Transcript Water Supply and Sanitation

The National Research Council and
Water Science and Technology Board
Edwards Aquifer Authority, June 13, 2013
The National Academies
NAE
(1964)
NAS
(1863)
NRC
(1916)
IOM
(1970)
The National Research Council
• ~250 reports/year
• ~1,000 committees w. ~10,000 volunteers
• Annual budget derived from contracts and
grants, no direct appropriations
(~90% from federal agencies)
National Research Council Reports
NRC issues about 1 report/day on a range of issues in science,
technology, engineering, and medicine.
National Research Council Study Strengths

Stature of Academies’ memberships

Ability to recruit highly qualified committee members

“Pro bono” nature of committee member service

Unique relationship to the federal government

Quality control procedures

Independence, scientific objectivity, balance
NRC Study Process
• Internal Review; Approval of Study Prospectus/Scope of Work
• Committee Nominations and Appointment Process
• Committee meetings
FACA Section 15
• Committee draft report
• Report review and final approval
• Report Dissemination
NRC Study Participants
Chairman
– lead meetings
– work with NRC staff in response to review
– report dissemination; “public face of the committee”
Committee Members
– read background material, write committee
report, provide intellectual foundations
– advise in responding to review questions
Study Director
– maintain contact with sponsors, lead communications
with committee members
– organize meetings, invite speakers
– collect/assimilate/disseminate information to committee
– collect and edit draft report
Admin./Research Associate
– meeting logistics
– travel reimbursements
– notebook and report preparation
Committee Composition and Conflicts of Interest
Committee members complete Confidential Conflict of Interest
Disclosure forms
Committee members and NRC staff hold a “balance and composition”
discussion to ensure that the committee as a whole is not improperly
biased, and that the committee has expertise adequate to address its
statement of task
NRC conflicts of interest – possibility of improper, personal financial
gain; reviewing one’s own work; employee of the sponsor
Water and
Soil
Remediation
Water Supply
and
Sanitation
Hydrologic
Hazards
River
Systems
Ecosystem Restoration
Water Science
and Research
Sample WSTB Study Sponsors
FEDERAL:
Departments of the U.S. Army, and U.S. Navy
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
National Science Foundation
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Department of Agriculture (Forest Service; NRCS)
U.S. Department of the Interior (Fish and Wildlife; NPS; Reclamation; USGS)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
STATE:
California Department of Water Resources
St. Johns Water Management District (FL)
South Florida Water Management District
Southern Nevada Water Authority
Texas Water Development Board
Washington State Department of Ecology
PRIVATE SECTOR AND FOUNDATIONS:
American Water Works Company, Inc.
McKnight Foundation (MN)
The Water Institute of the Gulf (LA)
Walton Family Foundation (AK)
NRC and WSTB Statements of Task
Cover a range of topics and questions:
• Program reviews, analytical and decision
methods
• Scientific, technological, and science-policy
questions and issues
• Draft report reviews
Program reviews, analytical & decision methods
Reviews of USGS Water Resources Division, National Water
Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program
Reviews of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Planning Methods,
Analytical Procedures
Reviews of restoration plans and related scientific issues in
Florida’s Greater Everglades Ecosystem
Scientific, Technological, and Science-Policy,
questions and issues
Missouri River sediment and decision making
Scientific aspects of FWS and NMFS Biological Opinions – California
Bay-Delta, Klamath River
Implications of proposed irrigation water withdrawals for Columbia
River salmon survival
Draft report/study reviews
Reviews of St. Johns River Water Supply Impact Studies
Reviews of U.S. Army Corps Feasibility Studies for the Upper
Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway
Reviews of draft reports from the Interagency Performance
Evaluation Review Team (IPET); assessments of New Orleans
hurricane protection system performance during Katrina
EAHCP Science Issues for possible
NAS review, comment advice…
• Ecological Model Development
• Hydrologic Model Development
• Ecosystem Monitoring
• Applied Research
• Species-Flow-Habitat Relations
• Biological Objectives and Goals
“Best available science” to support decisions regarding modeling,
monitoring, applied research, etc….
General Outline of Work Plan for NRC Committee to
Review the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan
Phased approach with two separate reports
First report: ~late 2014
Second report: 2018
Proposed Content of first report:
Review of ecological modeling; hydrological modeling; biological and
water quality monitoring; and applied research and monitoring.
Adequacy of these efforts in supporting decisions and answers to
questions regarding conservation measures, biological objectives, and overall
program biological goals.
What are the gaps, if any? How might these efforts be strengthened
and improved? Priorities for future modeling, data collection, monitoring.
General Outline of Work Plan for NRC Committee to Review
the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan (cont.)
Proposed Content of Second Report (details “tbd”):
Based on ecological and hydrological modeling results, and available research
and monitoring.
QUESTIONS 1 AND 2:
(1) Biological objectives and their likelihood of achieving biological goals; and
any advice on how objectives may need to be amended.
(2) Adequacy of EACHP conservation measures, and presumptive Phase II
conservation measures to achieve biological objectives.
General Outline of Work Plan for NRC Committee to Review
the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan (cont.)
First report – shorter time frame, smaller committee
Plan to appoint committee and hold first meeting by end of 2013. Report in
2014
Final report – more extensive investigations and document review; longer
time frame, likely to add some committee members to cover expertise
required.
Focus on conservation measures, biological objectives and goals.
Jeffrey Jacobs
Director
Water Science and Technology Board
National Research Council
Washington, DC
Email: [email protected]