Colorado Native Aquatic Species Protection Workshop Summary

Home Browse Search

• Biocriteria, water quality reference standard. • Popularize existing data bases (HQ, Department of Wildlife, Water Quality Control Division). • Need to better establish causes of decline. • Need to correct deficiencies in analysis and synthesis for public consumption. • Need to establish data standards. • Need to crosswalk data. • Information on threat abatement, i.e., what works on reducing threat levels. • Monitor change on threat abatement. Possible actions to achieve desired results • Require all state and federal agencies to use NWIS H. • Encourage coordinating group to explore #1, using Water Quality Forum as a lead entity. • Coordinate the Department of Natural Resources Natural Resources Information System initiative with relevant parties. • Identify specific geographic areas in which to assemble and organize information - pilot: - focus on use - look at existing examples • Make it user - friendly. • Develop a pilot program to systematically fit data gaps and partnerships. 6) Funding (equitable, reliable, up- front, continuing) Workshop participants agreed that funds were necessary, and that any funding strategy should be equitable, reliable, up -front, and long -term to ensure continuity of programmatic objectives. In addition, to ensure continued funding and program viability, sources of funding should be from as many diverse entities as possible including various local, state, federal and private sources. Existing resources, tools, information and partnerships available to achieve desired results • Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund. • Existing state agency, Wildlife cash, federal funds, license fees. • Non -game check -off and new fishing stamp program. • Water Conservation Board Construction Fund. • RiverWatch. • Wildlife Commission discretionary allocation. • Local government lottery distributions. • General fund. • Partnership with private sector (i.e. aquaculture). 10