There is insufficient information in this proposal to conduct an ISRP review, including the lack of describing an established need (identification of critical gaps), description of specific gaps to be filled, methods to be used, and assessment of benefits to be achieved from installing new gauges. For a requested budget of over $1M, much more detail should be provided. Water quantity and quality monitoring should be fully integrated into the habitat monitoring programs in the project area, not a stand-alone program. If these gauges are truly critical to addressing data gaps in these basins, the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP) and the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program (OBMEP) and other monitoring programs in the region should incorporate them into their study designs. More information is also needed on the toxics approach. The Washington Department of Ecology (DoE) has monitored residues in resident fish throughout the state and can provide important background information on toxics in the various rivers, e.g., see Johnson et al. (2006) Washington State Dept. Ecology, Publ. No. 06-03-027, Olympia, 102 pp. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives This new project was designed to fill key gaps in stream flow and water quality monitoring in the Upper Columbia as identified by the Upper Columbia Watershed Action Teams by (1) restoring key DoE stream gauges that have been removed or abandoned, (2) installing and operating new gauges at key locations, and (3) deploying and operating water quality sensors at key locations across the Upper Columbia. Low instream flow has been identified in many streams across the Upper Columbia as a major limiting factor for salmon and steelhead. Reliable stream flow information is required to assess the status of instream flow as a limiting factor, and to evaluate efforts to address the limiting factor. Also, habitat restoration work often requires reliable local flow information as part of the design process. Although stream gauges are present, there are still many gaps in flow monitoring that need to be filled by this project. The project’s significance to regional programs is through the provision of data on flow and water quality in support of various Recovery Plan actions, including the IMW actions in the 2009 FCRPS Adaptive Management Implementation Plan. It would support monitoring and evaluation work conducted Upper Columbia Spring Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan. There was very little of the information required to conduct an ISRP review provided in this proposal. The technical background information was very brief and generic, and the objectives were essentially stated as fill critical water quantity and quality data gaps. No specific information was provided about these critical gaps or how these sampling sites will address these gaps. Where will the gauges be located? Why were these sites selected? Where are the sites in relationship to sample locations being used by other monitoring programs? The likely significance of this project to regional programs cannot be judged without a much more complete description of where sites will be established and what will be measured. Clearly, water quantity and quality are important aspects of stream habitat and should be key elements of any stream habitat monitoring program. However, these measures must be incorporated into a complete monitoring program to ensure that the information will be of maximum value. No information was provided in the proposal describing how the information generated by these gauges would enhance the habitat monitoring efforts being conducted through large, regional monitoring programs, like ISEMP and OBEMP. The technical background is quite general and focuses on M&E needs identified in various plans more than establishing specifics about the stream gauge system and critical gaps. High nutrient levels, low nutrient levels, high temperatures, sediment levels, and potential toxics have all been identified as general issues with respect to water quality, but more specifics need to be documented. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management One of the major objectives of this proposal was to re-establish a series of DoE stream gauges, prior data from these sites must be available. However, none of this information was presented. DoE flow sampling sites also often collect water quality data, also not included in the proposal. Data from these sites are characterized as meeting critical gaps in the proposal. If so, the data collected at these locations prior to their demise should provide some indication as to why they are considered critical. There was no discussion of an adaptive management process in the proposal. The proposal does not include a description of the existing stream gauge system or identify the location and number of gaps in the system or the length of time they have existed. It does provide a map showing existing gauges and priority 1 and 2 gauge sites identified by the watershed action teams, but without explanation of the criteria used or identification of the nature of the gaps that exist and why they are considered “critical.” 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) Other than a mention that the flow and water quality data would be useful to the ISEMP and OBEMP monitoring programs, no indication of coordination with these monitoring efforts was provided. Ideally, water quantity and quality data collection should be a part of a comprehensive habitat monitoring program. The ISEMP and OBEMP programs do collect some information on these habitat attributes. The proposal notes that the new gauges will supplement those of existing programs operated by DoE, USGS and USFS. This proposal implies that the flow and water quality data collected by these large monitoring programs is inadequate. But no discussion is included to support this point of view. Water quality monitoring under this project will be coordinated ISEMP and OBMEP. The proposal does not say how this coordination will work. It is noteworthy that the proposal mentions man-made toxic chemicals and seeks to support current efforts to monitor these potentially limiting factors in the Upper Columbia. Data will be stored in Status, Trends and Effectiveness Monitoring Databank so that it is available to all. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The deliverables are simply characterized as the delivery of water quantity and quality data from the re-established and new sampling locations. There is essentially no discussion of how these data would be collected, analyzed or interpreted. Apparently, data compilation, QA/QC and archiving would become the responsibility of DoE. But as no information was provided regarding these tasks, an evaluation of technical adequacy could not be done. No information is provided about the location of the water quantity/quality stations that would be installed nor is there any indication of the type of flow monitoring equipment to be used, how the cross-sections will be rated, what types of water quality sensors will be installed or how often water quality samples will be collected. All this information is required to conduct a scientific review of the proposal. A section on study design does show a map of identified “priority 1” and “priority 2” sites, without much explanation as to which gaps they will address or criteria for assigning priority to a site. Methods are not described beyond providing a list of sites of previously published work on various methods. How will the data be collected, processed and analyzed? Metrics are listed as water quantity and quality variables to be measured, rather than performance metrics for the project. The metrics and methods are provided in a short table at the end of the proposal. However, this table appears to be inconsistent with the information provided in the text. The text of the proposal states that nutrient levels and toxic compounds are concerns in the study area and that information on these parameters will be provided through this project. This significance of toxics and nutrients to stream productivity is certainly true. However, the list of metrics provided in the table includes only flow, temperature, conductivity, pH, dissolved gas, and turbidity. There is some indication that nutrients, pesticides, heavy metals or other key water quality characteristics would be measured. More could be mentioned in terms of what specific toxics are anticipated, i.e., agricultural pesticides near agriculture lands, metals in mining areas, and various personal care products, pharmaceuticals, and flame retardants downstream of wastewater treatment plants (especially in low flow rivers). Agencies and personnel to coordinate with would also be important to list so communications can get started, if not started already.