Laserfiche WebLink
<br />003J21 <br /> <br />program, but would be re-routed to other State non-water resource priorities, While, it was generally <br />agreed that the distribution of any new-found federal funding would likely be a mix of the three <br />options, there is strong sentiment that gages might be satisfactorily traded between NSIP and the Co- <br />Op program, depending on their goals and purposes, The displacement of cooperator funding by <br />increased federal investment, however, is fraught with peril. One consideration for NSIP to lend <br />stability to the network is to reserve a portion of its funding to replace losses in cooperator funding, <br /> <br />IMPLEMENTATION OF A NATIONAL STREAMGAGING NETWORK <br /> <br />FINDING 18 - NETWORK IMPLEMENTA nON OCCURS AT THE DISTRICT LEVEL <br /> <br />While the NSIP component will likely drive the initial changes to a national network, it is <br />vitally important for the discussion and deliberation on the placement ofNSIP gages to be held at <br />the usa S District level to obtain input and buy-in from the states and other significant non-federal <br />cooperators, Furthermore, each USGS District is the focal point for formulating the goals, purposes <br />and location of that state's intrastate gaging station network. The designation ofNSIP gages is the <br />primary information needed for decisions on adjustments and additions by the Co-Op Program for <br />gage location, exchange, installation and reactivation, Continued federal investment in NSIP will <br />come, in part, from supportive signals from the non-federal community to Congress and the <br />Administration. That support will only be forthcoming, if the non-federal cooperators are part of the <br />decision process. One of the first points of discussion between the state and the District would be <br />the status of delineating the state's HUC-l 0/11 watersheds and the existing coverage of gages within <br />those watersheds, <br /> <br />FINDING 19 -INCORPORATE NON-FEDERAL GAGES IN THE NETWORK <br /> <br />There are a number of states which operate their own gaging station networks, to meet <br />specific water management objectives in a cost-effective manner. In addition to the over 7000 USGS <br />gaging stations which were analyzed as to the original 14 goals proposed by NSIP and the ACWI <br />Streamgaging Task Force, there was 1800 non-federal gages which were evaluated as part of the <br />current network, The network component of these non-USGS gages is likely to grow in the future <br />in response to state fiscal pressures, Nonetheless, the location of these gages likely fulfills portions <br />ofthe watershed coverage promoted by ICWP, Therefore, these gages should be incorporated as part <br />of the national stream gaging network. USGS needs to re-affirm and publicize the quality control <br />criteria, a given gaging station needs to meet in order to be eligible for inclusion in the national <br />network, <br /> <br />FINDING 20 - PRIORITY FOR ADDING GAGES IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF GOALS AND THE <br />NUMBER OF YEARS OF PREVIOUS RECORD <br /> <br />The priority for adding NSIP stations to the network should be based on two factors: <br />(1) the number of goals or purposes the new station will address; and (2) the number of years of <br />record which already exist at the site. Therefore, a reactivated station with five or more years of <br />previous record would have priority over a station at a new site, Generally, stations with less than <br />five years of record may be viewed as equivalent to new stations. <br />