommendations of the Methods and Data Comparability Board (MDCB) on Laboratory Accreditation.

• The MDCB should provide an announcement appropriate to publish in a wide range of newsletters, including those of all ACWI member organizations.

• ACWI member organizations should make every effort to publish this information.

• The MDCB should indicate the anticipated actions of Federal agencies on accreditation.

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Implementation (Special Panel)

Update on TMDL Rule

Don Brady (USEPA, Office of Water)

• TMDL rule now termed the "Watershed Rule," and EPA is working to incorporate it into the Clean Water Act (CAA) framework. The effective date of the final rule (which was issued in July 2000) has been extended until October 2003.

• Objectives for the new rule include the following:
  -- Improve state monitoring and assessment programs that support the TMDL program,
  -- Accomplish planning outside TMDL issues, as part of the continuing planning process,
  -- Strengthen existing federal, state, and local watershed planning processes,
  -- Increase the flexibility of the TMDL program to enhance participation,
  -- Minimize EPA and state's burden, and
  -- Enhance opportunities for innovation, including trading.

• EPA position on TMDL's, in part: Will set a default load allocation for impaired waters, but it can be modified by local entities. Wishes to make best use of all existing watershed activities and plans, and does not intend to overlay additional TMDL requirements atop an activity already in place to meet CWA requirements.

  Alternatives for key issues:
  -- Flexibility for completion of TMDL's (allow a reasonable pace),
  -- EPA will develop TMDL's if requested by state or if state behind schecule,
  
  -- Watershed plans must estimate date of implementation of management measures and water-quality standards (WQS) achievement,
  -- Post-implementation (of TMDL's) monitoring required for verification
  -- EPA has authority, but no mandatory duty, to veto administratively continued permits.

A State Perspective on TMDLs

Gregg Good (Illinois EPA, and representing ASIWPCA)

• Described Illinois' approach (to developing TMDLs) as slow and deliberate, and are proceeding on a science-driven basis.

• Illinois is initiating approximately 10-15 new TMDL studies each year, which are contracted out to environmental consultants and to institutions.

• The state's 1998 list of impaired water [303(d) list] includes 739 waterbodies in 338 watersheds. Most studies are for TMDL's in northeastern Illinois (Chicago area), where municipal and industrial effluents, and urban runoff/storm sewers, are the most frequently listed sources of impairment. Other studies are being done in the central and southern part of the state, where agriculture and surface mines are the major industries and sources of water-quality impairment.

• Major challenges include the large number of impaired waterbodies, inadequate data to develop TMDL's (even though ILL has one of largest and most comprehensive monitoring programs In the country), inadequate or outdated standards (not based on current problems), and withstanding scrutiny (defending assessments and lists).

• Monitoring implications (re TMDL's) - To withstand the scrutiny placed on state monitoring programs, the goals of the programs are shifting from a "305(b) goal" to a "303(d) goal)." Consequently, more and more resources are being expended on the collection of more data on fewer water bodies (so that defensible 303(d) listings can be made.

• Yet the TMDL program has created opportunities for state monitoring programs:
  -- Deficiencies in many programs have been identified and funding (USEPA Section 106 grants) has been increased to strengthen the states' monitoring programs,
  -- Quality assurance/quality control programs are being enhanced (which will strengthen defense of assessments and lists),
  -- Documentation of how impaired water decisions are made is being improved, and states are seeking public input to the process,
  -- The goals, objectives, frequency of monitoring, methods, and parameters sampled are being reviewed, which will ensure the right data are being collected to answer the right questions.
  -- New partnerships are being developed (e.g. Illinois EPA has new program with USGS that will monitor 8 sites, and the data will be used to review and revise the current standard for dissolved oxygen as well as create new nutrient standards for streams).

[Also see Good's Microsoft Word Presentation]

Plans for National TMDL Science and Policy Conference

Al Gray (Deputy Executive Director, Water Environment Federation)

• Scheduled November 13-16, 2002 in Phoenix, Arizona; sponsored by WEF and ASIWPCA (Additional information is posted at www.wef.org/). Also see links at http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/tmdl/ .

• The conference will provide opportunities to:

  -- Discuss how to meet technical requirements for developing TMDL's,
  -- Examine and share approaches to TMDL's among state and tribal agencies,
  -- Learn about new research (model development and advances in w-q monitoring),
  -- Hear from stakeholders with different perspectives and positions on TMDL issues, and
  -- Discuss regulatory and policy issues surrounding TMDL's.

Comment and Discussion re TMDL's

• Bob Goldstein Electric Power Research Institute(EPRI)
  - The margin of safety for the approx. 4000 TMDL's already approved has not been addressed, or if so, only haphazardly. And what if the source of impairment is outside the watershed? Don Brady - These issues will be considered and addressed in the final rules.

• Rodney DeHahn Ground Water Protection Council(GWPC) - The role of ground water is not generally recognized nor considered in the development of TMDL's, and it should be!

Report of the Hydrology Subcommittee

Glenn Austin (National Weather Service - NWS)

• The Subcommittee on Hydrology (SOH) is charged with improving availability and reliability of surface-water quantity information. The SOH forwards draft papers and recommendations to ACWI for deliberation and approval as advice to the Federal Government.

• Since 9-11-01, the security of data exchanges amongst Federal agencies has become a priority issue for the SOH. The lead agencies in this effort are EPA, DOE, and DOD (including the USA Corps of Engineers). The USGS and NWS have met to discuss new and upgraded methods to share streamgaging information.

• The Hydrologic Modeling Working Group of the SOH has been planning the Second Federal Interagency Hydrologic Modeling Conference, which is scheduled for July 28 thru August 1, 2002 in Las Vegas. Details of the conference can be found at http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/hydrology/mtsconfwkshops/hydrol_papers02.html

• The Hydrologic Frequency Analysis Working Group (HFAWG) of SOH has completed a paper entitled "Evaluation of Flood Frequency Estimates for Ungaged Watersheds," which was posted to the web in November 2001. The URL is: http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi.hydrology/Frequency/Ungaged.html

• The HFAWG also compiled a list of Frequently Asked Questions and Answers on Bulletin 17B; the list has been reviewed and will soon be posted to the web.

• A third challenge of the HFAWG is to develop guidance on frequency analysis for ungaged watersheds. Draft papers have been prepared and are being discussed.

• Comment/question: Bob Hirsch raised the issue of floods below large dams, and if the HFAWG was considering methods to estimate or forecast such floods.

[Also see Austin's Microsoft Word Presentation}

Reports on Special Water Information Issues

Assessment of Water Resources Research

Steve Parker (National Research Council)

• Briefly reviewed role of NRC - to advance science and technology, and to advise the Federal Government on policy for science institutions, and on applications of science to policy.

• A recent NRC report "Envisioning the Agenda for Water-Resources Research in the Twenty-First Century," considers the issues:
  -- Water availability - the need for data, development of supply-enhancing technologies, studies of water quality, and improving hydrologic forecasting and prediction; -- Water use - understanding determinants of water use, importance and scale of water use by agriculture, and environmental uses of water;
  - Water institutions -law and legal issues, economic institution, and emerging social science issues (related to water); and
  - Organizing for water research -drawing attention to problems and issues, informing a broad audience, delineating knowledge and research needs, and describing implementation of research results (re coordination and funding requirements).

• The report can be accessed online at URL http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10140.html

• A new NRC research effort, to be initiated in May 2002 and scheduled for completion (final report) in October 2003, will

  1. address the need to better coordinate the nation's water resources research enterprise, and

  2. identify institutional options for the improved coordination, prioritization, and implementation of research in water resources.

  [Request Parker's Presentation in Paper Copy format]

  Water and Energy Sustainability

  Robert Goldstein (Electric Power Research Institute - EPRI)

  • EPRI research plan is addressing the implications of the availability (or non-availability) of water supply on the generation of electric power.

  • Issues that need to be addressed include:
    -- Fast growing demand for clean, fresh water,
    -- All regions of US vulnerable to water shortages,
    -- Protection and enhancement of environment,
    -- Dependency of electricity supply and demand on water availability,
    -- Curtailed future growth of electricity demand, and shortages of electricity supply, -- Electricity grid topology, and
    -- Societal and economic sustainability (wrt availability of electric power?)

  • A principal objective is to use water-resource management tools and technology to mitigate limitations on economic development and electricity supply & demand caused by water supply and treatment restrictions, while enhancing and protecting water resource environmental values.

  • EPRI has issued several scoping reports (see Bob's meeting handout & PP presentation), and will sponsor a "Water Sustainability Workshop" in Washington DC on July 23, 2002. Workshop participants will critique strawman research plan, establish consensus research priorities, and evaluate likely sites for regional pilot projects.

  [Also see Goldstein's PowerPoint Presentation]

  Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable

  Ethan (Tim) Smith (Secretariat, Interagency Working Group on Sustainable Development Indicators - SDI Group)
  

  • The Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable (SWRR) originated at the March 2001 meeting of the SDI Group. The Roundtable was accepted at the May 2001 ACWI meeting, with permission to begin organizing. The Water Environment Federaton (WEF) has agreed to be the convener of the SWRR when resources could be identified to hold a meeting (planned for October 2002).

  • Issues that need to be addressed include:

  • Funding commitments have been made by USDOI and the SDI Group; potential additional support from other agencies (EPRI, USFS, and EPA, among others) is being explored. The USGS Water Information Coordination Program of the USGS is hosting the SWRR website at http://water.usgs.gov/wicp/acwi/swrr/

  [See Smith's Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable Presentation (Word Document)]

  [Also see Tim Smith's meeting handouts:
  SWRR Fact Sheet
  How to Join the Sustainable Water Resources Roundtable
  Conditions and Trends Statistics]

  ACTION ITEM: ACWI endorses the coordination and cooperation of Federal Agencies and non-Federal Organizations to work on the issues of water sustainability. The SWRR is accepted as an ad hoc sub-committee of ACWI.

  Luncheon Buffet Presentations

  Issues for Water Privatization, U.S. Resources, and Globalization

  Linda Walker (Representative, League of Women Voters of the United States - LWVUS)

  • Described the efforts of the New Orleans Sewerage and Water Board to privatize, as an illustration of the intersection of privatization of a large pubic utility, bulk water sales, and globalization. If a direct referendum to privatize is approved by votes in a June 2002 election, a large transnational water company could become an integral part of the Board's infrastructure.

  • The LWVUS is reviewing its position on international trade, as well as considering the implications of water privatization efforts and the potential for water exports from USA

  Water Exports from the Great Lakes: Safeguarding Future Supplies

  Gerald E. Galloway,Jr. (Secretary, US Section, International Joint Commission- IJC)

  • The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 provided a mechanism for resolution of questions that might arise, and thereby prevent disputes regarding (US - Canada) boundary waters. The treaty also established the International Boundary Commission (IJC), composed of 6 commissioners (3 from each country), who serve in a personal and professional capacity, and who operate without instructions from their respective governments.

  • The One of the provisions of the treaty is that boundary or transboundary waters are NOT to be polluted - an insightful tenet in 1909!

  • An IJC study (ongoing?) reports on and makes recommendations on the following issues:
    -- Existing and potential consumptive uses of boundary and transboundary waters,
    -- Existing and potential diversions, including withdrawals for export,
    -- Cumulative effects of existing and potential diversions and removals, and
    -- Current laws and policies as they may affect sustainability of water resources.

  • Some finding of the study:
    -- There are no active proposals for major diversions (out of the Great Lakes Basin - GLB) and no reason to believe that any such proposals would be economically, socially, or environmentally feasible in the foreseeable future.
    -- Only modest growth of in-basin demands is predicted.
    -- Data (esp. ground water data) to make predictions of effects of large diversions are lacking, and data collection and monitoring is underfunded.

  • Regarding any export/removal of significant amounts of water from the GL basin, two (of several) IJC recommendations (with conditions) are:
    -- Permit NO REMOVALS unless it is demonstrated that the removals will not endanger the integrity of the ecosystem of the GLB.
    -- Permit no proposal for major new or increased COMSUMPTIVE USE to proceed unless the proposal is based on sound planning, the cumulative impacts are considered, effective conservation is and will be practiced in the receiving area, and all returns meet water-quality objectives of GLWQA.

  • In summary: World water issues are real -- Exports and imports are commonly seen as easy solutions -- Assessments of exports are needed on a case-by-case basis --- Privatization has advantages and drawbacks.

[Request Galloway's PowerPoint Presentation by visiting the following website address: http://www.ijc.org/ijcweb-e.html click on Washington U.S. Section Office then locate Dr. Gerry Galloway

Emerging Contaminants (Special Panel)

Latest Findings (USGS)

Herb Buxton (Coordinator, Toxics Substances Hydrology Program, USGS)

• Reviewed the findings reported in Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams,1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance, which was published in Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 36, no. 6, p1202-1211. (Also see the companion data report - USGS Open-File Report 02-94; and USGS Fact Sheet-027-02).

• Water samples from 139 streams (in 30 states) that were deemed susceptible to contamination by sources of human, animal, and industrial waste were analyzed for 95 organic compounds. Health standards or guidelines have been established for only 14 of the compounds tested.
  -- One or more compounds found in 80% of streams sampled.
  -- Eighty-two of the 95 compounds detected in at least one sample.
  -- Measured concentrations were generally low; of the 30 of the most frequently detected compounds, only about 5% were present at concentrations greater than 1 part per billion.
  -- Multiple detections (of compounds in a single sample) were common; as many as 38 in one sample, and 34% of samples contained more than 10 compounds.

• Because of the low concentrations of detected compounds, the data from the study may be considered to represent baseline conditions, and the USGS continues to collect data on the 139 wells and on 56 ground water sites

• For more information, visit the Toxics Hydrology Program website at http://toxics.usgs.gov

[Also see Buxton PowerPoint presentation]

Environmental Assessments - Human and Animal Drugs

Nancy Sager Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration - CDER/FDA)

• Discussed the statutory framework under which FDA conducts environmental assessments of human and animal drugs - includes the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) - and the differences in process and data needs in those assessments.

• Assessments may not be required under some "categorical exclusions," e.g. if approval will not increase use of the drug, if concentration of a drug expected to enter the natural aquatic environment is less than 1 ppb, or if an animal drug is intended for use in nonfood animals only.

• There are no categories of FDA actions that routinely significantly affect the quality of the human environment, and that would ordinarily require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement (FDA has prepared only one EIS directly related to human/animal drug use.

[Also see Sager PowerPoint Presentation]

Biological Perspective

Jill Baron (Ecologist - USGS; and Ecological Society of America)

• Contaminants interfere with the health of biota, through endocrine disruption, reduced reproductive capability, and altering the seasonality of hormone availability. (Example: contaminants affect the ability of Atlantic Salmon to adapt to changing salinity).

• Some compounds affect physiology at extremely low levels.

• We know hardly anything - have very little, of any data - about the toxicology of new (or "emerging") chemicals on individual plants and animals.

• We know still less about effeects to populations, communities, and ecosystems (effects propagate upward).

• Emerging contaminants are an area of concern in addition to contaminants that are better studies (e.g. nutrients - N & P - PCB's, and metals).

[Also see Baron's PowerPoint Presentation]

Follow-up comments on issue:

- - H. Buxton - USGS is looking at potential problems with emerging contaminants in ground water: at sites of land application of wastewater; near rivers; in collector (Rainey type) wells; and at direct injection sites. - - Cliff Annis (Merck) - Be cautious of results from just one study (the USGS one) - - Bob Hirsch - USGS results (of study reported by H. Buxton) are admittedly just a start (and serve as a baseline), and USGS focus is on development of methods to detect and analyze very low concentrations of new chemicals/contaminants.

Report of the Streamgaging Task Force (SGTF)

Tom Yorke (USGS - Ret.; Co-chair of Streamgaging Task Force (SGTF)) Tom Stiles (Interstate Council on Water Policy- ICWP; and Co-chair of SGTF)

• Reviewed the charge, makeup, and plan of the SGTF. In summary, the plans is/was to
  -- Identify goals of a national streamgaging network
  -- Compile information on all streamgaging stations
  -- Evaluate achievement of National goals (see Yorke's meeting handout) using the USGS network model
  -- Identify additional stations needed to achieve each goal
  -- Estimate cost of new or upgraded stations
  -- Propose a long-term funding strategy
  -- Submit recommendations to ACWI

• Since the SGTF was formed in 1998, the USGS has developed its own plan for a National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) [See USGS Fact Sheet-048-01], and the Interstate Council on Water Policy (ICWP) was commissioned to conduct a series of workshops in 2001 to obtain perspectives on the USGS NSIP from Federal, State, and local water-resource managers. [See additional meeting handout, the ICWP report of February 2002 - "A Critique of the USGS National Streamflow Information Program.etc."].

• One observation of note: The proposal to provide all additional needed streamflow information would require a substantial increase in the USGS budget for those activities - perhaps from $30 to $115 million addition!

Upon a motion that the ACWI membership approve and accept the ICWP report, Bob Hirsch recommended that approval be deferred until members have opportunity to review the document.

[Also see Yorke's PowerPoint Presentation]

ACTION ITEM: WICP will send the task Force report to all ACWI members for comment (sent by email May 9, 2002. Members were asked to provide written comment to Tom Yorke, SGTF Co-Chair by Mid-June, 2002. After comments are considered, if needed, a conference call will be scheduled. Formal approval by ACWI will be requested by email vote at a later date.

National Environmental Methods Index (NEMI) - Live-on-Line

Herb Brass (USEPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; and Co-Chair, Methods and Comparability Board)

• Provided a preview of the on-line capabilities of NEMI, which was undergoing beta testing at the time of the meeting but should be available for use soon. The target date for the public availability is late May, and an announcement of the status will be made in a special session of NEMI at the National Water-Quality Monitoring Conference.

• NEMI, which was endorsed by ACWI at the May 2001 meeting, is a user-friendly database that will enable users worldwide to obtain methods information with only a standard Internet connection and browser. Information in NEMI can be searched and compared by: chemical/biological parameters, multiple chemicals, method, medium, meta data (precision, accuracy and detection levels, etc), and USEPA regulatory status.

Wrapup and Adjournment

Toni Johnson (ACWI Executive Secretary)

• Asked for suggestions for topics for the next formal meeting of ACWI.

• Suggestions were made for technical presentations on flood mapping and flood forecasting

• Consider if the issues and questions raised in the past two days warranted more frequent full meetings

• Asked that ideas, comments and suggestions be sent to her for compilation and distribution to members [e-mail to tjohnson@usgs.gov]