Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | Stream Gaging Installation and Operations in the Lewis, Salmon/Washougal, and Gray/Elochoman Subbasins |
| Proposal ID | 31023 |
| Organization | Washington Department of Ecology (WA Ecology) |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
| Name | Ken Dzinbal |
| Mailing address | PO Box 47600 Olympia WA 98504 |
| Phone / email | 3604076672 / kdzi461@ecy.wa.gov |
| Manager authorizing this project | Bill Backous |
| Review cycle | Lower Columbia |
| Province / Subbasin | Lower Columbia / Cowlitz |
| Short description | Purchase and install eight continuos, real-time, telemetered stream flow gages, and six staff gages, at critical reaches and tributaries in each of the three subbasins. |
| Target species | Chinook,chum, steelhead and bull trout |
Project location
| Latitude | Longitude | Description |
|---|
| 46.01 |
-122.2 |
Lewis |
| 45.67 |
-122.21 |
Salmon/Washougal |
| 46.27 |
-123.28 |
Elochoman |
| 46.37 |
-123.58 |
Grays |
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (RPAs)
Sponsor-reported:
| RPA |
|---|
| Action 155 |
| Action 180 |
| Action 149 |
| Action 151 |
| Action 152 |
| Action 154 |
| Action 183 |
| Action 198 |
Relevant RPAs based on NMFS/BPA review:
| Reviewing agency | Action # | BiOp Agency | Description |
|---|
| NMFS |
Multiple |
NMFS |
NMFS Category in review spreadsheet - needed to provide accurate query results |
Section 2. Past accomplishments
Section 3. Relationships to other projects
| Project ID | Title | Description |
|---|
Section 4. Budget for Planning and Design phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
Outyear budgets for Planning and Design phase
Section 5. Budget for Construction and Implementation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Objective 1. Provide stream flow data (with necessary resolution) required to meet the objectives embodied in water and salmon protection and restoration initiatives and projects. |
Purchase and install standardized stream gages in eight critical reaches or tributaries in two of the subbasins (Salmon/Washougal and Lewis subbasins) |
2003 |
$227,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Objective 1.Purchase and install standardized stream gages in eight critical reaches or tributaries in the remaining subbasin (Gray/Elochoman) |
2004 |
|
$114,000 |
Outyear budgets for Construction and Implementation phase
Section 6. Budget for Operations and Maintenance phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Objective 1. Provide stream flow data (with necessary resolution) required to meet the objectives embodied in water and salmon protection and restoration initiatives and projects. |
Operate and maintain the stream gages in the Salmon/Washougal and Lewis subbasins |
2003 |
$137,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Objective 1. Operate and maintain the stream gages in the Gray/Elochoman subbasin |
2004 |
2004 |
$68,000 |
Outyear budgets for Operations and Maintenance phase
Section 7. Budget for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Task-based budget
| Objective | Task | Duration in FYs | Estimated 2003 cost | Subcontractor |
|---|
| Objective 1. Provide stream flow data (with necessary resolution) required to meet the objectives embodied in water and salmon protection and restoration initiatives and projects. |
Report stream flow and temperature data for the Salmon/Washougal and Lewis subbasins |
2003 |
$31,000 |
|
Outyear objectives-based budget
| Objective | Starting FY | Ending FY | Estimated cost |
|---|
| Objective 1. Report stream flow and temperature data for the Gray/Elochoman subbasin |
2004 |
2004 |
$16,000 |
Outyear budgets for Monitoring and Evaluation phase
Section 8. Estimated budget summary
Itemized budget
| Item | Note | FY 2003 cost |
|---|
| Personnel |
FTE: 1.25 |
$75,000 |
| Fringe |
|
$19,000 |
| Supplies |
|
$30,000 |
| Travel |
|
$20,000 |
| Indirect |
|
$34,000 |
| Capital |
|
$217,000 |
| $395,000 |
Total estimated budget
| Total FY 2003 cost | $395,000 |
| Amount anticipated from previously committed BPA funds | $0 |
| Total FY 2003 budget request | $395,000 |
| FY 2003 forecast from 2002 | $0 |
| % change from forecast | 0.0% |
Cost sharing
| Organization | Item or service provided | Amount | Cash or in-kind |
|---|
Reviews and recommendations
This information was not provided on the original proposals, but was generated during the review process.
Recommendation:
Fundable only if response is adequate
Date:
Mar 1, 2002
Comment:
A response is needed. This proposal is to purchase and install 14 stream gages in 3 subbasins critical to anadromous fish. The gages will put on 8 continuously measured sites and 6 instantaneously measured sites in each subbasin. They will fit into and expand the network of WA stream gages to provide data needed to support a variety of water and salmon initiatives. The single objective of the project is to provide stream flow data with a resolution appropriate to water and salmon protection and restoration initiatives and proposals.
The proposal appears to be a reasonable request to improve quantification of stream flow in these rivers.
The strategy is described as providing gages at critical reaches and tributaries in each of the three subbasins.
However, more information should be provided as to how the critical reaches/tributaries will be chosen, the marginal addition in monitoring they will provide, and why the combination of 8 continuous/6 staff gages was chosen. How will the eight flow gages and six staff gages be distributed among the subbasins? How will the sites be chosen? Is there a priority plan already in place? Are the monitoring sites selected based on existing fish use or potential fish use? Do other gages in place also provide continuous data? What is the relevance of the 6 cross-channel measurements to be taken annually? What are the potential fish benefits?
Recommendation:
Recommended Action
Date:
May 17, 2002
Comment:
NMFS has identified that this project is a BiOp project.
Recommendation:
Fund
Date:
Jun 7, 2002
Comment:
Fundable, agree with CBFWA. The ISRP does not make a recommendation on priority, although stream gages are a very important tool for stream monitoring and management. This proposal is to purchase and install 14 stream gages in 3 subbasins critical to anadromous fish. The gages will be put on 8 continuously measured sites and 6 instantaneously measured sites in each subbasin. They will fit into and expand the network of WA stream gages to provide data needed to support a variety of water and salmon initiatives. The single objective of the project is to provide stream flow data with a resolution appropriate to water and salmon protection and restoration initiatives and proposals.
The proposal appears to be a reasonable request to improve quantification of stream flow in these rivers. The strategy is described as providing gages at critical reaches and tributaries in each of the three subbasins. The response provides adequate detail to answer review questions. Criteria for prioritizing potential sites appear reasonable.
Recommendation:
Date:
Jul 19, 2002
Comment:
Statement of Potential Biological Benefit to ESU
Indirect Benefit. Could be an important tool in chum habitat restoration planning if gages address relationship between Columbia River flows and hyporheic flow/seepage.Comments
This is good quality proposal that characterizes the physical components that affect habitat availability. The proposal's proposed work on quantifying water inputs can be integrated into the overall assessment capability of modeling efforts that are now on going in the Lower Columbia River and estuary. Fulfills Biop requirements in part.
Already ESA Req? No
Biop? Yes
Recommendation:
D
Date:
Jul 23, 2002
Comment:
Recommend not funding, fish populations not affected by FCRPS.
Recommendation:
Do Not Fund
Date:
Oct 30, 2002
Comment: