Show new navigation
On
  • Log In
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
  • Help
    • Help
    • Help Center
    • Data dictionary
    • EF&W Program documents
    • Request support
    • Send feedback
      • View all help topics
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
  • Mitigation work
    Mitigation work View all mitigation work topics
  • Reporting
    Reporting View all reporting topics
  • Funding
    Funding View all funding topics
  • Search
RSS Feed for updates to Proposal GEOREV-1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Proposal Summary

Proposal GEOREV-1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed

View the dynamic Proposal Summary

This Proposal Summary page updates dynamically to always display the latest data from the associated project and contracts. This means changes, like updating the Project Lead or other contacts, will be immediately reflected here.

Download a snapshot PDF

To view a point-in-time PDF snapshot of this page, select one of the Download links in the Proposal History section. These PDFs are created automatically by important events like submitting your proposal or responding to the ISRP. You can also create one at any time by using the PDF button, located next to the Expand All and Collapse All buttons.

Proposal History


Archive Date Time Type From To By
12/7/2012 1:09 PM Status Draft <System>
Download 3/1/2013 4:51 PM Status Draft ISRP - Pending First Review <System>
6/11/2013 11:41 AM Status ISRP - Pending First Review ISRP - Pending Final Review <System>
6/11/2013 11:42 AM Status ISRP - Pending Final Review Pending Council Recommendation <System>
11/26/2013 5:00 PM Status Pending Council Recommendation Pending BPA Response <System>

This online form is dynamically updated with the most recent information. To view the content as reviewed by the ISRP and Council for this review cycle, download an archived PDF version using the Download link(s) above.

Back To Top

Basics

Proposal Number:
   GEOREV-1998-019-00
Proposal Status:
 Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:
 Proposal Version 1
Review:
 2013 Geographic Category Review
Portfolio:
 2013 Geographic Review
Type:
 Existing Project: 1998-019-00
Primary Contact:
 Bengt Coffin (USFS) (Inactive)
Created:
 12/7/2012 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:
 US Forest Service (USFS)
Underwood Conservation District (UCD)
US Geological Survey (USGS)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Project Title:
 Wind River Watershed
 
Proposal Short Description:
 The Wind River Watershed project is a collaborative, multi-agency effort to restore wild Wind River steelhead through watershed-scale habitat improvement and RM&E. The project has been funded since 1998 and involves the US Forest Service, Underwood Conservation District, USGS Columbia River Research Lab, and Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife. The RM&E components of the project have already been vetted through RM&E Review. see: https://www.cbfish.org/Proposal.mvc/Summary/RMECAT-1998-019-00
 
Proposal Executive Summary:
 The Wind River Watershed project is a collaborative effort to restore wild steelhead in the Wind River through habitat restoration and creation of a wild steelhead sanctuary. The project includes a strong RM&E component designed to provide local fish population and life history data to Wind River partner organizations, and to evaluate steelhead population response to habitat restoration.

The four organizations involved in this partnership are the US Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, USGS Columbia River Research Laboratory, and Underwood Conservation District. This partnership was established in the early 1990s and with support from BPA since 1998, has continued working together to accomplish important habitat restoration, research, monitoring, evaluation, education and coordination activities across the watershed. The Forest Service and Underwood Conservation District are responsible for planning, designing and implementing habitat restoration projects on federal and non-federal lands in the watershed. The USGS and WDFW are currently focused on RM&E work throughout the watershed, and have implemented a BACI design for evaluation of steelhead response to habitat actions in Trout Creek (i.e. Hemlock Dam Removal). This project currently serves as an Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW) and is proposed to incorporate additional habitat monitoring through the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP).

This project is particularly important because a) steelhead populations in the watershed have declined dramatically over time; b) steelhead populations in the Wind River have been prioritized for recovery to very high levels of viability; c) hatchery supplementation is not part of the solution; d) the watershed has a high potential for habitat improvement; e) the Wind River Watershed Project has a proven track record of completing high quality habitat projects while bringing significant cost share to the table; f) improvements made in the watershed will be well protected over time since much of the watershed is under federal ownership; and g) the watershed is likely to become more important to steelhead over time as climate change scenarios materialize.

With a large percentage of the watershed under Forest Service management, future land use decisions across much of the watershed will be guided by the Northwest Forest Plan, which provides substantial protection to riparian areas and streams. The habitat restoration objectives for this project arise from a need to address both legacy habitat issues on national forest lands, as well as habitats on private and other lands within the watershed. For this watershed to function as a wild steelhead sanctuary, and a stronghold for steelhead into the future, we must have diverse, well-distributed, and replicate habitats that are self-sustaining and resilient to changes in climate and local disturbance processes. To that extent, the habitat work described in the project has a three-pronged approach: 1) to restore self-sustaining watershed processes whereby streams, riparian areas and upslope hillsides function to deliver high quality water to those reaches supporting fish; 2) to restore connectivity and access to aquatic and riparian habitats that have been disconnected by either dams, culverts, or other anthropogenic causes; and, 3) to provide for and accelerate development of habitat diversity and water quality in stream channels and riparian areas that have been impacted over time by logging, splash damming, mining, stream cleanouts and other activities that were undertaken over the past century and more.

We have moved forward in meeting these objectives by undertaking projects across the full spectrum of watershed functions. We have decommissioned roads to reduce sediment loading to the stream network, to correct and restore hillslope drainage patterns and peak flow characteristics of the drainage, and to remove culverts that once impeded upstream movement of fish. We have planted forest vegetation in riparian areas, and thinned conifer stands in those riparian areas that were overly dense, and where inter-tree competition limited the diversity and health of the riparian forest. We have removed dams and upgraded culverts to re-establish connectivity of lower stream reaches with their productive headwaters, and to re-initiate sediment transport to downstream reaches. We have also placed thousands of whole trees and logs into active streams and floodplains where wood has been systematically removed over past decades, and where young forest plantations are not yet able to contribute these critical habitat components to the aquatic environment at the levels that are necessary. By providing woody debris to impacted streams, those streams are better able to develop pool habitats, to sort sediments and create high quality spawning beds, and to provide a range of habitat types suitable to the range of steelhead life histories.

This proposal seeks funding to continue habitat restoration in the WInd River as described below.
Purpose:
 Habitat
Emphasis:
 RM and E
Species Benefit:
 Anadromous: 95.0%   Resident: 5.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:
 Yes
Subbasin Plan:
 Lower Columbia
Fish Accords:
 None
Biological Opinions:

Back To Top

Contacts

Contacts:

Back To Top

Project Significance & Problem Statement

Describe how you think your work relates to or implements regional documents including: the current Council’s 2014 Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program including subbasin plans, Council's 2017 Research Plan,  NOAA’s Recovery Plans, or regional plans. In your summary, it will be helpful for you to include page numbers from those documents; optional citation format).
Project Significance to Regional Programs: View instructions
Lower Columbia River (LCR) steelhead are native to the Wind River and are listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The Wind River is the first major tributary upstream of Bonneville Dam with a significant wild steelhead population, and recovery of this run is important to efforts to recover steelhead in the Gorge province. The Columbia River Fish and Wildlife Program (FWP) set biological objectives for steelhead runs originating upstream of Bonneville Dam (NPCC 2009). These objectives include halting declines and significantly increasing steelhead runs upstream of the dam, restoring healthy, naturally producing and self-sustaining steelhead populations, restoring ecosystems, watersheds, alluvial stream reaches, and expanding the complexity and range of habitats. The Wind River Watershed project is focused on recovery of native Wind River steelhead without use of hatchery supplementation. Our efforts to recover the fish are contingent upon the success of our habitat restoration program, and the habitat work we have completed and that we propose under this solicitation is consistent with the objectives of the FWP. As such the Wind River is positioned to directly help meet objectives of the FWP. In addition to the habitat restoration we propose, the associated RME work under the Wind River Watershed project is set up to provide feedback in terms of population response over longer time periods. The Lower Columbia River Subbasin Plan designated Wind River summer steelhead as a Primary Population in the Gorge strata (LCFRB 2004, 2010). Primary populations are intended to be the foundations of steelhead recovery, and as such are intended to be restored to “high” or “very high” levels of viability (LCFRB 2010, p. 4-21). The Plan calls for at least two populations per strata to meet the high or very high level of viability (ibid). The Wind River represents one of these populations in the Gorge. The Subbasin Plan identifies restoration of aquatic and riparian habitats as key to recovery of the fish. Habitat projects proposed under this solicitation and those that have already been completed by the Wind River Watershed project will directly help meet subbasin goals of reducing peak water temperatures and restoring habitat diversity. As a result of our habitat work, this project will also indirectly help address subbasin goals that the summer steelhead be productive, abundant, exhibit multiple life history strategies, and utilize significant portions of the watershed. The Technical Recovery Team for the Lower Columbia recommends focusing recovery resources on watersheds where moderate to high quality habitat provides good prospects for cost effective results (LCFRB 2010, p. 21). Some tributaries in the Gorge and elsewhere may be less likely to recover to desired levels due to severe habitat limitations, and therefore recovery efforts in those areas may not be cost effective. Although the Wind River has experienced significant habitat degradation in the past century due to logging, road construction, dam building, and other developments, over 90% of the watershed is located on national forest lands. As such, habitats have not been permanently lost or degraded by industrial, large scale agriculture, or significant commercial and residential development. Funds spent in the Wind River to restore access to historic habitats, restore impaired watershed functions, and to accelerate habitat improvement will be sound investments over time due to the aquatic protections built in to over a large majority of lands in the watershed. Strengthening and rebuilding a robust steelhead run in the Wind River will help make up for other areas that lack the ability to recover to the same extent. In the long term, and as climate scenarios play out in the coming decades, the Wind River is likely to assume an increasingly important role in providing high functioning refugia for steelhead in the Gorge. With predicted increases in water temperature throughout much of the basin, the Wind River may well retain cooler water due to the groundwater sources that feed Panther Creek, Trout Creek and other parts of the watershed. The Wind River has the location, physical characteristics, existing population and land ownership that suggest it my be a key stronghold and genetic reserve for the Lower Columbia in the future. Significance of RME to Regional Programs: Council’s Draft Monitoring Evaluation Research and Reporting Plan The Draft Columbia River Basin Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, and Reporting Plan (MERR) lists nine management questions that the Council seeks to answer within the Columbia Basin. The Wind River project has and will continue to help address four of these questions by providing data on wild lower Columbia steelhead and their habitat in the Wind River Subbasin: 1) Are Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife abundant, diverse, productive, spatially distributed, and sustainable?, 2) Are Columbia River Basin ecosystems healthy?, 3) Is climate change affecting fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin?, and 4) Are fish, wildlife and their habitat responding to the implemented actions as anticipated? The Wind River Project involves data collection under two of the monitoring types listed in the MERR: 1) Status and Trend, and 2) Action Effectiveness. Status and trend data (abundance estimates) are collected on wild lower Columbia River steelhead smolts and adults in the Wind River subbasin, which is managed as a wild steelhead sanctuary with no hatchery steelhead. These data, and a study design that will allow evaluation of the removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek, will provide Action Effectiveness Monitoring for habitat restoration actions including Hemlock Dam removal and instream restoration actions. The MERR recommends that Action Effectiveness Monitoring be conducted in an intensively monitored watershed, which the Wind River has been listed as by the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) and the Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Plan (Ruckelshaus and Koenings 2005; LCFRB 2004a). Council’s 2006 Research Plan The Columbia River Basin Research Plan (CRBRP) lists 12 focal research areas, each with critical uncertainties that need to be addressed. The work of the Wind River Project will contribute information to four of these focal research areas and their associated critical uncertainties. Tributary and Mainstem Habitat – Work with lower Columbia River (LCR) steelhead in the Wind River will help address questions related to the full life cycle of this salmonid species. Critical uncertainties that Wind River data can contribute to understanding: 1)To what extent do tributary habitat restoration actions affect the survival, productivity, distribution, and abundance of native fish populations? 2)Are the current procedures being used to identify limiting habitat factors accurate? Harvest – PIT tagging of LCR steelhead in the Wind River provides marked fish to determine losses of adult steelhead between Bonneville Dam and the Wind River due to tribal harvest and sport fishery mortality. Critical uncertainties that Wind River data can contribute to understanding: 1)What are the effects of fishery interceptions and harvest in mixed-stock areas, such as the ocean and mainstem Columbia, on the abundance, productivity and viability of ESUs or populations, and how can fishery interceptions and harvests of ESUs or populations, both hatchery and wild, best be managed to minimize the effects of harvest on the abundance, productivity, and viability of those ESUs and populations? Population Structure and Diversity – Work with LCR steelhead in the Wind River subbasin and its watersheds will provide data to evaluate processes influencing their distribution, interconnection, and population dynamics through time and space. Estimation of populations of smolts and adults and PIT tagging of parr coupled with instream PIT tag readers in mainstem and tributaries to provide data on movement and rearing habits will contribute to understanding of co-occurring life-history types and use of tributary and mainstem habitats. Critical uncertainties that Wind River data can contribute to understanding: 1)What approaches to population recovery and habitat restoration are most effective in regaining meta-population structure and diversity that will increase viability of fish and wildlife in the Columbia River Basin? Monitoring and Evaluation – Monitoring of LCR steelhead populations in the Wind River provides a critical dataset on a wild steelhead population in the Lower Columbia, relatively free of hatchery influence. Evaluation of habitat restorations projects, including the removal of Hemlock Dam, will help to quantify what gains may be expected from restoration actions taken to restore depressed populations of wild steelhead. Habitat Status and Trend Monitoring in the Wind River will contribute to development and implementation of the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP). Critical uncertainties that Wind River data can contribute to understanding: 1) Can a common probabilistic (statistical) site selection procedure for population and habitat status and trend monitoring be developed cooperatively? 2) Can empirical (e.g. regression) models for prediction of current abundance or presence-absence of focal species concurrent with the collection of data on status and trends of wildlife and fish populations and habitat be developed. Subbasin Plan Objectives The Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan and Fish & Wildlife Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2004a) and Wind River Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2004b) – Native LCR steelhead and introduced hatchery spring Chinook salmon populations are present in the Wind River above Shipherd Falls. These are recognized fish populations or stocks (WDFW 2003, Myers et al. 2003) and are focal species in the LCFRB (2004a) plan. Wind River steelhead are currently listed as “threatened” under the ESA and are classified as a primary population for recovery (LCFRB 2004a). The Wind River is classified by the Washington Salmon Recovery Funding Board and the Lower Columbia River Salmon Recovery Plan as an intensively monitored watershed (Ruckelshaus and Koenings 2005; LCFRB 2004a). This project will fulfill monitoring needs identified in the Wind River subbasin plan and the Lower Columbia salmon recovery plan (LCRFB 2004). Intensive population monitoring in the Wind River allows for estimates of the smolt to adult survival for wild summer steelhead in the Gorge strata, which the Willamette/Lower Columbia River Technical Recovery Team recommended in its delisting criteria to assess population growth relative to ocean conditions (McElhany et al. 2003). The Wind River Subbasin Plan outlines a number of goals that on-going work in the Wind River will help to address. Work with PIT tagging and instream detection systems in mainstem and tributaries will provide information to help address the goal that the summer steelhead population in the Wind River be productive, abundant, exhibits multiple life history strategies, and utilize significant portions of the subbasin. Implementation of habitat project, along with monitoring of habitat and water temperatures will help address the goals of lowering water temperatures, improving flows, and restoring habitat diversity. ISRP/ISAB Tagging Report The ISRP/ISAB Tagging Report (ISRP/ISAB 2009) makes a number of recommendations for improvements and better collection of data with various tagging methods. Because the Wind River Project is using PIT tags and includes monitoring of parr to smolt to adult life history strategies and survivals, we will be deploying multiple instream PIT tag detection systems. These methods and data should help further knowledge related to recommendation 3.5, which states: “We recommend for PIT tags, further development of prototype in-stream transceivers for detection in tributaries to monitor smolt and adult movements in both large and small tributaries to better understand salmonid behavior and migration timing, fate of juvenile, smolt, and adult migrants before and after dam passage and to spawning grounds.” Additionally, the Tagging Report states, “lack of PIT tag monitoring systems in the tributaries where significant populations of wild salmonids occur. Monitoring of PIT tagged adults into and PIT tagged juveniles out of these tributaries will provide data to better understand life histories and survival rates of salmonids and hatchery stray-rates in these tributaries”. A disadvantage of PIT tagging as a fish monitoring tool listed in the Tagging Report is that, “Not enough PIT-tag detection systems are currently installed to yield information on the research questions outlined in the in-stream applications section below, e.g., fish movement during the fall and winter months, or learning about different life-history strategies of salmonids.” Installation of multiple instream PIT-tag detection systems in the mainstem Wind River and tributaries will help further the understanding of knowledge that can be gained with these systems. The Tagging Report lists, as examples of data contributing to better understanding of salmonid behavior and migration timing, the fall migrants documented at Beaver Creek in the Methow Subbasin and Rattlesnake Creek in the White Salmon Subbasin. Both of these projects were done by personnel from USGS Columbia River Research Laboratory (CRRL) who will be primary personnel in the Wind River project. These varied life history expressions are critical to a complete understanding of salmonid population dynamics and may be critical to maintain with environmental changes through restoration, climate change, or introduced species. In-stream detection does require some ability to estimate detection efficiencies at different life-stages and flows. Personnel from CRRL have been exploring methods for efficiencies (Connolly et al. 2008) and guidelines have been provided (Connolly 2010) in the PNAMP Special Publication, Tagging, Telemetry, and Marking Measures for Monitoring Fish Populations (Chapter 7, Wolf and O’Neal 2010). Habitat Status and Trend Monitoring The habitat status and trends work proposed is directly in response to the guidance on implementing FCRPS RPA 56.3 (FCRPS AA 2010). Recommended actions are to facilitate and participate in an ongoing collaboration process to develop and implement a regional program for habitat status and trend monitoring for key ESA fish populations. The proposed habitat monitoring is also integrated with ongoing PNAMP and Recovery Planning efforts as well as the collaborative process across Columbia Basin fish management agencies and tribes and other state and federal agencies that are monitoring anadromous salmonids and/or their habitat. These collaborative processes produced a Columbia Basin Anadromous Salmonid Monitoring Strategy (ASMS) (CBFWA, 2010) and identified additional monitoring projects or project expansions that contribute to FCRPS BO critical viable salmonid population and hatchery and habitat action effectiveness monitoring. The FCRPS BO components of the ASMS and associated projects identified to implement it have been incorporated into the strategy to meet RPA 56.3, RPA 57, and RPA 3 by characterizing stream and fish responses to watershed restoration and/or management actions in at least one population within each steelhead and Chinook MPG. FCRPS AA (2010) Table 3 (reproduced in Problem Statement) identifies one or more populations per MPG that should be monitored for habitat status and trend. The recommended populations were identified as populations with relatively large habitat/survival gaps in Table 5 in the FCRPS BiOp (NOAA 2008) and have, or will have, fish in-fish out monitoring (identified in RPA 50.6). This information will help evaluate expected benefits of habitat actions. FCRPS AA (2010) contains programmatic prescriptions for the habitat monitoring, all of which are incorporated into the proposed work. •The habitat status and trend monitoring design should follow the GRTS-based, master-sample management tools for sampling design and metadata management •For project response design, implement the recommendations in the report “Tributary Habitat Monitoring Summary Report: A recommendation for a standardized fish habitat monitoring program implemented under the Federal Columbia River Power System’s Biological Opinion” (Bouwes et al. 2010). •Habitat restoration actions occurring in these population watersheds should be monitored, ideally a representative set thereof, for their physical and biological habitat effects. •Coordinate with increased PIT-tagging of adults at mainstem dams (see RPA 50.1) and juveniles in tributaries (see RPA 50.3) as this fish-based monitoring will directly relate a variety of fish population process metrics (growth rate, survival, movement) to juvenile rearing habitat condition.
In this section describe the specific problem or need your proposal addresses. Describe the background, history, and location of the problem. If this proposal is addressing new problems or needs, identify the work components addressing these and distinguish these from ongoing/past work. For projects conducting research or monitoring, identify the management questions the work intends to address and include a short scientific literature review covering the most significant previous work related to these questions. The purpose of the literature review is to place the proposed research or restoration activity in the larger context by describing work that has been done, what is known, and what remains to be known. Cite references here but fully describe them on the key project personnel page.
Problem Statement: View instructions

Summary

The Wind River is the only true westside watershed of any size upstream of Bonneville Dam.  It provides habitat for summer and winter steelhead, and has a winter rain-on-snow hydrology that differs from the more spring snowmelt-dominated systems to the east.   The Wind River hosts a wild steelhead run with no hatchery supplementation.  Recovery of this run is contingent upon providing high quality habitats that are well distributed across the watershed, and are resilient to disturbance.  As climate change continues, we expect the Wind River to become more important as refugia for LCR steelhead, and we are working hard to rebuild habitats and restore natural watershed processes that will ensure the long term sustainability of the habitat and the wild Wind River steelhead. 

Over the past century, fish habitats in the Wind River watershed have been degraded by land use activities and other developmental pressures.  Logging has been the most pervasive and persistent activity in the Wind River drainage, and although practices have changed over time for the better, the effects of past logging are still evident and are still negatively affecting channel form, water quality, fish habitat and critical watershed processes across much of the watershed.  In addition to logging and related activities, the Wind River has seen mining, dam construction, farming and residential development.

The Wind River provides a wide range of habitats suitable to native LCR steelhead.  Steep high gradient canyons link the Columbia River to lower gradient and highly productive alluvial reaches and and diverse headwaters.  Although the canyon reaches are well protected against significant channel change due to their inaccessibility and predominance of bedrock and boulders, alluvial reaches in the watershed have been decimated by past logging practices, including riparian forest removal, instream wood removal, splash damming, construction of dams and other barriers, and road development.  This project is focused on improving natural functions in streams, riparian areas and upslopes to maintain and improve conditions over time.  The project also proposes shorter term, direct habitat improvements to more rapidly achieve recovery of high quality and diverse habitats. 

In addition to the habitat program, we have developed a robust research and monitoring program intended to quantify and document in-watershed changes in fish population status and trends, and to evaluate the efficacy of habitat restoration work in terms of fish response.  Details on this portion of the proposal can be found in RM&E project number (https://www.cbfish.org/Proposal.mvc/Summary/RMECAT-1998-019-00 ).

Watershed Characteristics

The Wind River enters the Bonneville pool of the Columbia River at approximately RM 154, near the town of Carson, Washington.  It is the first large tributary to enter the Columbia River upstream of Bonneville Dam.  The Wind River drains an area of some 143,000 acres, over 90% of which is within the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.  The balance of the watershed is in state or private ownership.

Wind River Map

The Wind River drainage lies on the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains, and as such it experiences a marine climate, with warm, dry summers and cool, wet winters.  Mean annual precipitation ranges from approximately 60 inches in the lower watershed to nearly 120 inches in higher elevations, with 75% of the precipitation occurring from November through February.  With elevations ranging from less than 100 feet to around 4,000 feet, much of the watershed is within elevations that commonly experience rain-on-snow, and it is typically these events that drive the largest floods each winter. 

Average daily flows on the Wind River are greatest during winter, peaking in January at a mean of 2,168 cubic feet per second (cfs).  The peak flow of record on the Wind River occurred on February 8, 1996 when discharge reached 53,600 cfs at the stream gage that is now operated by the USFS under contract with BPA.  During summer months, streamflow levels drop significantly, and as this happens, available habitat for fish is reduced in much of the upper watershed, and water temperatures increase.  Summer flows on the river are typically lowest in September when average daily discharge drops to a mean of 236 cfs.

From its headwaters near McClellan Meadows to its mouth on the Columbia River, the Wind River travels over 31 miles and drops nearly 3,000 feet in elevation.  Major tributaries include Panther Creek draining the eastern side of the watershed, and Trout Creek entering from the west.  The Wind River is characterized by alternating reaches of high gradient, canyon/bedrock control channel, to low gradient, meandering alluvial reaches.  The entire 10 mile reach of the Wind River as it approaches the Columbia River is within a steep and deep canyon where there is little to no opportunity for development, and where the stream has good topographic and vegetative shade.  Two alluvial reaches upstream of this on the mainstem include the Stabler/Middle Wind, and the Mining/Paradise reaches, each of which is characterized by wide gravel bars, unconsolidated banks, and relatively wide, shallow lowflow channels.  Oxbows, meander cutoffs, and anastomosing channels are common in these reaches.  Summer water temperatures in the Wind River tend to be relatively high throughout the length of the stream, and are influenced by both colder and warmer tributary inputs along its course.

Panther Creek is a high gradient tributary that is largely fed by springflow recharged by high elevation snowmelt from the Indian Heaven area.  Panther Creek retains relatively strong discharge and cool water through the summer months, as a result of its groundwater sources, and river gradient.  It has a strong cooling effect on water temperatures in the Wind River during late summer and is itself a coldwater refugia within the watershed.  Trout Creek, on the other side of the watershed, also has characteristics of groundwater influence, including strong year-round flow and very cold temperatures in its uppermost reaches.  But as Trout Creek enters an alluvial flat in its upper watershed, it widens and begins to meander across the flats, where water temperatures increase by up to ten degrees C or more during summer months.  By the time Trout Creek reaches the Wind River, it typically has very high water temperatures, at times well over 20 degrees C in late summer.

Historically, summer steelhead were the only anadromous fish to access most of the Wind River system.  A series of waterfalls, collectively known as Shipherd Falls are located at river mile 2.0 on the Wind River, and present a cumulative total of 45 feet of drop.  Summer steelhead were the only fish capable of negotiating these falls, while winter steelhead, spring chinook, fall chinook, coho and chum salmon were relegated to the mouth and lower three river miles.  In 1951, a fish ladder was installed to allow salmon to move upstream past the falls.  Today, wild summer and winter run steelhead and hatchery spring chinook occur above the falls and occupy approximately 120 river miles of mainstem and tributary habitat.  A native run of fall chinook and a small run of coho thought to be composed primarily of strays, and a small run of sea-run cutthroat currently occupy the reach below the falls including the Little Wind River.

Land Use History

Logging

Land use activities and development over the past century or more have impacted fish and their habitats in the Wind River.  Since the late 1800’s the predominant land management activity within the Wind River watershed has been timber harvest, and more recently, mining, farming and residential development.  Logging-related activities have affected nearly all parts of the watershed, and are still evident today.  In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, logging of the upper watershed required access routes to conduct the logging and to move logs to the Columbia River.  Railroad grade was laid parallel to, and along much of the Wind River, and the river itself was used as a sluiceway for logs. 

Splash dams were constructed on Trout Creek, Panther Creek, and the Wind River, and their operations were coordinated to maximize the size of artificial floods downstream in the Wind River so as to more effectively move large log loads.  As a result of these created floods and the blasting out of the channel in preparation for the floods, the lower reaches of each of these streams were essentially scoured to bedrock.  Logs and trees in the channel at that time were removed, and roughness elements in the channel that would naturally tend to collect logs were blasted out, ensuring that log retention and gravel accumulations in these lower reaches would be reduced for a very long time.

Logging occurring throughout the watershed through much of the last century tended to extend down to the edge of stream channels, and clearcutting was the preferred method of harvest.  As a result, riparian areas were often left devoid of forest cover or remnant large trees, and channels that had been cleared of logs were left without any potential for recruitment of large wood through blowdown or other disturbance process.  Although most of these riparian areas have since been replanted with conifers and hardwoods, riparian forest stands throughout much of the watershed have not reached the age or size at which they will begin contributing large wood to streams.

The Trout Creek Flats has been an area of particular concern within the watershed.  Trout Creek itself has a wide diversity of habitat conditions from icy headwaters, to highly productive alluvial flats, and steep canyon reaches.  As its name implies, this tributary was once the most productive steelhead stream in the watershed.  It also grew very large Douglas fir and Western red cedar trees, in the area known as Trout Creek Flats. 

Beginning in the late 1940’s, the Trout Creek flats were clearcut logged using tractors to skid the logs, and often using small channels as skid trails. No buffers were left on the streams.  Revegetation efforts following logging failed apparently due to compacted soils, competing vegetation and high water table. In the late 1960’s the flats were scarified with heavy equipment, in attempts to de-compact the soils, restore percolation and permit more success in revegetation.  In the 1970’s log jams and other wood was removed or “cleaned” from stream channels, when it was believed this material hampered fish migration.  The removal of large wood from the streams eliminated the natural water velocity modification and sediment storage that the stream needed to function properly, and helped initiate downcutting in Trout Creek and its tributaries. The channel degradation and associated bank erosion has continued to be an issue within Trout Creek flats. Bank erosion contributes excessive quantities of sediment to the stream, which has exacerbated and maintained the wide, shallow channel forms present in this part of the watershed.  Maximum water temperatures at times now exceed 24°C (75°F) in lower Trout Creek, and have been measured as high as 27°C (80°F) in the reach immediately upstream of Hemlock Dam (the dam has since been removed).  Similar logging practices and subsequent environmental responses occurred on the mainstem of the Wind River in the past century as well.  The Middle and Mining reaches of the Wind River are alluvial systems that were salvage logged after large fires in the early 1900’s, and continue to exhibit effects of the loss of riparian forest and instream wood. 

Dams

In the 1930’s, construction of Bonneville Dam on the Columbia River inundated the alluvial fan that had been located at the mouth of the Wind River.  Approximately 1.1 miles of alluvial river were inundated and subsequently buried in silt and backwater from the Columbia River.  Currently, approximately two miles of the lower Wind River are affected by the Columbia River.  This lower reach of the river is believed to have been an extremely productive area for fall chinook, coho salmon, coastal cutthroat trout, winter steelhead and potentially bull trout, chum and pink salmon.  Since inundation of the mouth and alluvial fan, spawning gravels have been limited below Shipherd Falls in favor of finer grained sediments. More recently, the mouth has begun to rebuild its alluvial fan, however development and dredging near the mouth has impeded the process.

At about the same time as Bonneville Dam was being constructed, other dams were built within the Wind River watershed for either power generation or water supply.  Concrete dams were built on Martha Creek, Trout Creek, and Maidenhair Creek.  These were small dams but they affected sediment and wood routing, and blocked upstream movement of fish and other aquatic organisms.  Hemlock Dam was a 100% barrier to fish, but a fish ladder was constructed soon after the dam was built, and the ladder was at least partially effective at allowing fish to move upstream.  Downstream of Hemlock Dam, the lower two miles of Trout Creek were scoured to bedrock from prior splash damming, and never recovered because the dam intercepted and retained essentially all gravel and cobble material that Trout Creek would otherwise have delivered.   The dam also affected water temperatures in Trout Creek, an effect that increased over the years as the reservoir shallowed and water was more efficiently heated.  The dams on Martha Creek and Maidenhair Creek were much smaller, and had no real effect on water quality, but they did impede upstream movement of fish and other organisms, and downstream movement of coarse sediments.  Over the past five years, all three dams have been removed by the Wind River Watershed project team, with funding support from BPA and others.

Roads

In the 1900’s, roads were constructed throughout the watershed.  Typical of early road construction, there was little emphasis given to stream crossings, other than to create the cheapest possible crossing.  Most if not all crossings constructed up through the 1980’s were undersized for the stream, and created velocity barriers and in some cases jump height barriers to fish.  Although stream crossings on forest roads often occur in upper reaches of tributary streams and don’t typically block access to long reaches of larger streams, they can restrict access to important headwater reaches.  With three dams and some 500 miles of road constructed in the Wind River drainage over the past century, we have cumulatively reduced the total mileage of stream habitats accessible to steelhead, resident trout, and organisms that are important to these fishes’ survival.

Roads have been shown to be our largest source of increased fine sediment loadings in forest streams, by chronic erosion from the road surfaces, and by catastrophic failure of roads at stream crossings.  Sediment is one of the key limiting factors in the Wind River watershed, and the road network has been identified as one of the primary contributors of excess fine sediments to the aquatic system.  We have also learned that roads modify runoff patterns, and can accelerate the movement of water from hillslopes to stream channels, and in that way contribute to higher and more damaging peak streamflows.  The effect of roads on watershed hydrology is to promote more rapid draining of hillslopes and watersheds in winter months, leaving less water available to contribute to summer streamflow.  Climate change scenarios for the region including the Wind RIver suggest that this effect will be compounded in coming decades by reduced snowpacks and increased winter runoff due to the shift to a warmer climate.

Water Quality

The USFS has measured water temperatures in the Wind River and its major tributaries since the 1970’s. Since the early 1990’s the Yakama Indian Nation, U.S. Geological Survey, and Underwood Conservation District have also been involved in water temperature monitoring in the watershed. Based on monitoring data collected during the 1990’s, Trout Creek, Bear Creek, and Eightmile Creek were included on the Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE) 303(d) list of water bodies that do not meet state water quality standards (WDOE 1998). These streams were listed for exceeding the standard for maximum water temperature. As a result of this listing the USFS and WDOE worked together to develop plans for improving water temperature conditions throughout the watershed. These plans included a Water Quality Restoration Plan (WQRP) developed primarily by the USFS (USDA 2002) and a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) developed primarily by WDOE (WDOE 2002). The completion of these documents lead to the Wind River and its tributaries being classified as Category 4a on the 303(d) list. This category includes “polluted water bodies” that are under an approved TMDL. The USFS is currently implementing recommendations from the TMDL and WQRP to improve water temperatures within the watershed, but at this time a number of streams in the watershed—including particularly Trout Creek—continue to exceed the state temperature standards.

Wind River Steelhead

Because Shipherd Falls was a natural barrier to all anadromous fish except steelhead (Bryant 1949), summer steelhead were historically dominant and numerous above this barrier.  The USFWS (1951) estimated the summer steelhead run size was 3,250 with an escapement of 2,500 spawners.  Other estimates suggest the historic run may have been as high as 5000 in the Wind River (LCFRB 2010).  In the mid and late 1990's, the adult population was thought to be just 200 summer steelhead (Rawding 1997), with less than 10 fish counted at the Hemlock Dam trap on Trout Creek.  Since that time, the run has improved and Wind River counts have reached well over 1000 (Cochran 2003).  


Back To Top

Objectives

What are the ultimate ecological objectives of your project?

Examples include:

Monitoring the status and trend of the spawner abundance of a salmonid population; Increasing harvest; Restoring or protecting a certain population; or Maintaining species diversity. A Project Objective should provide a biological and/or physical habitat benchmark by which results can be evaluated. Objectives should be stated in terms of desired outcomes, rather than as statements of methods and work elements (tasks). In addition, define the success criteria by which you will determine if you have met your objectives. Later, you will be asked to link these Objectives to Deliverables and Work Elements.
Objectives: View instructions
Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) monitoring (OBJ-1)
Develop estimates of Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) metrics of abundance, diversity, and spatial structure for the smolt and adult life stages of Wind River steelhead for the Wind River subbasin and key watersheds of Trout Creek, Panther Creek, and the upper Wind River. The VSP productivity metric will be calculated based on time series or density dependent analysis of abundance estimates.
Steelhead life stage survival estimates (OBJ-2)
Develop estimates of steelhead life stage survival for Wind River juveniles and adults based on PIT tagging and subsequent PIT tag detections and recoveries.

parr to smolt survival, smolt to Bonneville dam (BON) adult return rate (survival), the BON to Wind River adult survival rate, the Wind River to BON adult to kelt survival rate, and the repeat spawner rate (BON to BON) based on PIT tagging and detections.
Steelhead response to habitat actions - hypothesis testing (OBJ-3)
Test hypothesis that habitat restoration actions, dam removal and instream/riparian actions have increased the survival or abundance of steelhead adults, smolts, and parr using a Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) design, when possible, or Before_After (BA) Design, when not possible. Establish the Upper Wind River or Panther Creek as a control watershed with the remaining watersheds as treatments.
CHaMP-: Collaborate in the development and implementation of a standardized habitat status and trend monitoring program that spans the Columbia Basin (OBJ-5)
USGS seeks to assist the Bonneville Power Administration develop and implement a standardized habitat status and trend monitoring program that spans the Columbia Basin. To this effect, USGS will implement habitat monitoring for status/trends in Wind RIver under a new program proposed and coordinated by the Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring Program (ISEMP) called the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program, referred to herein by the acronym “ChaMP” that spans the Columbia Basin.
Steelhead parr life-history strategy (OBJ-6)
Investigate the relative contributions of parr that migrate to lower mainstem Wind River reaches to rear to smolt stage and those that remain in headwater reaches to rear to smolt stage. Investigate factors driving these life history strategies. Are they density dependent or predisposed?
Restore Wind River Steelhead (OBJ-4)
Restore Wind River steelhead to healthy, harvestable levels that have a very high probability of persistence, are naturally reproducing, self-sustaining, and resilient to local disturbance and long term environmental change.

Back To Top

Project History

Financials

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Expenditures *
FY2019 $372,059 $549,947 $528,187
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $547,138 $525,489
General - Within Year $2,809 $2,698
General $0 $0
FY2020 $556,695 $566,252 $520,087
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $566,252 $520,087
FY2021 $556,695 $556,695 $583,135
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $556,695 $583,135
FY2022 $556,695 $556,695 $504,128
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $556,695 $504,128
FY2023 $556,695 $556,695 $438,152
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $556,695 $438,152
FY2024 $581,190 $571,174 $551,795
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $571,174 $551,795
FY2025 $581,190 $591,206 $256,141
BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $591,206 $256,141

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2025

Actual Project Cost Share

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Current Fiscal Year — 2025   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2024 $166,484 23%
2023 $118,484 18%
2022 $109,316 16%
2021 $132,330 19%
2020 $98,484 15%
2019 $334,384 38%
2018 $258,310 30%
2017 $163,421 23%
2016 $254,288 30%
2015 $195,768 26%
2014 $396,954 42%
2013 $167,949 25%
2012 $179,203 23%
2011 $76,580 13%
2010 $98,470 23%
2009 $97,670 27%
2008 $95,180 22%
2007 $382,282 53%

Discuss your project's recent Financial performance shown above. Please explain any significant differences between your Working Budget, Contracted Amount and Expenditures. If Confirmed Cost Share Contributions are significantly different than Proposed cost share contributions, please explain.
Explanation of Recent Financial Performance: View instructions
Working Budget, Contract Amounts and Expenditures: Budget and expenditure amounts reflect a total project budget of $333,000 beginning in 2007, and carrying through 2010. In 2011, project budget was increased for additional RME work in the watershed following the provincial review for RME). Year-to-year differences in budget vs expenditures on the project are largely a result of habitat funds being carried forward to a new year when project delays held up implementation. RME budgets vs expenditures have tended to be more consistent over years. In 2007, the USFS received substantial funding from BPA under a separate project to remove Hemlock Dam (a multi-year project). As a result of this increased workload toward dam removal, the USFS at that time reduced other habitat work in the watershed, and yielded habitat funds from the Wind River Watershed project to RME work for two or three years. This accounts for the dip in funds to USFS under the project for 2008, 2009, 2010. Cost Share: In the years when the Hemlock Dam project was active, the USFS also reduced its cost share from projected levels for the Wind River Watershed project, commensurate with the decrease in BPA funds spent and decreased habitat work completed under this project. In this same time frame, the UCD brought in greater cost share than projected due to funds from other grants.
Discuss your project's historical financial performance, going back to its inception. Include a brief recap of your project's expenditures by fiscal year. If appropriate discuss this in the context of your project's various phases.
Explanation of Financial History: View instructions
Early project budgets for Wind River habitat restoration and status and trend monitoring (1998-2006) were ~$650,000. The proposed budget for the 2007-09 funding cycle was between $767,000 and $849,000. However during that cycle, the total budget was reduced to ~$333,000 per year. In addition, BPA prioritized the funding of habitat restoration activities over fish monitoring in the Wind River. These actions forced a reduction in the scope of work for the RME component (fish monitoring) during that funding cycle. Given this option, WDFW & USGS decided to concentrate on collection of data required for BACI designs to evaluate the steelhead response to dam removal, which included 1) continued smolt and adult trapping and PIT tagging, 2) installation of a PIT tag detector in Trout Creek to replace the abundance estimate obtained for the Hemlock Dam trap, and 3) continue to produce annual reports. WDFW and USGS chose to delay publishing opportunities to collect an uninterrupted dataset required to evaluate dam removal and gathered baseline information on juvenile and adult abundance, survival, and migration patterns. In 2011, the Wind River Watershed project went through RME review, and as a result of that process, increased budget was provided for RME work for the new funding cycle. Habitat budgets declined substantially in the 2007-2009 funding cycle and have remained relatively constant since that time. The USFS and UCD have been successful in bringing in significant cash from other sources to make up some of the decrease, and continue making progress on numerous habitat projects. Year-to-year fluctuations in expenditures and cost share reflect the various phases of habitat project preparation, environmental compliance, design, implementation and monitoring.

Back To Top

Reporting & Contracted Deliverables Performance

Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):91
Completed:59
On time:59
Status Reports
Completed:329
On time:119
Avg Days Late:22

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
4973 22095, 26922, 32814, 35570, 41038, 46102, 50481, 55275, 59821, 63276, 66668, 70963, 73884, 77688, 80611, 83769, 86416, 89144, 91309, 93681, 95689, CR-377843 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED US Geological Survey (USGS) 01/01/2001 10/31/2026 Pending 95 199 12 0 20 231 91.34% 2
5480 23799, 28164, 33559, 39493, 49229, 53638, 57840, 62453, 65828, 69740, 72415, 76220, 79517, 82542, 85431, 88322, 90647, 92814, 95175, CR-377747 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 04/01/2001 06/30/2026 Pending 78 163 11 0 18 192 90.63% 9
4276 19617, 24152, 28742, 34579, 38921, 44016, 54272, 58664, 62516, 66154, 69900, 73756, 74314 REL 15, 74314 REL 50, 74314 REL 82, 74314 REL 117, 74314 REL 147, 84042 REL 17, 84042 REL 50, 84042 REL 83, CR-377871 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 04/02/2001 08/31/2026 Pending 78 222 12 0 12 246 95.12% 0
6033 32464, 35991, 41041, 45564, 51064, 57337, 61797, 65582, 69275, 72900, 75985, 78787, 83768, 86582, 89145 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USFS US Forest Service (USFS) 05/30/2001 10/31/2022 Issued 71 140 0 0 17 157 89.17% 14
BPA-5581 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2006 09/30/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30493 1998 019 00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS US Forest Service (USFS) 12/01/2006 11/30/2007 Closed 2 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
BPA-3504 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed - WDFW Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2007 09/30/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-4322 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2008 09/30/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-5719 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2010 09/30/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-6277 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2011 09/30/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-7026 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2012 09/30/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-7733 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2013 09/30/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-8395 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2014 09/30/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-8918 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2015 09/30/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-9531 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2016 09/30/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-10029 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2017 09/30/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-10730 PIT Tags/Readers - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2018 09/30/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11598 FY20 Internal Services/PIT tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2019 09/30/2020 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-12077 FY21 PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2020 09/30/2021 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-12910 FY22 PIT tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2021 09/30/2022 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-13297 FY23 PIT Tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-13817 FY24 PIT tags Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2023 09/30/2024 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
56662 REL 303 CR-378285 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED Yakama Confederated Tribes 02/01/2024 09/30/2027 Pending 5 1 6 0 1 8 87.50% 0
BPA-14183 FY25 PIT Tags Wind River (WDFW & USGS) Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2024 09/30/2025 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 329 731 41 0 68 840 91.90% 25

Selected Contracted Deliverables in CBFish (2004 to present)

The contracted deliverables listed below have been selected by the proponent as demonstrative of this project's major accomplishments.

Contract WE Ref Contracted Deliverable Title Due Completed
23799 N: 132 COPY: Deliverable complete 9/8/2005 9/8/2005
24152 E: 132 Final Annual Report 11/30/2005 11/30/2005
23799 F: 114 COPY: Deliverable complete 3/16/2006 3/16/2006
23799 J: 2 COPY: Deliverable complete 3/31/2006 3/31/2006
23799 H: 47 COPY: Deliverable complete 3/31/2006 3/31/2006
23799 G: 175 COPY: Deliverable complete 4/11/2006 4/11/2006
23799 B: 118 COPY: Deliverable complete 4/21/2006 4/21/2006
23799 I: 53 COPY: Deliverable complete 4/24/2006 4/24/2006
23799 L: 99 COPY: Deliverable complete 5/1/2006 5/1/2006
23799 K: 99 COPY: Deliverable complete 6/1/2006 6/1/2006
23799 A: 118 COPY: Deliverable complete 6/29/2006 6/29/2006
23799 E: 157 COPY: Deliverable complete 6/29/2006 6/29/2006
24152 H: 158 Desciption of tagged annimals in Annual report 8/31/2006 8/31/2006
24152 G: 157 Collect biological data from traps and surveys 8/31/2006 8/31/2006
28164 L: 132 Report complete 9/21/2006 9/21/2006
28742 M: 132 Final Annual Report 3/7/2007 3/7/2007
26922 D: 162 Data analyzed, interpreted and maintained in electronic format 3/16/2007 3/16/2007
26922 B: 158 Approx. 3000 steelhead PIT tagged; 300 Chonook salmon; 100 brook trout 3/30/2007 3/30/2007
28164 F: 175 Design Complete 5/29/2007 5/29/2007
28164 B: 118 Facilitation complete for 4 Meetings 5/31/2007 5/31/2007
32464 G: 47 Plant trees 5/31/2007 5/31/2007
28164 D: 157 Vegetation Site Monitoring Complete 6/8/2007 6/8/2007
28164 J: 99 Activities completed 6/13/2007 6/13/2007
28164 C: 157 Data captured and downloaded 6/19/2007 6/19/2007
28164 A: 118 Facilitate Wind River Watershed Council 6/24/2007 6/24/2007
28164 E: 114 Project list updated 6/29/2007 6/29/2007
32464 H: 53 Thin riparian plantations 6/30/2007 6/30/2007
28742 G: 158 Description of tagged animals in Annual report 8/31/2007 8/31/2007
28742 F: 157 Collect biological data from traps and surveys 8/31/2007 8/31/2007
32464 C: 29 Complete instream structures 9/30/2007 9/30/2007
32814 G: 70 PIT tag Interrogation System 10/31/2007 10/31/2007
33559 D: 132 Final report uploaded to the BPA website 12/21/2007 12/21/2007
33559 H: 175 Initial survey, drawings and cost estimate 4/25/2008 4/25/2008
34579 K: 132 Final Annual Report 4/30/2008 4/30/2008
33559 C: 47 Acres planted 5/28/2008 5/28/2008
33559 F: 157 Acres monitored 6/30/2008 6/30/2008
34579 F: 158 Description of tagged animals in BPA Annual report for this contract performance period 8/31/2008 8/31/2008
34579 E: 157 Collect biological data from traps and surveys 8/31/2008 8/31/2008
39493 D: 132 Final report uploaded to the BPA website 9/2/2008 9/2/2008
35991 G: 157 Channel geometry and habitat data 9/30/2008 9/30/2008
35570 J: 158 PIT tag juvenile steelhead and other salmonids in Trout Creek watershed 10/31/2008 10/31/2008
35570 I: 157 Maintain thermograph network in Trout Creek watershed 10/31/2008 10/31/2008
35570 F: 157 Maintain PIT-tag interrogation system in Trout Creek 10/31/2008 10/31/2008
35570 G: 157 Maintain two PIT-tag interrogation system (each with one antenna) in Hemlock Dam ladder 10/31/2008 10/31/2008
41041 F: 132 Final report uploaded to the BPA website 4/15/2009 4/15/2009
41041 D: 47 Cuttings planted in riparian area 5/15/2009 5/15/2009
38921 I: 160 Manage databases 8/31/2009 8/31/2009
38921 G: 158 Description of tagged animals in BPA Annual report for this contract performance period 8/31/2009 8/31/2009
38921 F: 157 Collect biological data from traps and surveys 8/31/2009 8/31/2009
38921 L: 132 Final Annual Report 8/31/2009 8/31/2009
41041 H: 85 Fish passage provided 9/15/2009 9/15/2009
41041 E: 157 Channel geometry and habitat data 9/30/2009 9/30/2009
39493 N: 186 Repair and Maintenance of Two Large Wood Structures 11/27/2009 11/27/2009
41041 I: 174 Channel restoration designs 11/30/2009 11/30/2009
41038 A: 132 Annual report 2007-2008 uploaded to the BPA website 1/30/2010 1/30/2010
41038 I: 157 Maintain thermograph network in Trout Creek watershed 1/31/2010 1/31/2010
39493 C: 47 Acres planted 4/30/2010 4/30/2010
39493 B: 53 Acres of noxious weeds controlled 6/30/2010 6/30/2010
39493 J: 114 Up-to-date Watershed Enhancement Project List 6/30/2010 6/30/2010
39493 G: 157 Acres monitored 6/30/2010 6/30/2010
49229 G: 47 8 Acres planted 11/30/2010 11/30/2010
49229 E: 132 Final report uploaded to the BPA website 1/17/2011 1/17/2011
49229 D: 132 Final report uploaded to the BPA website 1/17/2011 1/17/2011
49229 J: 114 Up-to-date Watershed Enhancement Project List 3/1/2011 3/1/2011
50481 C: 132 Annual report 2009-2010 uploaded to the BPA website 5/17/2011 5/17/2011
49229 F: 53 30 Acres of noxious weeds controlled 6/30/2011 6/30/2011
49229 K: 157 Temperature Data Stored in Water Quality Database 6/30/2011 6/30/2011
49229 H: 175 Complete Engineer/Design work for Little Wind River Habitat Project 6/30/2011 6/30/2011
50481 E: 157 Maintain thermologgers 7/29/2011 7/29/2011
51064 H: 33 Decommission Road 3056 9/30/2011 9/30/2011
51064 J: 184 Removal of four (or more) fish passage barrier culverts 9/30/2011 9/30/2011
53638 E: 53 25 Acres of noxious weeds controlled 10/1/2011 10/1/2011
53638 F: 47 16 Acres planted 4/16/2012 4/16/2012
53638 D: 132 Final report uploaded to the BPA website 4/17/2012 4/17/2012
53638 I: 114 Up-to-date Watershed Enhancement Project List 6/29/2012 6/29/2012
53638 J: 157 Temperature Data Stored in Water Quality Database 6/29/2012 6/29/2012
57840 D: 29 Implement Little Wind River Construction Plans According to Project Drawings & Specifications 9/28/2012 9/28/2012
57840 E: 100 Construction Management Complete 12/21/2012 12/21/2012

View full Project Summary report (lists all Contracted Deliverables and Quantitative Metrics)

Discuss your project's contracted deliverable history (from Pisces). If it has a high number of Red deliverables, please explain. Most projects will not have 100% completion of deliverables since most have at least one active ("Issued") or Pending contract. Also discuss your project's history in terms of providing timely Annual Progress Reports (aka Scientific/Technical reports) and Pisces Status Reports. If you think your contracted deliverable performance has been stellar, you can say that too.
Explanation of Performance: View instructions
USFS performance on completing habitat deliverables is excellent and we have completed all habitat projects we initiated under this project. At times project implementation has been delayed by external appeals to our NEPA documents or other issues related to receiving permits or integrating BPA-funded projects and reports with other ongoing work. WDFW - Currently, we are in our FY2012 contract (9/1/12 to 8/31/13). WDFW has shown a good track record of completing annual deliverables pertaining to adult and juvenile abundance monitoring, completing status reports, and submitting annual reports. We will strive to continue to be timely in completion of deliverables and report submission. USGS - We have strived to provide quality products and relevant science in a timely manner. Since inception of this Wind River project, USGS internal peer and policy review guidelines have become an increasing factor in our ability to provide timely reports. This has resulted in some missed deadlines, but it has certainly strengthened the end products. Two Technical Reports, "Wild Steelhead and Introduced Spring Chinook in the Wind River WA: Overlapping Populations and Interactions, and Condition Factor" (Jesorek and Connolly 2010) and "Bioenergetics Modeling Link Warmer Stream Temperatures below Hemlock Dam to Reduced Physiological Performance of Juvenile Steelhead" (Sauter and Connolly 2010), took a particularly long time to complete because of their data-intensive nature and the intensive USGS peer-review process. These reports have been completed and uploaded despite showing as red under multiple contracts. UCD – Underwood Conservation District pairs with landowners and project partners to implement riparian planting, noxious weed reduction, floodplain reconnection and other on-the-ground habitat projects along identified high-quality streams in the Wind River watershed, mainly on private land. UCD continues striving to improve on performance of BPA deliverables and works closely with COTR to prevent and mitigate tardy performance. The red deliverables shown here reflect a few late status reports and a late funding package submittal. UCD has consistently met its work elements since the inception of this project, and the District will work diligently to improve its reporting performance.

Back To Top

Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact

  • Please do the following to help the ISRP and Council assess project performance:
  • List important activities and then report results.
  • List each objective and summarize accomplishments and results for each one, including the projects previous objectives. If the objectives were not met, were changed, or dropped, please explain why. For research projects, list hypotheses that have been and will be tested.
  • Whenever possible, describe results in terms of the quantifiable biological and physical habitat objectives of the Fish and Wildlife Program, i.e., benefit to fish and wildlife or to the ecosystems that sustain them. Include summary tables and graphs of key metrics showing trends. Summarize and cite (with links when available) your annual reports, peer reviewed papers, and other technical documents. If another project tracks physical habitat or biological information related to your project’s actions please summarize and expand on, as necessary, the results and evaluation conducted under that project that apply to your project, and cite that project briefly here and fully in the Relationships section below. Research or M&E projects that have existed for a significant period should, besides showing accumulated data, also present statistical analyses and conclusions based on those data. Also, summarize the project’s influence on resource management and other economic or social benefits. Expand as needed in the Adaptive Management section below. The ISRP will use this information in its Retrospective Review of prior year results. If your proposal is for continuation of work, your proposal should focus on updating this section. If yours is an umbrella project, click here for additional instructions. Clearly report the impacts of your project, what you have learned, not just what you did.
All Proposals: View instructions
  • For umbrella projects, the following information should also be included in this section:
  • a. Provide a list of project actions to date. Include background information on the recipients of funding, including organization name and mission, project cost, project title, location and short project summary, and implementation timeline.
  • b. Describe how the restoration actions were selected for implementation, the process and criteria used, and their relative rank. Were these the highest priority actions? If not, please explain why?
  • c. Describe the process to document progress toward meeting the program’s objectives in the implementation of the suite of projects to date. Describe this in terms of landscape-level improvements in limiting factors and response of the focal species.
  • d. Where are project results reported (e.g. Pisces, report repository, database)? Is progress toward program objectives tracked in a database, report, indicator, or other format? Can project data be incorporated into regional databases that may be of interest to other projects?
  • e. Who is responsible for the final reporting and data management?
  • f. Describe problems encountered, lessons learned, and any data collected, that will inform adaptive management or influence program priorities.
Umbrella Proposals: View instructions

Introduction

As described elsewhere in this application, the Wind River Watershed project is a combined habitat restoration and RME project involving four separate organizations.  The project includes six objectives, one of which is under the habitat program, the other five are under RME:

 Habitat Objective:

  • Restore Wind River Steelhead (Obj-4)

 RME Objectives:

  • Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) Monitoring (Obj-1)
  • Steelhead life stage survival estimates (Obj-2)
  • Steelhead response to habitat actions—hypothesis testing (Obj-3)
  • CHaMP—Collaborate in development and implementation of a standardized habitat status and trend monitoring program that spans the Columbia Basin (Obj-5)
  • Steelhead parr life-history strategy (Obj-6)

 The RME work under this project has already been through review under the 2011 RME Review process.  We have chosen to include discussion of the RME components in this application to provide context for the entire project.  We have also kept the Objective numbering conventions that we began using in previous solicitations, and thus the only objective under review in this application is the "Restore Wind River Steelhead" objective which is labeled Objective 4 here and elsewhere in the application.

History of the Wind River Watershed Project

In the early 1990’s, the Wind River and Mt Adams Districts of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (USFS) and Underwood Conservation District (UCD) began working together to monitor and improve water quality in the Wind River watershed, and to field test soil bioengineering on small-scale erosion control projects and localized streambank restoration on national forest lands.  At the same time, fisheries biologists from several agencies with a stake in the Wind River—including the USFS, USGS Columbia River Research Lab, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, and US Fish and Wildlife Service—began meetings to discuss the decline in steelhead in the Wind, and to coordinate efforts to better document the returns, to evaluate habitats in the watershed, and to identify critical restoration needs.  These early working relationships led to development of a partnership that has now worked together for over 20 years in the Wind River watershed.

 As this partnership developed through the early 1990’s the group sought funding to help better organize the group, and to complete various tasks including: establishment of one of the first watershed councils in the state to share information amongst agencies and publics regarding aquatic habitats and fish in the Wind River; formation of a technical advisory committee to develop, review and evaluate habitat restoration projects; completing stream surveys, watershed assessments, and fish monitoring by various means; and ultimately completing small scale habitat improvement projects on the national forest.

This blend of research, monitoring, evaluation, on-the-ground restoration, and education-outreach activities proved to be highly effective and resulted in many accomplishments in the Wind River and recognition from organizations outside the watershed.  The ultimate goal of the Wind River Watershed Project remains: To implement fishery management actions and to restore habitat conditions that will facilitate recovery of wild steelhead populations to numbers assuring their persistence and allowing for healthy expression of genetic diversity and life history. 

 The Wind River Watershed Restoration Project has been funded by BPA since 1998, with involvement by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Geological Survey’s Columbia River Research Laboratory, US Forest Service’s Gifford Pinchot National Forest, and Underwood Conservation District.  A description of each component of the project and its major accomplishments are summarized below, beginning with the habitat restoration program.

 Habitat Restoration Process

Habitat restoration in the Wind River watershed is led by the USFS and UCD.  The USFS focuses its restoration efforts on national forest portions of the watershed, which comprise over 90% of the drainage area of the Wind River, and the UCD focuses primarily on private lands.  The two organizations assist one another as needed and collaborate on projects on both federal and private lands.  Habitat work in the Wind River watershed is guided by the Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan (LCFRB 2004), USFS watershed analyses (USFS 1996, USFS 2001), monitoring, and results of on-the-ground surveys of stream habitats, water quality, culvert crossings, fish passage barriers, and riparian areas.

 The two organizations have different processes for identification of projects and completion of work.  Because they work primarily on private lands, the UCD has a much more extensive public involvement process to gain trust and to work with private landowners in identifying needs and proposed solutions for projects on private lands.  Both organizations use a combination of partner and agency biologists and other resource specialists to review and help develop project plans.  We also scope projects with the public and other agencies before moving them to implementation phases. 

 Although we maintain a rough prioritization of projects, our sequencing of work is often opportunistic, and based on taking advantage of efficiencies or economies available at the time.  Funding issues are a primary concern and often drive projects forward or back on a timeline.  Since habitat funds through BPA have been reduced, we have increasingly looked to other sources to help complete our habitat restoration. 

 A recent example of adjusting project sequencing for the purpose of acquiring funds is that in 2010 the USFS had a small dam to remove (Martha Creek—described later in this section), and a road system to decommission (Upper Wind River Roads 3056, and 30-136).  Removal of Martha Creek Dam was the priority between the two projects based on its direct impact to steelhead habitat access in upper Martha Creek.  But because the USFS had an initiative in 2011 that offered funding to road-related projects, we opted to move the road decommission project forward first.  In the end we used a combination of USFS, BPA, and Ecotrust funds to accomplish the decommissioning of the road, which removed four fish passage barrier crossings on Oldman and Youngman Creeks in the upper Wind River watershed.  The benefit of moving the road decommission project forward was that we were able to access USFS funds that otherwise may not have been available had we waited and done the Martha Creek Dam project first. 

 The Need for Habitat Restoration in the Wind River

The Wind River is a Tier I Key Watershed under the Northwest Forest Plan.  Tier I Key Watersheds are the highest priority watersheds on the national forest for restoration.  Over time these areas are intended to function as refugia for anadromous fish and other endemic species.  Over the past two decades, the USFS has followed a whole watershed approach to restoring aquatic conditions and watershed processes in the Wind River in pursuit of that objective.  We have worked in headwaters, on upslope areas, in riparian forest, and in streams and floodplains.  Our restoration work is intended to re-establish habitats that are fully functional, self-sustaining and resilient to disturbance and predicted changes in climate.  Under the whole watershed approach, we have worked closely with Underwood Conservation District to implement habitat projects on both national forest and private lands in the watershed.  It is our belief that this watershed-scale approach will yield a significantly more robust system, and will generate stronger and more reliable fish runs over time, specifically because it increases functionality at all levels in the system.  The BPA-funded Wind River Watershed project has been essential to our moving forward in this effort.

 As a watershed on the western slopes of the Cascade Mountains, the Wind River drainage was once characterized by large expanses of forestland, dominated by Douglas fir and Western red cedar.  Large wood was plentiful in vertical and horizontal orientations throughout the forest .  Riparian forests in particular were dominated by exceptionally large trees, and characterized by a range of conifer and hardwood species, and structural variability.  Trees and woody debris loadings were heavy in stream environments, creating rich diversity in stream hydraulics, channel substrates, pools and undercut banks. 

 The most common and important disturbance processes of the day would have included large scale wildfire, landslides, debris flows and floods, and these events would have been significant to fish and aquatic environments in terms of bringing large pulses of wood, substrate and nutrients to the aquatic system.  Prior to development of the watershed, woody debris contributions to streams would have been episodic with long intervals between events, and the size and quantity of woody material available to streams would have ensured its durability over time.  Steelhead populations in this environment would have been dense, occupying all available habitats, and taking advantage of the richness of the western Cascade systems.

 With increased development in the watershed, aquatic habitats in the Wind River have been altered tremendously.  Uplands, riparian areas, and instream habitats have become increasingly disconnected, and in many cases became isolated from other parts of the system.  Key building blocks of habitat, which once included heavy doses of large trees were also removed and unavailable to restructure the aquatic and riparian environments.  Disturbance processes are more frequent and typically of smaller scale.  Wildfires are quickly extinguished, burnt trees have often been salvage logged before they could fall to the riparian floor or into streams, and hillslopes and riparian areas often lack large trees that would otherwise be available for delivery to streams during slope failures. 

 In addition to the loss of source material, loggers and well-intended biologists in the early and mid-century effectively cleaned streams of wood, leaving many of the best habitats devoid of wood and with no way to replenish.  In addition to the loss of critical habitat building materials, streams have received an increase in finer grained sediments from roads and road system failures, and instream habitats have been made discontinuous by culverts at road crossings, dams or water diversions.  The result is a system that has lost much of its integrity, continuity, diversity and replication of systems.  The habitat supports fish but does not provide the richness and depth to support enough fish, and is not robust enough to endure extended periods of poor climate or other major disturbance. 

 Riparian forests in the Wind River are recovering due to the time elapsed since they were logged, and as a result of current protections.  However, these forests are a fraction as diverse, as robust, and as multi-layered as they once were.  Even as they are providing increased shade, these (primarily planted) stands are often one dimensional, dominated by a single species, and one age class of tree.  The trees that comprise these riparian forests are typically not old or large enough to contribute meaningfully to instream habitats, and because they are young and healthy, there is little mortality, and not many trees fall to the ground or into streams of their own volition.  Although current forest practice rules and land use regulations will do much to protect aquatic environments in the Wind River from future developments, there is a tremendous gap between the condition of today’s streams and riparian areas and the condition of these systems prior to 20th century development. 

 Our objective in restoring habitats in the Wind River is to address the legacy issues on national forest and private lands across the watershed, to re-connect streams and recover habitats we’ve lost over time, to re-establish impaired watershed and riverine processes that are key to creating and maintaining habitats over time, and to temporarily fill the gap in contribution of wood to streams, floodplains and riparian forest floors, until riparian forests are able to perform this essential habitat need.  Our approach is consistent with biological objectives in the FWP and recommendations from ISAB to restore entire systems instead of focusing on single species efforts.  Our project work over the past decade and more establishes that we are making good progress on this effort.  The true measure of our success will not come from fish numbers during good years, but in how well our populations fare through a series of poor years and in the environments we have yet to experience with a changing climate.

 Projects Completed 

The Subbasin Plan identifies a series of habitat measures required to achieve objectives of the Plan.  These include:  restoring floodplain function and channel migration processes, restoring degraded hillslope processes, restoring riparian conditions, restoring degraded water quality, addressing passage issues, restoring channel structure and stability, and creating and restoring side channel habitats (LCFRB 2010 Vol II, pp. 140-149).

 We have made progress on improving these conditions and processes in the past 15 years.  We have designed projects to address each of these measures and to help move the watershed toward a more fully-functional condition.  The habitat restoration program has included a full suite of treatments covering upland, riparian and instream environments.  Typical project types include:

  • Instream Work - Place key pieces of large wood or whole trees in streams and floodplains to increase habitat complexity, diversity, and channel stability, and to restore or create side channel habitat.
  • Riparian Restoration - Plant and thin riparian forests to increase species diversity, increase stream shade, and accelerate development of large trees.
  • Road Decommissioning – Restore hillslope hydrology and stream connectivity by decompacting road surfaces, eliminating road ditches across hillslopes, removing culverts, and reconstructing stream channels at road crossings.
  • Barrier Removal – Restore stream connectivity and fish passage by removing dams, diversions, and undersized culverts.
  • Riparian Weed removal (Scotsbroom) – Remove invasive plants from reforested and other riparian areas, in order to assist trees in becoming established, and to remove non-native competition to native riparian plant communities

Following is a table summarizing major habitat accomplishments in the Wind River over the past several years.  The table identifies the project, metrics associated with the project and the objectives that were addressed by the project.  Over the period of time displayed in this table, the USFS and UCD brought in over $500,000 in funding from other (non-BPA) sources for the project listed.  On the Hemlock Dam project which was done under separate contract, the USFS brought in over $700,000 for that project alone, from other funders including the USFS.

  

Year

Major Habitat Accomplishment

Metrics

 

2005
  • Upper Trout Creek Instream Restoration
  • Engineering & prep for Middle Wind Riparian Enhancement
  • Hemlock Dam Removal prep
  • 1,300 logs placed in 2 miles of stream
  • 17,000 seedlings & live-stakes planted in riparian areas
  • Scotch broom treated on 5 acres
  • FEIS completed for removal of Hemlock Dam

 

2006
  • Upper Trout Creek Riparian Thinning

 

  • Mouse Creek Bridge

 

  • Big Huckleberry Creek Road Decommissioning
  • 250 forest sites in riparian areas thinned to release identified conifers
  • Fish passage improved to Mouse Creek by removal of undersized culverts and installation of 60’ concrete bridge
  • Road decommission removes two culverts from Big Huckleberry Creek, a tributary to Panther Creek.

 

2007
  • Upper Trout Creek Instream Restoration by helicopter

 

  • JBG Bank Stabilization--initial surveying & estimates
  • 1,000 whole trees placed in one river mile of stream by helicopter
  • 35 acres of riparian area/floodplain patch-treated for Scotch broom and Canada thistle

 

2008
  • (Hemlock prep)
  • Riparian landowner planting assistance
  • 12.4 acres treated for various invasive species
  • 11,000 live-stakes and seedlings planted on 6 acres

 

2009
  • (Hemlock Dam Removal)
  • Riparian landowner planting assistance
  • Removed Maidenhair Dam from tributary to Trapper Creek
  • 2,900 seedlings and live-stakes on 14 acres

 

2010
  • (Hemlock Monitoring)

 

  • Prep & design for removing/rebuilding 3 fish-passage barriers culverts on Whiskey and Cannavina Creeks

 

  • Landowner invasive species management assistance
  • 15 acres of invasive species newly treated; 15 more acres re-treated
  • 900 seedlings planted

 

2011
  • Upper Wind Road Decommission

 

  • Little Wind River Habitat Restoration: preparation
  • Decommission 3 miles of road
  • Remove 4 fish passage barrier culverts on Oldman and Youngman Creeks

 

 

2012
  • Little Wind River Habitat Restoration: construction & riparian planting

 

  • Martha Creek Dam Removal
  • Rehabilitated 900 linear feet of historically productive stream, with pools, riffles, engineered log jams, and planted 300 native conifers and shrubs.
  • Removed concrete dam (7’ x 40’) from Martha Creek using explosives

 

Recent Project Examples 

Below are before and after photos of three recent projects that are representative of the project types we do.  The first is an instream project on the Little Wind River, the second is a road decommission in the Upper Wind RIver watershed, and the third is removal of Martha Creek Dam, on a tributary to Trout Creek.

Instream example

LWR-photo-presentation-feb2013_Page_1

LWR-photo-presentation-feb2013_Page_2

Road Decommission Example:

 Upper Wind Road Decom Photos_Page_1

Upper Wind Road Decom Photos_Page_2 

Upper Wind Road Decom Photos_Page_3

 Small dam removal example:

Martha Creek Dam Photos_Page_01

 

Martha Creek Dam Photos_Page_07

    Education: A varied education and outreach program has been conducted throughout this project.  UCD, USFS, and USGS staff have established stream monitoring programs in Skamania County elementary, middle, and high schools that have involved water quality sampling, smolt trapping, and monitoring of in-stream structures.  Several of these programs have also involved public presentations by school groups in public forums, such as the Wind River Watershed Council.  Some of these educational efforts, such as the Wind River Middle School Outdoor Education class and Kanaka Creek volunteer activity, are continuing today.  Adult education has been fostered via a number of programs sponsored by the Wind River Watershed Council, Project Learning Tree workshops for teachers, and UCD-sponsored plant identification workshops.  Cooperating agencies have also provided technical assistance to landowners, annually staffed a booth at the Skamania County Fair, and have given professional presentations at numerous meetings and symposia.

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation (from 2010 RME Categorical review): The first influx of BPA funds for FY1998 allowed launching of an intensive monitoring program for fish populations in the Wind River that has persisted to present.  Trapping, snorkeling, and tagging efforts focused on steelhead helped us gain precise estimates of emigrating smolts and returning adults (Rawding et al. 2009).  Snorkeling, electrofishing, and PIT tagging efforts were expended to gain information on fish assemblage, distribution, density, and life history of juvenile steelhead populations throughout the watershed, covering all major third order and smaller tributaries accessible to anadromous fish (Connolly et al. 2007, Rawding et al. 2009).  Most tributaries of the Wind River and upper reaches of the mainstem were habitat surveyed by geomorphic reaches between 1998 and 2004.    

With matching funds from the USFWS for FY2004-2006, we examined potential interactions between native steelhead and introduced hatchery spring Chinook salmon, which can spawn in the vicinity of the Carson National Fish Hatchery (CNFH) and the upper portions of the mainstem Wind River (Jezorek and Connolly 2010).  This research found no indication that the presence of a limited number of spring Chinook salmon spawners and juveniles in the upper Wind River were influencing steelhead populations.  In many years, summer low flow limited the extent to which Chinook salmon adults could move upstream of CNFH.  This information has been useful to managers at USFWS, who operate CNFH, and may aid management in other basins with potential competition and overlap between wild and hatchery salmonid stocks. 

As funds became available to remove Hemlock Dam from Trout Creek, our team adaptively shifted to specific studies to understand the potential fish response to this large restoration project (Sauter and Connolly 2010).  Because the removal of Hemlock Dam meant loss of the adult steelhead trap in Hemlock Ladder, in 2007 we installed a large instream PIT tag detection system (PTIS) in Trout Creek just upstream of Hemlock Lake.  The PTIS has been in operation since and has provided data on both upstream migrating adult steelhead and downstream migrating juveniles.

These efforts have resulted in a long-term database that represents a major asset to management and science.  We continue to link habitat characteristics and climate factors to annual variation in these fish populations.

Our assessment of the Wind River has evolved over the length of the project in a synergistic and adaptive manner.  Our findings  are included in numerous annual reports (e.g., Connolly et al. 2007, Rawding et al. 2009), and have been incorporated into numerous assessments of the Wind River watershed: WRIA 29 Limiting Factors Analysis (WCC 1999), Wind River Watershed Analysis (USFS 1996a, 2001), the Wind River Subbasin Summary (Rawding 2000), an Ecosystem Diagnostics and Treatment (EDT) modeling effort (Rawding et al. 2004) for the Wind River Subbasin Plan (LCFRB 2004b), and a nutrient assessment study (Mesa et al. 2006).  In addition, Connolly and Petersen’s (2003) study of over-wintering of young-of-year steelhead showed how stream temperature and food availability interplay to promote various levels of growth and survival.  We have been successful at conducting a subbasin-level evaluation and using adaptive management techniques to revisit and revise past assessments in light of new data and to apply new knowledge for identification and re-ranking of project proposals.

 A major finding in our work with steelhead parr and smolts is the importance of the mainstem Wind River (downstream of rkm 30) to total smolt production.  Results from smolt trapping suggest that up to 70% of all smolts produced rear in the mainstem Wind River, downstream of natal spawning areas.  A major data gap identified from this work is lack of understanding of the dynamics of this expressed connectivity.  With use of recently available PIT tag technology, and our expert team of practitioners (Connolly et al. 2005, 2008; Connolly 2010), we have demonstrated the ability to track individual fish movements to understand relationships between stream productivity, populations, fish growth, and age at smolting. 

A large network of continuous water temperature recorders, up to 40 units total during any one year, has been installed by UCD, USFS and USGS throughout the Wind River watershed during the life of the project.  Multiple daily readings track the seasonal changes and extremes in the streams.  Temperature data gathered have been shared with WDOE, and used in preparing their TMDL plan for the watershed (WDOE 2004), and these data have also been incorporated into the Wind River Subbasin Summary (Rawding 2000), USFS’s Wind River Watershed Analysis (2001), and an EDT analysis (Rawding et al. 2004).

We re-instrumented and operated an abandoned USGS stream gage near Shipherd Falls on of the Wind River.  This site has a data logger and modem allowing recording of river stage and realtime data access via telephone.  Data from this site have been invaluable for managing smolt traps in the Wind River and tributaries, for planning and designing restoration projects, and for monitoring and interpretation of other data.

 Tributaries and upper mainstem reaches in the Wind River subbasin were habitat surveyed by geomorphic reach for such habitat parameters as amount of large woody debris, stream shade, pool frequency, stream width, available spawning gravel, gradient, and riparian vegetation (Connolly 2003; Connolly and Jezorek 2006).  These data were collected between 1998 and 2004 and provide a baseline of conditions prior to much active and passive restoration within the basin.

Baseline water quality data was gathered from 10 stations filling data gaps primarily on private land areas of the watershed in 1999 and 2000.  Four quarterly rounds were completed and one flush-flow round.  Parameters tested include dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, fecal and total coliform, turbidity, pH & conductivity.  Preliminary results indicated that overall the water in the Wind River was fairly clean, low in nutrients, and within standards on other parameters.  In 2002 and 2003, additional water chemistry data were gathered in Trout Creek, where preliminary results from the 1999 and 2000 sampling indicated the possibility of low pH.  Since low pH is potentially associated with the fish parasite Heterapolaria lwoffi, found infesting O. mykiss in Trout Creek (Connolly 1997), follow-up sampling was initiated.  A total of 130 samples were collected during 30 rounds of sampling, with no indication of low pH.  Information was shared with the Washington Department of Ecology.

Table 1.  Wind River Project Accomplishments for Research, Evaluation, and Monitoring, through 2010.

 

   Smolt traps operated

3/yr (1995-1997)

4/yr (1998-2010)

   No. wild steelhead smolts PIT tagged

~2,000 annually 2003-2010

   No. wild steelhead parr PIT tagged

~1,000 annually 2003-2006

   Smolt population estimates

Annually for three sub-populations (Upper Wind River, Trout Creek, and Panther Creek), and entire Wind Subbasin, 1998-2010.

   Adult traps operated

1/yr: 1992-1998; 2010

2/yr: 1999 – 2009

   Stream kms snorkel surveyed—adult fish counts

~27 km annually 1988-2010

~109 km annually 1999-2010

   Adult abundance estimates

Annually for Trout Creek and entire Wind Subbasin, 1998-2010.

   Stream kms reach habitat surveyed

65 from 1998 – 2004.

Back To Top

Past Council Recommendations and ISRP Reviews


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-NPCC-20230310
Project: 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to address condition #1 (objectives), #2 (project monitoring), #3 (RME questions), and #6 (VSP parameters) in project documentation, and to consider other conditions and address if appropriate. See Policy Issue I.a.


[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-ISRP-20230308
Project: 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: 3/14/2023
Final Round ISRP Date: 2/10/2022
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This exemplary proposal is well organized, informative, and includes numerous useful maps and tables. More importantly, it has many years of solid accomplishments and continues to be an excellent example of a fully cooperative, landscape-scale project for protection and restoration of aquatic habitat. It is being implemented in coordination with a sophisticated program for the monitoring and evaluation of abundance and trends of steelhead populations. The proposal reflects a strong partnership between the four primary agencies (U.S. Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Geological Survey’s Columbia River Research Laboratory, and Underwood Conservation District) and a range of landowners and other partners. The project selection process is clear and involves one process on public lands and another separate process for private lands. Also, the proponents’ continuing efforts to understand effects of habitat work on steelhead are to be complimented; such close coordination between restoration practitioners and researchers is not a typical feature of many other projects that the ISRP has reviewed.

The ISRP also emphasizes the importance and positive contributions of active public outreach in this project (and other projects) as being critical to success. This is a component that warrants specific and continued support into the future.

In future annual reports and work plans, the proponents should address the following Conditions:

  1. SMART objectives. The proponents should incorporate a more complete set of implementation and outcome objectives that meet SMART criteria (see proposal instructions) for the five-year funding period. These should include biological objectives for the watershed and also Trout Creek, site of the Hemlock Dam removal project. Objectives for habitat restoration and protection could be developed for one or two example projects and used as a template for other projects.
  2. Project monitoring. The proponents should describe proposed activities and associated objectives for project scale monitoring and evaluation, project maintenance, and public outreach and coordination.
  3. Specific RME questions. The list of RME questions/hypotheses should be re-written to focus specifically on the Wind River. Currently, these are presented as a fairly generic list of questions. It was also unclear if the proponents were attempting to answer all questions or only some.
  4. Estimation of habitat capacity. Smolt habitat capacity is estimated at 24,000 to 35,000 based on spawner-smolt recruit analysis, and smolt abundance estimates have ranged up to 43,000. It may be possible that the watershed is close to capacity. The proponents should indicate how often capacity is estimated and how close it may be to full smolt capacity.
  5. Future stream temperature. Given that the overall goal of the project is to restore watershed processes and habitats to ensure resiliency into the future, it would be helpful to clarify whether or not habitat improvement projects are being designed and implemented to minimize future increases in stream temperature likely to occur with ongoing climate change. Also, it would be useful to clarify whether or not methods may be changing in response to changing climate.
  6. VSP parameters. Provide a list or table of the VSP parameters that are being estimated, the monitoring that contributes to them, and the analysis that contributes to them.
  7. Implementation and funding. Consider improving Appendix A by describing the sequencing of implementation of future actions and specifically describing who will fund each project component. It is not clear which projects require matching funds and if those funds have been secured.
  8. Priority protection and restoration actions. Although accomplishments to date are impressive, it would be useful to see a discussion of the remaining priority protection and restoration actions in the watershed (besides those projects listed in Appendix A) and a general timeline for completion.
  9. Synthesis report. Given the long-term nature of this project, the proponents should develop a synthesis report of what has been accomplished to date. This synthesis should be completed within the next five years before the next project review. This report should not only describe progress to date but should answer the question as to how close the watershed may be to capacity. Also, the report should tackle the question of whether or not there may be an end point to restoration work in this watershed and how far proponents may be in terms of efforts for overall restoration of the watershed. (For example, high priority passage and road work seem to have been mostly accomplished.)
  10. Restoration strategy. Moving forward, it may also be appropriate to develop a unified Wind River restoration strategy that combines the best elements of the two current strategies, one for privately owned land and the other for public land. This would likely serve to improve consistency in project prioritization and selection and in providing better definition on long-term direction and needs for the program

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

This proposal describes a “collaborative restoration and research effort directed toward wild steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in the Wind River.” It presents the major issues affecting steelhead production in the Wind River and describes a process-based, whole watershed approach to protection and restoration of aquatic habitat. It also includes description of a robust RME program, involving the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), and it is an intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW). Restoration work for the project is split between the Underwood Conservation District (UCD) to address issues on private lands and the U.S. Forest Service to address issues on National Forest lands. This work is guided by two different plans, the LCFRB Wind River Habitat Restoration Strategy for the UCD and a restoration action plan tied to watershed assessment and watershed condition framework for the Forest Service. It would be useful if these two guiding documents were combined to provide an overarching strategic framework to guide restoration in the entire watershed. At a minimum this could serve to better align activities and priority setting as much as possible.

Various efforts are described ranging from road decommissioning and treatment of invasive weeds to fish passage improvement, riparian thinning, and instream and floodplain restoration work. Planned activities for the 2023-2027 time period are included in Appendix A of the proposal and provide solid detail on the project type and planned accomplishments. Objectives for various protection and restoration activities are very broad and qualitative. They do not include quantitative measures for implementation or effectiveness. A series of metrics are provided for measuring accomplishments but lack associated quantities or methods for measurement. An example is the objective for improving stream habitat complexity with a performance indicator of miles of stream protected or improved. The proposal notes, “Each habitat project involves specific habitat objectives, typically involving the physical habitat attributes and outcomes that can be measured before and after project implementation. These are built for each project, based on broader habitat objectives outlined in Section 2 on Goals and Objectives.” No examples of project specific objectives are provided.

Given the long history of steelhead monitoring in the Wind River, it appears that there is a major opportunity to establish a range of restoration outcome objectives addressing a number of metrics for steelhead populations. These could include expected increases in adult and smolt abundance, smolt-to-adult survival, smolts per spawner, etc. No objectives for restoration outcomes are found in the proposal.

The RME program is impressive in its scope and use of innovative tools for biological monitoring and assessment. It includes four major goals and a lengthy series of objectives, which are actually a long list of monitoring questions. While the four goals before the hypotheses were useful, the list of hypotheses seems too general and appears to have been taken from another document. For example, the proponents list collecting data for the major population group (MPG). Steelhead in the Wind River are part of the MPG, so the ISRP is not sure what this question pertains too. All these hypotheses could use some editing and should be made explicit to the Wind River.

In the section on Progress History, the proponents explain that one of their former achievements was to assess effects of spawning non-native Chinook salmon from the hatchery on naturally produced fish. While no detrimental effects were detected when the study was conducted, that was more than 10 years ago, and conditions in the system are likely changing with changes in climate. It could be worth revisiting this question going forward.

It would also be helpful to have additional detail on the relationship to the YKFP Southern Territories Project (199705600) as that project is developed. The Yakama Nation project proposes to pursue work in the Wind River in addition to that which is currently being conducted as part of this project.

Q2: Methods

The proposal includes a detailed description of methods for restoration project development and implementation for each of the major implementers (UCD and USFS). Also included are discussions regarding methods for reviewing project performance and effectiveness. However, the proposal does not include activities/methods for project scale monitoring/evaluation. Although no objectives were provided, the proposal does include a detailed discussion of methods used for public outreach and information sharing. Links to some very professional videos explaining restoration activities for the project are also provided.

For the RME component of the proposal, a detailed series of references for methods are provided. There is also information provided regarding methods for coordination and information sharing between RME and restoration components of the project.

Proponents provide a clear presentation on how they picked projects. Approaches differed from private lands (accomplished by UCD) vs. public lands (accomplished by USFS). The UCD completed an assessment of protection and restoration needs/opportunities on private lands to identify what needed to be accomplished. The USFS developed an overall protection and restoration plan based on watershed analyses and other assessments (fish passage, road condition, habitat surveys, etc.).

Proponents also included a rich discussion of methods they are using to do RM&E. These include description of a monitoring set up using PIT tags and surveys of various kinds. They are not just sampling the end points but have PIT tag arrays in mid portions of some of their tributaries to look at what the parr are doing and where they are going.

Given the importance of increasing summer water temperature to steelhead and the strong likelihood for temperature increases linked to climate change, it is not clear if the habitat improvement projects are being designed or evaluated for potential effects to offset future temperature increases. Certainly, effects are implied (i.e., more shading from riparian trees), but it seems fairly important to be able to better document likely benefits for various restoration actions on stream temperature.

In the Methods section, the proponents emphasize the importance of working with landowners to gain trust, yet they identify reduced funding for conducting outreach and education as a confounding factor. Given the importance of this watershed to steelhead and increasing needs for strong public support and involvement, outreach could be even more important going forward. The proponents should be commended for the outreach efforts that they have conducted, including the video on habitat enhancement.

The proponents provide a list of planned habitat projects in Appendix A that is particularly helpful. However, the proponents indicate that funding for the projects will require matching sources, besides anticipated funds from BPA. Because of this, it is not clear how likely it is that any of these projects will occur, particularly those that are more complicated and/or expensive. It would be useful to indicate in the text or the table itself which (if any) projects are fully funded and which will require matching funds. It is also not clear if anything (besides proposed timing of the project work) might indicate higher vs. lower priority projects. That would be good to include, as would an indication of which organizations will be partnering on the efforts.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Primary monitoring for the restoration program appears to be limited to project implementation. There is no detailed discussion of how this is accomplished. Due to funding limitations, there does not appear to be any consistent effectiveness monitoring/evaluation for restoration projects, though it is stated that project specific habitat objectives are tracked to determine the general effectiveness of the restoration work. If there is a core program for monitoring project outcomes and general effectiveness, it is not apparent. If these activities are occurring, they should be described.

Some information is provided regarding general fish response to the Hemlock Dam removal project. The ISRP notes that data to date suggest that, relative to the rest of the subbasin, smolt and adult populations in Trout Creek may have benefited from the removal of Hemlock Dam. It also is noted, however, that statistically significant conclusions will likely require many more years of monitoring. A good deal of information provided describes ongoing and consistent review and critique of all aspects of the program. This includes a range of partners as well as the personnel from the RME program. Also included in the proposal are a number of specific examples of using lessons learned to make management adjustments to a wide range of activities and procedures.

For the RME program, numerous key monitoring questions are provided and there is some discussion of results. One potential outcome of the program is the ongoing development of a life cycle model.

The ISRP compliments the proponents for trying to link habitat actions with fish responses. They seem to have a robust monitoring program organized around four broad goals — determining VSP, responses to habitat actions, contribution of the parr life history strategy, and life cycle modeling. It is not clear what pieces of the work they describe are supported by this project. Proponents adapt effectively to new funding opportunities and changes in land ownership, and they coordinate their activities well.

Helpful context provided for how methods have been changed over time in response to lessons learned. However, at the beginning of the goals and objectives section, the proponents indicate that the overall goal of the project is “to restore self-sustaining watershed processes and habitats to the extent that this watershed will be a steelhead stronghold into the future, will be resilient to future climate change and other major disturbances, and will anchor recovery and delisting of steelhead in the Gorge province.” This prompts the question of whether or not various new approaches or adjustments to current restoration methods are being changed in response to changing climate, and if so, how exactly? More information on this issue is needed and would be helpful.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

This is an excellent effort overall. Based on some of the monitoring results, the proponents are getting positive results based on monitoring of fish response. The Wind supports a wild steelhead population, and while it has some habitat issues, much of the watershed is in the southern end of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (90%) and land use impacts are primarily related to forest practices. Currently management direction for watersheds and associated riparian and aquatic habitat are guided by the Gifford Pinchot NF Forest Plan. An extensive description of a strategy for the protection and restoration of aquatic habitat is provided in the Forest Plan. The VSP monitoring helps to provide a reference point for Lower Columbia River steelhead.

The overall project has completed an impressive range of projects throughout the watershed. An initial priority has been to restore fish passage throughout the Wind River. It is noted that elevated, summer water temperatures occur in much of the mainstem but not in upper tributaries where access to many areas has been blocked, especially for juvenile steelhead, by primarily dams and culverts. Perhaps the most impressive passage project to date is the removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek. This was a very complicated and expensive project that fully removed a large, depression era dam originally intended to provide water to a nearby CCC complex. A very informative video was produced describing the project. Also, monitoring of before and after smolt production is ongoing for the project.

There has also been a good deal of progress in the restoration of riparian and aquatic habitat on private land, involving a variety of landowners and industrial timber companies. This work requires extensive interaction with landowners both before and after completion of project work. Accomplishments to date are impressive. However, it would be useful to see a discussion of the remaining high priority protection and restoration work that remains in the watershed, given that work began in 1998, and funding to support needed work is limited.

RME accomplishments also are impressive with several examples of the development of innovative tools and approaches. There has been excellent coordination between the RME and habitat restoration programs that has been mutually beneficial. Completion of a life cycle model, currently in development, will be a major accomplishment.
Documentation Links:
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1998-019-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018: See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1998-019-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This is a scientifically justified proposal. The ISRP suggests that the project sponsors dedicate some additional effort to evaluate fish and habitat response to some of the restoration methods being employed in the watershed. An improved understanding of the canyon life history also would be useful. The project sponsors should continue to pursue funding to address these issues.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Overall, the project significance and problem statements were well written and persuasive. The relationship between this project and regional restoration programs was explained in detail. This project appears to be well-aligned with regional priorities. The steelhead in the Wind River represent a key population for recovery of the ESU. And the Wind River watershed, by virtue of federal ownership, is unlikely to be impacted by significant changes in land use. Therefore, this site represents a great opportunity to establish a healthy watershed that can serve as an anchor for the restoration of steelhead in this area of the Columbia Basin.

The technical background provided in the proposal was brief, but links to other documents provided sufficient detail to illustrate that the approach being used to identify restoration projects and to monitor habitat and fish populations in the study area are scientifically sound. Additional summary data of steelhead abundance over time in the Wind River in the body of the proposal would have provided useful context. The land use and dam construction section was very helpful. The objectives section summarized the biological and habitat monitoring aspects of the project but did not address the habitat restoration actions. It would have been helpful to summarize the major restoration projects being carried out with partners, especially the Forest Service.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The proposal provides a thorough review of project history and accomplishments. A summary of results to date was provided in the proposal. Results of research and monitoring projects that have been associated with this project also are provided through links to reports and publications. This project has an excellent history of cost-sharing. The restoration work itself has included a wide variety of activities ranging from barrier removal to riparian re-vegetation to instream structure placement. The major restoration project has been the removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek and another small dam on Martha Creek. The table and photos showing major habitat accomplishments by year was very informative.

The section on adaptive management was generally well done and included information about how learning has taken place in both the restoration and biological monitoring aspects of the study. Restoration project selection is still largely based on an EDT assessment and a Forest Service Watershed Analysis that were conducted almost ten years ago. At some point it would be valuable to use the monitoring results generated after these initial assessments to update and revise the analyses.

The project sponsors are encouraged to publish results in peer reviewed journals.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

This project appears to be well aligned with other efforts on habitat restoration and fish and habitat research in the Columbia Basin. Some of this coordination is a product of interaction of the project participants with scientists involved in the ISEMP, CHaMP and PNAMP processes. These relationships help to ensure a high level of data compatibility between this project and monitoring efforts elsewhere in the Columbia Basin. This project further benefits from the collaboration among multiple management/research organizations including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The biological monitoring in this project far exceeds most of the other habitat-focused projects funded by BPA, and the ISRP continues to applaud project sponsors for their efforts. Investigators have learned much about steelhead life history in the Wind River, and their discovery of two rearing strategies, the headwater tributary and lower mainstem or canyon rearing, have allowed them to design monitoring systems to evaluate the significance of both strategies and the role of habitat restoration in recovering the overall population. The PIT-tag detection network in Wind River tributaries is among the most complete in the Columbia River Basin.

There is a very good process in place to assess adult fish returning to the system, parr abundance and movement, and smolt production. Given the significance of the canyon life-history strategy for steelhead, additional research on the canyon life history would be appropriate. The addition of a CHaMP habitat monitoring program to the Wind River will provide a very good indication of habitat status and trends in condition overall. The Hemlock and Martha Creek dam removals represent an excellent opportunity to study small dam removals as a model of addressing an obvious limiting factor, and it appears that project sponsors are monitoring the outcomes as best they can with available resources. We are encouraged that the Hemlock Dam removal project is receiving biological effectiveness monitoring.

The project sponsors provide a very clear explanation of why they feel that PIT tags are the most appropriate technology to use in answering the questions to be addressed through this project. The PIT-tagging network allows project sponsors to track adult and juvenile steelhead movements to and from Wind River tributaries.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables were adequately identified for the steelhead life history studies and steelhead response to restoration. The proposal did an excellent job of explaining or providing links to the biological response metrics and methods that would be used to track fish movements. Because this project is well integrated with ISEMP and CHaMP (although it is not an IMW), the biological and habitat monitoring work elements are generally on solid scientific ground. There does, however, appear to be a lack of project-effectiveness monitoring. There is a very good process in place to assess adult fish returning to the system, parr abundance and movement and smolt production. The addition of a CHaMP habitat monitoring program to the Wind River will provide a very good indication of habitat status and trends in condition overall. But there is very little mention in the proposal about efforts to evaluate habitat or fish response to many of the restoration projects that have been completed, with the exception of the assessment of the effect of the removal of Hemlock Dam. Some additional evaluation of the effectiveness of the less-dramatic restoration treatments would be useful for refining the process for prioritizing projects in the future.

About 25% of the funding requested by this proposal will be used to implement restoration treatments. Details about proposed habitat restoration actions were not as complete as were details about life history and habitat monitoring. Some discussion of how far along the program of restoration is in the Wind River drainage would have been useful. Project sponsors explain that it takes several years to plan and execute a restoration activity, and specific project locations are often opportunistic. The proposal does, however, provide reasonable detail about the general types of restoration efforts that are taking place. Nevertheless, a little more information about what restoration work is critical and what efforts are "in the pipe" would have been helpful.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This proposal does an excellent job of linking the monitoring methods to existing protocols and techniques as described in MonitoringMethods.org.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

This is a scientifically justified proposal. The ISRP suggests that the project sponsors dedicate some additional effort to evaluate fish and habitat response to some of the restoration methods being employed in the watershed. An improved understanding of the canyon life history also would be useful. The project sponsors should continue to pursue funding to address these issues.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Overall, the project significance and problem statements were well written and persuasive. The relationship between this project and regional restoration programs was explained in detail. This project appears to be well-aligned with regional priorities. The steelhead in the Wind River represent a key population for recovery of the ESU. And the Wind River watershed, by virtue of federal ownership, is unlikely to be impacted by significant changes in land use. Therefore, this site represents a great opportunity to establish a healthy watershed that can serve as an anchor for the restoration of steelhead in this area of the Columbia Basin.

The technical background provided in the proposal was brief, but links to other documents provided sufficient detail to illustrate that the approach being used to identify restoration projects and to monitor habitat and fish populations in the study area are scientifically sound. Additional summary data of steelhead abundance over time in the Wind River in the body of the proposal would have provided useful context. The land use and dam construction section was very helpful. The objectives section summarized the biological and habitat monitoring aspects of the project but did not address the habitat restoration actions. It would have been helpful to summarize the major restoration projects being carried out with partners, especially the Forest Service.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The proposal provides a thorough review of project history and accomplishments. A summary of results to date was provided in the proposal. Results of research and monitoring projects that have been associated with this project also are provided through links to reports and publications. This project has an excellent history of cost-sharing. The restoration work itself has included a wide variety of activities ranging from barrier removal to riparian re-vegetation to instream structure placement. The major restoration project has been the removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek and another small dam on Martha Creek. The table and photos showing major habitat accomplishments by year was very informative.

The section on adaptive management was generally well done and included information about how learning has taken place in both the restoration and biological monitoring aspects of the study. Restoration project selection is still largely based on an EDT assessment and a Forest Service Watershed Analysis that were conducted almost ten years ago. At some point it would be valuable to use the monitoring results generated after these initial assessments to update and revise the analyses.

The project sponsors are encouraged to publish results in peer reviewed journals.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

This project appears to be well aligned with other efforts on habitat restoration and fish and habitat research in the Columbia Basin. Some of this coordination is a product of interaction of the project participants with scientists involved in the ISEMP, CHaMP and PNAMP processes. These relationships help to ensure a high level of data compatibility between this project and monitoring efforts elsewhere in the Columbia Basin. This project further benefits from the collaboration among multiple management/research organizations including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The biological monitoring in this project far exceeds most of the other habitat-focused projects funded by BPA, and the ISRP continues to applaud project sponsors for their efforts. Investigators have learned much about steelhead life history in the Wind River, and their discovery of two rearing strategies, the headwater tributary and lower mainstem or canyon rearing, have allowed them to design monitoring systems to evaluate the significance of both strategies and the role of habitat restoration in recovering the overall population. The PIT-tag detection network in Wind River tributaries is among the most complete in the Columbia River Basin.

There is a very good process in place to assess adult fish returning to the system, parr abundance and movement, and smolt production. Given the significance of the canyon life-history strategy for steelhead, additional research on the canyon life history would be appropriate. The addition of a CHaMP habitat monitoring program to the Wind River will provide a very good indication of habitat status and trends in condition overall. The Hemlock and Martha Creek dam removals represent an excellent opportunity to study small dam removals as a model of addressing an obvious limiting factor, and it appears that project sponsors are monitoring the outcomes as best they can with available resources. We are encouraged that the Hemlock Dam removal project is receiving biological effectiveness monitoring.

The project sponsors provide a very clear explanation of why they feel that PIT tags are the most appropriate technology to use in answering the questions to be addressed through this project. The PIT-tagging network allows project sponsors to track adult and juvenile steelhead movements to and from Wind River tributaries.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables were adequately identified for the steelhead life history studies and steelhead response to restoration. The proposal did an excellent job of explaining or providing links to the biological response metrics and methods that would be used to track fish movements. Because this project is well integrated with ISEMP and CHaMP (although it is not an IMW), the biological and habitat monitoring work elements are generally on solid scientific ground. There does, however, appear to be a lack of project-effectiveness monitoring. There is a very good process in place to assess adult fish returning to the system, parr abundance and movement and smolt production. The addition of a CHaMP habitat monitoring program to the Wind River will provide a very good indication of habitat status and trends in condition overall. But there is very little mention in the proposal about efforts to evaluate habitat or fish response to many of the restoration projects that have been completed, with the exception of the assessment of the effect of the removal of Hemlock Dam. Some additional evaluation of the effectiveness of the less-dramatic restoration treatments would be useful for refining the process for prioritizing projects in the future.

About 25% of the funding requested by this proposal will be used to implement restoration treatments. Details about proposed habitat restoration actions were not as complete as were details about life history and habitat monitoring. Some discussion of how far along the program of restoration is in the Wind River drainage would have been useful. Project sponsors explain that it takes several years to plan and execute a restoration activity, and specific project locations are often opportunistic. The proposal does, however, provide reasonable detail about the general types of restoration efforts that are taking place. Nevertheless, a little more information about what restoration work is critical and what efforts are "in the pipe" would have been helpful.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This proposal does an excellent job of linking the monitoring methods to existing protocols and techniques as described in MonitoringMethods.org.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 11:42:16 AM.
Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-NPCC-20110106
Project: 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-1998-019-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: See Programmatic issue #2.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #2 Habitat effectiveness monitoring and evaluation—.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1998-019-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This was a well-written proposal for work that will increase our understanding of how a naturally spawning steelhead population without hatchery augmentation will respond to habitat restoration in the Columbia Gorge province. Of particular significance is the examination of steelhead response to the removal of a dam that previously hindered (nearly blocked) access to one of the most potentially productive steelhead spawning tributaries in the Wind River. The ISRP provides some comments to improve the project but does not request a response. We acknowledge that small steelhead populations in Trout and Panther Creeks result in high annual variability that makes it hard to detect fish response to habitat restoration.

1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The proposal adequately describes the significance of the project to regional programs. It correctly points out that the Wind River steelhead population is worthy of study because it represents one of the few populations in the Columbia Gorge province that is supported almost entirely by natural production, and because it has been declared a “steelhead sanctuary” from in-river harvest in most years.

The description of Objective 4 would benefit from more explanation about the kinds and locations of habitat restoration projects. This is important because this objective commands the largest portion of the project’s budget. We realize that the Hemlock Dam removal effort and subsequent monitoring of the occupation of Trout Creek by steelhead constitute the majority of research attention, and rightly so. Still, other habitat restoration actions are taking place in the Wind River and it would be helpful to describe them in greater detail. The details should include location and potential stream area or length affected. It might be useful to present a pie chart or table showing the allocation of funds to different work elements. Again, we realize that the Hemlock Dam removal study will be the largest single item, but expenditures and details on other types of habitat restoration monitoring would be helpful.

Under Objective 6, it was not completely clear what studies will be carried out on juvenile steelhead using the “mainstem rearing” life history strategy, which previous work has shown to be an important adaptation by Wind River steelhead. The PIT tagging effort to monitor juvenile movements was adequately described and worthwhile, but more might be done to establish habitat usage by juveniles in the Wind River mainstem? It appeared that snorkeling surveys were targeting adult steelhead, but locations of steelhead juveniles relative to channel or cover features could be used to determine restoration priorities in the mainstem, if any are needed.

The presence of brook trout in the upper reaches of many Wind River tributaries (including Trout Creek above the Hemlock Dam site) provides an opportunity to study interactions between juvenile steelhead, a native species, and brook trout, a non-native species.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

This has been one of the more comprehensive habitat restoration projects in the Columbia River Basin. It has benefited from two factors that have reduced potential complexity that tend to confound projects carried out at the scale of a whole tributary system: (1) the naturally spawning species is steelhead (the only anadromous salmonid capable of ascending Shipherd Falls), which is not augmented by hatchery production, and (2) most of the ownership in the subbasin is federal (US Forest Service). This has led to a generally uniform set of habitat protection and restoration standards. Project proponents have done a good job describing their results and accomplishments, and they appear to have modified and added to some of their sampling methods over the years, especially the PIT-tag studies.

In terms of applying scientific findings to management actions the proposal was a little less clear. In addition to improving fish passage in the Wind River (Shipherd Falls fish ladder, Hemlock Dam removal), there have been numerous wood placement projects on streams in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The proposal could have provided more detail about what has been done to monitor the effectiveness of these projects, and any changes that been made as a result of effectiveness monitoring.

The removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek is a centerpiece of this proposal. It would have been helpful to have provided more details about how sediment movement post-dam removal has been monitored and how the Trout Creek channel has been re-engineered in the former reservoir area.

The Wind River effectiveness monitoring effort provides an excellent case study for other restoration projects in the Columbia Gorge, and results from the Wind should be transferrable to other streams in the province where estimates of VSP parameters are not feasible or too costly. A limitation may be the relatively small size of the steelhead population, but that is a trade-off, and so far has not been an issue. A potential complication is the existence of the “mainstem rearing” life-history strategy, which apparently has not been widely documented in steelhead inhabiting other tributaries in the area.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The Wind River habitat restoration and monitoring programs appear to be well coordinated. A solid working relationship has been established between the USGS Western Research Center at Cook, the Underwood Conservation District, WDFW, and the Forest Service. Each of these organizations will play a major role in this project. Due in part to the somewhat simplified land ownership pattern in the Wind River subbasin, coordination among various management entities has been better than average.

Limiting factors have been examined multiple times in the past and have been modeled using EDT, and it is to the project proponent’s credit that they are willing to periodically reassess their limiting factor assumptions. The addition of the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) monitoring protocols is a potential benefit, but some caution should be applied when carrying out measurements that are not particularly relevant to the project’s objectives. Over time, it may be worthwhile to drop some habitat parameters that are not yielding usable information.

The RME questions are appropriate and reflect the importance of identifying life cycle needs of wild steelhead in the Wind River and its tributaries, their response to restoration actions, and their overall contribution to steelhead abundance in the Columbia River Gorge.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

This project is well integrated into regional monitoring programs. We were pleased to see that standardized habitat status and trend monitoring protocols of the CHaMP will be incorporated into the habitat status and trends monitoring (but see our cautionary note above on relevancy of measurements to objectives). The list of habitat metrics is quite lengthy – perhaps a bit too lengthy for the scope of the project – and some of the metrics were not accompanied by adequate descriptions of how sampling would be accomplished (e.g., macroinvertebrate studies). We assume that project proponents will be somewhat selective in their choice of appropriate habitat metrics.

The discussions of statistical analysis were thorough and gave us confidence that project staff will be using suitable models and testing procedures. The discussion of the experimental design for evaluation of the removal of Hemlock Dam was particularly well done.

Work elements and methods were, for the most part, sufficiently described. The budget was reasonably detailed and appropriate to the task. A little more information on restoration projects apart from the dam removal project would have been helpful.

Project personnel are very familiar with the area, have worked in the subbasin for years, and are well qualified to address the study elements. Facilities are adequate.

Objective 1: Adult steelhead monitoring via carcass counts seems somewhat unorthodox (steelhead carcasses are difficult to locate and disappear quickly), thus may provide unreliable estimates of spawning population size. Juveniles (parr and smolts) are estimated by RST - see previous reviews and elsewhere. Confidence intervals on adult and parr/smolt estimates must be large (some presentation of these in Rawding et al. 2006, but not in the proposal Figs. 1 and 2).

Objective 2: For Fig. 2 (smolts/adult), show years and separate/explore El Nino/La Nina and regime shift influences. The tagging programs (includes PIT tags) could benefit from some simulation studies to explore sample size requirements and statistical power needed for BACI experimental designs.

Objective 3: Based on the habitat changes, what is the expected (modeled) smolt increase from dam removal and other restoration actions?

Objective 5: CHaMP/ISMEP approach will be applied to a panel of 25 sites – a more thorough justification of this sample size would have been helpful.

Objective 6. Parr life history. This research is valuable and should contribute important data on mainstem rearing.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

This was a well-written proposal for work that will increase our understanding of how a naturally spawning steelhead population without hatchery augmentation will respond to habitat restoration in the Columbia Gorge province. Of particular significance is the examination of steelhead response to the removal of a dam that previously hindered (nearly blocked) access to one of the most potentially productive steelhead spawning tributaries in the Wind River. The ISRP provides some comments to improve the project but does not request a response. We acknowledge that small steelhead populations in Trout and Panther Creeks result in high annual variability that makes it hard to detect fish response to habitat restoration. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The proposal adequately describes the significance of the project to regional programs. It correctly points out that the Wind River steelhead population is worthy of study because it represents one of the few populations in the Columbia Gorge province that is supported almost entirely by natural production, and because it has been declared a “steelhead sanctuary” from in-river harvest in most years. The description of Objective 4 would benefit from more explanation about the kinds and locations of habitat restoration projects. This is important because this objective commands the largest portion of the project’s budget. We realize that the Hemlock Dam removal effort and subsequent monitoring of the occupation of Trout Creek by steelhead constitute the majority of research attention, and rightly so. Still, other habitat restoration actions are taking place in the Wind River and it would be helpful to describe them in greater detail. The details should include location and potential stream area or length affected. It might be useful to present a pie chart or table showing the allocation of funds to different work elements. Again, we realize that the Hemlock Dam removal study will be the largest single item, but expenditures and details on other types of habitat restoration monitoring would be helpful. Under Objective 6, it was not completely clear what studies will be carried out on juvenile steelhead using the “mainstem rearing” life history strategy, which previous work has shown to be an important adaptation by Wind River steelhead. The PIT tagging effort to monitor juvenile movements was adequately described and worthwhile, but more might be done to establish habitat usage by juveniles in the Wind River mainstem? It appeared that snorkeling surveys were targeting adult steelhead, but locations of steelhead juveniles relative to channel or cover features could be used to determine restoration priorities in the mainstem, if any are needed. The presence of brook trout in the upper reaches of many Wind River tributaries (including Trout Creek above the Hemlock Dam site) provides an opportunity to study interactions between juvenile steelhead, a native species, and brook trout, a non-native species. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management This has been one of the more comprehensive habitat restoration projects in the Columbia River Basin. It has benefited from two factors that have reduced potential complexity that tend to confound projects carried out at the scale of a whole tributary system: (1) the naturally spawning species is steelhead (the only anadromous salmonid capable of ascending Shipherd Falls), which is not augmented by hatchery production, and (2) most of the ownership in the subbasin is federal (US Forest Service). This has led to a generally uniform set of habitat protection and restoration standards. Project proponents have done a good job describing their results and accomplishments, and they appear to have modified and added to some of their sampling methods over the years, especially the PIT-tag studies. In terms of applying scientific findings to management actions the proposal was a little less clear. In addition to improving fish passage in the Wind River (Shipherd Falls fish ladder, Hemlock Dam removal), there have been numerous wood placement projects on streams in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. The proposal could have provided more detail about what has been done to monitor the effectiveness of these projects, and any changes that been made as a result of effectiveness monitoring. The removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek is a centerpiece of this proposal. It would have been helpful to have provided more details about how sediment movement post-dam removal has been monitored and how the Trout Creek channel has been re-engineered in the former reservoir area. The Wind River effectiveness monitoring effort provides an excellent case study for other restoration projects in the Columbia Gorge, and results from the Wind should be transferrable to other streams in the province where estimates of VSP parameters are not feasible or too costly. A limitation may be the relatively small size of the steelhead population, but that is a trade-off, and so far has not been an issue. A potential complication is the existence of the “mainstem rearing” life-history strategy, which apparently has not been widely documented in steelhead inhabiting other tributaries in the area. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The Wind River habitat restoration and monitoring programs appear to be well coordinated. A solid working relationship has been established between the USGS Western Research Center at Cook, the Underwood Conservation District, WDFW, and the Forest Service. Each of these organizations will play a major role in this project. Due in part to the somewhat simplified land ownership pattern in the Wind River subbasin, coordination among various management entities has been better than average. Limiting factors have been examined multiple times in the past and have been modeled using EDT, and it is to the project proponent’s credit that they are willing to periodically reassess their limiting factor assumptions. The addition of the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) monitoring protocols is a potential benefit, but some caution should be applied when carrying out measurements that are not particularly relevant to the project’s objectives. Over time, it may be worthwhile to drop some habitat parameters that are not yielding usable information. The RME questions are appropriate and reflect the importance of identifying life cycle needs of wild steelhead in the Wind River and its tributaries, their response to restoration actions, and their overall contribution to steelhead abundance in the Columbia River Gorge. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods This project is well integrated into regional monitoring programs. We were pleased to see that standardized habitat status and trend monitoring protocols of the CHaMP will be incorporated into the habitat status and trends monitoring (but see our cautionary note above on relevancy of measurements to objectives). The list of habitat metrics is quite lengthy – perhaps a bit too lengthy for the scope of the project – and some of the metrics were not accompanied by adequate descriptions of how sampling would be accomplished (e.g., macroinvertebrate studies). We assume that project proponents will be somewhat selective in their choice of appropriate habitat metrics. The discussions of statistical analysis were thorough and gave us confidence that project staff will be using suitable models and testing procedures. The discussion of the experimental design for evaluation of the removal of Hemlock Dam was particularly well done. Work elements and methods were, for the most part, sufficiently described. The budget was reasonably detailed and appropriate to the task. A little more information on restoration projects apart from the dam removal project would have been helpful. Project personnel are very familiar with the area, have worked in the subbasin for years, and are well qualified to address the study elements. Facilities are adequate. Objective 1: Adult steelhead monitoring via carcass counts seems somewhat unorthodox (steelhead carcasses are difficult to locate and disappear quickly), thus may provide unreliable estimates of spawning population size. Juveniles (parr and smolts) are estimated by RST - see previous reviews and elsewhere. Confidence intervals on adult and parr/smolt estimates must be large (some presentation of these in Rawding et al. 2006, but not in the proposal Figs. 1 and 2). Objective 2: For Fig. 2 (smolts/adult), show years and separate/explore El Nino/La Nina and regime shift influences. The tagging programs (includes PIT tags) could benefit from some simulation studies to explore sample size requirements and statistical power needed for BACI experimental designs. Objective 3: Based on the habitat changes, what is the expected (modeled) smolt increase from dam removal and other restoration actions? Objective 5: CHaMP/ISMEP approach will be applied to a panel of 25 sites – a more thorough justification of this sample size would have been helpful. Objective 6. Parr life history. This research is valuable and should contribute important data on mainstem rearing.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Sponsors should take the ISRP comments into account. See comment for project 200707700.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
Monitoring for this project by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is extensive. Sponsors are unusually well positioned to continue an excellent program - they are one of the few to have an active watershed council, no hatchery stocking, and data from a modeling effort to aide in limiting factor analysis by stream reach and fish life-stage. A good general summary of project activities is provided, but summaries of how key habitat attributes and fish populations have responded over time are not included, which is a shortcoming of this proposal. In the province reviews four years ago we recommended that results of the Wind River project would likely be publishable. We continue to emphasize that results be published. There is no need to wait until everything is perfect. The ISRP is not requesting a response, but the proposal would be improved be addressing the following comments:

A summary of results and a plan for publishing and/or further efforts to disseminate the information should be included in the proposal. This project has the potential to be a demonstration monitoring site for the entire basin. The importance of the Wind River as a research area will increase further if Hemlock Dam is removed.

This project is one of the few watershed efforts that include tasks dealing with most of the Hs -- hatcheries, harvest, and habitat, excluding hydro, which isn't present in the subbasin. The broadly based attempt to monitor trends in each of the other Hs (hatcheries, harvest, and habitat) should be applauded. This is very much a fisheries project; there was no reference to wildlife restoration although some of the tasks will certainly affect some wildlife species. It would be helpful to provide some discussion of wildlife benefits.

The proposal would be improved by describing how EDT results, the Subbasin Plan, etc., were specifically used to prioritize the activities proposed for 2007-09 funding. Also a table showing the project's target habitat conditions would be helpful.

The Bayesian approach to modeling spawner-recruit relationships using Markov Chain Monte Carlo simulations seemed quite sophisticated for a watershed council. The new PIT-tag study should also be helpful in further documenting the 3-year "canyon" life cycle of steelhead, as this is a fairly unusual life history pattern (although logical, given the oligotrophic nature of the watershed). Additional work on the presence and significance of the protozoan parasite, especially in Trout Creek - perhaps the dam and sediment-rich reservoir have something to do with this - should also be helpful in other systems where dams are scheduled for removal. These topics could provide additional opportunities for publication.
Documentation Links:
Explain how your project has responded to the above ISRP and Council qualifications, conditions, or recommendations. This is especially important if your project received a "Qualified" rating from the ISRP in your most recent assessment. Even if your project received favorable ratings from both the ISRP and Council, please respond to any issues they may have raised.
Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations: View instructions
A summary of the positive ISRP review comments received in 2006 includes: 1) data were used in modeling limiting factors analysis by reach and life stage, 2) steelhead recovery is not based on hatchery supplementation, but using restoration to rebuild wild fish stocks, 3) watershed effort focused on all H’s, 4) the Wind River could be a potential demonstration site for the region, and 5) potential importance in monitoring, if Hemlock Dam is removed, to evaluate steelhead response to dam removal. It was rewarding that the ISRP recognized these areas. Since the 2006 review, we have maintained our focus on these monitoring priorities, and added an in-stream PIT tag detection site in Trout Creek just upstream of Hemlock Dam to maintain adult counts after dam removal. <br/> <br/> The recommendations and challenges identified in the 2006 ISRP review were: 1) no summary of how habitat attributes and fish populations have responded over time was provided, 2) recommended publishing results, 3) recommended a summary of results and a plan for further dissemination and publishing of information be included, especially if Hemlock dam is removed, 4) recommended a summary of how EDT results were used in developing habitat activities for 2007-09 be included, and 5) suggested topics including: a Bayesian approach for monitoring, PIT tagging study with canyon life history, and significance of protozoan parasites in Trout Creek could provide additional publication opportunities. <br/> <br/> We agree with the above challenges presented to us based on the 2006 ISRP review. Unfortunately, since the review, we have not been able to meet these challenges for a number of reasons, but mainly due to the lack of resources. The previous budget for Wind River restoration and monitoring was ~$650,000. The proposed budget for the proposal, the ISRP reviewed in 2006 was from $767,000 to $849,000 and would have allowed WDFW and USGS to address these ISRP concerns. However, the total budget was reduced to ~ $333,000 per year, which was less than 50% of the proposed budget. In addition, BPA prioritized the funding of restoration activities in the Wind River and the fish monitoring budget received whatever was left after restoration projects were funded. Given this option, WDFW &amp; USGS decided to concentrate on collection of data required for BACI designs to evaluate the steelhead response to dam removal, which included 1) continued smolt and adult trapping and PIT tagging, 2) installation of a PIT tag detector in Trout Creek to replace the abundance estimate obtained from the Hemlock Dam trap, and continue to produce annual reports. Therefore, we chose to delay publishing opportunities to collect an uninterrupted dataset required to evaluate dam removal and we gathered more information on juvenile and adult abundance, survival, and migration patterns. <br/> <br/> Specifically, we have addressed ISRP challenges: 1) by adding tables and figures to our annual reports tracking adult and smolt abundance over time, 2) developing a schedule for one publication per year including: a) Bayesian approach to the integration of multiple data sources to monitor adult steelhead (FY 2011), b) PIT tag monitoring system for steelhead life cycle modeling: estimating life cycle steelhead survival and migratory patterns in the Wind River basin and beyond (FY 2012), and c) comparison of PIT and CWT tags for trap efficiency trials, 3) we have conducted power analysis regarding steelhead response (smolt abundance, productivity, and capacity to Hemlock Dam removal BA and BACI designs in this proposal and annual reports, and 4) continued PIT tagging of parr and smolts to better define canyon life-history. Although not a peer reviewed publication, one of the Co-Principal Investigators (Dan Rawding) should complete his Masters’s Thesis on Bayesian monitoring methods in the Wind River this year. Both Co-Principal Investigators gave presentations at the 2009 Western Division AFS titled “Comparing efficiency of a PIT-tag interrogation system to an adult fish trap and a rotary screw trap” and “PTAGIS: More than juvenile survival and travel time”. It should be noted that due to the time lag, we do not expect a steelhead responses from BACI designs until after this 3-year cycle.<br/> <br/> In response to how EDT results were used, key priorities set forth by the Wind River Subbasin Plan (section 1.1), which is based on EDT analyses, help to direct restoration efforts in the watershed. Habitat Factor Analyses (section 3.5.3) are taken into account when prioritizing limiting factors to address reaches within the basin. Specific target habitat conditions are developed for each individual project, based on historic conditions of that specific reach and potential for restoration. These habitat objectives are then monitored for improvement over the course of the project.

Back To Top

Adaptive Management


Project Level: Please discuss how you’ve changed your project (objectives, actions, etc) based on biological responses or information gained from project actions; because of management decisions at the subbasin state, regional, or agency level; or by external or larger environment factors. Specifically, regarding project modifications summarize how previous hypotheses and methods are changed or improved in this updated proposal. This would include project modifications based on information from recent research and literature. How is your new work different than previous work, and why?
Management Level: Please describe any management changes planned or made because of biological responses or information gained from project actions. This would include management decisions at the subbasin, state, or regional level influenced by project results.
Management Changes: View instructions
The types of projects we envision under this proposal are similar to what we’ve done in the past, but we have improved our methods over time in response to our own monitoring of completed projects. In general our thinking about habitats and projects has moved from small scale to larger scale, and increasingly more toward emulation of natural processes. In years past, instream projects typically consisted of single or two-to-three log structures, often cabled together and/or cabled to large angular boulders. Our monitoring indicated these structures did not provide the flexibility needed in the locations they were established, and that if they were moved or uprooted from that location, they could have negative consequences elsewhere in the channel. We currently do not use cable in our structures. We try for longer material, greater quantities of logs, and logs with attached rootmasses. We typically build much larger structures as we have seen in untreated streams. We take more time identifying appropriate locations for log placement, where river forces are less likely to remove it. We use site scale features to anchor the wood through either ballasting it and/or using the river’s own force to hold the wood in place by cantilevering it between trees or other structures. With rootmasses attached, we can put more surface area in the channel, better anchor the wood to installation sites, and provide a means of keeping wood in the system when it does move, by creating snag opportunities. Our instream projects are also often coupled now with riparian treatments (thinning and planting) as a means of acquiring wood, increasing growing conditions for remaining trees, and diversifying the riparian forest stand. We have adapted planting, plant maintenance and noxious weed control methods based on long-term vegetation monitoring results. Among these changes are methods for managing Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), perhaps the most pernicious weed in the watershed, and more efforts to support the establishment of native conifers based on field experience. These efforts include browse protection, mulching and first-year summer watering. These additional efforts appear, in recent years, to result in higher survivability. We have also recognized the damage that can be caused by creating vehicular access to project sites. New or re-established access routes can encourage subsequent vehicle traffic directly to streams, and can be a route for invasive weeds to become established and move into riparian areas. We have spent more time designing projects to minimize vehicular access by efficiently locating them, and by using helicopters, or by using explosives if we are simply removing structures. We have also moved toward better treatment of access roads when we are done with them. We scarify the ground surface and sow heavily with native grass seed, and then apply straw mulch. We also establish significant water bars and large berms at the entrance to any abandoned access routes to prevent people from getting on it or being able to navigate it in a vehicle. We have also used various methods to obscure the entrance to the access routes to reduce their visibility to passersby. Our road decommissions, culvert upgrades and bridge installations have also improved over time. We now ensure that culverts are wider than the bankfull width of streams they carry, that bridges also provide for the bankfull width of the stream, and that culvert removals include removing enough road fill to re-create the original bankfull-width stream with plantable sideslopes. We often also place wood in or around these road crossings to re-establish some roughness in the stream and initiate some hydraulic diversity in the channel. These improvements have led to much better stream function at crossings, and ensured that passage issues will not arise in the future at these sites. In a recent project (Martha Creek Dam Removal) we used explosives to demolish and obliterate a concrete dam that was located in a remote setting in old growth forest. We did not want to establish vehicular access into this forest site, so we packed in enough explosive material to blast the dam into tiny fragments and out of the stream channel. We then let the stream do the work of moving its own accumulated sediments downstream and reforming a channel through what had been the impoundment. This project was extremely cheap, fast, light on the land, and beneficial to steelhead and other aquatic organisms that previously were blocked from moving upstream by the structure. We will use this technology more in the future when appropriate. Adaptive Management in RME work: There have been numerous multi-scale management decisions made based on biological response data collected in this project. First, data collected as part of this project is used to determine biological status of steelhead populations by WDFW and NOAA. Second, project sponsored index snorkel surveys during August in the late 1990s led to emergency summer steelhead sport fishing closures in the Wind River. A number of very low August snorkel counts subsequently led to a permanent steelhead fishing closure above Shipherd Falls. An increase in adult steelhead returns allowed a recent steelhead catch and release fishery to open above Shipherd Falls from Sep 16 to Nov 30 dependent upon an in-season update of run size from the September snorkel survey conducted as part of this project. The data collected in this project also were used to establish an interim WDFW Region 5 escapement goal of 500 natural origin spawners, based on spawner-recruit (smolt) analysis. Shipherd Falls PIT tag and trap operations targeting steelhead also gather information on hatchery spring Chinook Salmon returning to Carson National Fish Hatchery. This data is used to update hatchery spring Chinook run sizes and modify Wind River fishing regulations for hatchery Spring Chinook salmon above Shipherd Falls. In addition, this project conducted studies evaluating the interactions between introduced hatchery Spring Chinook salmon and native steelhead. These studies indicated that current interactions with steelhead were minor and this program has been de-emphasized. Mark-resight methods developed to estimate wild summer steelhead escapement for the Wind River have been modified and applied to the remaining LCR ESU populations in Washington (Kalama, EF Lewis, and Washougal) to estimate wild steelhead abundance by tagging steelhead at traps or holding pools and subsequent snorkel surveys. The finding of no statistical difference between recapture rates of PIT and CWT wild steelhead smolts has led to larger scale use of PIT tagging for trap efficiency estimates, although there are some concerns about tagging affects through the adult stage. PIT tagging of juvenile and adult steelhead on the Wind River has influenced the USACE’s decision on the operation dates of the corner collector to effectively pass kelts at Bonneville Dam. The data quantity and quality of abundance, survival, and migratory pattern and timing data changed the emphasis of the Wind River fish monitoring program in 2007 from a VSP monitoring program to a program emphasizing the evaluation of steelhead response to the removal of hemlock dam. Multiple hypotheses are considered in the study design section of the proposal. Due to lack of funding of traditional and newly proposed monitoring of adult steelhead abundance in Trout Creek after the removal of Hemlock Dam fish trap, WDFW and USGS developed the first study design in the Columbia Basin to use in-stream PIT interrogators to estimate adult steelhead abundance using mark-recapture methods in February 2007. The successful implementation of this design in 2008-09, and 2009-10 has lead to an expanded role of in-stream PIT tag detectors in the Wind River and other Columbia Basins for abundance, survival, and migration monitoring. Temperature data collected by USFS, USGS, and UCD was provided to Washington DOE to develop a TMDL for temperature in the Wind River, which was completed in 2007. Washington DOE continues to adaptively manage the Wind River TMDL based on new data collected and actions implemented. The partnering agencies under this contract are involved in this effort annually, providing updates to Washington DOE and fulfilling tasks outlined in the TMDL Detailed Implementation Plan.

Back To Top

Project Documents & Reports

The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Public Attachments in CBFish

ID Title Type Period Contract Uploaded
09728-1 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project, Volume I of III Progress (Annual) Report 10/1997 - 09/1998 11/1/1999 12:00:00 AM
09728-3 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project, Volume III of III Progress (Annual) Report 10/1997 - 09/1998 11/1/1999 12:00:00 AM
09728-2 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project, Volume II of III Progress (Annual) Report 10/1997 - 09/1998 11/1/1999 12:00:00 AM
00004973-1 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project, Segments I-IV Progress (Annual) Report 10/1998 - 09/1999 9/1/2001 12:00:00 AM
00000407-1 USFS 99-02 Wind River Watershed Restoration Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 10/1999 - 09/2002 6033 6/1/2002 12:00:00 AM
00004973-2 USGS 99-01 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 10/1999 - 09/2001 4973 2/1/2003 12:00:00 AM
00005480-1 UCD 02-03 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2002 - 06/2003 5480 2/1/2004 12:00:00 AM
00005480-2 UCD 03-04 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2003 - 06/2004 5480 12/1/2004 12:00:00 AM
00019617-1 Wind River Winter and Summer Steelhead Adult and Smolt Population Estimates from Trapping Data Progress (Annual) Report 09/2004 - 08/2005 24152 5/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00004973-4 USGS 03-04 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 04/2003 - 03/2004 4973 6/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00005480-3 UCD 04-05 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2004 - 06/2005 5480 9/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00004276-1 Wind River Winter and Summer Steelhead Adult and Smolt Population Estimates from Trapping Data Progress (Annual) Report 10/1999 - 09/2004 19617 11/1/2005 12:00:00 AM
00004973-3 USGS 02-03 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 04/2002 - 03/2003 4973 1/1/2006 12:00:00 AM
00023799-1 UCD 05-06 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2005 - 06/2006 23799 1/1/2007 12:00:00 AM
P103590 2007 Wind River Smolt memo Other - 28742 9/13/2007 3:08:03 PM
P103931 USFS 03-04 Wind River Watershed Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 10/2003 - 09/2004 32464 10/5/2007 3:28:41 PM
P104100 USFS 04-05 Wind River Watershed Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 10/2004 - 09/2005 32464 10/16/2007 1:16:32 PM
P104101 USFS 05-06 Wind River Watershed Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 10/2005 - 09/2006 32464 10/16/2007 1:22:53 PM
P104465 Wind River Winter and Summer Steelhead Adult and Smolt Population Estimates from Trapping Data Progress (Annual) Report 09/2005 - 08/2006 28742 11/14/2007 3:17:06 PM
P105014 UCD 06-07 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2006 - 06/2007 33559 12/21/2007 1:19:45 PM
P105276 sept 07 memo.doc Other - 34579 1/18/2008 5:42:15 PM
P106695 Steelhead and Spring Chinook Salmon Population Estimates from Trapping Data in the Wind River, 2007. Progress (Annual) Report 09/2006 - 07/2007 34579 5/21/2008 12:15:21 PM
P108075 UCD 07-08 Wind River Watershed Restoration Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2007 - 06/2008 39493 9/2/2008 2:04:08 PM
P108417 August 2008 snorkel memo Other - 34579 9/26/2008 7:01:05 PM
P108494 Adult Escapement memo Other - 34579 10/2/2008 8:49:50 AM
P108888 USGS 06-07 Wind River Watershed Restoration Survey Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 04/2006 - 03/2007 35570 11/4/2008 9:27:11 AM
P108962 USGS 05-06 Wind River Watershed Restoration Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 04/2005 - 03/2006 32814 11/10/2008 10:51:05 AM
P108963 USGS 04-05 Wind River Watershed Restoration Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 04/2004 - 03/2005 26922 11/10/2008 10:55:10 AM
P109675 September 2008 Snorkel Survey Memo Other - 38921 1/8/2009 10:40:17 AM
P110015 USFS 06-07 Wind River Restoration Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 12/2006 - 11/2007 35991 1/28/2009 4:03:10 PM
P114143 USGS 07-08 Wind River Watershed Restoration Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 04/2007 - 10/2008 41038 11/10/2009 11:21:37 AM
P115305 Steelhead and Spring Chinook Salmon Smolt and Adult Population Estimates from Trapping Data in the Wind River, 2008 Progress (Annual) Report 09/2007 - 08/2008 38921 2/18/2010 1:18:21 PM
P115462 Growth, Condition Factor & Bioenergetics Modeling Link Warmer Stream Temperature Below a Small Dam to Reduce Performance of Juvenile Steelhead Progress (Annual) Report 01/2000 - 12/2007 46102 3/3/2010 3:08:09 PM
P116331 Wild Steelhead and Introduced Spring Chinook Salmon in the Wind River, Washington: Overlapping Populations and Interactions Progress (Annual) Report 01/2000 - 12/2007 46102 5/12/2010 10:26:02 AM
P117760 Steelhead Smolt and Adult Population Estimates from Trapping Data in the Wind River Progress (Annual) Report 09/2008 - 08/2009 44016 8/20/2010 11:25:40 AM
P118518 August 2010 Snorkel Survey Results.docx Other - 44016 10/25/2010 2:53:01 PM
P119116 UCD 09-10 Wind River Watershed Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2009 - 06/2010 49229 12/15/2010 3:15:04 PM
P119117 UCD 08-09 Wind River Watershed Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 07/2008 - 06/2009 49229 12/15/2010 3:18:36 PM
P119520 USGS 08-09 Wind River Watershed Restoration Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 11/2008 - 10/2009 46102 1/13/2011 12:02:25 PM
P120931 USGS 09-10 Wind River Watershed Restoration Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 01/2009 - 10/2010 50481 4/20/2011 9:03:53 AM
P122313 Steelhead Smolt and Adult Population Estimates from Trapping Data in the Wind River, 2010 Progress (Annual) Report 09/2009 - 08/2010 44016 8/1/2011 4:02:39 PM
P125681 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2010 - 06/2011 53638 3/19/2012 9:11:44 AM
P127147 USFS 07-10 Wind River Watershed Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 12/2007 - 11/2010 51064 6/28/2012 3:06:58 PM
P128223 Steelhead Smolt and Adult Population Estimates from Trapping Data in the Wind River, 2011 Progress (Annual) Report 09/2011 - 08/2012 54272 9/20/2012 11:05:49 AM
P129748 September 2012 Wind River snorkel summary Other - 58664 12/18/2012 10:43:24 AM
P132839 Summary memo for adult steelhead escapement in the Wind River, spawn year 2013 Other - 58664 7/18/2013 2:34:49 PM
P133046 Steelhead Smolt and Adult Population Estimates from Trapping Data in the Wind River, 2012; 9/11 - 8/12 Progress (Annual) Report 09/2011 - 08/2012 58664 7/31/2013 6:08:07 PM
P133526 USGS Nov11_Oct12 Wind River Project Annual Report Progress (Annual) Report 11/2011 - 10/2012 59821 10/24/2013 1:24:29 PM
P135245 Wind River Watershed Restoration; 7/11 - 12/12 Progress (Annual) Report 07/2011 - 12/2012 62453 4/4/2014 9:10:52 AM
P136584 Wind River Watershed Restoration; 1/13 - 12/13 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2013 - 12/2013 62453 5/1/2014 9:34:58 AM
P137072 Abundance and Productivity of Wind River Steelhead and Preliminary Assessment of their Response to Hemlock Dam Removal, 2013 Progress (Annual) Report 09/2012 - 12/2013 62516 6/5/2014 9:00:56 AM
P138064 USGS Wind River Subbasin Restoration; 11/12 - 12/13 Progress (Annual) Report 11/2012 - 12/2013 63276 8/19/2014 10:45:07 AM
P138364 Forest Service Activities under the Wind River Watershed Project; 12/10 - 12/12 Progress (Annual) Report 12/2010 - 12/2012 65582 8/21/2014 2:08:26 PM
P140293 USFS WInd RIver Watershed Report 2011-2012 Progress (Annual) Report 12/2010 - 12/2012 65582 1/8/2015 9:17:44 AM
P143484 Abundance and Productivity of Wind River Steelhead and Preliminary Assessment of their Response to Hemlock Dam Removal, 2014 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2014 - 12/2014 66154 4/16/2015 7:55:57 AM
P143888 Wind River Watershed Restoration; 1/14 - 12/14 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2014 - 12/2014 65828 6/23/2015 8:50:16 AM
P144015 Wind River Watershed Restoration Annual Report of U.S. Geological Survey Activities Progress (Annual) Report 01/2014 - 12/2014 66668 7/21/2015 10:43:29 AM
P144855 Wind Steelhead Escapement Summary SY15 Other - 66154 7/31/2015 12:19:25 PM
P149591 Wind River Watershed Project; 1/13 - 12/14 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2013 - 12/2014 8/22/2016 9:43:10 AM
P149707 Abundance and Productivity of Wind River Steelhead and Preliminary Assessment of their Response to Hemlock Dam Removal, 2015; 1/15 - 12/15 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2015 - 12/2015 69900 8/24/2016 1:27:50 PM
P151177 Wind River Subbasin Restoration; 1/15 - 12/15 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2015 - 12/2015 70963 10/14/2016 2:19:03 PM
P153933 Wind River Watershed Restoration; 1/16 - 12/16 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2016 - 12/2016 72415 4/3/2017 1:57:26 PM
P154460 Forest Service Activities under the Wind River Watershed Project; 1/15 - 12/16 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2015 - 12/2016 72900 5/18/2017 10:32:17 AM
P154574 Abundance and Productivity of Wind River Steelhead and Preliminary Assessment of their Response to Hemlock Dam Removal; 1/16 - 12/16 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2016 - 12/2016 73756 6/5/2017 8:57:30 AM
P160664 Wind River Watershed Restoration: 1/17 - 12/17 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2017 - 12/2017 76220 6/1/2018 9:33:51 AM
P161233 Wind River Subbasin Restoration; 1/16 - 12/16 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2016 - 12/2016 77688 7/13/2018 3:41:20 PM
P161303 Abundance and Productivity of Wind River Steelhead and Preliminary Assessment of their Response to Hemlock Dam Removal, 2017 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2017 - 12/2017 74314 REL 15 7/18/2018 1:22:20 PM
P164011 Wind River Subbasin Restoration; 1/17 - 12/17 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2017 - 12/2017 80611 2/14/2019 11:24:21 AM
P164793 Appendix A Progress (Annual) Report 01/2018 - 12/2018 79517 4/8/2019 11:08:02 AM
P164794 Appendix B Progress (Annual) Report 01/2018 - 12/2018 79517 4/8/2019 11:12:31 AM
P165505 Wind River Watershed Restoration: 1/18 - 12/18 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2018 - 12/2018 79517 6/4/2019 12:06:21 PM
P166248 Abundance and Productivity of Wind River Steelhead and Preliminary Assessment of their Response to Hemlock Dam Removal; 1/18 - 12/18 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2018 - 12/2018 74314 REL 50 7/18/2019 10:02:23 AM
P170098 Wind River Subbasin Restoration; 1/18 - 12/18 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2018 - 12/2018 83769 1/10/2020 2:34:04 PM
P172543 Wind River Watershed Restoration; 1/19 - 12/19 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2019 - 12/2019 82542 4/24/2020 4:42:18 PM
P174573 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P174576 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P174579 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P174578 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P174581 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175334 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P174572 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P174575 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175342 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175333 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175336 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175339 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P174577 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P174580 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P174574 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175338 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175341 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175335 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175337 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P175340 Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010 Photo - 5/7/2020 5:44:05 PM
P178894 Wind River Watershed Project; 1/17 - 12/18 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2017 - 12/2018 83768 9/25/2020 1:43:13 PM
P179251 Wind River Subbasin Restoration; 1/19 - 12/19 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2019 - 12/2019 83769 10/9/2020 8:26:37 AM
P190880 Wind River Subbasin Restoration Annual Report of USGS Activities Jan 2020 - Dec 2020 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2021 - 12/2021 89144 3/16/2022 3:48:11 PM
P204538 Wind River Subbasin Restoration Annual Report of U.S. Geological Survey Activities January 2021 through December 2022 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2021 - 12/2022 91309 10/25/2023 10:56:48 AM
P208847 USFS 2022-2023 Annual Report Gifford Pinchot 20240131 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2022 - 12/2023 56662 REL 303 5/1/2024 11:51:36 AM
P213679 BPA Final RM&E Report for Publishing Progress (Annual) Report 01/2024 - 12/2024 84042 REL 83 12/5/2024 10:56:04 AM
P214491 USGS Technical Annual Progress Report Jan 2023 - Dec 2023 Progress (Annual) Report 01/2023 - 12/2023 93681 1/8/2025 11:43:09 AM

Other Project Documents on the Web


Back To Top

Back To Top

Project Relationships

The Project Relationships tracked automatically in CBFish provide a history of how work and budgets move between projects. The terms "Merged" and "Split" describe the transfer of some or all of the Work and budgets from one or more source projects to one or more target projects. For example, some of one project's budget may be split from it and merged into a different project. Project relationships change for a variety of reasons including the creation of efficiency gains.
Project Relationships: None

Additional Relationships Explanation:

The habitat work described in this proposal is not related to any other BPA-funded project.  However, as described elsewhere in this proposal, the Wind RIver Watershed project includes both habitat improvement work and RM&E.  The RM&E components of our project are related to other projects as described below.  The entire RME portion of this project can be viewed at the following url:  https://www.cbfish.org/Proposal.mvc/Summary/RMECAT-1998-019-00  

Following are the relationships btwn the RM&E components of our project and other projects:

This project compliments, but does not duplicate other VSP monitoring, PIT tag recovery, habitat monitoring, and habitat restoration efforts within the Lower Columbia River ESU.  This ESU is shared between the states of Washington and Oregon and is funded through many sources including the states of Washington and Oregon through their Department’s of Fish and Wildlife, Tacoma PUD, PacifiCorp, Mitchell Act, BPA, and other grants.  

The following relationships focus on BPA funded projects:

The proposed project (Wind River Watershed Studies 1998-019) relates to several other projects which are collaborating in the development and implementation of the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) including the ISEMP project 2003-017, PNAMP 2004-002-00, Umatilla Juvenile Salmonid Outmigraion Evaluation 1989-024-01, Grande Ronde Chinook Early Life History Study 1992-026-04, Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead in the John Day Basin 1998-016-00, Nez Perce Tribe Watershed Monitoring and Evaluation Plan 2002-068-00, the Salmon River Basin Nutrient Enhancement Project 2008-904-00, the Abundance, Productivity, and Life History of Fifteenmile Creek Steelhead project 2010-035-00, and the the Okanogan Basin Monitoring and Evaluation Program 2003-022-00.

Project Numbers 2007-216-00 and 2010-082-00 are from the Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership.  Within PNAMP there is a pilot project to develop and maintain a Generalized random tessellation stratified (GRTS) master sampling draw for the LCR.  Another PNAMP product is to estimate salmon and steelhead spawning distribution using limited field sampling and GIS.   These two products will be used to develop the sampling frame for the habitat status and trend monitoring objective within the proposed Wind River project.  The PNAMP project provides the technical basis for the sampling frame and GRTS draws for the proposed Wind River habitat status and trend objective, which will then collect the actual Wind River habitat data for the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) including the ISEMP project.

Project Number 1982-013-01 titled “Coded Wire Tag Recovery Program” and Project Number 2010-036-00 titled “Expansion of Washington’s Tag Recovery Program in the Lower Columbia Region to Improve Fisheries and Viable Salmonid Population Monitoring”.  These projects conduct VSP and CWT monitoring for coho and Chinook salmon in WA tributaries and CWT and PIT tag fishery sampling in the mainstem Columbia River.  The specific relationship is project 2010-036-00, which complements this project by providing VSP monitoring and CWT recovery of Chinook and coho salmon for the Wind River population, and will provide PIT tag recoveries for wild steelhead harvested in the treaty fisheries.  Harvest of Wind River PIT tagged steelhead will be reported by project 2010-036-00, along with VSP abundance of salmon.

Project Number 2008-710-00 is titled “Development of an Integrated Strategy for Chum Salmon Restoration in the Tributaries below Bonneville Dam” and Project Number 1999-002-01 is titled “Evaluation of Fall Chinook and Chum Salmon Spawning below Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day and McNary Dams”.  The purpose of these projects is chum salmon monitoring within the Lower Columbia River (LCR) ESU and monitoring of Chinook spawning in the Columbia River including the area in the LCR below Bonneville dam (BON).  These complement the steelhead monitoring in the Wind River by helping to provide complete VSP monitoring of all species.  VSP monitoring of salmon in the Wind River will be reported by other projects, while the proposed Wind River project will report on VSP monitoring of steelhead in the Wind.

Project Number 1988-108-24 is the multi-agency StreamNet project.  The purpose of this project is to store summarized data relating to anadromous and resident fish.  Our project will provide summary data to StreamNet for storage and dissemination.  In addition, our data will be summarized into high level indicators and provided to CBFWA for the “State of the Resource Report”.

Project Number 1990-080-00 is the “Columbia Basin Pit-Tag Information System” by PSMFC.  The purpose of this project is to store PIT tagging and recovery information.  The Wind River project has and will continue to supply Wind River data to facilitate analysis of migration patterns, survival, and abundance of PIT tagged salmonids.  PTAGIS will store raw data, and the Wind River project will report on migratory, survival, and abundance information based on PIT tag analyses.

Project Number 2008-511-00 is a CRITFC project titled “Bonneville Dam GSI”.  In this project, adult salmonids including steelhead are genetically sampled and PIT tagged.  Our Wind River project supports this by providing PIT tags for adults tagged at BON.   PIT tag recoveries from the BON project will be reported to PTAGIS for analysis by CRITFC.


Back To Top

Focal Species

Primary Focal Species
Steelhead (O. mykiss) - Lower Columbia River DPS (Threatened)

Secondary Focal Species
Chinook (O. tshawytscha) - Lower Columbia River ESU (Threatened)
Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) - Lower Columbia River ESU (Threatened)
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal (O. c. clarkii) - Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Trout, Rainbow (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

Describe how you are taking into account potential biological and physical effects of factors such as non-native species, predation increases, climate change and toxics that may impact the project’s focal species and their habitat, potentially reducing the success of the project. For example: Does modeling exist that predicts regional climate change impacts to your particular geographic area? If so, please summarize the results of any predictive modeling for your area and describe how you take that into consideration.
Threats to program investments and project success: View instructions
Lower Columbia River steelhead face potential threats from climate change and non-native species.  As described above, water temperatures in portions of the watershed already exceed WA State standards of 16 deg C.  However, the watershed also has cold sources, in Panther Creek, Trout Creek, and elsewhere.  Climate change predictions for this area indicate warmer winter temperatures that will generate less snow and more rainfall in winter months.  This will mean more rapid runoff of incoming precipitation, and less storage of water in snowpacks into the summer months.  Summer streamflows will likely be lower in the coming climate, and as such may be more easily heated.  SImilar decreases in summer streamflow are predicted elsewhere in the Columbia River basin, and because the Wind RIver has cold sourcewaters in its upper reaches, it may end up being one of the more hospitable places for fish in coming decades.  The work we have been doing in habitat restoration will improve conditions in the Wind River by accelerating shade development in riparian areas, working to reduce the width:depth ratio of allluvial channels to make them less vulnerable to temperature increases, and reducing road densities, which will have the effect of slowing runoff from hillslopes to channels in the winter months.

Non-native species in the Wind River include spring Chinook Salmon upsteam of Shipherd Falls, and brook trout in some headwater areas.  Though past work by this project has not demonstrated either of these species to be a limiting factor, continued monitoring is wise as climate change or other habitat changes could favor these non-natives.  Outside of the Wind River subbasin, juvenile steelhead face threats from multiple non-native species in the Columbia River.  Their effect on Wind River steelhead is unknown. The habitat monitoring under the proposed Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program is designed to collect data that could assist in the determination of habitat-based limiting factors.

Back To Top

Types of Work

Work Classes
Work Elements

RM & E and Data Management:
70. Install Fish Monitoring Equipment
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
158. Mark/Tag Animals
159. Transfer/Consolidate Regionally Standardized Data
160. Create/Manage/Maintain Database
161. Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
183. Produce Journal Article
Habitat:
Habitat work elements typically address the known limiting factors of each location defined for each deliverable. Details about each deliverable’s locations, limiting factors and work elements are found under the Deliverables sections.

29. Increase Aquatic and/or Floodplain Complexity
30. Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel
33. Decommission Road/Relocate Road
47. Plant Vegetation
53. Remove Vegetation
85. Remove/Breach Fish Passage Barrier
55. Erosion and Sedimentation Control
184. Install Fish Passage Structure
180. Enhance Floodplain/Remove, Modify, Breach Dike
181. Create, Restore, and/or Enhance Wetland
197. Maintain/Remove Vegetation
Planning and Coordination:
99. Outreach and Education
114. Identify and Select Projects
175. Produce Design
191. Watershed Coordination
115. Produce Inventory or Assessment

Tagging

Populations Origin # of PIT Tags per year Type of PIT Tag Years to be tagged Comments
Steelhead (O. mykiss) - Lower Columbia River DPS (Threatened) Wild 7000 FDX - Full Duplex 2014 - 2017 Up to 600 adult steelhead tagged, annually. Adults are also double Floy Tagged for mark/resight studies. Up to 6400 parr and smolt tagged, annually.
Please explain why the tagging technology used in this project was selected. Include a discussion of how the cost and applicability of the selected tagging technology influenced your selection. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.
Passive Integrated Transponder (PIT) tags were chosen for use in this project. When selecting a tag type, one must consider existing infrastructure, benefits to this and other projects, cost, tag availability, application, and the quality and quantity of tag recovery information. This project will use PIT tag detectors at multiple fixed sites in the Wind River, handheld detectors used at 5 trap locations in the Wind River, adult and juvenile fixed sites at Bonneville Dam (BON), a mobile tracking site in the estuary, and all Lower Columbia River fisheries being sampled for PIT tags beginning in the summer of 2010 (BPA# 2010-036). In addition, this data could be added to the Comparative Survival Study (CSS) or used in other broad-scale habitat evaluation projects taking the approach of Paulsen and Fisher (2003). Other tag types such as CWTs, or strontium marks require fish to be sacrificed. Acoustic and radio tags do not have the battery life needed for the up to 8 year life after tagging needed for this project, and it is cost prohibitive for this small project to purchase and monitor acoustic or radio tagged fish in the mainstem Columbia River. Genetic marks require sampling many fish to find the few associated with our study, and the USACE has limited steelhead sampling at BON due to temperature concerns. In the end, PIT tags were the only cost-effective tagging alternative for the proposed survival modeling. The same PIT tags are used to estimate trap efficiency, abundance, and marine age in the Wind River. In summary, PIT tags were chosen for their small size, long life, and low cost. Small sized tags allow tagging of steelhead as small as 70 mm (FL), long tag life allows detection of individual fish at multiple life-stages, the low cost of PIT tags allows the tagging of many individuals relatively cheaply, and allows for adult and juvenile abundance estimates, survival estimates, exploration of life histories and various parr rearing strategies.
Describe any of the innovative approaches that your projects proposes that are in direct support of the ISAB/ISRP's recommendations to improve techniques for surgical insertion of internal tags, or external attachment of acoustic, radio, or data storage tags that reduce handling time, fish injury and stress. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.
NA. We are not proposing any innovative techniques to improve PIT tag insertion, but we will continue to provide information on short-term PIT tag loss and mortality from Wind River tagging studies.
For specific tagging technologies, please address the tagging report's recommendations for genetic markers, otolith thermal marking, PIT tags, acoustic tags and radio tags for improving technologies in any way applicable. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.
For this project we propose to use PIT tags as the primary “tool” for assessing juvenile and adult steelhead abundance, life histories, survival by life stage and response to habitat restoration actions, and we propose to add additional in-stream PIT tag detection systems to the existing infrastructure described above. This work will address the following comments from the tagging report: 1) recommendation 3.5 of the tagging report, which states, “We recommend for PIT tags, further development of prototype in-stream transceivers for detection in tributaries to monitor smolt and adult movements in both large and small tributaries to better understand salmonid behavior and migration timing, fate of juvenile, smolt, and adult migrants before and after dam passage and to spawning grounds”, 2) the “lack of PIT tag monitoring systems in the tributaries where significant populations of wild salmonids occur. Monitoring of PIT tagged adults into and PIT tagged juveniles out of these tributaries will provide data to better understand life histories and survival rates of salmonids and hatchery stray-rates in these tributaries”, and 3) “Not enough PIT-tag detection systems are currently installed to yield information on the research questions outlined in the in-stream applications section below, e.g., fish movement during the fall and winter months, or learning about different life-history strategies of salmonids.” The Tagging Report lists the fall migrants documented at Beaver Cr. (Methow) and Rattlesnake Cr. (White Salmon) as examples of data contributing to better understanding of salmonid behavior and migration timing. Both projects were done by staff from CRRL (Connolly et al. 2008). In-stream detection does require ability to estimate detection efficiencies at different life-stages and flows. Staff from CRRL have been exploring methods for efficiencies, and provided guidelines (Connolly 2010) through PNAMP in Wolf & O’Neal (2010, Chapter 7).
If your project involves ocean port sampling and lower river sampling for coded wire tag (CWT) recovery, address the tagging and tag recovery issues (statistical validity of tagging rates, tag recovery rates, and fishery sampling rates) presented in the Pacific Salmon Commission's Action Plan to Address the CWT Expert Panel (PSC Tech. Rep. No. 25, March 2008).
NA. Our project is based on PIT tags not CWT tags.
Explain how your tagging and tag recovery rates ensure a statistically valid result for your project. Enter "NA" if not applicable to your project.

Statistically valid designs depend on meeting the assumptions required for an unbiased estimate, and sufficient tags and recoveries to meet statistical inference such as a point estimate, confidence intervals, and hypothesis tests.  As mentioned in the study design section of this proposal, power analysis was conducted on multiple study designs proposed in this project.  First, we are currently meeting NOAA recommended (Crawford and Rumsey 2009) abundance precision estimates for adults and juveniles using PIT tags (CV < 15%), along with age, origin, and sex ratio estimates.  Power analysis with BACI designs to estimate steelhead response to restoration in Trout Creek suggests that the proposed combination of tagging, detection, and mark-recapture estimates can capture modest increases (25-50%) in steelhead adult abundance, smolt abundance, freshwater productivity, and freshwater capacity using hypothesis testing or the confidence interval method proposed by Bradford et al. (2005).  We have some concerns that a few of CJS model estimates of apparent survival depend on detections in the estuary and kelts at Wind River PIT tag interrogators, which are expected to be low.  If so, the stage specific estimates may not be calculated,  combined over multiple stages, or hierarchical approaches could be used to improve precision, albeit dependent on the assumption that survivals are assumed to be part of a common distribution.  However, for the key survival estimates (parr to smolt, smolt to smolt, and smolt to adult), we expect the precision to have a CV<10% based on current abundance, tagging rates, and detection rates.

Data Management

What tools (e.g., guidance material, technologies, decision support models) are you creating and using that support data management and sharing?
For the RME component of this project, information regarding WE 157, 159, 160, and 162 was addressed through the 2010 RME categorical review for this project. The entire RME portion of this project can be viewed at the following url: https://www.cbfish.org/Proposal.mvc/Summary/RMECAT-1998-019-00
Describe the process used to facilitate receiving and sharing of data, such as standardizing data entry format through a template or data steward, including data exchange templates that describe the data collection methods, and the provision of an interface that makes data electronically accessible.
For the RME component of this project, information regarding WE 157, 159, 160, and 162 was addressed through the 2010 RME categorical review for this project. The entire RME portion of this project can be viewed at the following url: https://www.cbfish.org/Proposal.mvc/Summary/RMECAT-1998-019-00
Please describe the sources from which you are compiling data, as well as what proportion of data is from the primary source versus secondary or other sources?
For the RME component of this project, information regarding WE 157, 159, 160, and 162 was addressed through the 2010 RME categorical review for this project. The entire RME portion of this project can be viewed at the following url: https://www.cbfish.org/Proposal.mvc/Summary/RMECAT-1998-019-00
Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.
For the RME component of this project, information regarding WE 157, 159, 160, and 162 was addressed through the 2010 RME categorical review for this project. The entire RME portion of this project can be viewed at the following url: https://www.cbfish.org/Proposal.mvc/Summary/RMECAT-1998-019-00
Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.
For the RME component of this project, information regarding WE 157, 159, 160, and 162 was addressed through the 2010 RME categorical review for this project. The entire RME portion of this project can be viewed at the following url: https://www.cbfish.org/Proposal.mvc/Summary/RMECAT-1998-019-00

RM&E

What type(s) of RM&E will you be doing?
Status and Trend Monitoring
Action Effectiveness Research
Uncertainties Research (Validation Monitoring and Innovation Research)
Where will you post or publish the data your project generates?

Back To Top

Large Habitat Programs

The Large Habitat Program section is required because you selected one or more of the following work elements in Edit Types of Work: 114

Instructions: As applies to your project, please describe your methods to solicit, review, prioritize and select habitat projects as outlined here. You should also reference any related documents attached that further explain your methods.

Describe all the steps in the program's process to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects for implementation. Explain how the solicitation process incorporates or is consistent with other similar regional or state processes as appropriate. The following outlines the information to include:

Solicitation: Describe in detail the solicitation process and criteria. Include how the announcement is communicated and who is included in the communication, eligibility criteria for submitting proposals, types of projects funded, expressed priorities, and any other applicant requirements.

Review: Include and describe the review/scoring/prioritization criteria used to determine and select technically feasible projects. Discuss how you incorporate current scientific information and limiting factors to support the prioritization of projects. Describe feasibility factors that affect priority such as land ownership, permitting, cost, cost/benefit ratio, risk, etc. Also describe the review process, provide the resumes and qualifications of the review panel and explain how potential conflict of interest issues are avoided in regard to project prioritization.

Selection: Describe who makes funding recommendations and who makes final funding decisions. Describe all steps in this process including how potential conflicts of interest are avoided with regard to project funding.

Large Habitat Programs: View instructions

n/a

Location

Loading ...
Layers
Legend
Name (Identifier) Area Type Source for Limiting Factor Information
Type of Location Count
Wind River (1707010510) HUC 5 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 51
Trapper Creek-Wind River (170701051004) HUC 6 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 11
Trout Creek (170701051005) HUC 6 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 16
Panther Creek (170701051006) HUC 6 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 9
Little Wind River-Wind River (170701051008) HUC 6 EDT (Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment) 7

Back To Top

Project Deliverables

Project Deliverable definition: A significant output of a project that often spans multiple years and therefore may be accomplished by multiple contracts and multiple work elements. Contract Deliverables on the other hand are smaller in scope and correspond with an individual work element. Title and describe each Project Deliverable including an estimated budget, start year and end year. Title: A synopsis of the deliverable. For example: Crooked River Barrier and Channel Modification. Deliverable Description: Describe the work required to produce this deliverable in 5000 characters or less. A habitat restoration deliverable will contain a suite of actions to address particular Limiting Factors over time for a specified Geographic area typically not to exceed a species population’s range. Briefly include the methods for implementation, in particular any novel methods you propose to use, including an assessment of factors that may limit success. Do not go into great detail on RM&E Metrics, Indicators, and Methods if you are collecting or analyzing data – later in this proposal you’ll be asked for these details.
Project Deliverables: View instructions
WDFW- Adult VSP Monitoring (DELV-1)
Provide adult abundance, productivity, diversity, and spatial structure for the Wind River steelhead for the Wind River subbasion and key subwatersheds (Trout, Upper Wind, and Panther) using mark-recapture methods.
Types of Work:
WDFW Juvenile Steelhead Monitoring (DELV-2)
Estimate juvenile outmigrant abundance and age structure by life stage for the Wind River subbasin and key subwatersheds (Trout, Upper Wind, and Panther) using rotray screw traps.
Types of Work:
WDFW/USGS- Estimate Steelhead Survival Using PIT Tags (DELV-3)
PIT tag steelhead parr and smolts at rotary screw traps within the Wind Subbasin, and adults at the Shipherd Falls adult fish ladder trap. Use Wind River mainstem-instream PIT tag interrogtors in Trout Creek, mainstem Wind River, and Panther Creek, tributary-instream readers, manually operated detectors at Wind River screw traps, juvenile bypass and adult ladder inerrrogataors at Bonneville Dam (BON), and the NOAA estuary trawl to "recapture" perviously PIT tagged fish. Use Cormak-Jolly-Seber (CJS)model to estimate survival and detection probabilities. This will include estimates of parr to smolt, smolt to BON, adult at BON to adult at Wind River, adult at Wind River to kelt at BON, and kelt at BON to repeat spawner at BON survival rates.
Types of Work:
WDFW/USGS - Estimate Steelhead Response to Restoration Actions (DELV-4)
The USFS, BPA, and other entities have spent millions of dollars funding restoration in the Trout Creek subwatershed of the Wind River including the removal of Hemlock Dam in Trout Creek. We propose to test various hypotheses of steelhead responses in Trout Creek (the treatment stream) compared to the control stream (upper Wind/Panther) using Before_After_Control_Impact (BACI) Design or Before After (BA) desigins.

The removal of Hemlock dam is expected to increase the steelhead smolt abundance due to higher adult and juvenile passage survival, extra spawning and rearing habitat made available by replacing the reservoir with a stream channel, and lowering of summer water temperatures which would increase juvenile survival. In this case, the null hypothesis (Ho) in a BACI design is that there is no difference in the mean difference in smolt production between the upper Wind River (control site) and Trout Creek (impact site) before and after dam removal. The alternate hypothesis (Ha) is that there is an increase in the mean difference of smolt production before and after dam removal.

We propose to test a second hypothesis using a BA design. In this case, we propose to test the null hypothesis (Ho) that there is no difference in the productivity and capacity estimates of the spawner recruit model before and after dam removal. The alternate hypothesis (Ha) is that there is and increase in the productivity and capacity estimates from the spawner recruit model after dam removal.

Other possible lower priority hypotheses to test can be found in the study design section. Fully testing of these other hypothesis is funding dependent.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
162. Analyze/Interpret Data
156. Develop RM&E Methods and Designs
183. Produce Journal Article
USGS - Investigation of steelhead parr life-history variation (DELV-6)
Evidence from previous work in the Wind River subbasin indicates multiple life-history strategies for steelhead. In addition to anadromous and residual fish, there appears to be two strategies used for parr rearing. Some parr rear to smolt stage in the headwaters and upper portions of the main streams in the basin, others migrate downstream and rear to smolt stage in the lower reaches of the mainstem Wind River. It is known from smolt trapping that a sizeable downstream parr migration occurs in spring and early summer. Parr movements during the remainder of the year are unknown. The factors driving this life-history variation and the relative success of each strategy are unknown. With PIT tagging of parr in headwater areas and the full year operation of instream PIT tag detection systems, as well as detections of PIT tagged fish at Bonneville Dam and the estuary trawl we hope to began to explore these life-history strategies and the relative importance of each and the associated habitat used for rearing.
Types of Work:
USGS - Status/Trend Habitat Monitoring within the CHaMP Program: Wind RIver (DELV-7)
The monitoring of habitat status/trends will be conducted in Wind River under the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) following habitat monitoring protocols recommended by the Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring Program (ISEMP). This work will include: monitoring of habitat/channel/riparian/macroinvertebrate conditions using the ISEMP recommended habitat protocol at an annual panel of twenty-five (25) sites selected using a general random-tessellation stratified (GRTS) design guided by the ISEMP site selection protocol, and other ISEMP tools, standards, and training provided by ISEMP. Data collected under this deliverable will be entered and controlled for accuracy and quality by the proposer within data management tools provided by ISEMP and will be stored/archived for analysis in the STEM data bank.
Types of Work:
Work Class Work Elements
Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation + Data Management
157. Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data
UCD / USFS - Steelhead Habitat Restoration (DELV-5)
The deliverable of habitat restoration in the Wind River comes about through a lengthy process that involves numerous individuals and organizations working together. Based on limiting factors analysis and EDT modeling results included in the Lower Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, along with USFS Watershed Analysis, stream surveys, and other on-the-ground surveys, the process begins by identifying viable and needed projects on the ground. Our projects are focused on restoring the diversity and complexity of instream habitats, re-establishing access to historically available, but disconnected habitats, restoring healthy and diverse native riparian forests, and restoring watershed processes to help sustain high quality habitat over time. Dam removals, culvert removals or upgrades, large wood placement in streams and on floodplains, riparian forest thinning and underplanting, and road decommissions are typical projects we have undertaken to achieve those objectives.

Project identification requires office-based reviews and field visits, often including an interdisciplinary team to identify likely benefits and/or effects of the project. If on private lands, this also requires working with private landowners to share project objectives, and to develop the necessary trust required to obtain access to the land. Although we have been fortunate to receive BPA funds in the past, we typically do not get enough funds to accomplish significant habitat improvement without acquiring additional funding from other sources. We have established strong track records on past projects, and have successfully received significant cost share from the USFS, US Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA Fisheries Restoration Center, Ecotrust, State of Washington, Mid Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group, Skamania County, American Rivers, Yakama Nation and other organizations. But receiving these funds requires a commitment of time for grantwriting, supporting the grant through the selection process, and then administering the grant.

Once funding is acquired, specific project designs must be developed, and NEPA or SEPA processes including associated surveys and consultations with regulatory agencies must be completed. Projects typically also require permits from regulators including the US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Skamania County. Contracts are then prepared, advertised and awarded, and during the year of implementation, contract administration and compliance monitoring require a significant investment of time.

Because of the number of steps and time required in each of these steps, the process of getting to a habitat restoration project typically requires multiple years from start to finish. At any given time, we typically have a project or two in preparation, and one ready for implementation. This requires coordination of staffing, funds, grant timeframes, permit windows and subcontractors to ensure the process continues to move forward. Schedules can be upset by a delay in receiving a permit or consultation, due to a legal challenge, or difficulties in obtaining adequate cost share, or in the contracting process. As a result, we are not always able to put a habitat project on the ground in the anticipated year, and sometimes have multiple habitat projects ongoing in the same year.

The Wind River Watershed project benefits from the fact that over 90% of the drainage is on the national forest, so there are excellent relationships, consistent cooperation, and predictable follow-through for projects on those lands. And because significant time and energy has been invested in the watershed through the watershed council, educational events, and other public involvement activitites led by the UCD or USFS, we have also established strong ties to the community and a network of support. From that the project has received excellent cooperation from landowners in the watershed on important habitat projects.
Types of Work:

Back To Top

Objectives & Project Deliverables

Objective: Viable Salmonid Population (VSP) monitoring (OBJ-1)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
WDFW- Adult VSP Monitoring (DELV-1) WDFW Adult VSP Monitoring provides information on adult abundance, productivity, life history diversity and spatial structure
WDFW Juvenile Steelhead Monitoring (DELV-2) WDFW Juvenile Steelhead Monitoring provides information on juvenile steelhead abundance, steelhead freshwater productivity (adults to smolts), life history diversity and spatial structure
Objective: Steelhead life stage survival estimates (OBJ-2)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
WDFW/USGS- Estimate Steelhead Survival Using PIT Tags (DELV-3) WDFW/USGS Estimates of Steelhead Survival Using PIT Tags will provide life stage specific estimates of survival for wild Wind River steelhead
Objective: Steelhead response to habitat actions - hypothesis testing (OBJ-3)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
WDFW/USGS - Estimate Steelhead Response to Restoration Actions (DELV-4) WDFW/USGS- Estimates of Steelhead Response to Restoration Actions will provide information on steelhead response to habitat actions (e.g., Hemlock Dam Removal)
Objective: CHaMP-: Collaborate in the development and implementation of a standardized habitat status and trend monitoring program that spans the Columbia Basin (OBJ-5)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
USGS - Status/Trend Habitat Monitoring within the CHaMP Program: Wind RIver (DELV-7) USGS implementation of the CHaMP program will meet our objective of implementing standardized habitat status and trend monitoring
Objective: Steelhead parr life-history strategy (OBJ-6)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
USGS - Investigation of steelhead parr life-history variation (DELV-6) USGS Investigation of steelhead parr life history variation will provide information about parr life history strategies used by wild steelhead in the Wind River.
Objective: Restore Wind River Steelhead (OBJ-4)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
UCD / USFS - Steelhead Habitat Restoration (DELV-5) Habitat restoration is being done to restore the Wind River steelhead run by providing increased habitat availability, increased habitat quality, and restoring impaired watershed processes to sustain and rebuild habitats over time.
*This section was not available on proposals submitted prior to 9/1/2011

Back To Top

RM&E Protocols and Methods

RM&E Protocol Deliverable Method Name and Citation
Steelhead response to restoration (1998-019-00) v1.0
VSP monitoring (1998-019-00) v1.0
Steelhead life stage survival estimates (1998-019-00) v1.0
Basin Creek Utah Scientific Protocol for Salmonid Habitat Surveys within the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) v1.0 v1.0

Back To Top

Project Deliverables & Budget

Project Deliverable Start End Budget
WDFW- Adult VSP Monitoring (DELV-1) 2014 2017 $292,075
WDFW Juvenile Steelhead Monitoring (DELV-2) 2014 2017 $292,075
WDFW/USGS- Estimate Steelhead Survival Using PIT Tags (DELV-3) 2014 2017 $331,288
WDFW/USGS - Estimate Steelhead Response to Restoration Actions (DELV-4) 2014 2017 $202,153
USGS - Investigation of steelhead parr life-history variation (DELV-6) 2014 2017 $258,269
USGS - Status/Trend Habitat Monitoring within the CHaMP Program: Wind RIver (DELV-7) 2015 2017 $436,801
UCD / USFS - Steelhead Habitat Restoration (DELV-5) 2014 2017 $741,305
Total $2,553,966
Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Proposal Budget Limit Actual Request Explanation of amount above FY2013
2014 $501,218 Based on best recommendations and estimated expenses from current fiscal year and program plans.
2015 $645,080 Based on the FY2014 budget, plus a 3% increase to offset expected inflation, rising travel and other costs
2016 $693,277 3% increase over FY2015
2017 $714,391 3% increase over FY2016
Total $0 $2,553,966
Item Notes FY 2014 FY 2015 FY 2016 FY 2017
Personnel $292,569 $382,807 $400,494 $412,714
Travel $2,000 $2,060 $2,120 $2,185
Prof. Meetings & Training $400 $400 $425 $435
Vehicles $14,427 $16,516 $16,899 $17,302
Facilities/Equipment (See explanation below) $15,382 $17,957 $18,551 $19,177
Rent/Utilities $4,100 $4,100 $4,100 $4,100
Capital Equipment $0 $0 $22,000 $22,000
Overhead/Indirect $106,952 $154,077 $159,564 $165,322
Other Subcontracts for habitat projects $59,200 $60,975 $62,800 $64,690
PIT Tags $6,188 $6,188 $6,324 $6,466
Total $501,218 $645,080 $693,277 $714,391
Major Facilities and Equipment explanation:
This project has been ongoing for many years, and the basic infrastructure to operate the program has been well established: All agencies (USGS, WDFW, UCD, USFS) have office space and computer equipment (with network access, etc) located in the vicinity of the Wind River, and have the basic field gear and vehicles necessary to accomplish the work. Habitat restoration work is typically accomplished by subcontractors who bring the necessary equipment to the job.

Back To Top

Cost Share

Source / Organization Fiscal Year Proposed Amount Type Description
US Forest Service (USFS) 2014 $50,000 In-Kind USFS will contribute funding for habitat restoaration.
US Forest Service (USFS) 2015 $50,000 In-Kind USFS will contribute funding for habitat restoaration.
US Forest Service (USFS) 2016 $50,000 In-Kind USFS will contribute funding for habitat restoaration.
US Forest Service (USFS) 2017 $50,000 In-Kind USFS will contribute funding for habitat restoaration.
US Geological Survey (USGS) 2011 $6,000 In-Kind 1) Field equipment - PIT tag readers, scales, waders, fish workup gear.
2) Personnel time.
US Geological Survey (USGS) 2012 $6,000 In-Kind 1) Field equipment - PIT tag readers, scales, waders, fish workup gear.
2) Personnel time.
US Geological Survey (USGS) 2013 $6,000 In-Kind 1) Field equipment - PIT tag readers, scales, waders, fish workup gear.
2) Personnel time.
US Geological Survey (USGS) 2014 $6,000 In-Kind 1) Field equipment - PIT tag readers, scales, waders, fish workup gear.
2) Personnel time.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2011 $45,000 In-Kind Existing Equipment including 3 (of 4 ) rotary screw traps, GPS unit, CWT wands (2).

Staff assistance for: snorkel surveys, smolt trap installation/removal; adult trap assistance
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2012 $45,000 In-Kind Existing Equipment including 3 (of 4 ) rotary screw traps, GPS unit, CWT wands (2).

Staff assistance for: snorkel surveys, smolt trap installation/removal; adult trap assistance
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2013 $45,000 In-Kind Existing Equipment including 3 (of 4 ) rotary screw traps, GPS unit, CWT wands (2).

Staff assistance for: snorkel surveys, smolt trap installation/removal; adult trap assistance
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2014 $45,000 In-Kind Existing Equipment including 3 (of 4 ) rotary screw traps, GPS unit, CWT wands (2).

Staff assistance for: snorkel surveys, smolt trap installation/removal; adult trap assistance
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2011 $13,000 Cash SRFB grant to for FIFO monitoring - coho salmon in Lower Wind River.
We have received this for past two funding cycles. High liklihood of continued funding.
American Rivers 2011 $46,000 Cash American Rivers and NOAA Community Habitat Partnership granted UCD with funds to design fish passage correction at two tributaries to the Wind River for steelhead habitat improvement.
Ecotrust 2011 $90,000 Cash Ecotrust has granted UCD with $90,000 to implement a salmon/steelhead habitat restoration project in the LIttle Wind River sub-basin on private property.
Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 2014 $130,000 Cash Washington Dept. of Natural Resources has awarded UCD a grant over three years, starting in summer 2013, to conduct fish-passage barrier surveys on the lower Wind River and tributaries.
Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 2014 $77,635 Cash UCD has cost-share funding from US Fish & Wildlife currently, to be expended when remaining matching funds are available to implement fish-passage barrier corrections on Cannavina Creek.
Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 2014 $40,000 Cash UCD will contribute funding for habitat improvement (fish-passage barriers, or in-stream habitat and floodplain enhancements), from non-BPA grant sources.
Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 2015 $40,000 Cash UCD will contribute funding for habitat improvement (fish-passage barriers, or in-stream habitat and floodplain enhancements), from non-BPA grant sources.
Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 2016 $40,000 Cash UCD will contribute funding for habitat improvement (fish-passage barriers, or in-stream habitat and floodplain enhancements), from non-BPA grant sources.
(Unspecified Org) 2017 $40,000 Cash UCD will contribute funding for habitat improvement (fish-passage barriers, or in-stream habitat and floodplain enhancements), from non-BPA grant sources.

Back To Top

Project References or Citations

Arnason, A. N., C. W. Kirby, C. J. Schwarz, and J. R. Irvine. 1996. Computer analysis of data from stratified mark-recovery experiments for estimation of salmon escapements and other populations. Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2106: vi+37 p. http://www.cs.umanitoba.ca/~popan/ Bailey, N.T.J. 1951. On estimating the size of mobile populations from capture-recapture data. Biometrika 38: 293-306. Bayley, P.B. 2002. A review of studies in the response of salmon and trout to habitat change, with potential application in the Pacific Northwest. Report to the Washington State Independent Science Panel. Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office, Olympia,WA. Barber, M.E., and T. Perkins. 1999. Hemlock Dam Fish Passage Evaluation and Restoration. Civil and Environmental Engineering, Washington State University, Pullman,WA. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Gifford Pinchot National Forest, Wind River Ranger District. Bouwes, N, N. Weber, S. Bennett, J. Moberg, B. Bouwes, and C. Jordan. 2010. Tributary Habitat Monitoring at the Watershed or Population Scale: Preliminary Recommendations for Standardized Fish Habitat Monitoring in the Columbia River Basin. Prepared by the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program for Bonneville Power Administration. 104 pp. Bradford, M.J., J. Korman, and P.S. Higgins. 2005. Using confidence intervals to estimate the response if salmon populations (Oncorhynchus spp.) to experimental habitat alterations. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:2716-2762. Burnham, K,P., D.R. Anderson, G.C. White, C. Brownie, and K.H. Pollock. 1987. Design and analysis methods for fish survival experiments based on release-recapture. American Fisheries Society Monograph 5. Bethesda, MD. 437p. Carlson, S.R., L. Coggins, and C.O. Swanton. 1998. A simple stratified design for mark recapture of salmon smolt abundance. Alaska Fisheries Research Bulletin. Vol 5(2): 88-102. http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/afrb/vol5_n2/carlv5n2.pdf Connolly, P.J. 1997. Status of juvenile steelhead rearing in Trout and Panther creeks of the Wind River Basin. Prepared for: Washington Trout, Duvall, WA. Connolly, P.J. 2010. Guidelines for Calculating and Enhancing Detection Efficiency of PIT Tag Interrogation Systems. Pages 119-125 in K.S. Wolf, and J.S. O’Neal, eds. PNAMP Special Publication: Tagging, Telemetry and Marking Measures for Monitoring Fish Populations—A compendium of new and recent science for use in informing technique and decision modalities: Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership Special Publication 2010-002, Chapter 7. Connolly, P.J., I.G. Jezorek, K. Martens, and E.F. Prentice. 2008. Measuring performance of two stationary interrogation systems for detecting downstream and upstream movement of PIT-tagged salmonids. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28:402-417. Connolly, P.J., I.G. Jezorek, and C.S. Munz. 2007. Wind River Watershed Restoration. 2006-2007 Annual Report Project number 1998-019-00. Prepared for: Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?doc=P108888 Connolly, P.J., I.G. Jezorek, and E.F. Prentice. 2005. Development and use of in-stream PIT-tag detection systems to assess movement behavior of fish in tributaries of the Columbia River Basin, USA. Pages 217-220 in L.P.J.J. Noldus, F. Grieco, L.W.S. Loijens, and P.H. Zimmerman, editors. Proceedings of the Measuring Behavior 2005, 5th International Conference on Methods and Techniques in Behavioral Research. Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Connolly, P.J., and J.H. Petersen. 2003. Bigger is not always better for overwintering young-of-year steelhead. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:262-274. Connolly, P.J., and B. Bair. 2002. Watershed restoration for anadromous rainbow trout in Washington's Wind River, USA. Pages 194-208 in Central Fisheries Board of Ireland. Proceedings of the 13th International Salmonid Habitat Enhancement Workshop. ISSN 1649-256X, Dublin, Ireland. Connolly, P.J., and J.D. Hall. 1999. Biomass of coastal cutthroat trout in unlogged and previously clear-cut basins in the central Coast Range of Oregon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 128:890-899. Connolly, P.J. 1997. Influence of stream characteristics and age-class interactions on populations of coastal cutthroat trout. Pages 173-174 in J.D. Hall, P.A. Bisson, and R.E. Gresswell, editors. Sea-run cutthroat trout: biology, management, and future conservation. Oregon Chapter, American Fisheries Society, Corvallis. Cormack, R.M. 1964. Estimates of survival from the sighting of marked animals. Biometrka 51: 429-438. Crawford, B., T.R. Mosey, and D.H. Johnson. 2007. Carcass counts. Pages 59-86 in: D.H. Johnson, B.M. Shrier, J.S. O'Neal, J.A. Knutzen, X. Augerot, T.A. O'Neil, and T.N. Pearsons, editors. Salmonid Field Protocols Handbook: Techniques for assessing status and trends in salmon and trout population. American Fisheries Society and State of the Salmon. Crawford, B.A., and S. Rumsey. 2009. Guidance for monitoring recovery of salmon and steelhead listed under the Endangered Species Act (Idaho, Oregon, Washington). Darroch, J.N. 1961. The two-sample capture-recapture census when tagging and sampling are stratified. Biometrika 48:241-260. Dempson, J.B., and D.E. Stansbury. 1991. Using partial fences and a two sample stratified design for mark-recapture estimation of an Atlantic Salmon smolt population. NAJFM 11:27-37. Fournier, D. 2001. An introduction to AD MODEL BUILDER Version 6.02 for use in non-linear modeling and statistics, available form http://otter-rsch.com/admodel.htm. Hilborn, R., and C.J. Walters. 1992. Quantitative Fisheries Stock Assessment: Choice, Dynamics, and Uncertainty. Chapman and Hall, New York. Hill, M.S., G.B. Zydlewski, and W.L. Gale. 2006. Comparisons between hatchery and wild steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) smolts: physiology and habitat use. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:1627-1638. Hillman, T. W. 2006. Monitoring Strategy for the Upper Columbia Basin. Draft Report, August 2006. BioAnalysts, Inc. Report for Upper Columbia Salmon Recovery Board. Wenatchee, Washington. Hurlbert, S.H. 1984. Pseudoreplication and the design of ecological field experiments. Ecological Monographs 54:187-211. ISAB. 2003-2. A review of strategies for recovering tributary habitat. Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Report no. ISAB 2003-2. (20 July 2003) ISRP/ISAB. 2009. Independent Scientific Review Panel/Independent Scientific Advisory Board Tagging Report. Portland, OR. ISAB. 2011-4. Using a Comprehensive Landscape Approach for More Effective Conservation and Restoration. Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Report no. ISAB 2011-4. September 30, 2011. Jezorek, I.G., and P.J. Connolly. 2010. Wild Steelhead and Introduced Spring Chinook Salmon in the Wind River, Washington: Overlapping Populations and Interactions. Technical Report. Prepared for: Bonneville Power Administration, Project Number: 1998-019-01 Contract Number: 00041038. Jezorek, I.G., P.J. Connolly, and K. Martens. 2005. Wind River watershed project: Flow, temperature, and habitat conditions. 2002-2003 Annual Report. Prepared for: Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Project number 1998-019-00. https://efw.bpa.gov/Publications/H00004973-3.pdf Jolly, G.M. 1965. Explicit estimates from capture-recapture data with both death and immigration: stochastic model. Biometrika 52:225-247. Korman, J., and P.S. Higgins. 1997. Utility of escapement time series data for monitoring the response of salmon populations to habitat alteration. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54:2058-2067. Lady, J., P, Westhagen, and J.R. Skalski. 2001. Survival under proportional harzards:SURPH V 2.1. School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences, University of Washington. Seattle, WA. Larsen, D.P., T.M. Kincaid, S.E. Jacobs, and N.S. Urquhart. 2001. Designs for evaluating local and regional scale trends. BioScience 51(12):1069-1078. Ledgerwood, R.D., B.A. Ryan, E. M. Dawley, E. P. Nunnallee and J. W. Ferguson. 2004. A Surface Trawl to Detect Migrating Juvenile Salmonids Tagged with Passive Integrated Transponder Tags. North American Journal of Fisheries Management: Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 440–451. LCFRB. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. 2004a. Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan; Volume I & II . Kelso, WA. LCRFB. 2004b. Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan; Volume II – Subbasin Plan: Chapter J- Wind. 2004. Kelso, WA. LCFRB. 2010. Washington Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan. Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. May 2010. Magirl, C.S., P.J. Connolly, B. Coffin, J.J. Duda, C.A. Curran, and A.E. Draut. 2010. Sediment management strategies associated with dam removal in the State of Washington. Proceedings of The Federal Interagency Sedimentation Conferences, Las Vegas, NV June 28-July 1, 2010 Mapstone, B.D. 1995. Scalable decision rules for environmental impact studies: Effect size, Type I and Type II errors. Ecological Applications 5:401-410. McDonald, P.D.M, and T.J. Pitcher. 1979. Age groups from size-frequency data: a versatile and efficient method of analyzing mixture distributions. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 36:987-1001. McElhany, P., and 11 coauthors. 2003. Interim report on viability criteria for Willamette and Lower Columbia Basin Pacific Salmonids. Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team Interim Report. NOAA Fisheries, Portland. Meissner, K. 2005. Experimental methods in the assessment and monitoring of rivers: benefits, limitations, and integration with field surveys. West Finalnd Regional Environment Centre. Regional Environmental Publication 189. Mesa, M.G., C.D. Magie, T.C. Robinson, E.S. Copeland, and P.J. Connolly. 2006. Nutrient Assessment in the Wind River watershed. Prepared for: Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group, Camas, WA, and Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, Longview WA. Moberg, J. and M.B. Ward. 2009. A field manual of scientific protocols for selecting sampling sites used in the Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program. Myers, J. M., C. Busack, D. Rawding, and A. Marshall. 2003. Historical population structure of Willamette and Lower Columbia River Basin Pacific Salmonids. Population Identification Subcommittee of the Willamette/Lower Columbia Technical Recovery Team. 183pp. NOAA. 2010. Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon Life Cycle Model. Northwest Fisheries Science Center. Unpublished draft. Seattle, WA. 253pp. NPCC (Northwest Power and Conservation Council). 2009-09. Columbia River Basin fish and wildlife program: 2009 amendments. Council document no. 2009-09. (27 July 2011). O’Neal, J.S. 2007. Snorkel Surveys in Salmonid Field Protocols Handbook:Techniques for assessing status and trends in salmon and trout population, D.H. Johnson, B.M. Shrier, J.S. O'Neal, J.A. Knutzen, X. Augerot, T.A. O'Neil, T.N. Pearsons, editors. American Fisheries Society. Paulsen, C.M., and T.R. Fisher. 2003. Detecting juvenile survival effects of habitat actions; power analysis applied to endangered Snake River spring-summer Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 60:1122-1132. Rawding, D.J. 2000. Wind River subbasin summary. 30 June 2000 Draft. Prepared for: NW Power Planning Council, Portland, OR. http://www.cbfwa.org/FWProgram/ReviewCycle/fy2001cg/workplan/Wind.PDF . (Accessed 28 July 2010) Rawding, D., and P. Cochran. 2009. Steelhead and spring Chinook salmon smolt and adult population estimates from trapping data in the Wind River, 2008. Prepared for: Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, Oregon. Project number 1998-019-00. https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?doc=P115305 Rawding, D.J. 1997. Wind River smolt monitoring report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Southwest Washington Region, Vancouver, WA. Rawding, D., P.C. Cochran, and T. King. 1999. Wind River steelhead smolt and parr production monitoring during the 1998 spring outmigration. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Vancouver, WA. 30pp. Rawding, D. 2004. Comparisons of potential increases in Wind River summer steelhead performance from the proposed removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek using the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Model and an empirical approach. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 23pp. Rawding, D. 2004. Comparison of Spawner-Recruit Data with Estimates of Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) Spawner-Recruit Performance. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. Rawding, D. 2004. Comparisons of potential increases in Wind River summer steelhead performance from the proposed removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek using the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment Model and an empirical approach. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. 23pp. Rawding, D., and P.C. Cochran. 2001. Wind River steelhead smolt and parr production monitoring during the 1999 spring outmigration. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Vancouver, WA. 25pp. Rawding, D., and P.C. Cochran. 2005. Wind River winter and summer steelhead adult and smolt population estimates, 2000-2004. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Vancouver, WA. 29pp. https://efw.bpa.gov/Publications/H00004276-1.pdf Rawding, D., and P.C. Cochran. 2005. Wind River Winter and Summer Steelhead Adult and Smolt Population Estimates from Trapping Data, 2005. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, WA. 24pp. https://efw.bpa.gov/Publications/H00019617-1.pdf Rawding, D., and P.C. Cochran. 2006. Wind River Winter and Summer Steelhead Adult and Smolt Population Estimates from Trapping Data, 2006. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, WA. 24pp. https://efw.bpa.gov/Publications/H00019617-1.pdf Rawding, D., and P.C. Cochran. 2008. Wind River Winter and Summer Steelhead Adult and Smolt Population Estimates from Trapping Data, 2007. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, WA. Rawding, D., and P.C. Cocharn. 2009. Steelhead Smolt and Spring Chinook Salmon Adult Population Estimates from Trapping Data in the Wind River, 2008. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Vancouver, WA. Roni, P., M.C. Liermann, C. Jordan, and E.A. Steel. 2005. Steps for designing a monitoring and evaluation program for aquatic restoration. Pages 13-24 in P. Roni, editior. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society. Bethesda, MD. Roper, B.B., Buffington, J.M., Bennett, S., Lenigan, S.H., Archer, E., Downie, S., Faustini, J., Hillman, T., Hubler, S., Jones, K., Jordan, C., Kaufmann, P., Merritt, G., Moyer, C., and Pleus, A. In press. A comparison of the performance and compatibility of protocols used by seven monitoring programs to measure stream habitat in the Pacific Northwest. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. Rosenberger, A.E., and J.B. Dunham. 2005. Validation of abundance estimates from mark–recapture and removal techniques for rainbow trout captured by electrofishing in small streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:1395–1410. Ruckelshaus, W., and J. Koenings. 2005. Recommendations for implementation monitoring of Salmon Recovery. Office of the Interagency Committee. Olympia, WA. Sauter, S.T., and P.J. Connolly. 2010. Condition factor and bioenergetics modeling link warmer stream temperatures below Hemlock Dam to reduced physiological performance of juvenile steelhead. Technical Report. Bonneville Power Administration, Project Number: 1998-019-01 Contract Number: 00041038. https://pisces.bpa.gov/release/documents/documentviewer.aspx?doc=P116331 Schwarz, C.J., and C.G. Taylor. 1998. Use of the stratified- Petersen estimator in fisheries management: estimating the number of pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha) spawners in the Fraser River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 55:281-296. Seber, G.A.F. 1965. A note on the multiple-recapture census. Biometrika 52:249-259. Seber, G.A.F. 1982. The estimation of animal abundance and related parameters, 2nd edition. Charles Griffin and Company, London. Smith,E.P., D.R. Orvos, and J. Cairns Jr. 1993. Impact assessment using before-after-control-impact (BACI) model: Concerns and comments. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 50:627-637. Smith, E.P. 2002. BACI design. Volume 1, pages 141-148 in A. H. El-Shaarawi and W. W. Piegorsch (editors). Encyclopedia of Environmentrics. John Wiley & Sons. Chichester. Solazzi, M.F., T.E. Nickelson, S.L. Johnson, and J.D. Rogers. 2000. Effects of increasing winter rearing habitat on abundance of salmonids in two Oregon streams. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57:906-914. Spiegelhalter, D., A Thomas, and N. Best. 2003. WinBUGS, Version 1.4. User Manual MRC and Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine. Stevens, Jr., D.L. and Anthony R. Olsen. 2003. Variance estimation for spatially balanced samples of environmental resources. Environmetrics. 14:593-610. Stevens, Jr., D.L., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially-Balanced Sampling of Natural Resources. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 99:262-277. Stewart-Oaten, A., W. W. Murdoch and K. Parker. 1986. Environmental impact assessment: "pseudoreplication" in time? Ecology 67:929-940. Stewart-Oaten, A, J.R. Bence, and C.W. Osenberg. 1992. Assessing the effects of unreplicated perturbations: No simple solutions. Ecology 73:1396-1404. Thedinga, J.F., S.W. Johnson, K V. Koski, J.M. Lorenz, and M.L. Murphy. 1994. Determination of salmonid smolt yield with rotary screw traps in the Situk River, Alaska, to predict effects of glacial flooding. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 14:837-851. Thomson, D.L., E.G. Cooch, and M.J. Conroy. 2009. Modeling Demographic Processess in Marked Populations. Springer. New York. Underwood, A.J. 1994. On beyond BACI: sampling designs that might reliably detect environmental disturbances. Ecological Applications 4:3-15. USFS (US Forest Service). 1996. Wind River basin watershed analysis. Wind River Ranger District, Carson, Washington. USFS (US Forest Service). 2001. Wind River basin watershed analysis-Second Iteration. Mt Adams Ranger District, Trout Lake, WA. USFS (US Forest Service). 2004. Draft environmental impact statement: Fish passage and aquatic habitat restoration at Hemlock Dam. Mt Adams Ranger District. 2003 pp. USFS (US Forest Service). 2005. Fish passage and aquatic habitat improvement at Hemlock Dam. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Mt. Adams District, Gifford Pinchot National Forest. USFWS. 2004. Carson National Fish Hatchery – Hatchery Genetic Management Plan. Vancouver ,WA. 93pp. Volkhardt, G., S.L. Johnson, B.A. Miller, T.E. Nickelson, and D.E. Sieler. 2007. Rotary screw traps and inclined plan screen traps. Pages 235-266 in D.H. Johnson, B.M. Shrier, J.S. O'Neal, J.A. Knutzen, X. Augerot, T.A. O'Neil, and T.N. Pearsons, editors. Salmonid Field Protocols Handbook: Techniques for assessing status and trends in salmon and trout population. American Fisheries Society. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2001. Fishery Management and Evaluation Plan (FMEP): Lower Columbia River Region. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Olympia, WA. WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2003. SaSI 2002. WDFW Salmonid stock inventory. Available at: http://www.wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sasi Whitacre, H.W., B.B. Roper, and J.L. Kershner. 2007. A comparison ofprotocols and observer precision for measuring physical stream attributes. Journal of the American Water Association 43:923-937. White, G.C. 1996. Program NOREMARK software reference manual. Department of Fish and Wildlife Colorado State University. Fort Collins. Wolf, K.S., and O’Neal, J.S., eds. 2010. PNAMP Special Publication: Tagging, Telemetry and Marking Measures for Monitoring Fish Populations – A compendium of new and recent science for use in informing technique and decision modalities: Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership Special Publication 2010-002, 194 p.

Back To Top

Notes

None

Back To Top

2013 Geographic Category Review Assessments

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1998-019-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This is a scientifically justified proposal. The ISRP suggests that the project sponsors dedicate some additional effort to evaluate fish and habitat response to some of the restoration methods being employed in the watershed. An improved understanding of the canyon life history also would be useful. The project sponsors should continue to pursue funding to address these issues.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Overall, the project significance and problem statements were well written and persuasive. The relationship between this project and regional restoration programs was explained in detail. This project appears to be well-aligned with regional priorities. The steelhead in the Wind River represent a key population for recovery of the ESU. And the Wind River watershed, by virtue of federal ownership, is unlikely to be impacted by significant changes in land use. Therefore, this site represents a great opportunity to establish a healthy watershed that can serve as an anchor for the restoration of steelhead in this area of the Columbia Basin.

The technical background provided in the proposal was brief, but links to other documents provided sufficient detail to illustrate that the approach being used to identify restoration projects and to monitor habitat and fish populations in the study area are scientifically sound. Additional summary data of steelhead abundance over time in the Wind River in the body of the proposal would have provided useful context. The land use and dam construction section was very helpful. The objectives section summarized the biological and habitat monitoring aspects of the project but did not address the habitat restoration actions. It would have been helpful to summarize the major restoration projects being carried out with partners, especially the Forest Service.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The proposal provides a thorough review of project history and accomplishments. A summary of results to date was provided in the proposal. Results of research and monitoring projects that have been associated with this project also are provided through links to reports and publications. This project has an excellent history of cost-sharing. The restoration work itself has included a wide variety of activities ranging from barrier removal to riparian re-vegetation to instream structure placement. The major restoration project has been the removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek and another small dam on Martha Creek. The table and photos showing major habitat accomplishments by year was very informative.

The section on adaptive management was generally well done and included information about how learning has taken place in both the restoration and biological monitoring aspects of the study. Restoration project selection is still largely based on an EDT assessment and a Forest Service Watershed Analysis that were conducted almost ten years ago. At some point it would be valuable to use the monitoring results generated after these initial assessments to update and revise the analyses.

The project sponsors are encouraged to publish results in peer reviewed journals.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

This project appears to be well aligned with other efforts on habitat restoration and fish and habitat research in the Columbia Basin. Some of this coordination is a product of interaction of the project participants with scientists involved in the ISEMP, CHaMP and PNAMP processes. These relationships help to ensure a high level of data compatibility between this project and monitoring efforts elsewhere in the Columbia Basin. This project further benefits from the collaboration among multiple management/research organizations including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The biological monitoring in this project far exceeds most of the other habitat-focused projects funded by BPA, and the ISRP continues to applaud project sponsors for their efforts. Investigators have learned much about steelhead life history in the Wind River, and their discovery of two rearing strategies, the headwater tributary and lower mainstem or canyon rearing, have allowed them to design monitoring systems to evaluate the significance of both strategies and the role of habitat restoration in recovering the overall population. The PIT-tag detection network in Wind River tributaries is among the most complete in the Columbia River Basin.

There is a very good process in place to assess adult fish returning to the system, parr abundance and movement, and smolt production. Given the significance of the canyon life-history strategy for steelhead, additional research on the canyon life history would be appropriate. The addition of a CHaMP habitat monitoring program to the Wind River will provide a very good indication of habitat status and trends in condition overall. The Hemlock and Martha Creek dam removals represent an excellent opportunity to study small dam removals as a model of addressing an obvious limiting factor, and it appears that project sponsors are monitoring the outcomes as best they can with available resources. We are encouraged that the Hemlock Dam removal project is receiving biological effectiveness monitoring.

The project sponsors provide a very clear explanation of why they feel that PIT tags are the most appropriate technology to use in answering the questions to be addressed through this project. The PIT-tagging network allows project sponsors to track adult and juvenile steelhead movements to and from Wind River tributaries.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables were adequately identified for the steelhead life history studies and steelhead response to restoration. The proposal did an excellent job of explaining or providing links to the biological response metrics and methods that would be used to track fish movements. Because this project is well integrated with ISEMP and CHaMP (although it is not an IMW), the biological and habitat monitoring work elements are generally on solid scientific ground. There does, however, appear to be a lack of project-effectiveness monitoring. There is a very good process in place to assess adult fish returning to the system, parr abundance and movement and smolt production. The addition of a CHaMP habitat monitoring program to the Wind River will provide a very good indication of habitat status and trends in condition overall. But there is very little mention in the proposal about efforts to evaluate habitat or fish response to many of the restoration projects that have been completed, with the exception of the assessment of the effect of the removal of Hemlock Dam. Some additional evaluation of the effectiveness of the less-dramatic restoration treatments would be useful for refining the process for prioritizing projects in the future.

About 25% of the funding requested by this proposal will be used to implement restoration treatments. Details about proposed habitat restoration actions were not as complete as were details about life history and habitat monitoring. Some discussion of how far along the program of restoration is in the Wind River drainage would have been useful. Project sponsors explain that it takes several years to plan and execute a restoration activity, and specific project locations are often opportunistic. The proposal does, however, provide reasonable detail about the general types of restoration efforts that are taking place. Nevertheless, a little more information about what restoration work is critical and what efforts are "in the pipe" would have been helpful.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This proposal does an excellent job of linking the monitoring methods to existing protocols and techniques as described in MonitoringMethods.org.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:

This is a scientifically justified proposal. The ISRP suggests that the project sponsors dedicate some additional effort to evaluate fish and habitat response to some of the restoration methods being employed in the watershed. An improved understanding of the canyon life history also would be useful. The project sponsors should continue to pursue funding to address these issues.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

Overall, the project significance and problem statements were well written and persuasive. The relationship between this project and regional restoration programs was explained in detail. This project appears to be well-aligned with regional priorities. The steelhead in the Wind River represent a key population for recovery of the ESU. And the Wind River watershed, by virtue of federal ownership, is unlikely to be impacted by significant changes in land use. Therefore, this site represents a great opportunity to establish a healthy watershed that can serve as an anchor for the restoration of steelhead in this area of the Columbia Basin.

The technical background provided in the proposal was brief, but links to other documents provided sufficient detail to illustrate that the approach being used to identify restoration projects and to monitor habitat and fish populations in the study area are scientifically sound. Additional summary data of steelhead abundance over time in the Wind River in the body of the proposal would have provided useful context. The land use and dam construction section was very helpful. The objectives section summarized the biological and habitat monitoring aspects of the project but did not address the habitat restoration actions. It would have been helpful to summarize the major restoration projects being carried out with partners, especially the Forest Service.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The proposal provides a thorough review of project history and accomplishments. A summary of results to date was provided in the proposal. Results of research and monitoring projects that have been associated with this project also are provided through links to reports and publications. This project has an excellent history of cost-sharing. The restoration work itself has included a wide variety of activities ranging from barrier removal to riparian re-vegetation to instream structure placement. The major restoration project has been the removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek and another small dam on Martha Creek. The table and photos showing major habitat accomplishments by year was very informative.

The section on adaptive management was generally well done and included information about how learning has taken place in both the restoration and biological monitoring aspects of the study. Restoration project selection is still largely based on an EDT assessment and a Forest Service Watershed Analysis that were conducted almost ten years ago. At some point it would be valuable to use the monitoring results generated after these initial assessments to update and revise the analyses.

The project sponsors are encouraged to publish results in peer reviewed journals.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

This project appears to be well aligned with other efforts on habitat restoration and fish and habitat research in the Columbia Basin. Some of this coordination is a product of interaction of the project participants with scientists involved in the ISEMP, CHaMP and PNAMP processes. These relationships help to ensure a high level of data compatibility between this project and monitoring efforts elsewhere in the Columbia Basin. This project further benefits from the collaboration among multiple management/research organizations including the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

The biological monitoring in this project far exceeds most of the other habitat-focused projects funded by BPA, and the ISRP continues to applaud project sponsors for their efforts. Investigators have learned much about steelhead life history in the Wind River, and their discovery of two rearing strategies, the headwater tributary and lower mainstem or canyon rearing, have allowed them to design monitoring systems to evaluate the significance of both strategies and the role of habitat restoration in recovering the overall population. The PIT-tag detection network in Wind River tributaries is among the most complete in the Columbia River Basin.

There is a very good process in place to assess adult fish returning to the system, parr abundance and movement, and smolt production. Given the significance of the canyon life-history strategy for steelhead, additional research on the canyon life history would be appropriate. The addition of a CHaMP habitat monitoring program to the Wind River will provide a very good indication of habitat status and trends in condition overall. The Hemlock and Martha Creek dam removals represent an excellent opportunity to study small dam removals as a model of addressing an obvious limiting factor, and it appears that project sponsors are monitoring the outcomes as best they can with available resources. We are encouraged that the Hemlock Dam removal project is receiving biological effectiveness monitoring.

The project sponsors provide a very clear explanation of why they feel that PIT tags are the most appropriate technology to use in answering the questions to be addressed through this project. The PIT-tagging network allows project sponsors to track adult and juvenile steelhead movements to and from Wind River tributaries.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables were adequately identified for the steelhead life history studies and steelhead response to restoration. The proposal did an excellent job of explaining or providing links to the biological response metrics and methods that would be used to track fish movements. Because this project is well integrated with ISEMP and CHaMP (although it is not an IMW), the biological and habitat monitoring work elements are generally on solid scientific ground. There does, however, appear to be a lack of project-effectiveness monitoring. There is a very good process in place to assess adult fish returning to the system, parr abundance and movement and smolt production. The addition of a CHaMP habitat monitoring program to the Wind River will provide a very good indication of habitat status and trends in condition overall. But there is very little mention in the proposal about efforts to evaluate habitat or fish response to many of the restoration projects that have been completed, with the exception of the assessment of the effect of the removal of Hemlock Dam. Some additional evaluation of the effectiveness of the less-dramatic restoration treatments would be useful for refining the process for prioritizing projects in the future.

About 25% of the funding requested by this proposal will be used to implement restoration treatments. Details about proposed habitat restoration actions were not as complete as were details about life history and habitat monitoring. Some discussion of how far along the program of restoration is in the Wind River drainage would have been useful. Project sponsors explain that it takes several years to plan and execute a restoration activity, and specific project locations are often opportunistic. The proposal does, however, provide reasonable detail about the general types of restoration efforts that are taking place. Nevertheless, a little more information about what restoration work is critical and what efforts are "in the pipe" would have been helpful.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This proposal does an excellent job of linking the monitoring methods to existing protocols and techniques as described in MonitoringMethods.org.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 11:42:16 AM.
Documentation Links:
Proponent Response: