Back to U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1192 contents
page
This document is also available in pdf format:
AppendixD.pdf
TASK FORCE TO REVIEW THE
COOPERATIVE WATER PROGRAM
Verbal Cooperator Survey
A. General Introductory Questions
26. Do you have any recommendations for improving or changing the Coop Program?
2/2/99
TASK FORCE TO REVIEW THE
COOPERATIVE WATER PROGRAM
Results of the Verbal Survey of Cooperator
A. General Introductory Questions
|
Cooperator - 1 |
Water Resources Department; water management, regulatory; Water Provider |
| Cooperator - 2 | Water Resources Department (WRD) & Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ); water management and water quality management, respectively |
| Cooperator - 3 | County Natural Resources Division; provides irrigation water; water planning at the county level; flood control and warning |
| Cooperator - 4 | Scientific; primarily geologic and mineral resource information agency in State government |
| Cooperator - 5 | Water supply and sewer utility with surface water reservoir. |
| Cooperator - 6 | Regulatory state water management agency. |
| Cooperator - 7 | Water planning and management, small regulatory function with regard to county flood-hazard programs. |
| Cooperator - 8 | Regulatory |
| Cooperator - 9 | Regulatory and water management. |
| Cooperator - 10 | Scientific/Geology |
| Cooperator - 11 | Regulatory/Water Management (City/County) |
| Cooperator - 12 | Regulatory |
| Cooperator - 13 | Regulatory (State Agency) |
| Cooperator - 14 | Water resource management and water quantity regulatory agency of state government. |
| Cooperator - 15 | Regulatory. |
| Cooperator - 16 | Planning, monitoring of water resource condition and evaluation. |
| Cooperator - 17 | We have water treatment plants and distribute treated and raw water supplies for irrigation, municipal, and industrial water purposes. |
| Cooperator - 18 | Department of Water Resources. Responsible for the administration of water management and planning activities. |
| Cooperator - 19 | Established for flood control. Owns dams. Recently involved in ground water monitoring in accordance with a "regional plan". Entity established in 1915. |
| Cooperator - 20 | State water resources management & water quality management. |
| Cooperator - 21 | Agency for abatement of water pollution. Has regulatory, river management responsibility. Applied science is also part of activities. |
| Cooperator - 22 | We are responsible for water management – particularly from the supply point of view. |
| Cooperator - 23 | Water supplier |
| Cooperator - 24 | Water planning, water management and scientific (and interpretive studies) |
| Cooperator - 26 | Regulatory |
| Cooperator - 27 | The primary role is Scientific |
| Cooperator - 28 | For the ________ River its regulatory and water management to the extent that reservoir levels are water management. They have one rather large reservoir that has had some scientific studies over the years, but they are few and far between, and they are done through either the State Health Department or the Department of Environmental Conservation. The involvement that the district has is largely in kind support. |
| Cooperator - 29 | The Department of Environmental Protection is responsible for maintaining and delivering the drinking water supply for approximately ____ million people in ______ City and those upstate communities that tap into this system. We enforce regulations and perform scientific research in our watersheds that assist us in our water management decisions. |
| Cooperator - 30 | Technical Assistance to landowners on natural resource concerns and conservation practices. |
| Cooperator - 31 | Power production & reservoir operation |
| Cooperator - 32 | Water Improvement District is a public water provider serving _____ customers in the metropolitan area and is concerned about meeting safe-yield goals through effective water management |
| Cooperator - 33 | Municipal Water District was organized in 1954. The District includes an area of about 328 square miles. The District contracted with the State to annually supplemental water resources. The District is obligated under a stipulated judgment to maintain the safe yield of the area. |
| Cooperator - 34 | My organization is engaged in water management. |
| Cooperator - 35 | This office is responsible for regulating construction in the floodway, water allocation, statewide flood control planning, and other associated water resource issues . |
| Cooperator - 1 | 4 interviewees: 1 hydrographer, 2 hydrogeologists (prepresenting 2 separate coop projects), 1 administrator (Field and Technical Services Div.) |
| Cooperator - 2 | Chief Tech. Svc's. Bur., Hydrogeologist, Hydrologist, Manager of GW Monitoring Section, NPS Monitoring Coordinator |
| Cooperator - 3 | Division Manager—Manages Coop agreements; Hydrologist—Assists Coop program with data collection |
| Cooperator - 4 | Director; AGC has 3 cooperative water programs with USGS |
| Cooperator - 5 | Water Services Engineer; Assistant Director. Working level coordinator and agency-level cooperator with USGS. |
| Cooperator - 6 | Chief of Surface Water Section; Branch, Office Chief (relationships to GS same as (1) above) |
| Cooperator - 7 | Head of Division of Water Planning. I would be responsible for signing coop agreements. |
| Cooperator - 8 | Head of the organization. I sign the cooperative agreements |
| Cooperator - 9 | Cabinet-level director. Supervisor of individuals who sign cooperative agreements, but I did, in the past, negotiate agreements with the USGS. |
| Cooperator - 10 | As head of an organization that has cooperative agreements with the USGS, I negotiate the scope of work and sign the agreements. |
| Cooperator - 11 | Branch Manager, Technical Services, Air and Water. Has been contact and project manager for COOP program for many years |
| Cooperator - 12 | Middle Management; I have managed many coop contracts over the years. |
| Cooperator - 14 | Director, Division of Water, Department of Natural Resources; Assistant Director, Division of Water, Department of Natural resources (Manages the Coop Program for the State Agency) |
| Cooperator - 15 | Chief of Planning - Main Cooperator. |
| Cooperator - 16 | Administrator of the Office's USGS stream gaging and research/data contracts. Use gaging information often and get priority water research and data studies State Water Plan funded. |
| Cooperator - 17 | Assistant Manager responsible for portions of the Project which have been constructed and are operational. Also have responsibilities for engineering (O&M and engineering support), finances and budget, and human resources. |
| Cooperator - 18 | Administer contracts/coordinate with GS on cooperative program work |
| Cooperator - 19 | General engineering program management; General engineering program management; Project execution; Ground water project execution. |
| Cooperator - 20 | General program management; coop project management. |
| Cooperator - 21 | Deputy Executive Director, general oversight of all Technical Programs including USGS cooperative projects; Water Quality Monitoring & Assessment Program Manager; Project Manager of Coop Projects. Also manages other technical initiatives that, in part, have included coop efforts. |
| Cooperator - 22 | I am the Superintendent of Production and Pumping for the city. I am in charge of water supply and treatment for all the areas the city furnishes water to. We use USGS data to monitor water elevations both ground and surface. We also use USGS data for quality monitoring. |
| Cooperator - 23 | Chief Operating Officer; Have responsibility for the contract |
| Cooperator - 24 | Division Director, Water Utilities Division. Provides oversight and guidance on Joint Funding Agreement |
| Cooperator - 25 | Deputy Executive Administrator |
| Cooperator - 26 | Division Director, Water Utilities Division. Provides oversight and guidance on Joint Funding Agreement. |
| Cooperator - 27 | Director |
| Cooperator - 28 | The District's Chief Engineer sets the scope of work on an annual basis and the budget to be approved by an appointed board; the board oversees the District. At DEC, the manager of the USGS contract connects to the various divisions and other departments that are part of the agreement and has responsibility for administering that coordinated effort. A third person is primarily involved in water quality needs and is somewhat focused on groundwater. |
| Cooperator - 29 | I am the Section Chief of Project Management and Budget for Drinking Water Quality. My Division of Drinking Water Quality has had several contracts with the USGS through the years, several of which are on going at this time, and involve cost sharing between our two agencies. I serve as Contract Administrator for these contracts. |
| Cooperator - 30 | District Administrator responsible to coordinate with the USGS on a gage monitoring program. |
| Cooperator - 31 | Power Manager-supervisor of all GS Coop activities, primarily FERC related and 100% cooperator funding. |
| Cooperator - 32 | My position is District Hydrologist. I am the District's project manager for the Aquifer Storage Change Monitoring Project with the USGS. Also, the District's designated technical representative for other USGS Cooperative projects of interest within the Active Management Area. |
| Cooperator - 33 | I am the Assistant General Manager and Assistant Chief Engineer for the District. I participate in implementation of the projects the Board of Directors advocates for the District. |
| Cooperator - 34 | I am the Assistant General Manager in this organization. My primary responsibility is for water resources planning and management functions. I also manage the cooperative programs with USGS. |
| Cooperator - 35 | My position is Division Manager of the Division of Planning. This Division administers the Federal-State Cooperative program for the Office of Water Resources. |
| Cooperator - 36 | Watershed Monitoring Coordinator; Resource Protection Manager - Contract with USGS to do surface water quality study. |
.
| Cooperator - 1 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 2 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 3 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 4 | Longest standing State agency with Coop Programs over 40 years |
| Cooperator - 5 | Since 1990 |
| Cooperator - 6 | Since 1956+/- |
| Cooperator - 7 | No, but we would like to do so, and we do use USGS data collected through the Coop Program but funded by others. |
| Cooperator - 8 | Yes, since about 1905. |
| Cooperator - 9 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 10 | Yes, for decades. |
| Cooperator - 11 | Yes (More than 24 years and probably from at least 1966. |
| Cooperator - 12 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 13 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 14 | Yes, we have participated for approximately 50 years. |
| Cooperator - 15 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 16 | Yes. We have been a cooperator since 1895. |
| Cooperator - 17 | We have been an active participant for a long-time; much longer than 5 years. |
| Cooperator - 18 | Our Department has been involved with the Coop Program for about 34 years. |
| Cooperator - 19 | Yes. Have participated beginning in 1931. |
| Cooperator - 20 | Yes (many years of coop program participation) |
| Cooperator - 21 | |
| Cooperator - 22 | We have participated in some form of cooperator program with the USGS since 1940. I, personally, have been involved with the USGS cooperator program since 1990. |
| Cooperator - 23 | 8 years |
| Cooperator - 24 | No. (Entered into on March 5, 1998) |
| Cooperator - 25 | For at least 50 years. |
| Cooperator - 26 | No. (Entered into on March 5, 1998. |
| Cooperator - 27 | Maryland has been with the Coop Program since 1945 |
| Cooperator - 28 | The District has a long history of involvement dating to their formation in 1919, and there was probably some association of the same interested parties before. The District is unique in the State, as the downstream beneficiaries of their activities pay heir cost for operations. There is no state or federal money involved. Another part of the organization is pretty sure that they have been involved for seventy years or more. |
| Cooperator - 29 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 30 | No - 3 or 4 years. |
| Cooperator - 31 | Yes 25+ |
| Cooperator - 32 | The District has only participated in the USGS Cooperative Program, since the project began in September 1995. The District became a public water provider in October 1992 and became active in long-term water resources management in November 1993. |
| Cooperator - 33 | The District first contracted with the USGS in the cooperative program some time in the late 1960's or early 1970's. The District has contracted in the cooperative program every year since then for numerous surface water and groundwater data collection programs as well as numerous special studies. |
| Cooperator - 34 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 35 | Yes, the Office of Water Resources has maintained a strong cooperative gaging and studies program with the USGS for several decade |
| Cooperator - 36 | Yes |
.
| Cooperator - 1 | $400,000; $367,000 matched, balance unmatched.
Increased significantly beginning approx. 10 years ago. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 2 | WRD: $697,000; State $100,000 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 3 | $90,000. Program is steady with time, often not keeping up with inflation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 4 | Stream gaging $38,300; Water Quality $31,855; Ground Water $54,456; Decreasing over time | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 5 | $200,000 Stable at present. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 6 | $487,730. Has increased but now stable | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 7 | Zero, but we hope to get $8,000 for fiscal year 2000. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 8 | A total of about $316,000 per year, of which about half is passed through from other organizations, including the mining industry, local governments, tribes, and the Federal Water Master). The total amount fluctuates. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 9 | Roughly $500,000 to $1,000,000 per year, but variable. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 10 | $5,000 per year, and steady for several years, but down from prior to 1988. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 11 | Currently $97,154; Amount has been fairly steady, increasing slowly due to inflation, with occasional spikes when special projects were done | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 12 | It ranges between $200,000 and $300,000 annually. It has remained steady over time. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 13 | About $245,000 split between two departments. Amount has occasionally increased substantially to accommodate special studies | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 14 | $900,000 currently. In 1991, it was $680,000. In 2001, it is anticipated to rise to $950,000. In 1991, only $80,000 was unmatched. $283,000 is currently unmatched. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 15 | $175,000. Diminished over time. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 16 | Total $500,000. Has generally declined over time. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 17 | Approximately $40-45,000. We also have a portion that goes unmatched, but I am not real sure what that level is. Our level of participation has remained steady for several years now. We sometimes have the GS install gauges for us during the year as an expense to us. But before the new year begins, we discuss our upcoming year's needs with GS under the COOP Program and include those gauges installed during the mid-year as part of the upcoming cost share program. So over time, I guess, there is a gradual increase in our program participation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 18 | Our level of participation in the Coop Program has been $600 - $800K for last few years and in the same types services. The amount/quantity of work has been decreasing, however because of inflation. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 19 | Current program cash match approximately $50k. Has not changed dramatically. Program is continuous in nature, but has eroded due to increased program costs without commensurate additional USGS match funds. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 20 | Current fiscal year: $170k cash match plus $69k in-kind. Changes have been plus & minus, driven by availability of state funding. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 21 | Current level $80k. Changed our time – last year (calendar year 98) $35k. Recent previous project ± $30k. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 22 | The City participates at a level of around $500,000.00 annually. That includes a demonstration project and another project in a Reservoir Watershed. The USGS participates with us at about a 50% partnership. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 23 | $85,000 Steady last 3 years | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 24 | The Water Utilities Division joint funding agreement with the USGS is 2.25 million with a match by USGS of $250,000. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 25 | We are participating on the Data side only now. The level of participation is $500K from the Coop Program and $800K from the state. The state found that interpretive studies could be more efficiently and more cheaply contracted out to the private sector and no longer looks to the Survey for participation in this area. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 26 | The Water Utilities Division joint funding agreement with the USGS is $2.25 million with a match by USGS of $250.000. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 27 | FY 98 $597,000, FY 99 $441,000. The level changes year to year, with the big change 3 to 4 years ago. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 28 | When state made gage reductions, the district did pick-up some of the critical stations in their area of interest in the watershed area. They currently have a total project value of $120,000 which they pay $64,000 in cash and evaluated services. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 29 |
The following contracts are ongoing: Project 2 State cost: $2,779,1132; USGS cost: $186,404; |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 30 | Approximately $2500/year----no change | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 31 | 18,990 in Coop Program, $60K total----very steady | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 32 |
Year 1 50% USGS-$53,500, 50% State Grant (DWR) - $53,500 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 33 | The District's financial participation for recent years is tabulated below. Generally, the District's contribution to the cooperative program has increased over time. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cooperator - 34 |
Current level of financial participation is $600,000 + per year. It has increased from roughly $50,000 to this level since 1990 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 35 | The state presently funds $285,000 toward stream gaging in the state. Additional funds are provided for studies, currently approximately $65,000. Funding for the Cooperative Program has remained the same for the past several years with no growth. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 36 | $85,000 (cooperator share), steady | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Cooperator - 1 | Surface water gaging; ground water interpretive studies |
| Cooperator - 2 | WRD: $215,000—GW Quality Mostly basic data collection, WRD has coop'ed in $482,000—GW Supplies interpretive studies in the past. DEQ: SW Quality; principally data collection program. |
| Cooperator - 3 | Mostly stream gaging and 2 or 3 water quality monitoring stations. SW quality study with GS & BLM |
| Cooperator - 4 | See #4 |
| Cooperator - 5 | Primarily surface water data (quantity and quality) collection. |
| Cooperator - 6 | Mostly surface water stream gages. 25% interpretive studies |
| Cooperator - 7 | We particularly need the data from the annual and five-year water-use surveys. |
| Cooperator - 8 | Stream gages, ground-water level measurements, and interpretive studies. |
| Cooperator - 9 | Stream gages, ground-water level measurements, and interpretive studies |
| Cooperator - 10 | Mostly collecting data, particularly chemical compositions of ground waters. We have focused on what appear to be emerging issues rather than routine analyses. |
| Cooperator - 11 | Data collection, reports and technical services and isotope modeling. Salt water Intrusion monitoring is done about every 5 years. Next year, an Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) feasibility project is contemplated. In the past we also obtained a data report which has been discontinued but which we are now reinstating. |
| Cooperator - 12 | Data collection and investigative reports |
| Cooperator - 13 | Salt water intrusion monitoring, ground water level monitoring. Streamflow measurements with Acoustic Velocity Meters in two canals. At present there are no interpretive studies |
| Cooperator - 14 | Stream gage network (01), Ground water network (02); Previously had large interpretive studies funding, but no interpretive studies are being funded now. |
| Cooperator - 15 | Hydrologic support of water quality studies. |
| Cooperator - 16 | Gages, partial gages, channel migration, sediment studies. Data collection and specialized research studies. |
| Cooperator - 17 | All streamgaging. We had the GS complete a sediment transport study for us a few years ago, but I don't know if we had that completed through the COOP Program.All streamgaging. We had the GS complete a sediment transport study for us a few years ago, but I don't know if we had that completed through the COOP Program. |
| Cooperator - 18 | Our Department's primary interest is in surface and ground water monitoring and ground water quality data collection. We do very little Coop work related to interpretive studies.Our Department's primary interest is in surface and ground water monitoring and ground water quality data collection. We do very little Coop work related to interpretive studies. |
| Cooperator - 19 | Continuous program is stream gauges. In this case, we maintains gauges ourselves with data sent to GS. QA/QC is to GS standards. GS visits/audits. Twenty-two gauges are maintained with coop funds. Total of 46 gauges in overall system. Also has ground water wells. GS does sampling and lab analysis. Recently completed multi-year study to characterize ground water near in a region as well as understand ground water budget and uses. MODFLOW was used. |
| Cooperator - 20 | Stream gauging; match funding of a basin coordinator (USGS staff) for states' watershed management approach (TMDL's is important component). |
| Cooperator - 21 | Currently doing monitoring (high volume Dioxin sampling) and river flow management (acoustic Doppler). Historically projects involved cross-section river water quality sampling (for QC/QA) routine nutrient sampling and laboratory services. |
| Cooperator - 22 | See above response. |
| Cooperator - 23 | Water quality monitoring, special project of water quality modeling and sedimentation measurements in water supply lake |
| Cooperator - 24 | Source Water Assessment and Protection Program development consisting of several tasks: Development of computer software which will be used by our staff to perform source water assessments for all public surface-and ground-water supplies in the state; conduct surface water susceptibility assessments according to general project workplan; conduct surface water runoff determinations according to general project workplan. These determinations will complement the approach for assessing the degree of susceptibility of public surface-water supplies to contamination; and, conduct groundwater susceptibility assessments according to general project workplan. |
| Cooperator - 25 | Long-term data collection from stream-, lake- and well gages. |
| Cooperator - 26 | Source Water Assessment and Protection Program development consisting of several tasks: Development of computer software which will be used by our staff to perform source water assessments for all public surface-and ground-water supplies in the state; conduct surface water susceptibility assessments according to general project workplan; conduct surface water runoff determinations according to general project workplan. These determinations will complement the approach for assessing the degree of susceptibility of public surface-water supplies to contamination; and, conduct groundwater susceptibility assessments according to general project workplan. |
| Cooperator - 27 | Ground water assessment, basic data collection, stream gage networks, water quality studies and well water levels. The state and USGS are cooperating in the same project with good cooperation with each staff. In some cases the state has the lead and in other cases the USGS has the lead. The state has developed their own geology staff, because of the transfer policy of USGS. The state wants long term experience with in the geology projects in the state. |
| Cooperator - 28 | The District has stage/discharge sites for a number of stream locations and make daily decisions on how to manage the reservoir system with that data. |
| Cooperator - 29 |
Under our two current cooperative contracts, work is on-going in the following areas: The contract covers the following:
In the third on-going contract, Operation and Maintenance of Gages, a match from USGS is not part of this contract, although we believe it should be. This contract required USGS to operate and maintain a network of 51 streamflow gages that they installed under contract with the city. The gages measure streamflow at sites in the watershed, both East and West of the main river. The operation and Maintenance of the gages involves retrieving the data, insuring the integrity of the data, preparing the data for use, and preparing data reports |
| Cooperator - 30 | Operation and Maintenance of a river gage |
| Cooperator - 31 | All gaging operations |
| Cooperator - 32 | Natural recharge investigation of the basin. Long-term monitoring of aquifer storage changes using gravity methods at stations along and across the Wash and basin periphery. Information will be used to access contribution of natural recharge on water budget, impacts from groundwater withdrawals and identify favorable and non-favorable areas of stream recharge. This cooperative project has been a joint effort with the USGS and the two water providers in the lower basin. |
| Cooperator - 33 | The District is involved in Surface Water data collection programs including flow and quality, ground water level monitoring programs, groundwater water quality monitoring programs and various special studies. The special studies have included mapping, subsidence, ground water quality studies, ground water basin modeling. |
| Cooperator - 34 | Basic data program (Stream gaging, ground water level and quality monitoring), groundwater basin modeling, water quality and age-dating to determine source and movement, water quality problem assessment (nitrate source and movement modeling), subsidence quantification and monitoring, mapping of surface geology, assessment, mapping and monitoring of riparian habitation extent, viability and sources of water supply, development of ground water monitoring systems (nested wells), ground water contour mapping, ground water quality mapping. |
| Cooperator - 35 | Stream gaging, regional regression equations, runoff parameters, n-values, trends, etc. |
| Cooperator - 36 | Water quality study in the _______Watershed, principally data collection |
| Cooperator - 1 |
Would like to see increases in Surface Gaging. Would like to see
increased effort in ground water interpretive studies—currently not
keeping up with emerging issues, esp. gw/sw interrelationships Would
like to see increased water chemistry emphasis |
| Cooperator - 2 | Maintenance |
| Cooperator - 3 | May have to reduce the number of SW gaging stations due to funding cuts. |
| Cooperator - 4 | |
| Cooperator - 5 | Policy changes within the USGS will cause a decrease in
data collected Expect to do background WQ characterization in areas of sewer overflows/ water quality modeling in future. |
| Cooperator - 6 | Stable at present. Don't foresee change up or down |
| Cooperator - 7 | We see the need increasing, because there is more demand for better water-use data. |
| Cooperator - 8 | We see the need for more studies increasing, particularly with regard to the impact of mining a major river. State funding is likely to be about the same. |
| Cooperator - 9 | We see an increasing need. |
| Cooperator - 10 | We do not anticipate major changes. Needs are increasing, but funding is level. We are losing ground with inflation. |
| Cooperator - 11 | Expect a general gradual increase. However several new initiatives are contemplated by City Government which could benefit from COOP program. These include: Water supply investigations based on Water Management District declaration of area as a Critical Water Supply Area; Aquifer storage; City is currently seeking $60,000 in funds to match available COOP funds for this project. |
| Cooperator - 12 | No, I don't see many changes in the future. However, the need may increase. |
| Cooperator - 13 | Yes. I foresee increases in surface water monitoring. |
| Cooperator - 14 | May need to discontinue more gages to have enough money to keep network funded. The increasing cost of program has caused this agency of state government to cut its own travel budgets and related activities to fund the gaging network. Decreasing. |
| Cooperator - 15 | Maybe slight increase. |
| Cooperator - 16 | I think we need more gages. Also more flood forecasting. We will move somewhat in the direction of data collection for evaluation and monitoring purposes and similarly with special studies. |
| Cooperator - 17 | I don't foresee any significant changes in the future. As I said earlier, our level of participation has seen a gradual increase in our need for more streamgaging services. I do believe that trend will continue. From time to time we have GS install and monitor short-term stations (3-5 years) for us so that we can do some correlation studies, and that increases the need for GS services for a short period. |
| Cooperator - 18 | We see a greater need for data collection, especially in ground water monitoring and water quality to assist us in providing definitive answers to surface water, ground water, and water quality interactions. We have about $100K in the program that goes unmatched, however state funding is decreasing and our requirements for more data are increasing. |
| Cooperator - 19 | Recently received a USEPA grant to develop river index, GS being used as a consultant to the project. As this is specific project, does not represent a program shift. Regarding needs increasing/decreasing; Needs roughly constant. Problem is erosion of program due to inflation against constant levels of funding. |
| Cooperator - 20 | Want to investigate low flows in streams (via spot measurements) to gain better database & understanding) Need is unmet (paucity of current data) due to lack of state funding plus other agency cutbacks (eg. Corps of Engineers) |
| Cooperator - 21 | Currently requests are project specific & thus difficult to predict; particularly interested in flow measurement. |
| Cooperator - 22 | After the demonstration project in the ____ Beds is complete, we will move into the regular phase of the project. During that time, I think our need for USGS Coop Program partnership will increase. |
| Cooperator - 23 | Yes, will study the results of studies and make adjustment (may include organics). Possibly decrease or change studies. |
| Cooperator - 24 | Possible expansion of project and funding to include sampling, data gathering, etc. We foresee an increasing need for such coop programs. |
| Cooperator - 25 | We see the level of participation remaining about the same, and if anything, the Coop participation decreasing with time as more gaging stations are taken out of the program. The Texas legislature has approved a large budget increase for the our agency to fund these types of water projects. |
| Cooperator - 26 | Possible expansion of project and funding to include sampling, data gathering, etc. We foresee an increasing need for such coop programs. |
| Cooperator - 27 | The State foresees a problem in the future when in some cases there may be a conflict between state and nation objects. There should be more effort to provide matching money. USGS is subject to specific objectives of the Coop Program and may not be able to match the state needs. There must be a match between science and data collection needs. In our state, the state staff may do more of the work and the water quality lab do more of the water quality analysis. There is no need to move toward small specific project; the need is for area wide efforts. The state would like to see more integrated projects, with a combination of staffs doing the work. |
| Cooperator - 28 | The state agency is trying to infuse a little more money into the USGS agreement for necessary program improvements. Their first priority would be to add some critical groundwater monitoring wells. After that they would upgrade their surface water network, that has many stations that are fairly old and not very modern. They also are in the process of developing a program that they expect to cost about $300,000 to do primary aquifer mapping. They also indicated that there were some changes occurring with other cooperators in the State, and mentioned one County as one that is experiencing change. |
| Cooperator - 29 | We see a need to maintain our current programs. Research projects may decrease in the future. |
| Cooperator - 30 | Possibility of increased gaging if funds are available. |
| Cooperator - 31 | No |
| Cooperator - 32 | The District would like to see a change in the local development of other Cooperative projects that have regional benefit to all water users. For example, the Subsidence Study focused on the needs of one large water provider, yet geographically encompassed many other smaller water providers, however; those water providers were not involved in the development or financing of the project. These water providers are projected to experience future water level declines and possible subsidence. Technically, the project benefits the water provider with the largest water supply problems, but from a regional water management perspective ignores the needs of the other water providers. |
| Cooperator - 33 | The district is interested in continued and increasing participation with the USGS. Reactivation of abandoned surface water stations and additional surface water monitoring stations would be helpful to the District for water resource management. The District also has need for additional groundwater management investigations. Further, the USGS should expand its programs to include climatologic data accumulation. |
| Cooperator - 34 | |
| Cooperator - 35 | The Office of Water Resources is only one agency under the State Department of Natural Resources. The DNR has needs for greatly expanded data collection efforts, but remains unfunded to obtain the data. Current budget levels are likely to continue for a number of years, keeping our requests similar to past requests, even though a greater need exists. |
| Cooperator - 36 | Some increase. Would like to explore whether down cutting and surface erosion are factors in water quality. |
| Cooperator - 1 | Surface Water: Data collection; 1. All data are made available regardless of funding source or state of origin. GS is very cooperative in disseminating data. 2. Data used in water availability analyses, in water management, in water allocation. Ground Water: Data interpretation; 1. Expands agency expertise in evaluating ground water resources. 2. Provides improved understanding of resource enabling better management, allocation and development decisions. 3. Provides basis for improved protection for senior water rights. Training: Access to national training facility and other USGS programs enhances agency staff competence. Credibility: Independence of GS interpretive studies provides credible support for agency management decisions. |
| Cooperator - 2 | DEQ: Surface water gaging and water quality data collection WRD: Provides long term data for interpretive studies and for water management. Characterizes statewide GW quality and quality trends—worked well because GS has lab and trained staff and could help develop QA/QC procedures. Through time participation in coop program has been cyclical: As GS is more interested in data collection, participation grows; as GS is more interested in interpretive studies, participation wanes. GS provide defensibility, warranty, continuity. |
| Cooperator - 3 | Provides raw data for: flood warning, Fulfillment of permit and license conditions water distribution, site investigations. |
| Cooperator - 4 | Provides baseline data of the water resources of the state that aids in research projects, environmental issues, et |
| Cooperator - 5 | USGS provides data to enable watershed management. |
| Cooperator - 6 | Real time data for managing water withdrawals under state law. |
| Cooperator -7 | NOT APPLICABLE. |
| Cooperator - 8 | USGS studies provide us with credible estimates of perennial yield from ground-water basins. These estimates hold up well in court. |
| Cooperator - 9 | The scientific analysis of perennial yields from ground-water basins is particularly useful. The USGS studies have high credibility in court. |
| Cooperator - 10 | The USGS has provided useful ground-water quality data and ground-water level data. We have two prime examples of these data aiding major efforts by us, in studying radon hazards and land subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal. |
| Cooperator - 11 | Allows us to obtain necessary data without adding staff (the City is under pressure to reduce staff). Provides us with added technical expertise, which the City does not have. The COOP program adds credibility. It improves our professional capability through association, networking and synergism. Opportunity for on the job and formal training |
| Cooperator - 12 | The coop program collects essential data and conducts important, water related interpretative studies for the Department. |
| Cooperator - 13 |
The COOP assists us in data collection, database management, in making data available to the public, providing technical expertise, including serving on committees, giving technical support as well as hydrologic interpretations and technical data and opinions. |
| Cooperator - 14 | Baseline data collection and verification. The program provides valuable date used for water planning and flood hydraulics studies. |
| Cooperator - 15 | Provides flow data to supplement water quality analysis for TMDL development. |
| Cooperator - 16 |
Keep track of the state water quantity planning in areas where quantity and quality problems arise. |
| Cooperator - 17 | From an independent standpoint, the COOP Program provides us with streamflow information so that we can get the right flows, to right place, at the right time. With water administrative responsibilities that the District has in cooperation with the State Engineer's Office, this is vital information we use every day. |
| Cooperator - 18 | Our Department relies on GS for data collection. GS also participates on Techincal Advisory Committees led by our Department. They offer to us advice and guidance on our special studies. |
| Cooperator - 19 | Data from gauges used to maintain rating curves; thus flood forecasting. Stage forecasting important to decisions by sewer collection system managers to shut off overflow points to keep river from surcharging (by-passing raw sewage). Ground water data gives long term trends. Information from coop program essential to our mission. |
| Cooperator - 20 | Program is crucial to ability of agency to carry out responsibilities. Data establishes 7Q10 flow, calculates return frequency for floods & droughts. These and other uses of data are core to the agency's mission. |
| Cooperator - 21 | Provide field monitoring resources (people & technologies) not available otherwise |
| Cooperator - 22 | The main thing the USGS provides for us is impartial science. I can't stress that enough. |
| Cooperator - 23 | Develop baseline water quality data for trend analysis, special programs, etc. |
| Cooperator - 24 | Working with the USGS has provided our program with both the technical expertise and solid science needed to develop technically defensible assessments of all public water supplies in the state. We have been given the opportunity to evaluate all possible technical approaches for assessing susceptibility and to recommend technically defensible alternatives that could be accomplished statewide with the best available data within the time frame outlined in the plan. |
| Cooperator - 25 | Long term surface water and aquifer gaging is extremely important in assessing the water resources of the State and potential interbasin transfers that may be required in the future. Interpretive studies will be bid out to the Survey as well as the private sector. |
| Cooperator - 26 | Working with the USGS has provided our program with both the technical expertise and solid science needed to develop technically defensible assessments of all public water supplies in the State. We have been given the opportunity to evaluate all possible technical approaches for assessing susceptibility and to recommend technically defensible alternatives that could be accomplished statewide with the best available data within the timeframe outlines in the plan. |
| Cooperator - 27 | The USGS provide expertise in modeling and model development a specific model. They also provide expertise in the analysis of the data collected and water quality problems. |
| Cooperator - 28 | The District finds the cooperative program to be essential to their daily operation. It provides Critical information that they use to make day to day decisions. |
| Cooperator - 29 | The enhancement of the USGS gage network has provided critical data for use in water quality models (a Filtration Avoidance Deliverable) and provided information to assist in the interpretation of water quality data collected by the department. Other Coop interpretive projects have provided information for the department to better evaluate proposed projects in these areas. |
| Cooperator - 30 | Provides vital river flow data used in planning and managing water conservation programs. |
| Cooperator - 31 | Meeting FERC requirements and to collect additional water resources data |
| Cooperator - 32 | Personally, I do not believe the Coop Program is not as locally effective as it should be in accomplishing its mission. Water management and institutions in the area have drastically changed in the last 5 years. Three new public water providers have emerged in response to interest for public management of water supplies in growing urban areas. Additionally, private water providers in the area just south of here have organized together to assess water management options. The majority of Cooperative projects started more than five years ago were solely for one public water. Future cooperative projects that have regional goals need to be inclusive and discussed in an open process for all beneficiaries. |
| Cooperator - 33 | Data accumulated and studies performed by USGS are used by the District to insure compliance with various judgments and insure adequate long term water supplies to the residents within the District. The groundwater models presently under study through the cooperative program should assist the District in managing water supplies to prevent hazardous conditions of liquefaction. |
| Cooperator - 34 | Basic data (stream gage information, well levels and water quality) are fundamental to management of ground and surface water resources. This data is routinely used to monitor overdraft conditions and perform basic hydrologic inventory. USGS stream gage data in particular is essential to implementing specific features of a court judgment affecting basin management. The special studies underway or completed are needed to clarify the manner in which the ground and surface water system interrelate and to characterize the ground water basins in general. The basins are complex and much remains to be determined. This was acknowledged by the referenced court judgment. Therefore, data developed by the USGS could be fundamental to future modification and implementation of the court judgment physical solution and resolution of several controversial issues. |
| Cooperator - 35 | We rely upon collected data, historical and real-time, to manage the water resources of the state. Long term record is needed to determine accurate estimates of flow and frequency, trends, and regional changes. Real-time data is needed to assess high and low flow problems, recreational needs, and to help quantify water quality issues. |
| Cooperator - 36 | Identification and management of contaminant sources. |
| Cooperator - 1 | Absolutely; couldn't afford studies w/o GS cost participation |
| Cooperator - 2 | |
| Cooperator - 3 | Partly: necessary in investigations. However, permit driven work must be done whether there is a cost share or not. GS adds integrity and credibility the county might not have. |
| Cooperator - 4 | Cost sharing is very important. In-kind service on projects is also important, but USGS-WRD doesn't recognize it in the Cooperative program. |
| Cooperator - 5 | Would prefer to work with USGS in spite of any cost share reduction but might have to consider cuts in work done. |
| Cooperator - 6 | Yes, it will be. |
| Cooperator - 7 | |
| Cooperator - 8 | Yes, but only for some studies. |
| Cooperator - 9 | No |
| Cooperator - 10 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 11 | Total absence of cost share would probably result in a serious reconsideration of the program, including possible reduction or elimination. Some reduction in cost share could probably be acceptable. At present there is some unmatched portion of the program and this has not caused any flack. Cooperator – 12It is not always necessary. However, the fact that the federal government shares the cost is very important in the final decision as to whether the projects are funded. |
| Cooperator - 12 | |
| Cooperator - 13 | Yes. If we had to pay the full cost for the program we would seriously consider doing it ourselves. |
| Cooperator - 14 | Yes, it is typically very important. If the agency had funds available, they might be willing to pay full cost – if USGS would do the study the way the state wanted it done. |
| Cooperator - 15 | Absolutely. It provides enhanced direction in ongoing studies. |
| Cooperator - 16 | Yes. Our level of participation with USGS in cooperative agreements would likely decrease significantly if USGS didn't cost share. |
| Cooperator - 17 | Cost sharing is a necessary in order for us to get the coverage we need to monitor and administer water. Without the Program we would have to drop some stations and without that data, we would be inviting more argument/uncertainty and would be hampering our ability to operate the project effectively. |
| Cooperator - 18 | Yes. Without cost-sharing our data collection needs would be too expensive for us to go it alone. |
| Cooperator - 19 | Yes. Couldn't afford otherwise. Without cost sharing, would not have benefit of GS expertise and cooperative problem solving. |
| Cooperator - 20 | Program is crucial to ability of agency to carry out responsibilities. Data establishes 7Q10 flow, calculates return frequency for floods & droughts. These and other uses of data are core to the agency's mission. |
| Cooperator - 21 | On the basis of 50/50 answer is yes. Without such cost share ratio, more cost effective for us to go elsewhere or do in-house. |
| Cooperator - 22 | The cost share is necessary. If we had to supply the entire financial backing for the project, the City wouldn't look at doing it. For example, the _______ project would be greatly scaled down. We wouldn't be looking at the pure science end of the project so much as the bare minimum necessary to meet our political needs. |
| Cooperator - 23 | Yes, USGS cost would have to compete with others. Would requests proposals on projects. |
| Cooperator - 24 | Yes, cost sharing provides us with the opportunity to do more for less money. This provides a "win-win" situation for both parties. |
| Cooperator - 25 | Cost sharing is an important element of participation, but the quality of service provided by the Survey is equally important. |
| Cooperator - 26 | Yes, cost sharing provides us with the opportunity to do more for less money. This provides a "win-win" situation for both parties. |
| Cooperator - 27 | YES, in MD it is hard to obtain all the funds needed to do the entire job. Matching funds allow the state money to go farther. |
| Cooperator - 28 |
The District feels that the answer is yes and no. It is critical data, and if the USGS Coop Program stopped or reduced its effort the district would have to figure out how to continue the work. They see a lot of negatives. The cost would be a small problem compared to the credibility issues that they would face if they were the sole provider of information D.E.C says that it is essential that coop support stay at 50/50. If they had a reduction, they would probably have to reduce expectations for groundwater mapping and other activities that are currently planned and considered to be very important. There is no interest in State government in substituting a State program for the current cooperative program. |
| Cooperator - 29 | Yes, cost sharing is important to our agency. It keeps the cost of the overall project down and allows us to do more of the research that is helpful in understanding our watershed systems, which assists us in making water management decisions. |
| Cooperator - 30 | Yes - district is currently putting 10% of its budget (operating) into this gage. |
| Cooperator - 31 | Not if the data is necessary |
| Cooperator - 32 | Cost sharing is the standard for which the District uses for any regional investigation that benefits multiple entities. The district believes the federal and State government have a duty and societal role in financially contributing to the better scientific understanding of regional water resource issues. |
| Cooperator - 33 | The District would be delighted if the USGS would "match funds" on all the programs the District desires to cooperate with the USGS. |
| Cooperator - 34 | Cost sharing is fundamental. The USGS programs are a significant budget line item each year. The cost sharing component allows managers to demonstrate significant value from the dollars that are allocated to the programs. |
| Cooperator - 35 | Yes, to continue funding the USGS for stream gaging and water resource studies, a cost sharing arrangement is necessary with the USGS to make it financially beneficial. Only if the USGS were willing to fund a study or gage by themselves would cost sharing not be required. The administrative costs of the USGS make it necessary for them to pay these costs and a portion of the program cost to make it worthwhile for us to participate. |
| Cooperator - 36 | No. Need and want access to expertise. |
| Cooperator - 1 | 50/50. Arguments against greater cooperator
share:
Cost share should go the other way—federal share should increase to reflect extent to which federal government controls the watersheds. |
| Cooperator - 2 | 50:50 because of flat budgets, and because assessments against coop dollars are used to fund activities/programs not of interest to the cooperators. |
| Cooperator - 3 | 50:50, A greater share of the total costs would result in county backing out of some or all of the work because of flat funding at the county level. |
| Cooperator - 4 | 50-50 |
| Cooperator - 5 | Would not like to see 50-50 reduced but would probably use USGS if it were zero federal share. |
| Cooperator - 6 | Would have to cut somewhere if GS funding reduced. |
| Cooperator - 7 | 50% |
| Cooperator - 8 | 0% when funds are passed through from other organizations. |
| Cooperator - 9 | We prefer 50:50, but we can go with less, as low as 0%. |
| Cooperator - 10 | 50%. We are required by State Law to not put more than 50% of the money we have in one category into cooperative agreements with the USGS. Somewhat in jest, because most of the land in the state is managed by the federal government, and because the Coop Program matches on a 50:50 basis on projects on non-federal land in many other states, we feel that a good match for us should be 93.5:6.5, wherein the state is matching 50:50 on the non-federal portion, and the federal government (USGS plus other agencies) is covering 93.5% of the total cost. |
| Cooperator - 11 | I would estimate about 30% COOP match to be the minimum, but the size of the program would depend on the amount of cost share. Reduction in USGS cost share would most likely result in reduction in the program. |
| Cooperator - 12 | I am not sure. |
| Cooperator - 13 | At present the ratio COOP/Agency is about 40/60 and this is acceptable but beginning to be too costly. The ratio has gradually changed from 50/50 due to the fact that the COOP costs have increased while COOP dollars have remained the same. |
| Cooperator - 14 | 50/50 is appropriate, but could accept 60/40 if given more control on end results. |
| Cooperator - 15 | 50% |
| Cooperator - 16 | Unknown. It would depend upon the specific data collection program and research study. |
| Cooperator - 17 | 50/50 cost share works good for us. Any more participation by a cooperator would seem to create a perception that the information may be biased toward those cooperators that contribute more. The GS to us offers an independent and unbiased source of data that other groups, particularly outsiders looking in, accept and acknowledge as good information. |
| Cooperator - 18 | We are at a 50-50 cost share right now for the most part. We do have a portion that goes unmatched as stated above. It is difficult for me to say what is the minimum USGS share we could go because there is the issue of how competent/competitive we could be to GS. |
| Cooperator - 19 | If much lower than 50/50 would question benefit. This is an economic issue. |
| Cooperator - 20 | 50/50 is minimum. |
| Cooperator - 21 | 60/40 split would be borderline at best. |
| Cooperator - 22 | Below a 60/40 share, we would have to greatly re-think whether it would be a cooperator on projects or not. |
| Cooperator - 23 | 50-50 |
| Cooperator - 24 | There is no minimum cost share. However, the larger the match or share, the greater and more encompassing the project can be for both agencies. |
| Cooperator - 25 | No funding at all would be acceptable to the board as more money is made available by the state legislature. |
| Cooperator - 26 | There is no minimum cost share. However, the larger the match or share, the greater and more encompassing the project can be for both agencies. |
| Cooperator - 27 | 50% |
| Cooperator - 28 | Covered in #8. |
| Cooperator - 29 | This is flexible, depending upon the project. If a project has great national interest, we would expect to have a significant part of this project paid for by the Federal government. Generally, we believe the cost share should be 50/50. |
| Cooperator - 30 | 50% |
| Cooperator - 31 | Doubt they would drop the gages even in 0% |
| Cooperator - 32 | The District has had limited experience with the USGS Cooperative program, but we believe the maximum Federal contribution should be 75% and the minimum contribution should be 25% |
| Cooperator - 33 | The District prefers the 50% cost share, "matched funds arrangement" that prevailed in past years. The District has agreed to different cost sharing agreements when the data or study is of vital interest to the District. The District has also purchased and supplied instrumentation equipment for installation in USGS facilities. |
| Cooperator - 34 | 50/50 is preferred, 60/40 (agency/USGS) is acceptable for the final mix within a cooperative program containing several components. |
| Cooperator - 35 | The USGS should continue to fund a minimum of 50% of the total program cost. |
| Cooperator - 36 | Could bear 100% of cost |
| Cooperator - 1 |
Water Surface Water: Good Stuff: Meeting needs adequately,
timely. |
| Cooperator - 2 | Meets needs OK. However, due to the phenomenon of flat budgets and rising costs, periodically some long term SW gages are dropped. There is some disappointment that long-term gages aren't ranked as highly as others that are used for management or flood frequency determination and are terminated as a result. Very satisfied with interpretive studies. |
| Cooperator - 3 | 50:50, A greater share of the total costs would result in county backing out of some or all of the work because of flat funding at the county level. |
| Cooperator - 4 | Policy changes on how money is used and USGS cost increases are causing a reduction in baseline data. |
| Cooperator - 5 | Very satisfied with USGS science and professional reputation. Needs well met. |
| Cooperator - 6 |
Yes |
| Cooperator - 7 | We need better water-use data. |
| Cooperator - 8 | Yes. We use the water quantity data frequently in court. |
| Cooperator - 9 | Yes. We would be lost without the USGS. |
| Cooperator - 10 | It is meeting our ground-water quality data needs nicely |
| Cooperator - 11 | Yes. The COOP program has met our needs in the areas in which assistance was requested. |
| Cooperator - 12 | Yes barely- However, additional funds are needed. |
| Cooperator - 13 | The COOP program is used for a limited set of needs and meets the needs in these areas. If more COOP funds were available, the program could be used in other areas of need. |
| Cooperator - 14 | It is meeting only the basic data collection needs (gages and observation wells). Water use data is gathered by the state agency, but compiled into USGS Water Use reports. |
| Cooperator - 15 | Yes, but cost is constraining use of program. |
| Cooperator - 16 |
The USGS is well tooled to keep tract of water quantity and it is the same nationwide. They have done an excellent job in basin studies that do not terminate at state line. |
| Cooperator - 17 | The District is very satisfied with the service the GS provides to us. Again our need is for streamgaging and surface water measurements, so our view is a narrow one. We have are own water quality capability (labs at the treatment plants), so we don't need that service. And water use information for billing purposes is something we collect routinely in our daily course of business since we are wholesale distributor to customers. |
| Cooperator - 18 | We feel that GS is doing the best they can afford to do to get the data to us. Of course we would like to see more and better gw data come to us for the money, but we feel good about how much is being accomplished with the budget and the care that is taken to watch expenditures. |
| Cooperator - 19 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 20 | Not entirely, but this is due to limitations in resources for the program. What GS does they do well. |
| Cooperator - 20 | For most part, uses USGS for water quantity (vs water quality) data. |
| Cooperator - 21 | Projects are producing what we need (sp. Surface water quality, quality & analytical tools). No use of program for groundwater & water use. |
| Cooperator - 22 | We have an EPA-certified laboratory. It is also certified by the USGS. As a result, we cooperate with the USGS in splitting analysis of samples. |
| Cooperator - 23 | Yes, program is meeting needs. |
| Cooperator - 24 | Yes, this project is meeting all of our needs in all areas. Without the assistance of the USGS we simply would not have had the staff or financial resources to complete this work by the Congressionally mandated deadline. We would also not have the solid science built into the program that needs to be there to be accepted by the public. |
| Cooperator - 25 | The Coop program is meeting the long-term needs of the board but there is a concern over the decommissioning of some of the stream gaging stations. |
| Cooperator - 26 | Without the assistance of the USGS, we simply would not have had the staff or financial resources to complete this work by the Congressionally mandated deadline. We would also not have the solid science built into the program that needs to be there to be accepted by the public |
| Cooperator - 27 | The Coop Program is basically meeting their needs. Perhaps there should be more flexibility in how the matching funds are obtained. The state would like more work in model development effort. The state feels they can obtain the basic data but need the USGS expertise to develop and calibrate the models in the state. The state is developing a stream gaging strategy, which should provide a better idea of what is needed and where the gages are needed. This effort is not complete at this time. The state believes every station is important, but is working toward funding from other local funding sources. |
| Cooperator - 28 | The District is a surface water quantity program using some interpretive tools. They feel their needs are very well met by the cooperative program. D.E.C. feels that needs are generally met, and when they are not being met is a function of them not having the money to use the tools and not the availability of tools. D.E.C. did comment with regard to the TMDL that they understood that an adjacent state was actually using USGS to generate the permit criteria. At this point, D.E.C. does not intent to use USGS in that way. |
| Cooperator - 29 | USGS is doing an excellent job in meeting our needs. It would be helpful, however, if data and reports could be available in a more timely fashion. In addition, more information on nutrient levels, including analyzing at lower detection limits, may be desirable. |
| Cooperator - 30 | Yes - provides necessary flow data as well as water quality |
| Cooperator - 31 | Currently doing a good job at meeting needs |
| Cooperator - 32 |
See #7. The District has been satisfied with its joint Cooperative Project with the USGS and the Town. The District believes basic data collection work is needed in the northwest and southern of our area. These areas are experiencing rapid urban growth rates and are expected to have future subsidence problems from past USGS modeling predictions. The USGS needs to have annual outreach efforts to inform local water providers on existing Cooperative Projects, such as at workshops or at a regular Groundwater Users Advisory Council meeting. Annual outreach meetings should also be used as the first phase for public input on potential new cooperative projects. |
| Cooperator - 33 | The District has been working with the USGS for many years because the USGS has been willing to supply adequate information or enter into investigative studies under a cooperative agreement to develop the information/tools needed by the District to manage water supplies within its territory. |
| Cooperator - 34 | The basic data programs have met our needs generally, although it is sometimes difficult to acquire the data once collected. We do perceive concerted effort to enhance our capability to acquire the basic data as needed and find the staff responsive to our requests within their capability (i.e. within the limitations of releasing peer reviewed or approved data or analyses). The reports produced to date have done a good job of addressing the scope of the issue being studied. The USGS staff has done a good job of identifying the tools that should be developed and the analyses that need to be performed to address our issues. The problem has been timely delivery of analyses and tools as specified in cooperator program agreement letters. In that respect the USGS has failed about 60% of the time. Additionally, we perceive this trend to be worsening. |
| Cooperator - 35 | The State EPA is responsible for the water quality issues, but currently the State EPA does not cooperate with the USGS on data collection. Adequate data is being collected to handle existing water resources issues. Expanded needs are developing as new programs, like Smart Growth, begin to gain momentum. |
| Cooperator - 36 | Program is meeting cooperator's needs, except that they have not been able to begin the long range erosion study based on water quality data. (Cooperator did not specify if the fault was theirs for not having the funding for the study, or GS's) |
| Cooperator - 1 |
Ground Water:Federal funding seems adequate, Inadequate funding to
match direct effort |
| Cooperator - 2 | WRD: Short-term, maybe. Long-term,
no. There is a need for basic data collection, but emphasis on interpretive
studies will cause funding shortfall for data collection. DEQ: Long-term outlook poor. Flat budget plus cost creep means reduced data collection at a time when need for data is increasing. |
| Cooperator - 3 | Currently adequate. Always able to meet basic needs, GS always cooperates. On large scale projects may have to wait a year for the GS to schedule their part of the funding. |
| Cooperator - 4 | No, USGS-WRD does not have enough money to match projected state match |
| Cooperator - 5 | Funding has been adequate. |
| Cooperator - 6 | Yes, but would like 50-50 cost sharing on all sites |
| Cooperator - 7 | No. There needs to be more federal money available. |
| Cooperator - 8 | Congress should appropriate more for the Coop Program. |
| Cooperator - 9 | No. There should be more. We could do more with the USGS if there were more funding to be matched 50:50. |
| Cooperator - 10 | Yes |
| Cooperator - 11 | No. Coop dollars have not increased to keep up with inflation. Currently the COOP program does not fully match available City/County dollars. In the future there are several planned or prospective programs which could be candidates for COOP projects if additional funds were available. These include: Environmental Land Acquisition; American River Heritage Initiative; Pollution prevention (private initiative); EPA EMPACT grant for air, surface water and ground water monitoring (including an ecotourism center). |
| Cooperator - 12 | No. Inflation drives the cost of projects upward. The cost of inflation is not being met |
| Cooperator - 13 | No. We would like to see a coordinated ground water level monitoring program across three southeastern counties by the USGS so that consistency can be maintained. We would also like to have the data analyzed by the USGS and ground water level contour maps produced annually, as was the case in the past. |
| Cooperator - 14 | No, the agency has not been able to get significant new dollars and has been forced to reduce its own internal spending to maintain the gaging program. There were 140 stream gaging stations in 1984, and only 112 stations today. The increasing cost of the gaging net |