Slide 1

Would a State or Regional Monitoring Partnership, Alliance and/or Council Serve Your Needs?Barb Horn, Colorado Parks and Wildlifebarb.horn@state.co.us April 23, 2013

1Inventory CategoriesPrimary InformationComposition, Scope and InitiationFinancesLeadership Objectives

Inventory of Councils

18 Groups listed on Councils page

9 completed most of inventory

8 did all

1 very new possible Council in WA 2https://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=207:101

Inventory of CouncilsUser Name: reg_councilPassword: Council4uTo Input or Update: Go to site User name, password Four sections, can enter in shifts

3Inventory of CouncilsUser Name: reg_councilPassword: Council4uTo View or Download Go to site User name, password By individual council or 1? For allhttps://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=207:28

4Completed Inventory (12)Ohio Resource Council, Water Monitoring Work GroupNJ Water Monitoring CouncilColorado Water Quality Monitoring CouncilCalifornia Water Quality Monitoring CouncilFlorida Water Resources Monitoring CouncilLake Michigan Monitoring Coordination CouncilNorth Dakota Water Quality Monitoring CouncilMaryland Water Monitoring CouncilNew England Regional Monitoring CollaborativeVirginia Water Monitoring CouncilWisconsin Groundwater Coordinating CouncilIndiana Water Monitoring Council

Inventory of Councils

18 Groups listed on Councils page

9 completed most of inventory

8 did all

1 very new possible Council in WA 5Have Not Completed..Yet Utah Monitoring CouncilChesapeake Bay ProgramMichigan Clean Water Corps*National Tribal Water CouncilOklahoma Water Quality Monitoring Council**Oregon, Washington, GulfInventory of Councils

18 Groups listed on Councils page

9 completed most of inventory

8 did all

1 very new possible Council in WA 6Completed Inventory

Inventory of Councils

Around 1984- 20117/12, 10 years

18 Groups listed on Councils page

9 completed most of inventory

8 did all

1 very new possible Council in WA 7 Everyone had state involved, only category so NE-5 and WI-65 (state range) (2) did not have state leads 11/12 federal, local & academia composition also (CA state, private, non profit, public)% CompositionTYPES# AvgState28Federal16Local14Tribal0.2Landowner0Academia25Special District11Private13Non Profit10Other8

Everyone had state involved, and it was usually the highest percentageOnly one involved TribesNone involved landowners, did not distinguish or clarify FS, BLM and State are landowners as wellAll but one had NO federal or NO academia representation or 2 had NO local had special districts, private, non profitOther included in public, intergovernment, interstate

8 Next highest and close to State = Academia Range FL=5 to NE=90

% CompositionTYPES#AvgState28Federal16Local14Tribal0.2Landowner0Academia25Special District11Private13Non Profit10Other8

Everyone had state involved, and it was usually the highest percentageOnly one involved TribesNone involved landowners, did not distinguish or clarify FS, BLM and State are landowners as wellAll but one had NO federal or NO academia representation or 2 had NO local had special districts, private, non profitOther included in public, intergovernment, interstate

9 Only one had tribal representation CO Value may vary West vs East and land ownership Missing Tribal Water Council Perspective

% CompositionTYPES#AvgState28Federal16Local14Tribal0.2Landowner0Academia25Special District11Private13Non Profit10Other8 NO ONE involved landowners However (Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, State not distinguished as Landowner)

Everyone had state involved, and it was usually the highest percentageOnly one involved TribesNone involved landowners, did not distinguish or clarify FS, BLM and State are landowners as wellAll but one had NO federal or NO academia representation or 2 had NO local had special districts, private, non profitOther included in public, intergovernment, interstate

10 7of 12 involved Non Profits 7 of 12 had Special Districts or private 8 Other included public, intergovernmental, interstate, scientific community CO most diverse, CA & NE least diverse using these categories Avg = 5 areas, range 3-9 Reflects mission and objectives

% CompositionTYPES#AvgState28Federal16Local14Tribal0.2Landowner0Academia25Special District11Private13Non Profit10Other8

Everyone had state involved, and it was usually the highest percentageOnly one involved TribesNone involved landowners, did not distinguish or clarify FS, BLM and State are landowners as wellAll but one had NO federal or NO academia representation or 2 had NO local had special districts, private, non profitOther included in public, intergovernment, interstate

11Geographic Scope (10) Focus statewide (1) Interstate/regional (1) Multi-basin, larger watershed

Everyone had state involved, and it was usually the highest percentageOnly one involved TribesNone involved landowners, did not distinguish or clarify FS, BLM and State are landowners as wellAll but one had NO federal or NO academia representation or 2 had NO local had special districts, private, non profitOther included in public, intergovernment, interstate

12 (7) Top-Down Effort (1) State or Federal Initiative, Legislative Mandate (no $) (2) State Legislation/statute (no $) (3) Combo of Grassroots and Above (2) Grassroots up

Mandate To Start

13 Lack of Monitoring & Assessment Coordination and reporting Inconsistent Monitoring Objective, Assessment Strategies & Methods Perception not all available data is used Lack of single place, accessible data with ease, reduce duplication Decrease funding across entities- increased need for collaboration Support to save stream gage network Need for systematic information on meta data Provide guidance, consistency Forum to communicate, collaborate, discuss, coordinate Ability to address groundwater contamination

All still have the goal to collaborate, share data, foster communication (7) have evolved from initial driver Driver To Organize

Why groups started, driver

Then asked if still reason stay together, 14(1) Indirectly (CO)All other 11 DirectlyAffiliated with State Clean Water Act Monitoring Program

Comments:

Most have state staff involved on council to provide that perspective or is a collaboration with the state Most try and share data, information, methods, resources, networks and such to inform policy decisions but do not directly influence policyMost coordinate with state as another monitoring network in the pool to network with and share data with

Indirect was described as state is literally and equal at the table, doesnt support, manage or lead the Council, and in fact sometimes does not show up.

15Who Does the Work?WhoNumberCommentPaid Staff8 /126 of those were