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 RMECAT-1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Proposal Summary

Proposal RMECAT-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
Download 7/30/2010 12:55 PM Status Draft ISRP - Pending First Review <System>
10/15/2010 5:56 PM Status ISRP - Pending First Review ISRP - Pending Final Review <System>
1/19/2011 2:45 PM Status ISRP - Pending Final Review Pending Council Recommendation <System>
7/8/2011 2:46 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:
   RMECAT-1998-019-00
Proposal Status:
 Pending BPA Response
Proposal Version:
 Proposal Version 1
Review:
 RME / AP Category Review
Portfolio:
 RM&E Cat. Review - RM&E
Type:
 Existing Project: 1998-019-00
Primary Contact:
 Patrick Connolly (Inactive)
Created:
 6/7/2010 by (Not yet saved)
Proponent Organizations:
 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Underwood Conservation District (UCD)
US Forest Service (USFS)
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 multi-agency approach to RM&E of restoration of a wild steelhead population through habitat actions. Evaluation of habitat restoration actions and steelhead responses will help prioritize future resoration and RME projects in the Columbia Basin. We have incorporated a standardized habitat status and trend monitoring program called Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) under Integrated Status and Trend Monitoring Program (ISEMP).
 
Proposal Executive Summary:
 The Wind River Watershed project is a collaborative effort to restore wild steelhead in the Wind River through habitat restoration and the creation of a wild steelhead sanctuary. The four agencies forming the nucleus of this partnership are the US Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, USGS's Columbia River Research Laboratory, and Underwood Conservation District. This partnership was established in the early 1990's and, with support from BPA, has continued to conduct important habitat restoration, research, monitoring, evaluation, and coordination activities across the subbasin. The project works at multiple levels to identify and characterize key limiting habitat factors in the Wind River, to restore degraded habitats and watershed processes, to measure and track fish populations, life histories, and interactions, and to share information across agency and non-agency boundaries. In the Columbia Basin Monitoring Review Forum, it was recommended that the Wind River watershed be designated as an intensively monitored watershed (IMW), and in 2007, the Bonneville Power Administration recommended that the fisheries agencies transition from VSP monitoring of key watersheds (Trout, Upper Wind, and Panther) into a Before-After-Control-Impact (BACI) design to evaluate the anticipated steelhead response to the removal of Hemlock Dam and other restoration in Trout Creek. We propose to incorporate a BACI design, with Trout Creek a good candidate for designation as a treatment watershed. Upper Wind and/or Panther Creek have much potential to serve as control watersheds. These designation would allow the BACI design to test dam removal (Trout Creek) , and to test habitat restoration (Upper Wind or Panther), against a control (Panther or Upper Wind). For fish monitoring, the goals of this prohect are VSP monitoring, life stage survival monitoring, and monitoring the response of steelhead to the removal of Hemlock Dam.

The monitoring of habitat status/trends will be conducted in Wind River under the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) that is being proposed under a related project 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.
Purpose:
 Programmatic
Emphasis:
 RM and E
Species Benefit:
 Anadromous: 95.0%   Resident: 5.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Supports 2009 NPCC Program:
 Yes
Subbasin Plan:
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
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

FISH MONITORING

Lower Columbia River salmon and steelhead populations are listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).  The Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board (LCFRB) was established to develop and implement a recovery plan for listed populations.  In December 2004, the State of Washington submitted the LCFRB plan to NOAA-Fisheries for the recovery of salmon and steelhead populations in this domain (LCRFB 2004). The goal of the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery and Subbasin Plan is to “recover Washington lower Columbia salmon, steelhead, and bull trout to healthy, harvestable levels that will sustain productive sport, commercial, and tribal fisheries through the restoration and protection of ecosystems which they depend and implementation of supportive hatchery and harvest practices; and sustain and enhance the health of other native fish and wildlife species in the lower Columbia through protection of the ecosystems upon with they depend, control of non-native species, and the restoration of balanced predator/prey relationships” (LCRFB 2004).

The goal of the Wind River Watershed program is to restore wild steelhead abundance to healthy and harvestable levels, and restore watershed processes and habitat.  To achieve this goal, an adaptive management approach is used to incorporate research, monitoring, and evaluation (RME) to assess the all H threats (Hatchery, Harvest, Habitat, and Hydro).  See the adaptive management section for some of the specifics on application of adaptive management to this watershed.  Our program has focused on two approaches to restoring steelhead populations.  The first approach is to assess the within subbasin harvest and hatchery risks, and take actions to reduce and eliminate these risk factors.  The second approach has been to assess habitat limiting factors using multiple approaches including USFS watershed Analysis (USFS 1996, USFS 2001) and the Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment (EDT) model (LCFRB 2004, Rawding 2004), and develop and implement restoration projects to improve watershed health and steelhead productivity, capacity, and survival based on these assessment.  The RME program provides a feedback loop for implementation of the adaptive management program. This program has focused on steelhead because: 1) steelhead are distributed throughout the watershed because Shipherd Falls (RM 2) is a barrier to other anadromous fishes, and 2) steelhead spend on average three years in freshwaters as juvenile and adults, and  have specific habitat tolerances making them a good indicator species for watershed health.

We have evaluated hatchery risks, and eliminated genetic risk to wild steelhead populations by eliminating hatchery steelhead releases in 1997 and managing the Wind River above the Shipherd Falls trap as a wild steelhead sanctuary since 1999.   Trout Creek was managed as a wild steelhead sanctuary since 1992. These actions have reduced the number of hatchery spawners to less than 1% of the potential spawning population.  Our assessment of the ecological interactions between wild steelhead and hatchery spring Chinook salmon for a US v. Oregon mitigation program indicated these risks were very low due to the type of hatchery operations which include smolt releases which rapidly emigrate form the subbasin prior to steelhead migration, high conversion rate of adults to the hatchery, little natural reproduction of juvenile Chinook salmon, and adherence to hatchery disease policy (Jezorak and Connolly 2010 and USFWS 2004).

Within subbasin harvest impacts have been reduced through emergency closures of the Wind River to steelhead fishing when abundance levels were low in the late 1990’s and a permanent closure to steelhead fishing above Shipherd Falls through 2005.  From the data collected from this project, a spawner-recruit analysis suggested that maximum smolt seeding levels from the hockey stick model were ~ 500 adults (WDFW, unpublished).  Since 2006, a short catch and release fishery is open between September 16 and November 30 if the 500 adult goal is projected to be achieved.  Since effort is rather low, fall water temperatures are well below thresholds of concern, and gear is restricted to single barbless hooks, harvest impacts are negligible (WDFW 2001).   In 2000, we initiated a PIT tagging program to address out of basin impacts due to harvest and hydro-related survival.  These data suggest low survival (~50%) for returning adult steelhead in the 15 miles from Bonneville Dam to the Wind River (WDFW unpublished).     

Since the elimination of hatchery steelhead production and the near elimination of within subbasin harvest, the only remaining action to improve steelhead persistence within the subbasin is habitat restoration.  Habitat restoration science, especially in regard to quantifying fish population response to actions, is a relatively new and developing science.  For example, it is difficult to predict changes in fish distribution, survival, productivity, and capacity due to specific actions such as a road decommissioning, placement of LWD, bank stabilization, riparian plantings, etc.  Recommended restoration actions from our EDT assessments and Watershed Analysis can be viewed as a series of hypothesis to be tested.  They can be tested by life stages at different spatial and temporal scales.  To date restoration activities have occurred throughout the Wind River watershed.  The largest restoration projects to have occurred within the watershed are in Trout Creek and the Upper Wind River, and these projects are intended to improve watershed processes, instream habitat, and passage.  During the last three years, a significant amount of resources have been dedicated to the removal of Hemlock dam, a potential fish passage barrier near RM 2 on Trout Creek, a key tributary to the Wind River.   Therefore, the major emphasis of this RME proposal is to evaluate steelhead response to Trout Creek restoration using a BACI design.  Other broad scale questions for this project are: 1) what is the VSP status of steelhead population? 2)  What is the habitat status trend within the anadromous zone? 3) What are the varied life history strategies used by steelhead parr and the contribution of fish from various strategies to adult populations?  

Key documents for this project for VSP monitoring of adult and smolt abundance include Rawding 1997, Rawding et al. (1999), Rawding et al. (2001), Rawding and Cochran (2005a), Rawding and Cochran (2005b), Rawding and Cochran (2006), Rawding and Cochran (2008), Rawding and Cochran (2009), Rawding and Cochran (2010).  Rawding (2004a) and Rawding (2004b) are examples spawner-recruit analysis estimates of productivity and capacity. The VSP study design section of this proposal details on the methods used to answer the following VSP monitoring questions below, which are taken from Crawford and Rumsey (2009). 

Key population abundance status/trend monitoring questions

1.What is the overall status/trend of VSP criteria for each population within each MPG?

Key population abundance status/trend monitoring questions

1. What is the status/trend of natural origin adult spawners for the primary populations within each MPG?

2. What is the proportion of hatchery origin fish on the spawning grounds for each population within the MPG?

3. What is the age structure and cohort structure for each population?

4. What are the harvest mortalities of fisheries conducted throughout its range?

5. If this population is supplemented, what is the viability of the population with and without supplementation

Monitoring questions that address population productivity

1. What is the Adult to adult productivity ratio of primary population’s natural abundance?

2. What is the smolt to adult ratio of selected primary population’s natural abundance?

3. What is the long term trend in productivity for the primary populations?

4. What is the variance about the adult and smolt estimates?

Key monitoring questions for determining spatial structure of populations

1. Has there been a change in the spawner distribution within populations?

2. What is the variance about the distribution estimate?

Key monitoring questions associated with evaluating species diversity

1.Has there been a change in the species diversity of populations within the MPG?

This project contributes to the ChaMP project which will be addressing these habitat management questions. Key reports that address habitat and salmonid abundance and use by Wind River proponents include: Connolly (1997), Connolly and Hall (1999), and Connolly and Bair (2002). Crawford and Rumsey (2009) detail the following management questions for habitat. 

List of monitoring questions for loss of habitat

1.What is the overall status/trends of habitat for each population within an ESU?

The type of monitoring proposed we have termed steelhead response monitoring.  The details of the monitoring questions can be found in the steelhead response study design.  The basic question we are asking is have steelhead abundance, productivity, life history responded to restoration actions (particularly dam removal) in Trout Creek.  This relies on a BACI and BA designs.  We are proposing to establish a long-term control and to use a BACI design to assess standard restoration actions. Rawding et al. (2008) is a reference for power analysis to detect a change in smolt abundance due to dam removal using BACI design with Trout Creek as the treatment and Upper Wind River as the control. Effectiveness monitoring questions from the NOAA guidance are listed below.

List of effectiveness monitoring questions for restoring lost habitat

1. Have the recovery participants monitored whether habitat restoration actions at the site level were effective in improving habitat and range?

2. Have the recovery participants monitored whether the cumulative restoration actions at the watershed level been effective in improving fish production?

3. Have the HCPs, BiOps, or FERC requirements been effective in restoring and protecting habitat?

Survival monitoring questions from Crawford and Rumsey (2009) are listed below.  The current PIT tagging of wild Wind River steelhead helps to estimate  intra and inter-life stage survival within the Wind Basin in relation to habitat along with FRCPS questions below.   Key reports by Wind River personnel on estimating survival and the use of in-stream PIT tag detectors to calculate and estimate survival include: Connolly and Peterson (2003) Connolly et al. (2005), Connolly et al. (2008), and Connolly (2010).

Key monitoring questions for addressing hydropower threats

1. Determine status/trends of smolt survival passing dams

2. Determine migration timing at dams sites

Other management questions that will be addressed from Crawford and Rumsey (2009) are: What is the status/trend of mortality due to freshwater competition with invasive trout species? This will be addressed through continued monitoring of the brook trout population in Trout Creek after dam removal.  Key reports include Connolly (1997), Jezorek et al. (2005), and Connolly et al. (2007). The validation of existing regulatory mechanisms question is: are adults and juveniles adequately protected to allow populations to reach abundance and productivity goals and timelines? This will be addressed through the VSP monitoring described above.  The key monitoring questions that address threats due to climate and other natural causes are: 1) what is the status/trend of PNW stream flow? 2) What is the status/trend of stream temperatures?  These will be addressed through stream gauge sites currently operated by USFS and DOE along with thermographs operated by USGS, USFS, and UCD.

HABITAT MONITORING

The goal of this project is to implement a standard set of fish habitat monitoring methods in select watershed of the Columbia River basin.  The fish habitat monitoring methods have been developed to capture habitat features that drive fish population biology and the 26 watersheds chosen maximize the contrast in current habitat conditions and also represent a temporal gradient of expected change in condition through planned habitat actions.  The data from this project will be used to evaluate the quantity and quality of tributary fish habitat available to salmonids across the Columbia River basin.  When combined with parallel fish monitoring metrics from related projects, these data will also be used assess the impact of habitat management actions on fish population processes. 

 In support of habitat restoration, rehabilitation and conservation action performance assessments and adaptive management requirements of the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion (BiOp), the Bonneville Power Administration is working with NOAA and other regional fish management agencies to implement a tributary habitat action effectiveness strategy across the Columbia River basin (FCRPS BO RPA 56.3).

 The strategy has three basic approaches to addressing the question of, “can we quantify the impact of stream habitat management actions in terms of changes in fish population processes?”  The first approach is through watershed-scale experimental manipulations where an explicit cause-and-effect framework is established around stream habitat management actions with fish population process metrics as the response variable.  These Intensively Monitored Watersheds (IMW) are the most direct manner by which a connection between the quantity and quality of stream habitat and fish population processes can be established; however, they are expensive, difficult to coordinate and implement, and cannot be run everywhere as the experimental designs are sufficiently restrictive on when and where actions of a specified type can be implemented such that they aren’t compatible with all watershed management scenarios.  Two alternative to IMWs have been suggested, both dependent on modeling to connect habitat condition to fish population response: reach-scale habitat action effectiveness monitoring and watershed-scale habitat and fish status and trends monitoring.  In both cases, habitat action implementation and habitat and fish monitoring are not coordinated to explicitly demonstrate changes in fish population processes as caused by changes in habitat quality and quantity, but through statistical modeling, fish and habitat metrics can be correlated, and in an observational studies manner, their relationships can be quantified.  Habitat action effectiveness and status and trends monitoring are less restrictive in terms of when and where they can be implemented, and thus are ideally suited to broad-scale comparisons. 

 The habitat status and trends monitoring proposed in the Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program (CHaMP) is a Columbia River basin wide habitat status and trends monitoring program built around a single habitat monitoring protocol (a protocol being a set of methods and associated metrics, Oakely 2003), with a program-wide approach to data collection and management.  This program will result in systematic habitat status and trends information that will be used to assess basin-wide habitat condition and correlated with biological response indicators to evaluate habitat management strategies. 

 The Columbia Habitat Monitoring Program includes monitoring the status and trends of fish habitat for at least one population per major population group (MPG) as identified in the AA/NOAA/NPCC BiOp RM&E Recommendations Report (FCRPS AA 2010) and the table below (TABLE).  The program is designed to maximize the information content of the habitat monitoring data through coordinated, standardized implementation of a single habitat monitoring protocol (Bouwes et al. 2010) across multiple watersheds and projects.  To meet this goal, CHaMP collaborators will be supported by cross-project data management, stewardship and analysis staff.  All participants’ work in the program will be coordinated through a single project manager and a set of annual pre- and post-season meetings.  Finally, all collaborators will participate in annual field protocol and data management tool implementation training sessions.  The support, coordination and training is critical to ensure the results of these monitoring projects can be combined effectively in the development of relationships and models under FCRPS BO RPA 57.5 and needed assessments in the future under FCRPS BO RPA 3.

mod_CHaMPTable_3_2_Part_2mod_CHaMPTtable_3_2_Part_1

Background and Assumptions – Anadromous salmonids spawn and rear in most of the streams of the Pacific Northwest, and it is reasonable to assume that the quality and quantity of habitat in these environments determines multiple population processes of these fishes.  Monitoring programs are expected to describe the physical and biological characteristics of stream habitat across the Pacific Northwest.  Recovery and management plans are expected to be based on this information to assess current conditions and to predict future salmonid production under multiple scenarios, from status quo, alternative land and river management strategies, to stream restoration and conservation, and determine if these predictions hold true.  Since we are dealing with listed species, it suggests that we have not been effective at using past monitoring information to make sound management decisions meant to preserve these resources.  Possible explanations for the inability to use monitoring information in the development of effective management strategies could include, but are not limited to, a fundamental misinterpretation or misunderstanding of fish natural history, a failure to characterize physical and biological habitat in a manner relevant to fish population processes, or an inability to develop large-scale data in a consistent enough manner to support broad-scale analyses and application.  While it is probably a combination of all three, the latter two factors are likely dominant and thus the most critical components to build into the regional habitat monitoring program.

 Making progress in linking habitat quality and quantity to fish population processes requires minimizing sampling and measurement error and maximizing information content in habitat monitoring metrics.  The former is an issue dealt with best by rigorous sampling design and the latter, through the development of targeted habitat metrics.  The implementation of CHaMP is based on elements of both, but also on the continual testing, evaluation and development of methods to allow regional programs to meet the key management objectives of being able to quantify fish tributary habitat and predict the fish-biological response to habitat management actions.

 As a structure for statistically rigorous habitat data collection, CHaMP is based on a Generalized Random-Tessellation Sampling design with a 3 year rotating 1-to-1 split panel structure to distribute sampling effort in space and time (Stevens and Olsen 2004).  In this case, sampling is spatially balanced but random – sites are maximally dispersed, but still contain a random spatial location so that coverage is efficient and estimation is not compromised.  The temporal structure hybridizes annual and rotating panels to gain the power of both status and trends designs.  Status monitoring provides information on the quantity and quality of current habitat and thus maximizes spatial coverage at fixed temporal points.  Trend monitoring is optimized to detect changes in habitat through time and thus is best done by repeatedly sampling fixed locations.  A split panel design, 50:50 in this case, fixes the location of half of each year’s samples (the annual panel) and allocates the remaining half to a rotating panel set – in this case, 3 additional panels, each of the same size as the annual panel, one being implemented each year on a three year rotation. 

 Detecting patterns in the habitat data (spatial and temporal) as well as relating these data to other, independent metrics such as fish population processes, is fundamentally a matter of managing variability – habitat conditions vary across space and through time, and our ability to measure them varies between methods and within methods across crews.  Thus, to detect any patterns or form any modeled associations, requires the ability to partition the variability in the data in a useful manner.  Implementing a rigorous design and minimizing sampling and measurement error will be crucial in order to partition variance into 4 key components – spatial, temporal, space x time, and residual.  The sampling design allows estimation of the spatial and temporal terms.  Adding repeat visits within the index sampling period allows the estimation of the space-time interaction.  At this point, all residual variation is “unexplained”, and thus the key determinant of a metric’s relative information content.  Recent research and discussions have been carried out to improve the precision and accuracy of stream habitat protocols in the Columbia River Basin (Kaufmann et al. 1999; Whitacre et al 2007; Roper et al. 2010).  Through better coordination of regional monitoring programs, increased training of field crews, and greater standardization of terminology there has been a general trend towards improving protocols to reduce the internal, relative error, or the residual variance.

 The information content of a habitat metric also needs to be evaluated on an absolute scale—that is, these metrics need to characterize physical and biological habitat in a manner relevant to fish population processes.  The Integrated Status and Effectiveness Monitoring Program (ISEMP, BPA 2003-017) has been developing descriptors of physical and biological habitat to predict fish population processes by reviewing the basic principles of fish habitat requirements and matching these needs with measurable habitat indicators (Bouwes et al., 2010).  For example, spawning adults have specific substrate size requirements, hyporheic flow preferences, and proximities to cover that define an optimal redd construction location.  Another example is rearing juveniles must balance the need to occupy areas with high flow velocities that allow effective foraging while remaining in proximity to low velocity holding areas and overhead cover to avoid predators.  Realizing these types of complex interactions forms the basis for developing fish monitoring programs.  However, in doing so we assume to have complete knowledge of the habitat requirements of fish, and since that is certainly not the case, habitat monitoring programs must collect information that is rich enough to allow further discovery of un-described and potentially important interactions between fish and their habitat. 

 Finally, the sampling design and the habitat metrics are not independent – the scale of inference addressed by the design must be appropriate based on the scale of the metrics developed by the site level response design.  Monitoring programs must be sensitive to the physical and biological processes across multiple scales.  Specific habitat characteristics result from physical and biological processes that function at process specific spatial and temporal scales.  For example, pool-riffle complexes form as a result of stream power and substrate size and mobility, and will be formed and maintained by watershed specific dynamics and land-use.  Similarly, stream productivity depends on watershed-scale thermal regimes and water chemistry, so will be similar at reach scales, but diverse across a river basin.  These features of spatial and temporal autocorrelation exist in all physical and biological stream characteristics and in the fish populations that depend on them. This determines the amount of information any measurement in the stream shares with a measurement at the same spot at a different time, or at a different spots at the same time.  Without incorporating or understanding these “information scales” we cannot make independent measurements of stream physical and biological processes, and thus cannot build quantitative relationships to predict their interdependence.


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.
Habitat Restoration (OBJ-4)
Restore steelhead habitat throughout the Wind River watershed based on limiting factors analysis in the Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, USFS watershed analysis, and on-the-ground surveys. Habitat work includes restoring and improving stream habitats, riparian conditions, and where appropriate upslope systems to restore properly functioning watershed processes that will improve the productivity and capacity of this natural origin wild steelhead sanctuary.
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?

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
For the last 3 year cycle (2007-09) solicitation, the project was allocated $333,000/year. Project partners met at the beginning of 2007 with the project COTR to discuss actual project needs. Habitat Restoration was prioritized by BPA over RME. Actual budget amounts needed for habitat projects during planning phases were less than in years of construction, so budgets were adjusted to reflect actual needs. RME funding needs were similar each year to maintain baseline monitoring. USFS was awarded funding (outside of this project) to remove Hemlock Dam in 2008. Due to the magnitude of that project, the USFS transferred some funding initially allocated for habitat restoration to USGS and WDFW for RME. These factors led to the variable expenditures shown above for FY 2007-2009. FY 2010 contracts are still ongoing, so not all contracted dollars have been expended. Cost Share: WDFW - Confirmed contributions for WDFW were significantly greater than proposed. Original proposed cost share did not capture the full scope of equipment (rotary screw traps, CWT wands, etc.)provided by WDFW for the project nor the full amount of staff time contributed to assist with snorkel surveys, trap installation, removal, and operations. USFS The following table reflects USFS estimated vs actual cost share for the 2007 – 2009 funding cycle Year Estimated Cost Share Actual Cost Share 2007 $99,000 $169,752 2008 $99,000 $9,200 2009 $99,000 $0 The cost share estimates were developed in 2007 at the start of the funding cycle when the FS anticipated three years of habitat restoration under the Wind River Watershed Project. During 2007, the FS brought in significantly higher levels of cost share than estimated. In the following two years (2008 and 2009), the FS chose not to pursue habitat restoration under the Wind River Watershed Project because FS efforts were focused on a large dam removal project (Hemlock Dam Removal, funded under separate contract). In those years (2008 and 2009), the FS yielded its BPA habitat funding to other partners. UCD - Cost-share, not reflected above, include the following: $12,000 from Mid-Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group and $10,788 from WA Dept. of Ecology Clean Water Fund were matched with BPA funds in FY08 to accomplish 8 acres of stinger planting along gravel bars in the Middle Wind River reach. In FY05-FY09, an additional $181,629 was provided by USFS Title II RAC funding for the installation of instream large woody debris structures along the same Middle Wind River reach for the purpose of bank stabilization, habitat complexity, and width-to-depth ratio improvement. In FY05-FY08, an additional $53,311 from WA Dept. of Ecology Clean Water Fund enabled UCD staff to provide technical assistance and landowner education in the Wind River. UCD cost-share described here and not reflected above is $257,728.
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 were ~$650,000. The proposed budget for the 2007-09 funding cycle was between $767,000 and $849,000. However during this 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 the last 3 years. 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.

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
24152 E: 132 Final Annual Report 11/30/2005 11/30/2005
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
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
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
34579 K: 132 Final Annual Report 4/30/2008 4/30/2008
33559 C: 47 Acres planted 5/28/2008 5/28/2008
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
41041 I: 174 Channel restoration designs 11/30/2009 11/30/2009
41038 E: 157 Maintain PIT-tag interrogation system in Trout Creek 1/31/2010 1/31/2010
41038 I: 157 Maintain thermograph network in Trout Creek watershed 1/31/2010 1/31/2010
46102 H: 183 Upload reports 3/1/2010 3/1/2010

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
WDFW - Currently we have a pending contract for FY10 (starts 9/1/10). WDFW has shown a good track record of completing annual deliverables pertaining to adult and juvenile abundance monitoring, completing status reports (although sometimes late), 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. Currently we have only one outstanding Annual Progress Report, which is in the USGS peer review process. UCD- The red deliverables shown here reflect some late status reports, a late accrual report, and a late funding package submittal. UCD continues to strive to improve on performance of BPA deliverables and works closely with COTR to prevent and mitigate tardy performance. USFS--USFS completed all habitat work it began under the project. We have a few red deliverables that reflect uncompleted annual reports. The annual reports are non technical narratives that support and describe habitat work completed. We are a little behind on the reports because staff have been focused on work related to removal of Hemlock Dam and restoration of that site. We anticipate being current with our reports very soon.

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

  

Recognizing that populations of wild adult steelhead returning to the Wind River had dipped to perilously low levels and that watershed conditions needed improvement, a concerned group of biologists from several agencies first met in 1992 to coordinate efforts towards restoring fish runs by compiling historical information, monitoring and evaluating biological conditions, and restoring habitat.  A strong coalition of cooperators were assembled and maintained to provide and apply their diverse expertise to actions within the watershed.  These actions have included obtaining funding for and enacting the following: forming and coordinating a watershed council and technical advisory committee, conducting a variety of watershed assessments using several different methods, identifying and prioritizing habitat restoration projects, completing cooperative restoration projects, conducting pre- and post monitoring and evaluation, and encouraging community and school involvement.  This blend of research, monitoring, evaluation, on-the-ground restoration, and education-outreach activities proved to be highly effective and resulted in many accomplishments.  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 FY1998, 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.  Major results achieved to date are summarized below, with an emphasis on research, monitoring, and evaluation activities.

Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation: 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.

Restoration:   

Habitat restoration in the Wind River watershed is led by the Gifford Pinchot National Forest (GPNF) and the Underwood Conservation District (UCD).  The GPNF focuses its restoration efforts on national forest portions of the watershed, which comprise some 90% of the drainage area of the Wind River, and the UCD focuses primarily on private lands.  The two organizations assist and at times work together 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), USFS watershed action plan (under development), and results of on-the-ground surveys and monitoring. 

As a Tier I Key Watershed under the Northwest Forest Plan, the Wind River watershed is one of the highest priority watersheds on national forest lands for habitat restoration and development of refugia for anadromous fish and other endemic species.  As such the Forest Service has for the past two decades followed a whole watershed approach to restoring aquatic conditions and the watershed processes that are essential to maintaining high quality habitat.  The BPA-funded Wind River Watershed project has both embraced and embodied that approach by bringing together action-oriented and science-focused agencies and organizations to collaborate on understanding and restoring the fish runs and habitat throughout the watershed.

Since the early 1990's, the Forest Service has moved from restoration of upland hydrologic function to the more recent focus on instream and riparian work.  During the early and mid 1990’s, the Forest Service decommissioned nearly 100 miles of road in the Wind River watershed, treating roads in every major subwatershed.  Through those efforts, hillslope hydrologic processes were improved, channels were reconnected, and many fish passage barrier culverts were removed.  Throughout the 1990’s and continuing in the current decade, efforts of the USFS and UCD have focused more on instream and riparian treatments to improve aquatic condition and function.  Since 1995 the USFS has placed over 10,000 logs and whole trees in Trout Creek, the Upper Wind River, Dry Creek, Panther Creek and smaller tributaries.  The most significant instream and riparian restoration projects in the Wind River watershed have occurred on the Upper Wind River and Trout Creek.  The UCD has done similar work in reaches of the Middle Wind River and will soon be working in the Little Wind River.  Several hundred acres of riparian forest have been thinned and underplanted in the Upper Wind River and Trout Creek subwatersheds, to promote structural and species diversity in riparian forests.  Most of the major fish passage barriers on national forest lands have already been removed by either road decommissioning, culvert upgrades, bridge installations, or dam removal.  The USFS has removed passage barriers and installed 3 new bridges in Trout Creek, and one bridge in Panther Creek.  During the summer of 2010 the USFS will be installing two more bridges in Trout Creek and removing four fish passage barrier culverts in the Upper Wind River subwatershed.  In 2009, the USFS removed Hemlock Dam, the largest barrier in the watershed.  That same year, a much smaller dam was removed on a tributary to Trapper Creek in the Upper Wind River subwatershed.  In 2011, a very small dam on a tributary to Trout Creek is scheduled for removal to improve passage for fish and other aquatic organisms, and to restore river and sediment dynamics.

With recent completion of the Hemlock Dam Removal project, the USFS now has the capacity to re-examine existing habitat priorities from past watershed analyses, and to update plans for habitat work in the watershed.  Beginning in 2010, the USFS will be working on a watershed action plan for the Wind River that will provide a status check on habitat work in the watershed and will help determine what key habitat projects are yet to be done to set the watershed on a firm trajectory for recovery.

 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.

 

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
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 1990’s 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.

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
09728-2 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project, Volume II 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
09728-1 Wind River Watershed Restoration Project, Volume I 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
P175337 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
P174573 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
P174575 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
P174577 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
P174579 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
P174581 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
P175334 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
P175336 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
P175339 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
P175341 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
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

None

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:

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

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 steelhead face potential threats from climate change and non-native species.  Temperatures in portions of the Trout Creek watershed already exceed WA State mandated limits of 16 deg C.  Increased water temperatures in the Wind River subbasin and in the mainstem Columbia River may have detrimental effects on steelhead.  Precipitation and flow regimes may also be altered by climate change. 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
Planning and Coordination:
99. Outreach and Education
114. Identify and Select Projects
175. Produce Design
191. Watershed Coordination

Tagging

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 this projects use. 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 recommendation 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?
<No answer provided>
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.
<No answer provided>
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?
<No answer provided>
Please explain how you manage the data and corresponding metadata you collect.
<No answer provided>
Describe how you distribute your project's data to data users and what requirements or restrictions there may be for data access.
<No answer provided>

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
As a Tier I Key Watershed under the Northwest Forest Plan, the Wind River watershed is one of the highest priority watersheds on national forest lands for conducting habitat restoration and development of refugia for anadromous fish and other endemic species. To meet this objective, the Forest Service follows a whole watershed approach to restoring aquatic conditions and watershed processes. The BPA-funded Wind River Watershed project has embraced and embodied that approach. 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), USFS watershed action plan (under development), and results of on-the-ground surveys and monitoring. Specific project prioritization in the Wind River involves a number of steps to evaluate the importance of the project, the feasibility of it, and the timing of its implementation. UCD maintains a Watershed Enhancement Project List that integrates key priorities and preservation/restoration values from the Recovery Plan, Watershed Analysis. The list is continually updated through input from the WR partners and Wind River Watershed Council. Projects are selected based on biological and ecological benefits as well as technical feasibility, funding, and landowner willingness. UCD also consults with its board of supervisors for review and approval of projects. UCD is most limited by private landowner interest and willingness to conduct projects on private property. The USFS follows a similar path, using condition assessment, risk ratings, and habitat potential to prioritize projects. However, timing or sequencing of habitat project implementation is often driven by issues of practicality, funding, or cost efficiencies. For example, taking advantage of time-limited funding initiatives may mean temporarily deviating from the top priority project to accomplish something that might not otherwise be funded.

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

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
UCD / USFS Steelhead Habitat Restoration (DELV-5)
Underwood Conservation District (UCD) and US Forest Service-Gifford Pinchot National Forest (USFS) will collaborate with interested agencies, organizations and individuals to identify, develop, implement and monitor habitat restoration projects in the Wind River watershed. Habitat restoration work will be based on limiting factors analysis in the Lower Columbia Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, USFS watershed analysis, watershed action plan, and additional data collected in the watershed. Projects will aim at improving steelhead habitats and watershed processes to improve the productivity and capacity of this natural origin wild steelhead sanctuary.
Types of Work:
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

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 Juvenile Steelhead Monitoring (DELV-2)
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)
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)
Objective: Habitat Restoration (OBJ-4)
Project Deliverables How the project deliverables help meet this objective*
UCD / USFS Steelhead Habitat Restoration (DELV-5)
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)
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)
*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) 2011 2014 $330,163
WDFW Juvenile Steelhead Monitoring (DELV-2) 2011 2014 $330,163
WDFW/USGS- Estimate Steelhead Survival Using PIT Tags (DELV-3) 2011 2014 $374,489
WDFW/USGS - Estimate Steelhead Response to Restoration Actions (DELV-4) 2011 2014 $228,515
UCD / USFS Steelhead Habitat Restoration (DELV-5) 2011 2014 $642,624
USGS - Investigation of steelhead parr life-history variation (DELV-6) 2011 2014 $291,948
USGS - Status/Trend Habitat Monitoring within the CHaMP Program: Wind RIver (DELV-7) 2011 2014 $522,468
Total $2,720,370
Requested Budget by Fiscal Year

Fiscal Year Proposal Budget Limit Actual Request Explanation of amount above FY2010
2011 $606,915
2012 $683,919 Includes construction of new in-stream PIT tag interrogator.
2013 $708,107 Includes construction of new in-stream PIT tag interrogator.
2014 $721,429
Total $0 $2,720,370
Item Notes FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 FY 2014
Personnel $288,006 $330,709 $344,909 $382,526
Travel $4,100 $4,100 $4,100 $4,100
Prof. Meetings & Training $0 $0 $0 $0
Vehicles $17,281 $17,650 $17,650 $17,650
Facilities/Equipment (See explanation below) $52,603 $55,194 $55,194 $24,500
Rent/Utilities $4,848 $4,848 $4,848 $4,848
Capital Equipment $20,000 $22,000 $22,000 $22,000
Overhead/Indirect $138,347 $160,228 $165,150 $166,275
Other $80,000 $84,000 $88,200 $92,610
PIT Tags $1,730 $5,190 $6,056 $6,920
Total $606,915 $683,919 $708,107 $721,429
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 internet access, etc) located in the vicinity of the Wind River. Habitat Restoration (USFS & UCD) Restoration projects: Entities utilize their own equipment or sub-contracted equipment to complete projects. Fish Monitoring (WDFW & USGS): Adult trapping: Shipherd Falls fish ladder has been outfitted with an adult trap and knife gate to control flows. Smolt trapping: WDFW has available and operates four rotary screw traps in the basin. We utilize our available hand held PIT detectors and have installed in-stream detectors at Trout Creek and Shipherd Falls fish ladder. We utilize our available CWT detection wands for adult fish sampling at the adult trap in Shipherd Falls. PIT tags are purchased through BPA Floy tags are purchased through Floy Tag Mfg. (Seattle, WA). PROPOSED NEW PURCHASE: WDFW has operated the same rotary screw traps for numerous years (some up to 12 years). These traps have logged numerous hours and rotations and are showing significant wear. WDFW maintains these traps, purchases replacement parts, and has secured backup traps from other projects to ensure trapping operations can continue with success. Because of wear, WDFW is proposing to purchase one new smolt trap annually (~$20,000/yr) for the next four years to replace the aging "fleet". PROPOSED NEW PURCHASE: USGS plans to install three new multiplexing PIT tag interrogation systems: one per year during 2011-2013. We will purchase one BIOMARK FS1001M during each of these three years (~$8,500-9,000/yr), and all associated parts for antennas and wiring, of which we can use some existing materials for a savings in 2011 (2011: $9,600; 2012-2013: ~$20,000/yr).

Back To Top

Cost Share

Source / Organization Fiscal Year Proposed Amount Type Description
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.
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.
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.
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.
US Forest Service (USFS) 2011 $50,000 In-Kind USFS will contribute funding for habitat restoaration.
US Forest Service (USFS) 2012 $50,000 In-Kind USFS will contribute funding for habitat restoaration.
US Forest Service (USFS) 2013 $50,000 In-Kind USFS will contribute funding for habitat restoaration.
US Forest Service (USFS) 2014 $50,000 In-Kind USFS will contribute funding for habitat restoaration.

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. ISRP/ISAB. 2009. Independent Scientific Review Panel/Independent Scientific Advisory Board Tagging Report. Portland, OR. 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. 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. 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

RME / AP Category Review Assessments

Review: RME / AP Category Review

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:
Proponent Response:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment Rating:  Response Requested
BiOp Workgroup Comments: BPA would like to discuss with you the increased budget that is well above what was projected from Skamania workshop. We noted that in the proposal costs did decline even after the one-time capital costs to purchase of PIT arrays. In addition BiOp work groups staff and COTR would like to discuss the project asa whole and the AE study in more detail over the before January.

The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ( 50.6 56.3 )
All Questionable RPA Associations ( ) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (50.7 50.8 51.2 56.1 56.2 57.5 72.1)
Proponent Response:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Policy Workgroup Comments.  We request clarification from COTR and RME Workgroup leads on the missed and deletetd RPAs. The proposal costs are addressed below.  Please contact us again if you need additional clarification.

Proposal Cost.  The PIT tag array purchasing is not a one-time cost but a recurring cost as we build systems each year.  Because we have some materials already procured for building the first large scale system, the PIT tag system cost is actually lowest during FY2011 and increases somewhat in years 2012 and 2013 as we have to purchase all materials for the systems.   The PIT tag array cost is about $40,000 per year, which includes some smaller units to be placed in tributaries of the Wind River.  The array costs for both the large Multiplexing readers and the smaller readers are contained within the Facilities/Equipment portion of the budget for each year, which also includes general field supplies such as waders, PIT tag needles, MS-222, etc.     

Additionally, there is requested budget for purchase of new smolt traps to replace those currently in use.  Although text details on the need for purchase of the smolt trap were provided in the Facilities/Equipment portion of the proposal text, the cost of these smolt traps is reflected in the Capital Expenses portion of the budget.  The rationale behind this was to purchase one smolt trap each year.  We currently operate 4 smolt traps in the Wind (Upper Wind, Panther, Trout and Lower Wind), of which three are 16 years old with the other 13 years old (and all are beyond their  expected life).   In the first year of the proposal (FY11), we propose to add a fifth trapping site at Stabler.  The $20K in FY11 is for purchase of that trap.  Then in each of the next four years (FY12-15) we would buy a trap to systematically replace the 4 traps we have now.  In the final year (FY16) we would purchase an additional trap to have on hand as a back-up, in case a trap was damaged in-season and needed to be replaced.  Also this trap could be available, if we need to add an additional monitoring site to further partition the watershed in response to a significant habitat project/treatment within the basin.

The text from the Facilities/Equipment portion of the proposal is below: 

PROPOSED NEW PURCHASE:  WDFW has operated the same rotary screw traps for numerous years (some up to 12 years).  These traps have logged numerous hours and rotations and are showing significant wear.  WDFW maintains these traps, purchases replacement parts, and has secured backup traps from other projects to ensure trapping operations can continue with success.  Because of wear,  WDFW is proposing to purchase one new smolt trap annually (~$20,000/yr) for the next four years to replace the aging "fleet".

PROPOSED NEW PURCHASE:  USGS plans to install three new multiplexing PIT tag interrogation systems: one per year during 2011-2013. We will purchase one BIOMARK FS1001M during each of these three years (~$8,500-9,000/yr), and all associated parts for antennas and wiring, of which we can use some existing materials for a savings in 2011 (2011: $9,600; 2012-2013: ~$20,000/yr).

 


Back To Top