This document is also available in pdf format:
AppendixB.pdf
Back to U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1192 contents page
Attendees:
Task Force Members - - Craig Albertsen, Bureau of Reclamation; Thomas Baumgardner, National Weather Service; Tom Bruns, American Water Works Association; Ed Burkett, Corps of Engineers; Richard Burton, National Association of Counties; Randall Duncan; International Association of Emergency Managers; James Enote, Pueblo of Zuni; Frank Tsai, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); Fred Lissner, Oregon Department of Water Resources; Peter Mack (by phone), New York Department of Environmental Conservation; Fred Ogden, University of Connecticut; Don Phelps, American Society of Civil Engineers; David Pope, Kansas Department of Agriculture; Jonathan Price (by phone), Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology; Robert Roberts (1st day), Environmental Council of States; Larry Rowe, Mojave Water Agency; Jim Shotwell, American Institute of Professional Geologists; Earl Smith, Interstate Council on Water Policy; Charles Spooner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; Alan Vicory, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission; Leslie Wedderburn, South Florida Water Management District; Don Woodward, USDA
U. S. Geological Survey - - Steve Blanchard, Task Force Executive Secretary; Bill Carswell, Regional Hydrologist –: Northeastern Region; Betsy Daniel, Facilitator; Robert Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist; Nancy Lopez, Chief - Water Information Coordination Program; Jim Peters, Water Resources Division Program Officer
Location: U. S Geological Survey, National Center, Reston Virginia
The meeting closely followed the meeting agenda (attachment 1). The first day of the meeting (October 14, 1998) was primarily the USGS Water Resources Division (WRD) staff sharing information about the USGS, the WRD, and the Federal – State Cooperative Water Program with the Task Force members. Presentations included (1) introductory remarks and the charge to the Task Force by Bob Hirsch, (2) an overview of the USGS and the WRD by Bob Hirsch, (3) a general Division level presentation on the Coop Program from Jim Peters, (4) a more detailed presentation on how the Coop Program works at the Regional/District level by Bill Carswell, (5) a presentation on how other WRD programs relate to the Coop Program by Bob Hirsch, and (6) a time for the Task Force Members to share their thoughts and expectations about the work of the Task Force and the Coop Program.
Most of the Task Force members and some USGS staff participated in an informal social hour followed by a group dinner on the evening of October 14, 1998.
The second day (October 15) of the meeting was solely for Task Force deliberations. Betsy Daniel facilitated the process the Task Force used for its deliberations. The goals for the deliberations were (1) to brainstorm issues that the Task Force should address in addition to those listed in the Terms of Reference, (2) prioritize and develop preliminary action plans for the list of issues resulting from the deliberations combined with those in the Terms of Reference, (3) elect a chair and vice-chair, and (4) set the dates for the next three meetings. The Task Force ultimately divided into three groups to develop a list of issues and preliminary action plans for future meetings. The time available was limited so that most groups were able to develop a list of issues but only start on the preliminary action plans. The three groups focused on the four elements of scope from the Terms of Reference. The three groups and their topics were:
Tom Bruns
Jim Enote
Dave Pope
Alan Vicory
Leslie Wedderburn
The issues and preliminary action plans developed by each group are summarized in attachments 2 for "Mission", attachment 3 for "Prioritization and Conduct of Work", and attachment 4 for "Products."
The committee selected Mr. Larry Rowe, General Manager of the Mojave Water Agency, Apple Valley, California as the Chairperson for the Task Force. Mr. Fred Lissner, Manager, Ground Water and Hydrology Department, Oregon Department of Water Resources, Salem, Oregon was selected as Vice-Chairperson.
The Task Force set dates for the next three meetings. The locations will be USGS District offices in different USGS Regions and will be determined by the Chair and Vice-chair in consultation with the Executive Secretary. The dates for the next meetings are:
January 25-27, 1999
March 24-26, 1999
May 5-7, 1999
Action Items:
The Chair, Vice-Chair, and Executive Secretary meet by conference call to:
ATTACHMENT 1
TASK FORCE TO REVIEW THE
COOPERATIVE WATER PROGRAM
AGENDA
OCTOBER 14-15, 1998
Reston, Virginia
Room 5A217
Wednesday, October 14
8:30 Opening Remarks – Hirsch (1 Hr)
9:30 Break (0.5 Hr)
10:00 WRD Overview – Hirsch (1 Hr)
11:00 Coop Program – Division Level General Overview – Peters (1 Hr)
12:00 Lunch (USGS Cafeteria) (1 Hr)
1:00 Regional/District Overview – Carswell (1 Hr)
2:00 Break (0.5 Hr)
2:30 WRD Programs And Their Relation To The Coop Program – Hirsch (1 Hr)
3:30 Open Discussion Of Coop Program – Daniel (1 Hr)
4:30 Adjourn
6:30 Group Dinner
Thursday, October 15
8:30 Task Force Deliberations – All (1.5 Hr)
10:00 Break (0.5 Hr)
10:30 Continue Task Force Deliberations (1.5 Hr) Force
12:00 Lunch (1 Hr)
1:00? Question/Answer and Discussion of Anything Relating to USGS/WRD/Coop Program – Hirsch/Peters/Blanchard/Daniel/Others as needed (1 Hr)
Note: This can occur at any time during the day
2:00 Break (0.5 Hr)
2:30 Continue Task Force Deliberations (1 Hr)
3:30 Task Force Closeout Briefing To Chief Hydrologist (0.5 Hr)
4:00 Adjourn
ATTACHMENT 2
Issues:
Mission – What, how, who, and why
Is the Coop Program adequately supporting user needs in the areas of surface- and ground-water quality, quantity, and use information and decision support systems?
Preliminary Action Plan: Actions before the January 25-27 meeting
Actions during the January 25-27 meeting
ATTACHMENT 3
General
Actions before the January 25-27 meeting
Actions during the January 25-27 meeting
Actions for the May 5-7 meeting
ATTACHMENT 4
Issues:
Funding, cost, and products of the Cooperative Water Program
Preliminary Action Plan:
Actions for multi-year project planning and funding before/during January 25-27 meeting
Actions associated with cost before/during January 25-27 meeting
Action associated with products before/during January 25-27 meeting
Attendees:
Task Force Members--Craig Albertsen, Bureau of Reclamation; Thomas Baumgardner, National Weather Service (2nd and 3rd days only); Tom Bruns, American Water Works Association; Ed Burkett, Corps of Engineers; Richard Burton, National Association of Counties; Randall Duncan; International Association of Emergency Managers; James Enote, Pueblo of Zuni; Fred Lissner, Oregon Water Resources Department; Fred Ogden, University of Connecticut; Don Phelps, American Society of Civil Engineers; David Pope, Kansas Department of Agriculture; Jonathan Price, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology; Tom Looby for Robert Roberts, Environmental Council of States; Larry Rowe, Western Water Inc; Jim Shotwell, American Institute of Professional Geologists; Earl Smith, Interstate Council on Water Policy; Charles Spooner (1st day only), USEPA; Alan Vicory, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission; Leslie Wedderburn, South Florida Water Management District; Don Woodward, USDA
U. S. Geological Survey - - Steve Blanchard, Task Force Executive Secretary; Dave Lystrom (1st day only), Regional Hydrologist – Central Region; Betsy Daniel, Facilitator; Bill Horak, District Chief – Colorado District (1st day only), Doug Cain, Associate District Chief -Colorado District (1st day only)
Absent: FEMA representative; Peter Mack, New York Department of Environmental Conservation;
Location: U. S Geological Survey, National Training Center, Denver, Colorado
The meeting closely followed the meeting agenda (attachment 1). The meeting started with overview presentations by Don Woodward on the ACWI Streamgaging Task Force activities and Chuck Spooner on the ACWI National Water-Quality Monitoring Council activities. The morning of the first day of the meeting (January 25, 1999) primarily focused on the Federal-State Cooperative Program of the Colorado District. Bill Horak (District Chief) and Doug Cain (Assistant District Chief) made the Colorado District presentations. The topics they covered included (1) an overview of the Colorado District program, (2) how cooperative projects are developed, and (3) how indirect costs are determined and applied. The Task Force had questions about how the District determined the appropriateness of projects to take on and how the USGS indirect costs compared to those of the private sector.
The afternoon sessions included a presentation by Lew Wade (Chief of the Office of Information) and Greg Allord (Chief Cartographer of the Publications Management Program) on USGS products and information. The Task Force spent the remainder of the afternoon in their subgroups discussing a survey of cooperators to be conducted by the Task Force. Most of the Task Force members and some USGS staff participated in an informal group dinner on the evening of January 25, 1999.
The second day (January 26) of the meeting started with a presentation by John Briggs (Chief of the National Water Information System Testing, Data Transfer, Support, and Maintenance Unit) on WRD databases. This presentation was followed by a panel discussion between the Task Force and a panel of individuals representing agencies that cooperate with the Colorado District. The panel was composed of the following individuals:
Cooperators Panel – Ms. Janet Bell, Jefferson County Board of Commissioners, Golden, Colorado; Mr. Russell Forrest, Town of Vail, Vail, Colorado; Mr. Alan Hamel, Board of Water Works, Pueblo, Colorado; Mr. David Holm, Colorado Dept of Public Health and Environment, Denver, Colorado; Mr. David Merritt, Colorado River Conservation District, Glenwood Springs, Colorado; Mr. John Porter, Dolores Water Conservancy District, Cortez, Colorado; Mr. Phil Saletta, Colorado Springs Utilities, Colorado Springs, Colorado
The discussion with the cooperator panel focused on answers to questions from the list of questions in attachment 2. The questions in bold text were the questions asked of the cooperator panel.
The afternoon included another panel discussion between the Task Force and a group of individuals that represented users of Cooperative Program data and products. The panel was composed of the following individuals:
Data Users Panel -- Mr. Neil Grigg, Head, Department of Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado; Mr. Reed Dills, Four Corners Expeditions, Buena Vista, Colorado; Mr. Ralph Clark, Gunnison Basin POWER, Gunnison, Colorado; Mr. Chuck Haines, Wright Water Engineers Inc, Denver, Colorado; Mr. Jim Sharkoff, State Agronomist, NRCS, Lakewood, Colorado; Mr. Allen Davey, Davis Engineering Inc, Del Norte, Colorado
The discussion with the data-users panel focused on answers to questions from the list of questions in attachment 3.
The third day (January 27) started with presentations about and a tour of the WRD National Water Quality Laboratory (NWQL) in Arvada, Colorado. Bob Williams (NWQL Chief) presented information of the mission, operation, and unique characteristics of the lab. Leroy Schroder (Chief, Branch of Quality Systems) provided an overview of the activities used by the Water Resources Division to monitor and ensure the quality of its data, especially water quality data and laboratory analyses.
A portion of the Task Force (Don Phelps, Larry Rowe, Fred Lissner, Randy Duncan, and Alan Vicory) did not attend the lab tour and remained at the training center to work on developing and completing two surveys (verbal and numerical) that could be used to survey USGS cooperators to get their opinions about the Coop Program.
The remainder of the day was spent by the Task Force finalizing the plans for the use of the surveys, planning the next meeting, and making assignments for the subgroups for the period in between meetings.
The Task Force adopted a verbal survey (attachment 4) that each Task Force member would use to interview at least two cooperators. The verbal survey was based on the questions used during the cooperator panel discussion. The Task Force also adopted a numerical survey (attachment 5) to be mailed to 400 cooperators pick at random in proportion to the number of cooperators in each State.
During the period between the Reston and Denver meetings and at the beginning of the Denver meeting, there was minor rearranging of the subgroup membership. The subgroup membership established at the Denver meeting is as follows:
The next meeting location was selected to be the Arizona District Office in Tucson, Arizona. The Task Force laid out the general format for the meeting as:
Day 1
Day 2
Panel on competition – invite American Consulting engineers Council and American Institute of Professional Geologists
Panel of Cooperators – include Tribes
Day 3
Task Force deliberations
Action Items:
January 27,1999
Task Force Agreements regarding the Verbal Survey
Task Force Agreements regarding the Numeric Survey
ATTACHMENT 1
Monday, January 25, 1999
8-8:30 Opening remarks/discussion – meeting agenda and Task Force (Task Force) directions
Larry and Fred
8:30-9:30 Presentation/discussion of ACWI streamflow and water quality subcommittee work – tentative presenters would be Charlie Spooner for the National Water-Quality Monitoring Council and Don Woodward for the Streamgaging Task Force. The goal of these presentations is to help the Coop Task Force understand the scope of the work of the other two groups so that the Coop Task Force won’t duplicate the other groups efforts.
9:30-9:45 Break
9:45-10:45 Presentations by the host District Chief (as much paper info as possible, on the topics below, will be handed out prior to the meeting)
10:45-12:00 Questions and answers – Task Force with the District Chief
12-1 lunch
1-2 presentation on WRD products - - reports, fact sheets, etc
2-3:30 subgroup deliberations on survey question; subgroup plans. The goal of this session is for the subgroup to (1) review their plans and strategy and develop further as necessary and (2) review the consolidated list of survey questions.
3:30-4:30 Task Force deliberations to finalize survey questions, plans for use of the survey, survey data analysis, etc.
4:30- 5:30 Overview/tour of National Training Center and District Office
Evening – group outing/diner
Tuesday, January 26, 1999
8-9:00 Presentation on WRD databases
9:00 –11:30 Task Force meeting with cooperators from host district – want diversity of types of agencies, geographic locations, and types of programs on the panel
11:30-1 Task Force deliberations and working lunch
1-3 Task Force meeting with non-cooperators – private sector, academia, other product users, etc
3-4:30 Task Force deliberations
Evening – subgroup deliberations if necessary/desired?
Wednesday, January 27, 1999
7:30-11:00 Tour of National Water-Quality Lab – including presentations from Methods Development Group and Branch of Quality Assurance
11-2:30 Subgroup deliberation and working lunch
2:30- 4 Combined Task Force deliberations
4:00 Adjourn
ATTACHMENT 2
B. Mission - Historically, the Coop Program has been designed to develop hydrologic data and technical analysis needed to assist in meeting the USGS mission of continuously assessing the Nation’s water resources, and to provide technical assistance to State, Tribal, and local water management agencies in seeking solutions to water-resources issues of national concern through a matched funding arrangement.
C. Prioritization - In Fiscal Year 1997, the Congress appropriated $64.5 million for the Coop Program. State and local agencies provided an equal amount of matching funds plus an additional $28.5 million of unmatched funding.
D. Conduct of Work - Nearly all of the work performed in the Coop Program is done by USGS scientists and technicians. This arrangement is designed to enhance quality control, provide national consistency in data collection and methods of analysis, and provide a stable core of experienced water scientists nationwide.
E. Products - The products developed in the Coop Program need to be useful
to cooperators and other users. These users include representatives of governments,
the scientific community, the private sector, and the general public. The
products also fulfill national needs by building long-term national databases,
augmenting activities in other USGS programs, and providing a national picture
of water resources through synthesis of information from individual projects
across the country. In addition, the Coop Program advances the development
and application of new approaches and methodologies relevant to water resources
issues.
1/25/99
Discussion Questions for Data Users Panel
ATTACHMENT 4
A. General Introductory Questions
C. Prioritization - In Fiscal Year 1997, the Congress appropriated $64.5 million for the Coop Program. State and local agencies provided an equal amount of matching funds plus an additional $28.5 million of unmatched funding.
D. Conduct of Work - Nearly all of the work performed in the Coop Program is done by USGS scientists and technicians. This arrangement is designed to enhance quality control, provide national consistency in data collection and methods of analysis, and provide a stable core of experienced water scientists nationwide.
E. Products - The products developed in the Coop Program need to be useful to cooperators and other users. These users include representatives of governments, the scientific community, the private sector, and the general public. The products also fulfill national needs by building long term national data bases, augmenting activities in other USGS programs, and providing a national picture of water resources through synthesis of information from individual projects across the country. In addition, the Coop Program advances the development and application of new approaches and methodologies relevant to water-resources issues.
2/2/99
ATTACHMENT 5
Section 1: Introduction
This questionnaire relates to your overall experience with the United States Geological Survey (USGS) Water Resources Division (WRD) Federal-State Cooperative Water Program (Coop Program). For each Statement, please mark the appropriate box. If a Statement does not apply to your experience, please check the not applicable (NA) box.
The United States Geological Survey, through the Cooperative Water Program…
|
Strongly |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly |
NA |
|
| Provides products and services that are necessary for my organization to accomplish its mission. | ||||||
|
Responds to the changing needs of my organization. |
||||||
| Keeps me informed of the types of products it offers. | ||||||
| Keeps me informed of the types of service it offers. | ||||||
| Coordinates with my organization on programs and activities that may be of interest to us. | ||||||
| Keeps my organization informed of programmatic and fiscal changes that affect us. | ||||||
| Responds to my requests in a timely manner. |
Please rate the overall expertise offered by the USGS through the Cooperative Water Program in the following areas:
|
Excellent |
Above |
Average |
Below |
Poor |
NA |
|
|
Water-resources data and information. |
||||||
| Water-resources investigations and research. | ||||||
| Geologic information and investigations. | ||||||
| Mapping information and products. | ||||||
| Biological-resources information and investigations. | ||||||
| Provider of unbiased scientific and technical support and products. |
Section 2: Proposals
Proposals from the Cooperative Water Program…
|
Strongly |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly |
NA |
|
| Address the needs of my organization. | ||||||
| Reflect work that is realistic in scope. | ||||||
| Are of appropriate content and length. | ||||||
| Are clear and understandable. | ||||||
| Present realistic work schedules. | ||||||
| Reflect reasonable pricing. |
Section 3: Data Collection
E=Excellent; AA=Above Average; A= Average; BA= Below Average; P=Poor; NA= Not Applicable
| Ground Water |
Surface Water |
|
Water Quality |
|
Water Use |
|
E |
A |
A |
B |
P |
N |
E |
A |
A |
B |
P |
N |
E |
A |
A |
B |
P |
N |
E |
A |
A |
B |
P |
N |
|
| Performance in meeting the needs of my organization. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Adequacy of geographic coverage. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Length of data-collection period | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Frequency of data collection | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Reliability | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Value relative to cost |
Hydrologic Equipment and Instrumentation…
|
Excellent |
Above |
Average |
Below |
Poor |
NA |
|
| Performance in meeting the needs of my organization. | ||||||
| Reliability | ||||||
| Use of advanced technology | ||||||
| Accuracy | ||||||
| Innovation | ||||||
| Value relative to cost |
Section 4: Data Analysis and Interpretation
E=Excellent; AA=Above Average; A= Average; BA= Below Average; P=Poor; NA= Not Applicable
| Ground Water |
Surface Water |
|
Water Quality |
|
Water Use |
|
E |
A |
A |
B |
P |
N |
E |
A |
A |
P |
B |
N |
E |
A |
A |
B |
P |
N |
E |
A |
A |
B |
P |
N |
|
| Performance in meeting the needs of my organization. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Adequacy of technical approach | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Technical quality | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Ability to be understood | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Timeliness | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Consideration of alternative interpretations | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Value relative to cost |
Section 5: Products
Requests for data, reports, and information…
|
Strongly |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly |
Not |
|
| Are handled courteously | ||||||
| Are addressed promptly | ||||||
| Are answered accurately |
Reports (e.g., Water-Resources Investigations Reports, Open-File Reports, Data Reports)…
|
Strongly |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly |
Not |
|
| Meet the needs of my organization | ||||||
| Adequately address the objectives of the investigation | ||||||
| Include the appropriate level of detail | ||||||
| Are understandable | ||||||
| Are technically sound | ||||||
| Are timely |
I have sufficient access to hydrologic data and reports…
|
Strongly |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly |
Not |
|
| In printed form | ||||||
| On the Internet | ||||||
| On-line by computer | ||||||
| On diskette, tape, or CD-ROM |
Section 6: Support
I receive sufficient support in…
|
Strongly |
Agree |
Neutral |
Disagree |
Strongly |
NA |
|
| Administrative Processes (Contracts, Billings, Etc.) | ||||||
| Computer Systems (Performance, Compatibility, Ease of Use, Etc.) | ||||||
| Technical capability (Performance, Professionalism, Expertise, Etc.) |
Section 7: Summary
|
Excellent |
Above Average |
Average |
Below |
Poor |
NA |
|
| Overall, I think the Cooperative Water Program is |
Section 8: Cooperator Information
The following questions will be used only to identify similarities and differences among groups of customers. Thank you for your cooperation in providing the following data.
Please indicate your affiliation: (please circle)
| State Government | Tribal Government |
| County Government | Municipal Government |
| Other Local Government | Basin Commission |
| Water Management Districts | Interstate Commission/Compact/Agency |
Other (specify)_________________________________
Please indicate your area(s) of specific interest: (please circle any that apply)
| Surface Water | Ground Water | Other (specify)____________ |
| Water Quality | Water Use |
Please indicate your organization’s involvement with the USGS: (please circle one for each column.)
|
Duration of Participation
|
Annual Coop Budget (your agency contribution) |
| 5-10 Years | under $50,000 |
| 10-20 Years | $50,000-$150,000 |
| More than 20 Years | $150,000-$250,000 |
| More than $250,000 |
(Optional Information): Your Name: __________________________________
Your Organization: ________________________________________________
Section 9: Comments
Are there any other comments that you would like to make regarding the Federal-State Cooperative Water Program, or any clarifications of your responses? (Attach additional sheets as needed.)
5/22/99
Attendees:
Task Force Members - - Craig Albertsen, Bureau of Reclamation; Thomas Baumgardner, National Weather Service; Tom Bruns, American Water Works Association; Ed Burkett, Corps of Engineers; Richard Burton, National Association of Counties; James Enote, Pueblo of Zuni; Fred Lissner, Oregon Department of Water Resources; Wendell McCurry, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administratiors; Fred Ogden, University of Connecticut; Don Phelps, American Society of Civil Engineers; Jonathan Price, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology; Larry Rowe, Western Water Inc; Jim Shotwell, American Institute of Professional Geologists; Alan Vicory, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission; Leslie Wedderburn, South Florida Water Management District; Don Woodward, USDA
U. S. Geological Survey - - Bill Alley, Chief Office of Ground Water; Steve Blanchard, Task Force Executive Secretary; Bob Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist; Nick Melcher, Arizona District Chief; John Vecchioli, Florida District Chief; Tim Hale, Southeastern Region Program Officer; Betsy Daniel, Facilitator.
Absent: A FEMA representative; Randall Duncan, International Association of Emergency Managers; Peter Mack, New York Department of Environmental Conservation; Dave Pope, Kansas Department of Agriculture; Earl Smith, Interstate Council on Water Policy; Chuck Spooner, USEPA.
Location: U. S Geological Survey, Arizona District Office, Tucson, Arizona
The meeting closely followed the meeting agenda (attachment 1). The meeting started with presentations by Nick Melcher (Arizona District Chief) and John Vecchioli (Florida District Chief) on the Arizona and Florida District’s Cooperative Water Programs, respectively. Nick Melcher highlighted the Arizona District Cooperative Water Program areas of emphasis in work for Indian Tribes, collecting ground-water information, developing new methods, participation in public consortiums, and development of a ground-water database. John Vecchioli presented information on the Florida District’s Cooperative Water Program areas of emphasis in studying ground water and surface water interactions, conducting lake studies, studying and modeling the factors that influence salt water intrusion and its impacts, and studying the susceptibility of ground water to contamination through various techniques including ground-water age dating.
Following the presentations on each district’s Cooperative Water Program, John Vecchioli discussed the costs that are included in a district’s indirect costs and explained why there is variation from district to district. Nick Melcher then described what the Arizona District and the Water Resources Division are doing to improve report timeliness. Both Nick and John discussed their thoughts about what is working well in the Cooperative Water Program and what difficulties they have with the program.
The afternoon sessions was a panel discussion between the Task Force and a panel of individuals representing agencies that cooperate with the Arizona District. The panel was composed of the following individuals:
Cooperators Panel – Michael Block, District Hydrologist, Metropolitan Domestic Water Improvement District, Tucson, AZ; Dave Gardner, Flood Control District of Maricopa County, Phoenix, AZ; Katharine L. Jacobs, Director, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Tucson, AZ; Bruce Johnson, Chief Hydrologist, Tucson Water, Tucson, AZ; Allon C. Owen, Director - Floodplain Administrator, Cochise County Flood Control District, Bisbee, AZ; Greg Wallace, Chief Hydrologist, Arizona Department of Water Resources, Phoenix, AZ.
The discussion with the cooperator panel focused on answers to questions from the list of questions in attachment 2. The questions in bold text were the questions asked of the cooperator panel. The Task Force summarized the information they heard from the panel discussion and the initial Task Force response to the information in bullet Statements as listed in attachment 3.
The second day (March 25) started with a presentation by Bob Hirsch (WRD Chief Hydrologist) on the proposed FY2000 budget and its impacts on the Cooperative Water Program.
During the next session, the Task Force deliberated and developed the major points to be presented in a status report to the ACWI Alternate Chair at the end of the day. The Task Force also discussed different options that might be used for developing their findings and recommendations. Options such as reaching consensus and majority voting were discussed. No decision was made but the Task Force members were asked to consider which options they would prefer and to be prepared to discuss it at a later time.
The afternoon session began with a panel discussion between the Task Force and a group of individuals from the private sector to discuss the issue of competition with the private sector and the appropriate role of the USGS. The panel was composed of the following individuals:
Panel on competition and the appropriate role of the USGS -- Ed McGavock, Montgomery and Associates, Sedona, Arizona (Representing AIPG local); Tyler Gass, Geologist, Blasland Bouck and Lee Inc, Golden, CO (Representing AIPG National); Jeff Bradley, West Consultants, Bellevue, WA; Bob Weaver, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, Boulder, Colorado; Martin Nicholson, Vice President of Water Resources, CH2MHill, Reading, California
The discussion with the panel on competition focused on answers to questions from the list of questions in attachment 4. The Task Force summarized the information they heard from the panel discussion and the initial Task Force response to the information in bullet Statements as listed in attachment 5. In addition, the Task Force summarized criteria proposed by the panels to be used by the USGS for project selection to avoid competition. The proposed criteria are also presented in attachment 5.
The Task Force discussions with a panel of private sector individuals on the issue of competition was followed by Task Force discussions with a panel of USGS staff to provide the Task Force an opportunity to ask the USGS question related to competition. The USGS staff on the panel were Bill Alley, Chief of the Office of Ground Water; Tim Hale, Southeastern Region Program Officer, Nick Melcher, Arizona District Chief; and John Vecchioli, Florida District Chief. The Task Force asked the USGS panel various questions related to how projects are selected for inclusion in the Cooperative Water Program and why the USGS was involved in a few specific projects.
The Day ended with a presentation by Larry Rowe, Chair of the Task Force, to Bob Hirsch, the Alternate Chair of ACWI on the status of the Cooperative Water Program Review. Larry described the activities the Task Force has conducted and the information the Task Force has gathered to date. The Task Force believes it will complete its work by the June 30, 1999 deadline.
The third day (March 26, 1999) began with a presentation by Nick Melcher on the WRD project titled "Hydro21" which is investigating new technologies that could be applied to the streamgaging program to determine river stage, water velocity, and river channel configuration through non-contact methods. Bob Hirsch then presented information on new water resources related technologies and methods that have been developed though the National Research Program. The remainder of the day was spent in subgroup meetings with the subgroups working to develop preliminary findings and recommendations.
The next meeting location was selected to be the Massachusetts District Office in Marlboro, Massachusetts or the New York District Office in Troy, New York. The Task Force laid out the general format for the May 5-7, 1999 meeting as:
Day 1
District Overview Presentation
Panel 1 – Cooperators Panel for Eastern Districts with Tribal Representative – it is assumed that water quantity will not be an issue.
Panel 2 – Competition Panel
Day 2
Subgroups meet to develop consensus within Subgroup
Day 3
Subgroups report to the combined Task Force to reach consensus
Action Items:
ATTACHMENT 1
Tucson, Arizona
Final Agenda
Wednesday March 24, 1999
8:00-8:10 Welcome and housekeeping – Steve Blanchard
8:10-8:30 Opening remarks/discussion – meeting agenda and Task Force (Task Force) directions -- Larry and Fred
8:30-11:00 Presentation by Nick Melcher – AZ District Chief and John Vecchioli, FL District Chief, (as much paper info as possible, on the topics below, will be handed out prior to the meeting) (includes a break)
11:00-12:45 Subgroup deliberations and working lunch -- The goal of this session is for the subgroups to (1) review the status of their work to date and progress on assignments (2) discuss and report on results of verbal survey, (3) continue working on consensus Statements and findings related to the questions in the Terms of Reference, and (4) draft summary bullets that can be shared with the rest of the Task Force.
12:45-1:00 Break and prep for panel
1:00-3:30 Task Force meeting with cooperators from host district – want diversity of types of agencies, geographic locations, and types of programs on the panel (include a break) – Larry Rowe
3:30-4:00 Task Force discussion and summary of panel
4:00-4:15 Break
4:15- 5:30 Combined Task Force deliberations –
5:30 Adjourn
Evening – group outing/dinner
Thursday March 25, 1999
8:00-8:45 Tribal perspective/issues – Jim Enote
8:45-9:30 FY2000 WRD budget – Bob Hirsch, Chief Hydrologist
9:30-9:45 Break
9:45-10:45 Task Force deliberations – prep questions for competition panel (note: I suggest that subgroup 2 use the questions from the non-cooperators panel from Denver and, prior to the AZ mtg, modify them accordingly for use with the competition panel. This list would be a starting point for the combined Task Force to review and modify.)
10:45-11:45 Task Force deliberations –
11:45-12:45 Lunch
12:45-1:00 Prep for panel
1:00-3:30 Task Force meeting with those concerned about competition with the private sector (include a break) – Fred Lissner
3:30-4:00 Task Force discussion and summary of panel
4:00-4:15 Break
4:15-5:00 Task Force Questions about competition to USGS (AZ + FL District Chiefs, Bill Alley – Chief Office of GW, Tim Hale- SE Region Program Officer)
5:00-5:45 Task Force status report to Alternate-Chair of ACWI (Bob Hirsch) -- Larry and Fred
5:45 Adjourn
Friday March 26, 1999
8:00 - 9:00 Presentation on Hydro21 and new technologies from the National Research Program – Melcher for Hydro21 and Bob Hirsch for NRP
9:00-9:15 Break
9:15-11:00 Subgroup deliberations – subgroups continue working on consensus Statements and findings related to the questions in the Terms of Reference (include a break)
11:00-11:45 Subgroup 1 report on preliminary findings – rest of Task Force comment and discuss
11:45-12:45 Lunch
12:45-1:45 Subgroup 2 reports on preliminary findings – rest of Task Force comment and discuss
1:45-2:00 Break
2:00-2:45 Subgroup 3 report on preliminary findings – rest of Task Force comment and discuss
2:45-4:00 Task Force deliberations – review status, pick next mtg locations, plan next meeting, make assignments
4:00 Adjourn
ATTACHMENT 2
Cooperator Survey
A. General Introductory Questions
B. Mission - Historically, the Coop Program has been designed to develop hydrologic data and technical analysis needed to assist in meeting the USGS mission of continuously assessing the Nation’s water resources, and to provide technical assistance to State, tribal, and local water management agencies in seeking solutions to water-resource issues of national concern through a matched funding arrangement.
C. Prioritization - In Fiscal Year 1997, the Congress appropriated $64.5 million for the Coop Program. State and local agencies provided an equal amount of matching funds plus an additional $28.5 million of unmatched funding.
D. Conduct of Work - Nearly all of the work performed in the Coop Program is done by USGS scientists and technicians. This arrangement is designed to enhance quality control, provide national consistency in data collection and methods of analysis, and provide a stable core of experienced water scientists nationwide.
E. Products - The products developed in the Coop Program need to be useful to cooperators and other users. These users include representatives of governments, the scientific community, the private sector, and the general public. The products also fulfill national needs by building long term national data bases, augmenting activities in other USGS programs, and providing a national picture of water resources through synthesis of information from individual projects across the country. In addition, the Coop Program advances the development and application of new approaches and methodologies relevant to water resources issues.
F. General Closing Question
Attachment 3
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Questions and/or Suggestions to Determine Criteria for Non-Competition
Attendees:
Task Force Members - - Craig Albertsen, Bureau of Reclamation; Thomas Baumgardner, National Weather Service; Ed Burkett, Corps of Engineers; Richard Burton, National Association of Counties; James Enote, Pueblo of Zuni; Fred Lissner, Oregon Department of Water Resources; Wendell McCurry, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators; Fred Ogden, University of Connecticut; Don Phelps, American Society of Civil Engineers; Dave Pope, Kansas Department of Agriculture; Jonathan Price, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology; Larry Rowe, Western Water Inc; Jim Shotwell, American Institute of Professional Geologists; Earl Smith, Interstate Council on Water Policy; Alan Vicory, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission; Leslie Wedderburn, South Florida Water Management District
U. S. Geological Survey - - Steve Blanchard, Task Force Executive Secretary; Grady Moore, District Chief, New York; Ward Freeman, Associate District Chief, New York; Besty Daniel, Facilitator.
Absent: A FEMA representative; Tom Bruns, American Water Works Association; Randall Duncan, International Association of Emergency Managers; Peter Mack, NY Department of Environmental Conservation; Chuck Spooner, USEPA; Don Woodward, USDA
Location: U.S. Geological Survey, New York District Office, Troy, New York
The meeting closely followed the meeting agenda (attachment 1). The meeting started with a brief presentation by Grady Moore (New York District Chief) on the New York District’s Cooperative Water Program. Grady Moore highlighted the New York District Coop Program areas of emphasis in doing low-ionic strength waters research, pesticide monitoring, sediment chemistry and transport, nitrogen cycling in small watersheds, and ground water age-dating and modeling.
The remainder of the morning session was a panel discussion between the Task Force and a group of individuals from the private sector to discuss the issue of competition with the private sector and the appropriate role of the USGS. The panel was composed of the following individuals:
Panel on competition and the appropriate role of the USGS - Paul Grosser, P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer and Hydrologist, Bohemia, NY (Representing ACEC); Robert K Lamonica, CPG – President, Leggette, Brashears, and Graham, Inc, Trumbull, CT; Ken McGraw, Paul B Krebs and Associates, Montgomery, AL; Gary Lovett, Institute of Ecosystem Studies, Millbrook, NY; Don Cohen, Senior Associate, Malcolm Pirnie Inc, Mahwah, NJ.
The discussion with the panel on competition focused on answers to questions from the list of questions in attachment 2. The Task Force summarized the information they heard from the panel discussion and the initial Task Force response to the information in bullet Statements as listed in attachment 3.
The afternoon session was a panel discussion between the Task Force and a panel of individuals representing agencies that participate in the Coop Program. There were cooperators representing the Coop Program in New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Washington. The panel was composed of the following individuals:
Cooperators Panel – Fred Van Alstyne, New York State Deptartment of Environmental Conservation, Division of Water, Albany, NY; Patti Stone, Water Quality Coordinator Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, WA; Tom Baxter, Executive Director, New Jersey Water Supply Authority, Clinton, NJ; Jim Mayfield, Chief of Watershed Management, New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Water Supply, Shokan, NY; Tom Morrissey, Director of Planing and Standards, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT; Robert K. Lamonica, Leggette, Brashears, and Graham, Inc , representing Suffolk County Water Authority, Oakdale, NY.
The discussion with the cooperator panel focused on answers to questions from the list of questions in attachment 4. The questions in bold text were the questions asked of the cooperator panel. The Task Force summarized the information they heard from the panel discussion and the initial Task Force response to the information in bullet Statements as listed in attachment 5.
The second (May 6, 1999) and third days (May 7, 1999) were spent by the Task Force in deliberations, both in subgroups and together as one group, to develop preliminary findings and recommendations to present to ACWI.
The next meeting location was selected to be Chicago, Illinois. The meeting will not be held in the Illinois District Office but at a hotel in the Chicago area. The entire meeting will focus on editing and revising the preliminary findings and recommendations and writing the final report.
Action Items:
ATTACHMENT 1
8:00 – 8:15 Introductory Remarks and housekeeping – Steve Blanchard, Larry Rowe, Fred Lissner
8:15 – 8:45 New York District Coop Program – highlight of issues and selected projects - Grady Moore, NY District Chief
8:45 – 9:00 Break and Prep for Panel
9:00 – 11:30 Competition Issues Panel – Task Force meeting with panel to discuss issues relating to competition with the private sector and the appropriate role of the USGS (include a break) – Fred Lissner
11:30 –12:15 Task Force discussion and summary of panel – Betsy Daniel
12:15 – 1:15 Lunch – box lunch in building
1:15 – 1:30 Prep for Panel
1:30 – 4:00 Cooperators Panel – Task Force meeting with Cooperators from NY and other Districts (include a break) – Larry Rowe
4:00 – 4:45 Task Force discussion and summary of panel – Betsy Daniel
4:45 Adjourn
Thursday May 6, 1999
8:00 – 4:30 Task Force Deliberations
Friday May 7, 1999
8:00 – 1:30 A mix of subgroup deliberations to continue to draft conclusions / recommendations and combined Task Force deliberations to reach "consensus" decisions / recommendations
1:30 – 2:15 Draft bullets for status report to ACWI at their May 18 -19 meeting
2:15– 3:00 Next meeting – pick location and plan agenda
3:00 Adjourn
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
ATTACHMENT 2
Cooperator Survey
A. General Introductory Questions
B. Mission - Historically, the Coop Program has been designed to develop hydrologic data and technical analysis needed to assist in meeting the USGS mission of continuously assessing the Nation’s water resources, and to provide technical assistance to State, tribal, and local water management agencies in seeking solutions to water-resource issues of national concern through a matched funding arrangement.
C. Prioritization - In Fiscal Year 1997, the Congress appropriated $64.5 million for the Coop Program. State and local agencies provided an equal amount of matching funds plus an additional $28.5 million of unmatched funding.
D. Conduct of Work - Nearly all of the work performed in the Coop Program is done by USGS scientists and technicians. This arrangement is designed to enhance quality control, provide national consistency in data collection and methods of analysis, and provide a stable core of experienced water scientists nationwide.
E. Products - The products developed in the Coop Program need to be useful to cooperators and other users. These users include representatives of governments, the scientific community, the private sector, and the general public. The products also fulfill national needs by building long term national data bases, augmenting activities in other USGS programs, and providing a national picture of water resources through synthesis of information from individual projects across the country. In addition, the Coop Program advances the development and application of new approaches and methodologies relevant to water resources issues.
F. General Closing Question
ATTACHMENT 5
Attendees:
Task Force Members - - Craig Albertsen, Bureau of Reclamation; Thomas Baumgardner, National Weather Service; Ed Burkett, Corps of Engineers; Randall Duncan, International Association of Emergency Managers; Fred Lissner, Oregon Water Resources Department; Fred Ogden, University of Connecticut; Don Phelps, American Society of Civil Engineers; Dave Pope, Kansas Department of Agriculture; Jonathan Price, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology; Larry Rowe, Western Water, Inc; Jim Shotwell, American Institute of Professional Geologists;; Chuck Spooner, USEPA; Alan Vicory, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission; Leslie Wedderburn, South Florida Water Management District; Don Woodward, USDA.
U. S. Geological Survey - - Steve Blanchard, Task Force Executive Secretary; Besty Daniel, Facilitator.
Absent: A FEMA representative; Tom Bruns, American Water Works Association; Richard Burton, National Association of Counties; James Enote, Pueblo of Zuni; Peter Mack, New York Department of Environmental Conservation; Wendell McCurry, Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution Control Administrators; Earl Smith, Interstate Council on Water Policy.
Location: Holiday Inn Rolling Meadows, Illinois (near O'Hare Airport)
The entire meeting was spent in deliberations to finalize the "Findings and Recommendations" of the Task Force and the report resulting from the review of the Cooperative Water Program.
Go to Appendix
C
Go back to Appendix A
Back to U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1192 contents
page