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) (Govt - State)
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:
2020
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 - Lower 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

Wind River and Little Wind River Project Site Map

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

Stabler Bend Monitoring 2010 – survival rates and notes

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 18

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

2010-2011 Stabler Bend conifer and live-stake planting locations

Figure Name: Figure 4

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 19

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

2010-2011 Stabler Bend conifer planting locations

Figure Name: Figure 5a

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 20

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

2010-2011 Whiskey Creek Weed Treatment Locations

Figure Name: Figure 6b

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 21

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

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.

Figure Name: Figure 7a

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

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.

Figure Name: Figure 7b

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

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).

Figure Name: Figure 8

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 23

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

Reconstructed structure 6B

Figure Name: Figure 9a

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 24

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

Reconstructed structure 9C

Figure Name: Figure 9b

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 24

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

Wind River and Little Wind River Project Site Map

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

Stabler Bend Monitoring 2010 – survival rates and notes

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 18

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

2010-2011 Stabler Bend conifer and live-stake planting locations

Figure Name: Figure 4

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 19

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

2010-2011 Stabler Bend conifer planting locations

Figure Name: Figure 5a

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 20

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

2010-2011 Whiskey Creek Weed Treatment Locations

Figure Name: Figure 6b

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 21

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

Middle Wind Structure Reconstruction - Reconstructed structure 6B

Figure Name: Figure 9a

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 24

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

Middle Wind Structure Reconstruction - Reconstructed structure 9C

Figure Name: Figure 9b

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 24

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

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.

Figure Name: Figure 7a

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

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.

Figure Name: Figure 7b

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638

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).

Figure Name: Figure 8

Document ID: P125681

Document: Wind River Watershed Restoration 2010-2011 Annual Report Fiscal Year 2010

Page Number: 23

Project: 1998-019-00

Contract: 53638


Summary of Budgets

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

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2019 (Previous) $372,059 $559,504 $469,809 $506,780 $528,187

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $556,695 $467,450 $504,235 $525,536
General - Within Year $2,809 $2,359 $2,544 $2,652
FY2020 (Current) $556,695 $556,695 $369,037 $369,037 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $556,695 $369,037 $369,037 $0
FY2021 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2019 - FY2021)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2019 Expense $372,059 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) 1998-019-00 FY19 SOY 09/18/2018
FY2019 Expense $2,809 From: General - Within Year PIT Tag Readers 12/20/2018
FY2019 Expense $184,636 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) March 14, 2019 Transfers 03/20/2019
FY2020 Expense $556,695 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020
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
2019 (Draft)
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, 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
407 REL 1 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 98-019-03 WIND RIVER WATERSHED Terminated $254,623 7/15/1999 - 9/1/2001
405 REL 1 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 199801901 WIND RIVER WATERSHED Terminated $130,691 1/1/2000 - 3/31/2001
495 REL 1 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-04 WIND RIVER WATERSHED PROJECT Terminated $54,043 4/1/2000 - 3/30/2001
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
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
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
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
BPA-003504 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed - WDFW Active $9,082 10/1/2007 - 9/30/2008
BPA-004322 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $8,122 10/1/2008 - 9/30/2009
BPA-005719 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $9,466 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
BPA-006277 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $9,544 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-007026 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $7,132 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-007733 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $10,625 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008395 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $12,862 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008918 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $9,145 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
72900 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Issued $118,700 6/1/2016 - 5/31/2017
BPA-009531 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Active $9,085 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
75985 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Issued $88,701 6/1/2017 - 5/31/2018
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 Issued $191,635 11/1/2017 - 10/31/2018
78787 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS Issued $125,700 6/1/2018 - 10/31/2019
BPA-010730 Bonneville Power Administration PIT Tags/Readers - Wind River Watershed Active $12,325 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
80611 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USGS Issued $191,635 11/1/2018 - 10/31/2019
82542 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - UCD Issued $88,701 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 Issued $177,148 9/1/2019 - 8/31/2020
CR-322923 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USFS Approved $88,701 11/1/2019 - 10/31/2020
CR-333470 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - USGS Approved $191,635 11/1/2019 - 10/31/2020
CR-338035 SOW Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 1998-019-00 EXP WIND RIVER WATERSHED - UCD Pending $88,701 7/1/2020 - 6/30/2021



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):68
Completed:49
On time:49
Status Reports
Completed:236
On time:95
Avg Days Late:17

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status 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 1998-019-00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED US Geological Survey (USGS) 01/2001 01/2001 Approved 66 133 11 0 19 163 88.34% 1
5480 23799, 28164, 33559, 39493, 49229, 53638, 57840, 62453, 65828, 69740, 72415, 76220, 79517, 82542 1998-019-00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED Underwood Conservation District (UCD) 04/2001 04/2001 Pending 56 117 0 0 11 128 91.41% 9
4276 19617, 24152, 28742, 34579, 38921, 44016, 54272, 58664, 62516, 66154, 69900, 73756, 74314 REL 15, 74314 REL 50, 74314 REL 82 1998-019-00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED - WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 04/2001 04/2001 Issued 57 162 0 0 5 167 97.01% 0
6033 32464, 35991, 41041, 45564, 51064, 57337, 61797, 65582, 69275, 72900, 75985, 78787 1998-19-00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED US Forest Service (USFS) 05/2001 05/2001 Approved 54 113 3 0 14 130 89.23% 11
BPA-005581 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2006 10/2006 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30493 1998 019 00 WIND RIVER WATERSHED USFS US Forest Service (USFS) 12/2006 12/2006 Closed 2 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 0
BPA-003504 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed - WDFW Bonneville Power Administration 10/2007 10/2007 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-004322 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2008 10/2008 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005719 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006277 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007026 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-007733 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2013 10/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008395 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2014 10/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008918 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009531 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010029 PIT Tags - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010730 PIT Tags/Readers - Wind River Watershed Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 235 531 14 0 49 594 91.75% 21


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: 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)
Patrick Connolly Interested Party US Geological Survey (USGS)
Bengt Coffin 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)
Mary Bodine Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
Edward Gresh Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
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)
Jamie Cleveland Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Jan Thomas Technical Contact Underwood Conservation District (UCD)
Mara Zimmerman Supervisor Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)