“How do I love thee? Let me count the ways”: The need for Gaging Stations In Montana
by: Laura Nowlin, Sep. 6, 2018
In the watershed world, there are a few topics that are guaranteed to be discussed at every gathering: drought/flooding, best local brewery, and stream gages. At a recent meeting of the Musselshell Watershed Coalition, the group took a close look at gaging stations – how they work, who uses them and how, and who pays for them and how.
Montana’s stream gage network is supported by a hodge podge of payers and, as a result of recent state budget cuts, a number of stream gages were scheduled to be shut down. While United State Geological Survey (USGS) is primarily responsible for gage maintenance and data, the many stations throughout Montana are financially supported by cost share agreements between USGS and state agencies, tribes, or private entities. What the 2017-2018 shut offs brought to light is the lack of coordination in the various purposes and funding schemes for different stations as well as the ill defined gaging station beneficiaries. Shut offs came with limited advance notice and resulted in significant public outcry.
Gaging station information is public and readily available. There is currently no method for assessing who uses the information and for what purpose. We anecdotally know that many economic sectors from agriculture, energy, to outfitting use gaging station information to assess landscape conditions for business purposes. Even more local governments and community organizations use information to assess climate conditions and plan for changing circumstances, including ecosystem vulnerability and emergency response. Historical data collected by these stations is critical for the purposes their data is used. Without this information, we’re essentially blind.
While budget cuts have caused a serious threat to stream gages, one positive outcome has been the response that a broad stakeholder group has had to connect the dots on who, who, and where the needs are for sustaining the gaging network. Even the Water Policy Interim Committee has paid special attention to the needs and solutions proposed by those who have stepped forward to offer their time and ideas. With the help of state agency partners- MT FWP, DNRC, USGS, local watershed organizations, and citizens, the group is digging into the answers to critical questions on how to maintain this critical data for present and future decision makers at every level.
Here are some stream gage network high points, boiled down:
- There are 211 stream gages in Montana that are part of the US Geological Survey (USGS) Stream Gage Partner Network.
- Data for those stream gages can be found here: https://waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/nwis/
- Gages measure stream height and then compute streamflow using a variety of continuously changing data sets.
- Gages cost money – on average, $18,080 for a year-round gage and $12,700 for a seasonal (7-month) gage.
- We all use the data from stream gages, from everything from studying how fish migrate to alerting residents of rising floodwaters.
- We all help to pay for the stream gaging program – some help more than others.
“Let me count the ways.”
“Gages are essential to us to manage the river and to set priority dates.” – Craig Dalgarno, Musselshell River Water Commissioner.
On the Musselshell River, there are two things that we think about first – water rights and flooding. And, gaging stations are essential when our daily decisions factor water rights and flooding into the mix. But as our Chief Water Commissioner, Peter Marchi, said, “[Stream gages] are a phenomenal resource.” He meant for everything related to water, not just water distribution. Here is a quick list of the uses for gaging stations that we discussed:
|Water Distribution Project||Water Measurement and Tracking for distributing water rights|
|National Weather Service||River Forecasts, drought monitoring, weekly exceedance levels|
|DNRC||Water distribution and maintenance for state owned projects; assists watershed groups with drought planning; fisheries management; peak flow for floodplain mapping.|
|FWP||Informing fisheries management – monitor in-stream flow water rights; fishing restrictions and closures; recreation management; reservoir management; study fish migration|
|DEQ||Utilized in project specific scenarios for pollutant loading; permitting; restoration planning and design|
|DES||Life-saving notifications of high water; develop action plans for any given event (trigger points for when to start protecting infrastructure and when to notify residents)|
|Recreation||Stream flows for fishing, kayaking, canoeing, etc.|
|Bureau of Reclamation||Monitoring reservoir levels, water accounting, studies|
|Watershed Groups, State and Local Agencies||River Studies, broader understanding of the water resource|
Arguably the most critical use is for emergency planning and notifications. On May 31, Roundup was hit by a hailstorm that brought baseball-sized hail and a downpour to a very localized area. This caused the Musselshell River to rise 3.5 feet in less than 8 hours. Musselshell County DES Coordinators had their hands full. Because of previous floods, they knew at what gage height what roads, bridges, and public and private property would start to flood. As they watched gages, they issued warnings to residents on the river to begin moving livestock, equipment, and to make evacuations if necessary. They warned of road closures and called on the County road crew to begin protecting infrastructure. Coordinator Justin Russell linked the stream gage websites to his social media account, and after information on the May 31 hailstorm and flood event was posted, there were more than 22,000 visits to the site, this not only saved thousands of phone calls to his office, but it also made the information easily available. Justin says, “Upstream gages are our best friends.”
This is not an exhaustive list, but we are working to get there, because, as Bill Bergin, Jr., a Musselshell River landowner and Musselshell Watershed Coalition board member says, “gaging stations are critical for being next to the river.”
These conversations are happening all over the state, including a group comprised of local, state, and federal partners that are collaborating to devise a solution to the ever-present issue of how to fund the stream gages. There is a complex network of partners who fund gages. On average, the breakdown across the state for funding is:
Following the lead of Jen Downing, Big Hole Watershed Committee Executive Director and Montana Watershed Coordination Council board member, this group has proposed a draft resolution for a study bill that will look at the many aspects of gaging stations. The group is also considering a bill that will formalize its activities to maintain the information sharing and coordination needs that were identified through this funding crisis. Coordination of stream gage information is more complicated than it seems at first. What the group wants to ensure is that in the future, we will be better informed and prepared to make difficult decisions about stream gage locations and priorities. The group is also committed to exploring new funding mechanisms that build on the importance of the network to generate the financial support needed to maintain it. In tough budget times, we need to be prepared to make tough decisions and to equitably share the burden of maintaining the information we need. With the broad scope of stream gage beneficiaries, we should be able to justify the funding. What we need to maintain is consistent education and awareness about the importance of the stream gage network. These stations are more than data stored away on a computer or a website. The information collected is used daily by real Montanans upholding their livelihoods. Check out this draft to see what the study is proposed to consider, and consider attending the next WPIC meeting on September 10-11.
Contact Montana Watershed Coordination Council to find out the latest that is happening with this group.