Laserfiche WebLink
<br />OJ3Jll <br /> <br />FINDING 3 - SMALL WATERSHEDS NEED MONITORING <br /> <br />While there was little comment on the goal of monitoring flow conditions on the major river <br />basins or on Sentinel watersheds, there was concern that many smaller watersheds may be excluded <br />from consideration. These smaller watersheds tend to have a dearth of streamflow data and may <br />likely be the first areas to respond to alterations in climate, land use and water use patterns. A mix <br />of watershed scale within the gaging network needs to be incorporated within the goals to provide <br />adequate coverage on evolving trends and changes in status of water. <br /> <br />FINDING 4 - USGS WATER QUALITY MONITORING IS ONE SMALL ASPECT OF THE REAL NEED <br /> <br />In response to the NSIP goal to provide streamflow information on water quality monitoring <br />sites maintained by USGS, an emerging concept was to instead combine the intent of this goal with <br />the concern regarding coverage of smaller watersheds and establish a goal of providing streamflow <br />information on a smaller scale than that of the HUC-6 accounting units. These watershed index <br />stations would provide the base reference to other gages placed within that drainage's sub- <br />watersheds or alternatively, provide interpolated estimates of flow conditions in ungaged areas of <br />the watershed, There was a general feeling that support for water quality extended beyond <br />supporting the existing USGS water quality monitoring programs and the NSIP goal providing <br />stream gage support solely to USGS networks was limited in utility. <br /> <br />FINDING 5 - CONSIDER MODIFICATION OF SOME ACWI NATIONAL GOALS <br /> <br />The most prevalent modification to the additional nine goals called for considering <br />streamflow monitoring for endangered species in building the national network, beyond monitoring <br />flow for migratory fish populations. <br /> <br />FINDING 6 - CERTAIN STREAM GAGING GOALS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ESTABLISHING <br />A NATIONAL NETWORK <br /> <br />There was much more debate on whether certain goals outlined by the ACWI Task Force <br />should actually direct the configuration of a national network. Goals involving river recreation, <br />water diversion, Federal Lands, and NPDES permits were limited in scope to dictate the nature of <br />a nationwide network of gages, Other goals such as flood insurance support or impaired water <br />quality generated an oveIWhelming demand in coverage to be viewed as realistic drivers for placing <br />gages across the nation, Recommendations arose to consolidate the goals dealing with water quality <br />into a single goal for directing gage network support for water quality needs, <br /> <br />FINDING 7 - RETAIN FLEXIBLE CONFIGURING OF NETWORKS WITHIN STATES <br /> <br />There was significant concern that gaging needs supported by existing Co-op Program <br />arrangements would be undermined by federal priorities directed by NSIP, particularly in the West. <br />The general consensus was to retain the flexibility in shaping the stream gage coverage within a <br />given state and USGS district at that local level. <br />