Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1998-019-00 - Wind River Watershed
Project Number:
1998-019-00
Title:
Wind River Watershed
Summary:
The Wind River Watershed project is a collaborative effort to restore wild steelhead in the Wind River. The four agencies forming the nucleus of this partnership include the US Forest Service, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, USGS Biological Research Division, and Underwood Conservation District. This partnership was established in the early 1990's and with support from BPA, has continued to conduct important habitat, research, monitoring 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, track and document fish populations, life histories, and interactions, and to share information across agency and non-agency boundaries.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Underwood Conservation District (UCD) (SWCD)
US Forest Service (USFS) (Govt - Federal)
US Geological Survey (USGS) (Govt - Federal)
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
1999
Ending FY:
2024
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Gorge Wind 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
All Anadromous Salmonids
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Resident Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Other Resident
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Description: Page: 16 Figure 1: Wind River and Little Wind River Project Site Map

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 737 x 931

Description: Page: 18 Figure 3: Stabler Bend Monitoring 2010 – survival rates and notes

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 610 x 454

Description: Page: 19 Figure 4: 2010-2011 Stabler Bend conifer and live-stake planting locations

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 1275 x 1650

Description: Page: 20 Figure 5a: 2010-2011 Stabler Bend conifer planting locations

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 1274 x 1552

Description: Page: 21 Figure 6b: 2010-2011 Whiskey Creek Weed Treatment Locations

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 1274 x 1568

Description: Page: 22 Figure 7a: Stabler Bend photo-documentation sites. These photos (taken in October 2010 to replace monitoring photos from 2009 that were lost in a computer crash) show the site, which was planted with seedlings and live-stakes in 2010. Additional planting is planned for spring 2012.

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 203 x 978

Description: Page: 22 Figure 7b: Stabler Bend photo-documentation sites. These photos (taken in October 2010 to replace monitoring photos from 2009 that were lost in a computer crash) show the site, which was planted with seedlings and live-stakes in 2010. Additional planting is planned for spring 2012.

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 273 x 1561

Description: Page: 23 Figure 8: Stinger planting panorama at Middle Wind River site; photo taken September 2009 (left). Willow and Douglas-fir seedlings planted with stinger in 2008 and thriving in 2010. Photo taken October 2010 (right).

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 657 x 1175

Description: Page: 24 Figure 9a: Middle Wind Structure Reconstruction - Reconstructed structure 6B

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 1008 x 672

Description: Page: 24 Figure 9b: Middle Wind Structure Reconstruction - Reconstructed structure 9C

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 1002 x 669

Description: Page: 16 Figure 1: Wind River and Little Wind River Project Site Map

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 737 x 931

Description: Page: 18 Figure 3: Stabler Bend Monitoring 2010 – survival rates and notes

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 610 x 454

Description: Page: 19 Figure 4: 2010-2011 Stabler Bend conifer and live-stake planting locations

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 1275 x 1650

Description: Page: 20 Figure 5a: 2010-2011 Stabler Bend conifer planting locations

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 1274 x 1552

Description: Page: 21 Figure 6b: 2010-2011 Whiskey Creek Weed Treatment Locations

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 1274 x 1568

Description: Page: 22 Figure 7a: Stabler Bend photo-documentation sites. These photos (taken in October 2010 to replace monitoring photos from 2009 that were lost in a computer crash) show the site, which was planted with seedlings and live-stakes in 2010. Additional planting is planned for spring 2012.

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 203 x 978

Description: Page: 22 Figure 7b: Stabler Bend photo-documentation sites. These photos (taken in October 2010 to replace monitoring photos from 2009 that were lost in a computer crash) show the site, which was planted with seedlings and live-stakes in 2010. Additional planting is planned for spring 2012.

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 273 x 1561

Description: Page: 23 Figure 8: Stinger planting panorama at Middle Wind River site; photo taken September 2009 (left). Willow and Douglas-fir seedlings planted with stinger in 2008 and thriving in 2010. Photo taken October 2010 (right).

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 657 x 1175

Description: Page: 24 Figure 9a: Reconstructed structure 6B

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 1008 x 672

Description: Page: 24 Figure 9b: Reconstructed structure 9C

Project(s): 1998-019-00

Document: P125681

Dimensions: 1002 x 669


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

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2023 - FY2025)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2023 Expense $556,695 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY23 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2022
FY2024 Expense $581,190 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY24 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2023

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024   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
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%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
491 REL 2 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-02 PL WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Terminated $117,400 8/1/2000 - 7/31/2001
4973 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED Closed $829,958 1/1/2001 - 3/31/2005
5480 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED Closed $271,268 4/1/2001 - 6/30/2005
4276 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Closed $416,983 4/2/2001 - 8/31/2004
6033 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-19-00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED Closed $1,341,009 5/30/2001 - 6/30/2007
19617 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION History $128,387 9/1/2004 - 8/31/2005
22095 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED PROGRAM - USGS Closed $200,250 4/1/2005 - 3/31/2006
23799 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED History $64,622 7/1/2005 - 6/30/2006
24152 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED RESTORATION History $131,191 9/1/2005 - 8/31/2006
26922 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED PROGRAM - USGS Closed $200,250 4/1/2006 - 3/31/2007
28164 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED-UNDERWOOD History $59,488 7/1/2006 - 6/30/2007
28742 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER RESTORATION PROGRAM History $132,460 9/1/2006 - 8/31/2007
BPA-005581 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $11,254 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
30493 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998 019 00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $17,561 12/1/2006 - 11/30/2007
32464 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998 019 00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $50,525 3/1/2007 - 11/30/2007
32814 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED PROGRAM - USGS Closed $84,000 4/1/2007 - 10/31/2007
33559 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED UCD Closed $23,811 7/1/2007 - 6/30/2008
34579 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 199801900 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED Closed $124,909 9/1/2007 - 8/31/2008
BPA-003504 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed - WDFW Active $9,082 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
35570 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 199801900 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USGS Closed $94,000 11/1/2007 - 10/31/2008
35991 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199801900 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $29,757 12/1/2007 - 11/30/2008
39493 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP UNDERW CON DIS WIND RIVER WATERSHED Closed $102,201 7/1/2008 - 6/30/2010
38921 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED Closed $139,834 9/1/2008 - 8/31/2009
BPA-004322 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $8,122 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
41038 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 199801900 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USGS Closed $51,731 11/1/2008 - 1/31/2010
41041 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 199801900 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $30,000 12/1/2008 - 11/30/2009
44016 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED Closed $246,221 9/1/2009 - 8/31/2011
45564 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED Closed $34,155 12/1/2009 - 11/30/2010
46102 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED Closed $45,000 2/1/2010 - 10/31/2010
49229 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED UCD Closed $105,571 7/1/2010 - 6/30/2011
BPA-005719 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $9,466 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
50481 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USGS Closed $121,820 11/1/2010 - 10/31/2011
51064 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $99,000 12/1/2010 - 5/31/2012
53638 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED UCD Closed $98,108 7/1/2011 - 6/30/2012
54272 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED WDFW Closed $180,336 9/1/2011 - 8/31/2012
BPA-006277 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $9,544 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
55275 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USGS Closed $195,005 11/1/2011 - 10/31/2012
57337 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $80,219 6/1/2012 - 5/31/2013
57840 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED UCD Closed $121,724 7/1/2012 - 6/30/2013
58664 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED WDFW Closed $168,192 9/1/2012 - 8/31/2013
BPA-007026 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $7,132 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
59821 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USGS Closed $156,000 11/1/2012 - 10/31/2013
61797 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $45,766 6/1/2013 - 5/31/2014
62453 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED UCD Closed $118,525 7/1/2013 - 6/30/2014
62516 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED WDFW Closed $177,162 9/1/2013 - 8/31/2014
BPA-007733 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $10,625 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
63276 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USGS Closed $191,635 11/1/2013 - 10/31/2014
65582 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $84,761 6/1/2014 - 5/31/2015
65828 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED UCD Closed $90,700 7/1/2014 - 6/30/2015
66154 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED WDFW Closed $165,998 9/1/2014 - 8/31/2015
BPA-008395 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $12,862 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
66668 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USGS Closed $191,635 11/1/2014 - 10/31/2015
69275 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $84,582 6/1/2015 - 5/31/2016
69740 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED UCD Closed $71,570 7/1/2015 - 6/30/2016
69900 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED WDFW Closed $187,360 9/1/2015 - 8/31/2016
BPA-008918 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $9,145 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
70963 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USGS Closed $206,275 11/1/2015 - 10/31/2016
72900 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $118,050 6/1/2016 - 5/31/2017
72415 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED UCD Closed $59,305 7/1/2016 - 6/30/2017
73756 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED WDFW Closed $189,502 9/1/2016 - 8/31/2017
BPA-009531 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $9,085 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
73884 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USGS Closed $191,635 11/1/2016 - 10/31/2017
75985 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $82,135 6/1/2017 - 5/31/2018
76220 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED UCD Closed $88,348 7/1/2017 - 6/30/2018
74314 REL 15 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED WDFW Closed $177,148 9/1/2017 - 8/31/2018
BPA-010029 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $9,119 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
77688 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USGS Closed $191,635 11/1/2017 - 10/31/2018
78787 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Closed $117,789 6/1/2018 - 10/31/2019
79517 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED UCD Closed $86,678 7/1/2018 - 6/30/2019
74314 REL 50 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Closed $177,148 9/1/2018 - 8/31/2019
BPA-010730 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags/Readers - Wind River Watershed Active $2,809 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
80611 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USGS Closed $191,635 11/1/2018 - 10/31/2019
82542 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - UCD Closed $88,472 7/1/2019 - 6/30/2020
74314 REL 82 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Closed $177,148 9/1/2019 - 8/31/2020
BPA-011598 Bonneville Power Administration FY20 Internal Services/PIT tags Active $19,107 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
83768 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USFS Closed $70,243 11/1/2019 - 10/31/2020
83769 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USGS Closed $191,635 11/1/2019 - 10/31/2020
85431 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - UCD Closed $88,382 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021
74314 REL 117 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Closed $177,148 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2021
BPA-012077 Bonneville Power Administration FY21 PIT Tags Active $9,637 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
86582 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USFS Closed $73,956 11/1/2020 - 10/31/2021
86416 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USGS Closed $191,635 11/1/2020 - 10/31/2021
88322 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - UCD Closed $80,480 7/1/2021 - 6/30/2022
74314 REL 147 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Closed $177,104 9/1/2021 - 8/31/2022
BPA-012910 Bonneville Power Administration FY22 PIT tags Active $2,456 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
89144 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USGS Closed $191,635 11/1/2021 - 10/31/2022
89145 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USFS Issued $88,700 11/1/2021 - 10/31/2022
90647 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - UCD Closed $72,510 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2023
84042 REL 17 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Closed $158,265 9/1/2022 - 8/31/2023
BPA-013297 Bonneville Power Administration FY23 PIT Tags Active $10,016 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
91309 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USGS Issued $191,635 11/1/2022 - 10/31/2023
CR-356662 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USFS Pending $10,597 11/1/2022 - 10/31/2023
92814 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - UCD Issued $157,600 7/1/2023 - 6/30/2024
84042 REL 50 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Issued $185,200 9/1/2023 - 8/31/2024
BPA-013817 Bonneville Power Administration FY24 PIT tags Active $10,016 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024
93681 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USGS Issued $199,932 11/1/2023 - 10/31/2024
56662 REL 303 SOW Yakama Confederated Tribes 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED DRY CREEK DESIGN - USFS/YN Issued $93,000 2/1/2024 - 7/31/2025
CR-368379 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED- UCD Pending $93,000 7/1/2024 - 6/30/2025
CR-368378 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Pending $184,943 9/1/2024 - 8/31/2025



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):89
Completed:58
On time:58
Status Reports
Completed:314
On time:114
Avg Days Late:23

                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 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USGS US Geological Survey (USGS) 01/01/2001 10/31/2024 Issued 90 189 12 0 20 221 90.95% 2
5480 23799, 28164, 33559, 39493, 49229, 53638, 57840, 62453, 65828, 69740, 72415, 76220, 79517, 82542, 85431, 88322, 90647, 92814, CR-368379 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED- UCD Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 04/01/2001 06/30/2025 Pending 74 151 12 0 18 181 90.06% 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, CR-368378 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 04/02/2001 08/31/2025 Pending 75 214 8 1 12 235 94.47% 0
6033 32464, 35991, 41041, 45564, 51064, 57337, 61797, 65582, 69275, 72900, 75985, 78787, 83768, 86582, 89145, CR-356662 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USFS US Forest Service (USFS) 05/30/2001 10/31/2023 Pending 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 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED DRY CREEK DESIGN - USFS/YN Yakama Confederated Tribes 02/01/2024 07/31/2025 Issued 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 312 700 32 1 67 800 91.50% 25


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:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 1998-019-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-1998-019-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: 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).

 

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:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1998-019-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: Multiple restoration activities on FS and private lands; assume activities on FS lands covered by BPA-FS MOU (need to confirm); need to confirm that activities occurring on private land landowner not already required to perform.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-019-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1998-019-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Ann Gross Interested Party Underwood Conservation District (UCD)
Dan Rawding Interested Party Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Bengt Coffin (USFS) (Inactive) Project Lead US Forest Service (USFS)
Tova Tillinghast Project Lead Underwood Conservation District (UCD)
Bryce Glaser Interested Party Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Peter Lofy Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Charlie Cochran Technical Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Thomas Buehrens Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Dan Richardson Technical Contact Underwood Conservation District (UCD)
Ian Jezorek Project Lead US Geological Survey (USGS)
Kenneth Tiffan Project Lead US Geological Survey (USGS)
Jan Thomas Technical Contact Underwood Conservation District (UCD)
Carly Lemon Technical Contact Underwood Conservation District (UCD)
Russell Scranton Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Kristina Eilts (Inactive) Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Verl Miller Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Verl Miller Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration