Professor Paddle: Stilli Gauge
Professor Paddle Professor Paddle
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin
Home Calendar Forum FSBO Gallery PPages Reviews Rivers Trips Links
  Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  Search The ForumSearch
Run Submissions & Gauge Discussions
 Professor Paddle : Site Support : Run Submissions & Gauge Discussions
Message Icon Topic: Stilli Gauge Post Reply Post New Topic
Author Message
James
Admin
Admin
Avatar
Sum Dum Guy

Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3576
  Quote James Replybullet Topic: Stilli Gauge
    Posted: 12 Feb 2008 at 12:24pm
If you have run Robe you know that the stick is a little different than the internet gauge, but there are alot of different opinions on what the different gauges correlate too.

I have just updated the homepage so the NWS.NOAA levels are available there also until this discussion has a general direction.

The question is does NOAA have a physical gauge on the river, if they do is it more accurate than the USGS. They NOAA page has coordinates listed as does the USGS, and the coordinates from NOAA appear on the water higher up from Granite Falls than the USGS.

In many cases NOAA uses USGS data and then makes further extrapolations based on it. Lets get some locals to chime in so we can get accurate shortcuts posted here and revised gauges that are more accurate.

James
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
JoesKayak
Rio Banditos
Rio Banditos
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1217
  Quote JoesKayak Replybullet Posted: 12 Feb 2008 at 2:09pm
Instead of helping you sort out the current issue, I'll just add more info to the equation...

The WA DOE has a gague on the SF Stilli as well. It is just below the confluence with Canyon Creek. Therefore you can likely take the flow from this gague and subtract the flow from CC (maybe 90% of it as there are a few tribs on CC below the gage on CC) to get a reading for the flow you would have at the end of Robe.

SF Stilly:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/station.asp?sta=05A105

CC:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wrx/wrx/flows/station.asp?sta=05F080
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
fiddleyak
McNasty
McNasty


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
  Quote fiddleyak Replybullet Posted: 14 Feb 2008 at 1:23pm
I don't see why it matters how many or where the gauges are.

EVERYBODY uses the stick gauge. This is logical because you can check the flow on the river at the end of the run.
Therefore, it is confusing and makes no sense that a different reading is showing up on the homepage. Given the NOAA reports exactly (.1 greater) what the stick gauge says, this is the number that should be on the homepage.
The way it is now is hazardous. People see that it says 5 ft on the homepage, and then get to the river and it's actually closer to 6. Conversely, if it says 4.5 it looks low, when it is actually a great flow. Both these situations have occurred in the last couple months.
IMO:
1. The homepage should be revised to display the NOAA readings.
2. The Robe information should be changed to report ideal flows to be 5-6 ft, not 4-7 (who came up with the current numbers?).

Ben

PS: I fairly new to the area but I've ran Robe many times in the last couple months. I understand that stick gauges change over time and that is why it is important to track CFS also. However, I think that is a separate issue, especially since we are arguing over whether to report USGS height or NOAA height.

IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
huckin harms
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1477
  Quote huckin harms Replybullet Posted: 14 Feb 2008 at 2:07pm

Amen to what Ben said... the NOAA guage is the one to use (at least till USGS is updated). 

Just for some added confusion (not really), Dreamflows reports the cfs data. 

IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
James
Admin
Admin
Avatar
Sum Dum Guy

Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3576
  Quote James Replybullet Posted: 15 Feb 2008 at 8:57am
I agree that if NOAA is more accurate right now and they operate their own equipment we should use their levels. What I don't agree with is just switching the gauge to something that no other site uses until at least a few people from our community have voiced up on the change.

(who came up with the current numbers?) I believe it was adjusted numbers from the standard AW Listed 4ft - 6.5ft. Adjusted because there are different folks that run it in the 6-7 ft range.

I think everyone agrees which does not make this an argument, its of a more common courtesy so everyone knows whats going on when AW appears with the old USGS levels, were using the NOAA adjusted ft level which is different and might cause confusion.

Remember this is a pretty big chunk of coding to take on, just to get NOAA levels and build a parrelle gauging system, thats integrated here. I agree that if the USGS does not update that gauge it is certainly needed though.

And lastly, The way it is now is not hazardous, it is useless or upsetting.
You might waste an hour or two driving up there because you think it is a different level, and you might be bummed but if you just blindly jumped on robe without knowledge of bank levels and other criteria, well your putting yourself in danger. And if your buddies tell you its good to go they are putting you in danger.

What happens when I bust azz to get this change done, we move to a new level and you meet up with some kids that were using the AW page and they think it is just at a nice little level.... you like 6ft. so your all good... They get totally wasted, Who is hazardous?
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
huckin harms
Master Poster
Master Poster
Avatar

Joined: 03 Nov 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1477
  Quote huckin harms Replybullet Posted: 15 Feb 2008 at 9:55am

I agree, the recommended levels could use an update on the AW page.  4' is pretty unrealistic, esp with piton potential on Last Sunshine.  7'?  Gosh, anyone run last sunshine at 7'?  Not saying it wouldn't go, but getting pasted up along the left wall at the base of the drop is a thought.  SO, anybody who has run Robe above 6' would be qualified to comment on the higher recommended level. 

James, if you could interface with the NOAA gauge readings for the homepage -  sweet.  BUT, as it is - pretty cool-  using the popup pages to access NOAA readings (on the forecast site).   Again, just to echo what Ben said, that the NOAA is an accurate reading and a tenth off from the stick (NOAA reads a tenth more).  KICK KICK KICK THIS LAME HORSE DEAD. 
 
NOW, lets get access that last a lifetime.     
 
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
fiddleyak
McNasty
McNasty


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 386
  Quote fiddleyak Replybullet Posted: 15 Feb 2008 at 1:23pm
"What happens when I bust azz to get this change done, we move to a new level and you meet up with some kids that were using the AW page and they think it is just at a nice little level.... you like 6ft. so your all good... They get totally wasted, Who is hazardous?"

AW is a national database, usually one looks to a local site for information, since you would expect it to have the most up-to-date info. Therefore, thank you for addressing the Robe issue.

I'll agree that using "hazardous" was a little strong. I would be the last person to ever hold website responsible for what happens on a river; it goes without saying that a paddlers safety is ultimately their responsibility.

Besides that, I stand by what I said, including what the recommended levels are. I don't think it matters that much if people still run the river above them (who are these superheros, btw?), what matters is what most  people consider ideal, safe flows.

 Ben
 
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
James
Admin
Admin
Avatar
Sum Dum Guy

Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3576
  Quote James Replybullet Posted: 15 Feb 2008 at 3:57pm
I dig it, you guys know that you can change the details of the run right, you can also change the recommended levels too.

I will work on the NWS data and hopefully we will have the accurate reading posted dynamically soon.

I will say that I really disagree with the idea that the database run by AW is less needed to be accurate because they are national and therefore less of a standard. If anything I would say that most people around here consider AW to be the standard.
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
Erik
Splat Wheeler
Splat Wheeler
Avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 130
  Quote Erik Replybullet Posted: 16 Feb 2008 at 6:56pm
So The NOAA gage appeared to be right on today (Sat 2/16).  Flows on the stick seemed to match perfectly.  We paddled by the stick at around 2:30 and it read 5.09.  That felt about right out there.

There's a theory that The USGS already calibrated their gage after the floods this year.  If The USGS gage has been calibrated, we could just correlate new flow ranges based on new USGS readings.  So perhaps 4.2 on the new USGS matches 5.0 on the old USGS (& current NOAA).  We'll keep an eye on what higher flows correlate to.  I think it's fine to correlate off the stick gage.  I wonder if the river-bed around the stick has changed any?

Depending on the future of these different gages, we'll just need to keep an eye on things and clarify which readings mean what.  I agree the ranges need an update (5 - 6 seems reasonable).  I've heard rumblings of runs in the 9 ft and beyond range. 

Did I add anything to this discussion?  I can't really tell.


Edited by Erik - 16 Feb 2008 at 6:59pm
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
James
Admin
Admin
Avatar
Sum Dum Guy

Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3576
  Quote James Replybullet Posted: 19 Feb 2008 at 9:34pm
The new NOAA feed is up and running for the Stilly. I will have more available by the end of the week.
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
okeefe
Paddler
Paddler


Joined: 06 Sep 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 67
  Quote okeefe Replybullet Posted: 08 Mar 2008 at 12:32pm
Quick note on how information ends up on the AW site: There's no man behind the curtain. Any registered user can submit a comment on flows or experience with the gauge and is encouraged to do so. If anyone wants to edit the page for Robe just drop me a line and I can provide edit permissions. Currently 31 people have edit permissions for runs in Washington and I'm always happy to add more.
Thomas O'Keefe
PNW Stewardship Director
American Whitewater
IP IP Logged Send Private Message
James
Admin
Admin
Avatar
Sum Dum Guy

Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3576
  Quote James Replybullet Posted: 08 Mar 2008 at 3:39pm
I don't have the edit permissions but it would be great to get the NOAA flows replaced on AW like they are here now with Ben's suggestion. My only argument to Fiddle was the fact that it is nice to have uniformity. Now until the AW page for robe shows a NOAA gauge reading were going to be different.

J
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
James
Admin
Admin
Avatar
Sum Dum Guy

Joined: 31 Dec 2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3576
  Quote James Replybullet Posted: 09 Mar 2008 at 6:49pm
Any ideas of how you can do this Tom?
IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
okeefe
Paddler
Paddler


Joined: 06 Sep 2007
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 67
  Quote okeefe Replybullet Posted: 11 Mar 2008 at 5:09pm
Rather than focus on picking one over the other I'd like to get the error addressed. I am in contact with USGS and NOAA on this. Hopefully they can address soon. Next maintenace visit for gauge is scheduled for April but presumably they could figure out before that.
Thomas O'Keefe
PNW Stewardship Director
American Whitewater
IP IP Logged Send Private Message
JoesKayak
Rio Banditos
Rio Banditos
Avatar

Joined: 07 Nov 2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1217
  Quote JoesKayak Replybullet Posted: 13 Mar 2008 at 9:33am
Tom must have talked to the right people... It looks like the USGS and NOAA gage info are working in concert again.


IP IP Logged Send Private Message Send Private Message
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum