**Network Interagency Working Group CC Notes with Pilots Apr 2, 2007**

**Present: Jawed Hameedi NOAA, Gail Mallard USGS, Chuck Spooner USEPA,
Toni Johnson USGS Exec Sec, plus pilot reps as indicated below.**

**Delaware Bay: 1:00-1:45 PM (EDT)**

Bob Tudor, Danielle Kreeger, Tom Fikslin (Mnt & Modeling) at Delaware
River Basin Commission; Eric Vowinkel, USGS.

1\. Review Tasks/Timelines

Overview by Gail Mallard: Network IWG Driven by deadlines outside our
control; in only 1 year finished Network Design, amazing group of
volunteers, never thought we would pull it off, but did it. Most of next
year working way up Federal and Administration's Oceans food chain, with
broadly based design that took account of integrated approach brought
much creditability. Now captives of Federal budget process. USGS budget
before Congress now for FY 08 and in NOAA budget for FY 08, actual new
monies in those budgets for purpose of starting a demonstration phase in
FY 09. Would need most money in FY 09. Where we would actually say, OK,
as part of pilot studies and other work, identified gaps. Now fill those
gaps with new money, because existing monitoring is being well
spent...Put there in 08 budgets in good faith...through budget process,
not necessarily guaranteed. Given Admin and Federal budget process, to
be able to say what we need based on pilot "proof of concept" will
increase our chances for new funds is so important, gets to January 1
timelines.

So, we have to work backwards from those deadlines, to work back from
comprehensive analysis and three pilots and gap analysis and costs, we
have to get some info from you folks earlier than January 1, 2008. FY 09
Federal budget documents, have to be fleshed out in Nov-Dec.

Jawed -- preliminary budget excercises at NOAA, start to ID
place-holders now for FY 10-14. So provide some general idea as NOAA's
share for full implementation of the Network. So you can see that we
start with some pretty fuzzy numbers, and as time proceeds and get
closer to an actual FY budget process, need to have better estimates.

Chuck -- and helps to have more specific examples of how it would work.

DB ? One Question, understandable, also have to interact with CEQ and
OMB -- what's their take? If we role this up and have good
justification, are they on board?

Can't say for OMB, budget climate changes, however, fact that it looks
like we will have some money in 08 would indicate that they are
comfortable with this. Re CEQ and Administraiton,

Dan Walker, Office of Science and Technology Policy, within Executive
Office of the President, is on the IWG and has been very supportive, as
have many I/A Coord groups we have briefed. In part because this Network
is responsive to Commission on Ocean Policy Report and in President's
Ocean Action Plan. Also separate budget track for IOOS, and at some
point, co-tangent, and be ready. Fact that this is responsive to the COP
mandated by Congress, has more legs. More toward real places, real
management needs, new sensors on ground, that much more real.

Tasks -- five big groups of things to be done.

Some you as pilots much more involved with, others your involvement up
to you.

a.  Interagency working group, keep it moving, slipped some but not
    much.

b.  Next big thing is to refine Network Design, issues that never got
    quite finalized, for gap analysis, need to know what we are
    comparing to.

c.  Pilots are key, to conduct pilot studies. Rely on these for:

-   Develop some targeted sampling locations, need to be selected by
    local expertise.

-   Inventory existing data -- done some already re Del Bay/Watershed
    Cooperation.

-   Need data mgt, data access issues resolved, make things real.

-   Gap analysis.

-   Compile what can be addressed to have gaps filled

-   Costs -- ongoing and additional; leads to what it will cost to
    implement network; how much pilots are spending now, more to fill
    gaps, etc. work toward calculation of National Network.

d.  Outreach activities, hopefully, tremendous call for interest, 3 of
    you for full pilots, lots of others interested and keep involved.
    Special sessions at technical meetings.

e.  Two types of reports, National level, National audience, with a
    draft around mid-Nov, even tho your pilots not final reports until
    January, need some data to be fed to us in advance of that.

2\. Discuss participant for refinement work group(s)

Had in mind, several relatively small workgroups, targeted on Network
Design issues that need to be resolved, will circulate draft charges in
next couple of weeks. Just think if someone on your team who might be
good to speak to issue of Atmospheric Deposition, or Ground Water, or
biological, or wetlands -- really good to add them to refinement group.

Response: In some ways, already have Eric and Leslie on Council...?

Ex from Council meeting: Design for Wetlands, not fleshed out in Network
Design. Jane Caffrey on Council, representing American Society of
Limnology and Oceanography, and from FL, prepared a strawman to think
about. She would lead that group, but is there someone from DEL to work
with Jane and a few others, work with her over next 4-8 weeks, to move
ahead? Yes, Danielle interested.

Danielle: One area none of us has tackled, Tidal wetlands in particular;
trying to get DL, NJ, PA together, so real interest. Sea level rise,
climate change, resources as well. Talked with Jane already, on some
ideas to round out.

Tom can work on AD for toxics...

To move forward, we will draft charges and then you see if someone(s) to
help.

Tom -- Any where you need versus abundance? Nutrients?\
Gail -- Don't know yet, because haven't asked.

One from each pilot, with a couple others from agencies, be enough.

Danielle -- Make list of 7 refinement areas available to whole pilot
team.

Eric -- Rob Schreiber, rep from American Society of Civil Engineers to
Advisory Committee on Water Information, heading Ground Water team, met
with us in New Jersey USGS Water Science Center (Tony Navoy) USGS
thinking about GW, so people from USGS GW on that already.

3\. Ask for questions:

Tom -- Questions for pilot studies -- targeted sampling sites -- what
you are thinking; we have some real-time, some systematic/temporal, have
ideas of how to fill in our gaps; but from a national perspective???

Answer: In Network design, for estuaries, both targeted and real-time
and probabilistic. Ex: P = 30 sites within estuary 1/5 years-put dots on
a map; T = within 30, about 15 along gradient (salinity?) Some other
issues in Del Bay? and couldn't say where they should be...tracking from
uplands down to ocean, such important things happen in estuaries, a
gradient. Said where streamgage from HUC 6 to Head of Tide.

Response: We may have sufficient coverage for certain parameters.

Jawed: Recognize Del has a number of fixed sites sampled for a while.
Basic question is, are they fulfilling or serving all of your needs? Is
there a need to add to address mgt issues?

Rresponse: Healthy for us to do on our end, want to do anyway.

Question: In terms of metrics that get analyzed, how this might link to
Network refinement? Wetlands, beaches or biological linkages; we may
have a good sense where sites are for Water Quality or physical
conditions, but should those other components be considered?

Gail: Right on it. If GW important in basin, what is refinement needed
in Design? Need to consider in context of pilot study. Sequencing not
perfect, but mid-late May; targeted mid-late May. Have a report on the
Wetlands refinement group, then you'll know where group is going and can
provide input.

Bob -- Not actually collecting samples? Gail -- NO, not during pilot
phase.

To extent we know Network Design, where are best 15 sites for DEL -- may
have more, but if only have 15, where would they be?

Dan -- Only sampling main stream, so may need to diversify to get
sediment at mouth of tributary...Contemplate changes from status quo-not
select sites, but ID where would you need to.

Bob -- Products and Needs of Coastal community?

Gail: Ex: pilots in 3 different areas. EX: Primary management needs in
DEL Basin are? 50 needs, ID 10 highest priority, in these 3 pilots, 20
seem to keep showing up as important mgt needs, likely on National
basis....

Jawed -- Important question, which of mgt ques/issues would be better
addressed if Network in place fully?

Response: Helpful for us to go through that exercise.

Jawed -- You mentioned flow and flux, atmosphere, rivers, GW -- in DEL
and other estuaries, very interested also on stuff coming in from ocean,
so one reason to think about some number of stations look at inflow of
materials and energy...Ocean to Bay flux.

Other Questions, do we want to link in quantity at all? Sed Bay to
Ocean, extreme events, floods, etc.

Gail: National design, re River inputs, standard USGS design, 12 samples
thru-out year monthly, with at least 3 high flow events. Take advice
from you if more needed.

Jawed -- quantity is important, flow and flux important.

Danielle -- Biology -- mostly boil indicators associated with QW, or
boil components effect QW pos and neg -- shellfish rates, bio-filters;
or algal blooms?

Gail: Don't know yet. That group has hugest task ahead, and will have to
set priorities.

4\. Suggest communication

Once a month, to touch base, Mondays from 11-12:30; 1^st^ (May) or 3^rd^
(April) Mon == we'd let you know? OK

Better handle on: Watershed, Estuaries and Coastal; and AD.

More trouble with Wetlands, GW and Beaches. So front load those we can
get a handle on.

Review the mid-stream deadlines, before January.

Tom: In a future call, more about Data Mgt and Access...

\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*\*

Lake Michigan: Monday, April 2 1:45-2:30 PM (EDT)

Present: John Hummer, Great Lakes Comm, MMCC; Jim Bauman WI (w/wind on a
CO Mesa); Matt Doss, GLC; Gary Colehep (?), MI DEQ; Art Garceau, IN; Joe
Morensic(?), IL EPA; Norm Graneman, USGS; Steve Moeller, USGS;
\_\_\_\_\_(missed name) at EPA Duluth Lab; Tammy Mitchell and Greg Good,
IL EPA; Judy Beck, Lake MI Mgr for EPA's GLNPO.

1.  Review Tasks/Timelines

Gail Mallard, Overview: Delighted to have GL, plus E and W coast, great
balance.

Task Statements last week, five big categories. Admin issues resp of I/A
Working Group;

Timelines driven by our need to produce National Report 1 Jan 08,
primarily to address Fed budget process. Challenge to do Pilot effort
within in a year, more fully fleshed out design, real info for Proof of
Concept of Network; gaps to be filled; cost. So some info back from each
pilots, maybe not full draft report, but some input to National level
report. Not same as what you all had for timeline, but important for us
to hit marks.

Question? One important question, only pilot freshwater, major source of
DW for 46 million people. Might complicate things? Yes, as monitor lake,
but in terms of Network, DW is not a major priority.

Gail -- Have a design for GL, somewhat different from estuarine but not
much, not much more complicated. Lots of smaller tributaries, and need
some local knowledge/expertise which more important to monitor,
comparing status quo to design.

Chuck -- flux into these waters, also flux outward, so will be part of
process.

Greg -- Remembrance of design, public water supply was not emphasized
from Network perspective. DW Contaminants may not be a priority for
pilot study.

Tasks Primarily Responsibility of Pilot Groups:

Some things not fully fleshed out in Network design, and left to get
input from local knowledge.

Kinds of things re GW component. Strictly local knowledge, you would
need to identify how to monitor flux into Lake MI from GW (79% of GW of
Lake MI, so already identified). How to monitor to answer National Level
and Regional Level questions? Pilot rationale for targeted sampling
efforts.

Inventory of existing data -- great strides in that thus far. Data being
collected may not exactly match data specified in Network. Are you
sampling at X places? Full constituents being measured at that place =
gap analysis. Compile some of major management issues, and to what
extent a fully fleshed out Network will address management issues.

Gail: Feedback in mid-Nov not in your original proposal?

John, we will adapt to Network schedule. That was our best guess of how
to accomplish tasks. We will get on fast track. Charlie -- Figured we
had about a year, but planned by Oct to be able to report progress at
State of Lake Michigan Conference, and that's what you need by Nov, not
the detailed, formatted write-up.

For the three pilot efforts: here are major mgt needs, major gaps,
roughly cost of filling gaps...

Monitor for Nutrients? How? Total N, what species?

Jawed -- Restate five or six things expecting from pilots:

1.  Some idea of location and nature of targeting sampling sites.

2.  Inventory of existing programs; with actual locations and what for?
    Lake MI said 79% GW, so question, do you have a monitoring system
    adequate?

3.  Concept of gap analysis, are or are we not meeting needs of idea vs
    real sampling? If need to fill some gaps, where and cost?

4.  Also deal with data mgt and data access issues.

Chuck -- Question for John Hummer: Are you, as member of IOOS, familiar
with DMAC of IOOS?

John -- I would say we are, but defer to are GLOS interim director Roger
Goss, not on call today. Matt Doss -- Roger has another call, has been
following this pilot, and contributed to statement of interest. Interim
Exec Dir of GLOOS, and very plugged in to IOOS/DMAC, and data management
guru and be familiar with it.

Norm - GLOS meeting next week, and this is probably on agenda.

Something specific? No, just want you to be familiar with it, and be
comforting if you are engaged with it. Answer is yes, question is degree
of engagement. Pretty high level of confidence.

Norm attending GLOS meeting next week, will make sure this is discussed.

Keep larger Water Quality group informed by Outreach:

2\. Discuss participant for refinement work group(s):

Participate in Network refinement work groups? Range of organic
contaminantes? GW? We will draft charge, could you help us ID some
people to participate over next month or two.

Charlie: Critically look at proposed Network, suggest refinements,
different locations as well as parameters? Gail: It depends, targeted
sampling sights very much dependent on local expertise, but not redesign
from ground up. Just look at it as go along. But don't start that way,
or we'll never get there,

John -- One question discussed previously re Network design. How does GL
design integrate or differ?

Gail: Major offshore for Great lakes, we said, this is what IOOS
community is struggling with. R/S, shipboard cruises important. Not too
specific.

Jawed -- In sense atmospheric dep, Rivers, GW into estuaries, but what
about Ocean inflow?

GL \-- Embayments or near-shore waters, take terms from EMAP sampling in
GL, to extent where it is important to demonstrate energy and materials
from offshore to nearshore, need a program to get appropriate
measurements. Not exactly the same as coastal ocean/estuaries, slightly
different, more than open to specifications and refinements for GL.

Not clear, but flexibility of how that addresses GL to discuss among
ourselves.

5.  Suggest communication

IWG -- weekly conference call Mondays 11-12:30. Join us one Monday each
month? Not more than 2 reps from each pilot once per month on one of our
weekly calls. See how things are going, view progress on Network
refinements, make sure we are all moving along toward goal of unified
responses. John and one or two others join us once a month? YES, doable.

Many email messages flying around, but we'll try to minimize bothering
you, lots on your plate.

We need to come up with inventory format for all three pilots, to
integrate process and input.

Judy: That will be an early product. We have an instrument we've used in
past, willing to look at and share with others? Yes, and Del Bay has one
too, so yes -- a special call with three groups, how can we negotiate a
result based on what's done.

We share and all share and we can start reading.

Send Chuck a copy or the structure, Matt can you send while John is out?
Survey instrument for Lake MI Monitoring Inventory.

John Out until April 11 -- for GL, send to Matt and Charlie?

Back to Refinement Work Groups?

Nutrients to measure might take a week or two...

Wetlands, John Hummer? have a strawman from Council, but could take
longer. Jane Caffrey lead, Danielle from DEL Bay, someone from other two
pilots, month or two.

GW, plan from Network design team, flesh out, Norm might be person, Bill
Cunningham and/or Bob Schreiber lead.

Biology -- Most complicated. What do we mean? Lists of important things.
Could take longer, set some priorities, what's reasonable for National
level. Maybe 3 months, mainly acquatic/wetlands.

Judy Beck -- hoping material we get will clarify two questions:

Atmospheric Deposition -- General contaminants, or specifically at
toxics?

Estuary/Nearshore -- Make sure we all use same definitions.

Charlie -- We look at mgt needs for Lake MI Resource; Look at National
Network Design; determine what curr monitoring matches design? Does that
meet are RMN? Gaps between those? Gaps how we are managing and solution?
Costs needt o fill gaps? Possibly costs to continue monitoring, if not
long-term? YES!

**San Francisco Bay: Monday, April 2 2:30-3:15 PM (EDT)**

Mike Conner, SFEI, plus other staff from his office, including Sarah Low
(?) worked on RMP, Katy ? , Curtis Williams, John Largeay (?), IOOS
link, just called me, he's putting together a proposal on next IOOS
Round. No one else on.

\-- listened to most of last hour, couple questions?

To what extent are you advertising among NOAA, USGS, EPA staff? Get good
information quickly from them, existing locations, not good formal link
with USGS riverine monitoring...

Gail -- In two WSC -- you have to USGS Research to Menlo Park.

Mike - Never hooked as well with Freshwater folks in Sacramento? Copy on
email with appropriate people as door opening, also for NOAA

Need references to USGS and NOAA (strong with EPA/EMAP).

Big part out there birds and FWS and local person on team, don't know
how well linked back to Washington, DC. Driving TMDL's, most sensitive
indicators are birds. Patuxant, research side. We can try, working
together.

Mike -- NOAA, marine mammal contaminant database side, one of best MM
groups at Tiburon, getting a lot of dollars from NOAA, I don't know if
we use that, blood data set for contaminants...

Jawed -- it all depends, for the most part, when looking at estuarine
toxic chem. Impacts, striped bases and sturgeons, second phase to birds
mammals, and this is where problems come, because many of the programs
are species specific. Lots of data on bottle nose dolphins, body
tissues. Sentinal species for coastal waters...Mike -- birds serving us
that way.

Worked with people in Patuxant for Del Bay, with birds. If we can
identify key indicators, determining impact of contaminants of
estuarine/coastal fauna. Try best to link with fish and mammals for
which NOAA has responsibility.

Gail -- Need to pick one with some consistency across country. Most
obvious work group, biology work group, around sentinel species,
contamination.

Atmospheric Dep, we're doing stuff, but not much impact here, so not
spend much time.

Gail -- Brief overview of tasks/timelines/budget.

Question: Do we on IWG have capability to travel here to various
meetings we have to explain what this is? National design not hit here
as hard as hit back East. Not sure people are aware, haven't heard about
it except from Jawed and RFP, except for Val Connor from state.

One piece useful up front, how we spread word better. Region 9 hadn't
heard about it. Chuck talked to Janet Hashimoto recently, and she agrees
best person to be engaged. Becky Smythe indicated a willingness to
participate, from NOAA, Margaret's shop. Right person for IOOS
connection. Gail = USGS side, Jim (in Region) knows about it, and try to
be helpful, but very busy, need Sacramento linkage.

ACTION: Briefed USGS Western Region Management team a few months ago,
canned ppt we've used. Send that to each of the pilots, add the names of
the pilots. Margaret Davidson newsletter.

NOAA insert in NERF newsletter.

Clear sense, existing Network design...? Several formats, can send out.

Regional advocate? Val Connor is the best, member on NWQMC oversaw
entire effort.

VAL: Advocated presentation to a CAL Coastal Group...work closely with
her.

Barry Bergan -- NERS - Estuary association CC, web based, very
knowledgable from Day 1, don't know which sites it goes to.

Newly formed organization , CAL OCEAN PROTECTION COUNCIL, tri-state
Ocean Health document. Almost asking for something like NMNetwork. If
Mike would let us know of some significant meetings, in which
appropriate to present.

*Next protection Council, April 17, tri-state compact with WA and OR,
meet every two months, give us contact and make a link. Brian Baird,
active staffer, give us a link.*

Wetlands piece, Dave Evans, hard push on East and also CAL Rapid Assess
Monitoring, Level 1,2,3 for wetlands monitoring, really like to push
that and use Bay area as a way to show how that's working. CAL has
adapted it as way to go, Dave Evans from Wetlands Office sending Josh
Collins around the country, how does that fit in. Jawed, quite familiar
with it . Jane Caffrey who will lead Wetlands groups, knows Josh but not
personally, but knows his work, get in touch with him and make sure that
is considered.

Beaches -- we are way behind, because so cold up here, what we had in
mind, or how to proceed. Best work locally by SQUIRP in So CAL. Try to
get them to think about it.

Gail -- Goal for beaches is national/regional indicator, huge database
from national Beaches Program, but not sure how to use and analyse.
Region 9 beaches person, quite a stir here, just used it to change all
the TMDL 303d listings. Link Chuck could make, that would be helpful.

Jane Caffrey, in FL, rep on Council from ASLO, special session at the
ERF meeting, and Mike submit in that as well.

Develop a dummy for the general inventory? Lake MI and Del Bay share
their inventory survey formats; one of our guys came from GL and may
have used that. Dialog among the 3 pilots, to use best of what all have
done, so get an inventory instrument allow us to role up and integrate.

Next conference call would be a good goal.

Worry I have, is inventory will be so voluminous, hard to put into one
place to make it visible, how to overlay.

Send pieces we have so far and see how it might overlap for gap
analysis.

Not everything that's going on, it means, those at scale appropriate for
scale of National Network.

Instead of starting with inventory, start with ideal, and weigh pieces
again, check off what might work.

That's the exact great approach, rather than inventory everything.

Early thing is rationale for locations for targeted sights, EPA can or
will or has ID's probabilistic sights, match inventory against that.

Biggest difficult for us (Sarah Low) template for data mgt/data
resources.

Chuck --Two models -- One is evolution of STORET now called WQX (Water
Quality Data Exchange), XML exchange of web services warehouse. DMAC
from IOOS program, web services package. Way Chesapeake is approaching
their work. Details within to work out, nomenclature details, pick lists
and conventions to examine. Start from how you manage it there?

Mike: Big thing in CA is SWAMP database and having regional nodes to fit
into a larger system.

IOOS, XML is a model we like. How we need to be moving in the long-term.

Also working with USGS to have a node that represents most of STORET and
NWIS, making progress, but no piece is complete, or fully prepared to be
example as yet.

Link Sarah can make to staff there? WQX is biggest link, Dwain Young at
EPA. Formalized working group next week or so, with charter, and then
Sarah Low will lead for them. Working with Val on the issue statewide.

Cost estimating? Keep it focused to Network-level -- SFBay research may
be over and above National Network. What are costs of already ongoing
and to fill gaps that meet National Network.

Not necessarily funded in perpetuity, but what's rough level of
monitoring for estuary probabilistic sampling effort....

Critical but a mess, what the national management questions vs. local
mgt questions, whether goals fit altogether. Most of mgt questions tend
to be banal, until you start to refine back and forth, you end up in
really different places, trying hone those in SFBay very specifically.
We want some broad-brush cut, to what extent it has any value to local
folks to get rid of something off TMDL list.

Gail -- Not designed to address to TMDL issues, not the right scale. But
that's the push for every region. If they have 20 burning issues, top 10
are X; and any overlap with Lake MI and SFBay in top 10, then we can
bring up to National level are important; and may be some National like
quality of estuaries or habitat e-w coast, that might not be of specific
interest to various places but critical to National level.

ACTION: 11-12:30 ET work for you? Certain Monday each month. Most folks
here early, so we'll be OK.

ACTIONS from this call:

(1) IWG Provide date (3^rd^ Mon April or 1^st^ Mon May?) at 11-12:30 EDT
    for next monthly CC with 1-2 reps joining us from each pilot. Pilots
    confirm and provide names of just 1-2 reps.

(2) IWG provide pilots with "Charges" for each of 7 Network Refinement
    Groups (Action: Gail et al, next couple weeks); Pilots respond with
    rep to appropriate group(s).

(3) IWG send request for each pilot group to send IWG their current
    monitoring inventory *survey formats* during next 10 days --
    discussion of this might be focus of next Conference Call with
    Pilots.

(4) Please each pilot give us just one or two names from each group for
    central communications (via CC and/or email), and then you forward
    to your other partners.

(5) Pilot groups send emails with specific questions that may not have
    been answered, and we will respond. Include

    a.  Judy Beck, GL EPA -- Want to see your definitions for Estuaries,
        Nearshore...make sure we all use same reference.

    b.  Judy Beck, GLEPA -- What you are looking for in Atmospheric
        deposition: general contaminants or specifically toxics?

    c.  Mike Connor, SFB -- Send us specific suggestions for West
        Coast/CAL regional conferences where might need to present
        Network for improved regional

(6) IWG send out outreach information to all pilots for their use
    (Action: Gail and Toni):

    a.  Basic Announcement re Pilots, which they can customize in part
        to emphasize the role of their pilot/their region (as each Fed
        Ag is doing for our role);

    b.  E-copy of Network Poster, can be used as poster/exhibit at
        local/regional conferences;

    c.  Copy of information handout (updated to include pilots) to be
        used as a handout at local/regional conferences/meetings;

    d.  Table 3-2, Summary of Network Design, in large format; and/or
        within Exec Sum of Report;

    e.  Network ppt (Note: Gail will update to add more current info re
        pilots before sending out).

(7) SFB would like references to specific people to contact to support
    pilot effort, including:

    a.  USGS Water Science Center in Sacramento (Action: Gail)

    b.  NOAA Coastal Office/Programs in Region (Action: Jawed)

    c.  USFWS contacts - both Region, Patuxant and HQ?? (Open to anyone
        with suggestions)

    d.  Also need link to EPA R9 re beaches (Action: Chuck)

End of Notes on April 2 Network IWG Conference Call with Pilots.

Please feel free to reply with any missing ACTIONS/QUESTIONS.

Network Interagency Working Group:

Gail Mallard, USGS, <gmallard@usgs.gov>, 401-322-0902

Jawed Hameedi, NOAA, <jawed.hameedi@noaa.gov>, 301-713-3034, x170

Charles Spooner, USEPA, <spooner.charles@epa.gov>, 202-566-1174

Daniel Walker, OSTP/EOP, <dwalker@ostp.eop.gov>