Search USGS⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search USGS

Results for “Master Network”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

24 records · Page 2Linked to original sources

Managed aquifer recharge in snow-fed river basins: What, why and how?

What does climate change mean for snow-fed river basins? Climate change poses unique challenges in snow-fed river basins across the western United States because the majority of water supply originates as snow (Dettinger, Udall, & Georgakakos, 2015). In the Sierra Nevada, recent observations include changes in snow accumulation and snowmelt, and shifts in peak streamflow timing (Barnhart et al., 2016; Hatchett et al., 2017; Kim & Jain, 2010; McCabe, Wolock, & Valentin, 2018; Mote, Li, Lettenmaier, Xiao, & Engel, 2018). Such changes upstream alter surface water deliveries downstream, as well as groundwater recharge utilized as both primary and supplemental water supply (Godsey et al., 2014; Harpold, 2016; Jasechko et al., 2014). basin where snowmelt runoff produces substantial water supply to meet diverse agricultural, environmental and urban water demand (Figure 1). The East and West Forks join at the confluence of the Carson River near the north end of the Carson Valley, a rich agricultural region (40,000 acres) that grows primarily alfalfa hay. The majority of irrigators rely on surface water delivered through a network of earthen ditches constructed in the mid-19th and early 20th centuries. Flow through these earthen networks and the practice of flood irrigation contribute significantly to groundwater recharge. Because no upstream surface water reservoirs exist, snowpack that accumulates through winter and melts slowly through spring has acted as a “natural” reservoir, providing ample supply through the summer irrigati agricultural, environmental and urban water demand (Figure 1). The East and West Forks join at the confluence of the Carson River near the north end of the season. Some irrigators have permitted access to supplemental groundwater that is useful during periods of drought for augmenting shortfalls in surface water delivery. Groundwater is the primary source of municipal and industrial water supply for surrounding communities (e.g., Carson City, Minden, Gardnerville, Dayton). Across the basin, water use is highly regulated through federal, tribal, state and local water-sharing agreements based on prior appropriation doctrine (Wilds, 2014). Carson River surface water allocations follow the Alpine Decree, initiated by the United States Department of Interior in 1925 and signed into law in 1980, following 55 years of litigation, to adjudicate surface water rights to individual parties (NDWP, 1999). The Alpine Decree acknowledges return flows to lower river segments, and thus each river segment is distributed autonomously. This means that the most junior water right on an upper segment can be fulfilled before considering the most senior water right on a lower segment. Ultimately, the ruling is at the discretion of the Federal Water Master to satisfy the needs of each water right Downstream of Carson Valley, surface water flows are stored in Lahontan Reservoir, the nation’s first desert reclamation project (est. 1906), where releases are managed to meet the Newland’s Project irrigation water demand and for environmental use on the Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Flows from the Carson River are supplemented through diversions from the Truckee River via the Truckee Canal, resulting in a trans-basin water supply system. How is the Water for the Seasons research program informing snow-fed river basin communities? In the Truckee-Carson River System, researchers and local water managers are working together to assess climate change impacts to water supply and explore how model simulations can produce useful information to support local climate adaptation. Twelve key water managers represent agricultural, environmental, urban and regulatory water-use communities, and bring to the table diverse input and perspectives on how to adapt to climate change. Hydrologists use this input to craft scenarios and simulations that meet the information needs of local water managers. Biannual workshops provide an opportunity for information exchange, where researchers and key water managers generate new knowledge of river system function. That is, researchers share results of models that examine the physical potential, and managers validate the on-the-ground potential, further informing the research process. Coincident to this research program, the region faced a prolonged drought period (2012-2016) with historically low snowpack, followed by a historic wet year (2017) that brought winter and spring flooding as a result of atmospheric river storm events (Sterle et al., 2019). For the Carson River, an important observation made by managers was that peak streamflow that had traditionally coincided with peak irrigation demands, had shifted to earlier in the spring, with summer baseflow also decreasing (Sterle & Singletary, 2017). Managers shared with researchers concerns over potential future impacts that changing snowpack will have on surface water deliveries and reliance on groundwater, as the region’s population and economy continue to grow. During workshops that occurred over this period, local water managers and researchers discussed ways to evaluate water distribution and use that honors the existing legal framework and accounts for changing snowpack regimes (amount, rain versus snow, timing). In response to managers growing interest, researchers introduced the concept of managed aquifer recharge as one potential strategy to adapt and enhance regional water sustainability. What is managed aquifer recharge? Simply stated, managed aquifer recharge is the intentional recharge of structures to spread water over agricultural lands, allowing water to naturally infiltrate into the groundwater system (Bouwer, 1999; Niswonger et al., 2017). The latter may occur during the irrigation season by applying excess water, or during the nonirrigation season when evapotranspiration losses are low. Figure 2 illustrates managed aquifer recharge in a snow-fed river basin, where streamflow generated from snowmelt runoff is diverted to agricultural lands to recharge the aquifer. Such flood irrigation practices, including water delivery through earthen ditch networks, provide incidental but significant aquifer recharge through seepage and deep drainage beneath fields (Niswonger, Allander, & Jeton, 2014). The effects of managed aquifer recharge can vary depending on the location and intensity of practice. For example, implementing managed aquifer recharge water into the groundwater system (Dillon, 2009). This differs from the incidental recharge that may occur as part of normal irrigation practices. Managed recharge may occur by injection into the aquifer through existingwells, or by using existing conveyance adjacent to/along the river’s floodplain has the potential to enhance late-season instream flows due to increased return flows, resulting in greater downstream deliveries as well as improving ecological conditions (Niswonger et al., 2017). Implementing managed aquifer recharge away from the river’s floodplain has the potential to enhance groundwater supply which is increasingly relied upon during surface water shortage (Green et al., 2011), by storing water in available aquifer space in the deep aquifer. At the basin scale, managed aquifer recharge may lead to regional groundwater sustainability. Is the Carson River Basin a candidate for managed aquifer recharge? The physical limitations to implementing managed aquifer recharge in the Carson River Basin hinges on three key factors. The first factor relates to the physical connectivity between rivers and streams, and the irrigation delivery network of canals and ditches that divert water to agricultural lands (Niswonger et al., 2017). In the Carson River Basin the mechanisms for getting water to fields is already in place. Thus, intentionally routing high flows that occur in wet years through this system during the nonirrigation season would mimic what occurs naturally during the irrigation season. The second factor relates to the occurrence of atmospheric river storm events that deliver large amounts of precipitation to the region, much greater than average (Dettinger et al., 2015). With increased frequency and intensity projected under a warmer climate, such events have the potential to produce excess water over short periods of time that could be stored through mechanisms such as managed aquifer recharge (Niswonger et al., 2017). The third factor relates to the change in snowpack accumulation and shifts in snowmelt timing observed elsewhere in the Sierra Nevada (e.g., Godsey et al., 2014; Mote et al., 2018). Having a mechanism in place to maximize use of earlier snowmelt and shifts in streamflow timing could be advantageous and enhance regional groundwater sustainability. As part of the Water for the Seasons study, a hypothetical scenario was developed to determine the feasibility of managed aquifer recharge in the Carson River Basin, assuming no legal constraints. During “wet” or above-average water years, irrigators in the Upper Carson Valley would divert high flows and spread water over agricultural lands during the nonirrigation season. Assuming flows are abundant and “early,” diversions would begin prior to the growing season, when water would otherwise flow downstream to the Lahontan Reservoir. During “dry” years or drought periods, when surface water availability is less, irrigators in the Upper Carson Valley could augment surface water shortages with groundwater, allowing available surface water flows to flow downstream. Researchers hypothesize the amount of water has the potential to boost baseflow to support environmental instream flows, for example. What concerns have local water managers expressed? The hypothetical managed aquifer recharge scenario was presented to water managers in a workshop setting. Presentations included an overview of the hydrologic and operations modeling tools used to evaluate managed aquifer recharge by simulating the timing and distribution of water in the upper watershed. Specifically, in the Upper Carson Valley, a hydrologic model (GSFLOW) simulates streamflow driven by snowmelt, and surface and groundwater interactions, while a river basin operations model (MODSIM) allocates water according to the prior appropriation doctrine in the basin (see Figure 1) (Morway, Niswonger, & Triana, 2016; Niswonger et al., 2017). Integrating these two modeling tools advances the evaluation of climate impacts on water availability in agricultural communities and the resulting impacts of alternative management strategies (Morway et al., 2016). When asked about the viability of managed aquifer recharge, the perspectives of 11 managers varied (Figure 3). Regardless of rating, all managers questioned, “How would thisreally work?” Several managers questioned whether models could simulate the connectivity between surface and groundwater to accurately quantify changes to instream flow. Others raised concerns that managed aquifer recharge violates the Alpine Decree and Nevada Water Law. Still others requested researchers consider alternatives that could work within the confines of current (2019) water law. Managers posed specific questions that should be considered when evaluating the potential for managed aquifer recharge. For example: What triggers implementation of managed aquifer recharge?How “high” or “low” must annual flows be to initiate managed aquifer recharge? When in the water year is this determined? Where exactly in the Carson Valley is managed aquiferre charge possible? For example, what areas away from the floodplain could ensure long-term storage? Can model simulations quantify potential benefits and consequences system-wide?Would this information support decision-making, such as permitting of additional supplemental groundwater rights? How are researchers going to address managers’ research questions? Managers’ perspectives help to validate the on-the-ground potential of particular strategies and further refine alternative management scenarios. For example, understanding that managers are concerned with oversaturated fields helps researchers to define conditions in the model, such as what defines a wet versus “too” wet type of year and where to focus irrigation for managed aquifer recharge. Incorporating these nuances provides more accurate quantification of the potential benefits and consequences for users across the basin. Modeling is underway to simulate managed aquifer recharge scenarios and explore basin-wide implications. Researchers and local water managers will convene to collaboratively review results and further assess whether this or other strategies could work under the confines of existing water law. Subsequent fact sheets will present these findings.

Nevada↗

North American Bat Monitoring Program regional protocol for surveying with stationary deployments of echolocation recording devices: Narrative version 1.0, Pacific Northwestern US

The outbreak of white-nose syndrome (WNS) and the growing awareness of the risks to bats from wind power generating facilities have driven radical changes to North American bat conservation. Over the last decade, formerly common species such as the little brown myotis (Myotis lucifugus) and hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) have experienced unprecedented mortality rates and are now facing non-trivial extinction risk. In response to this change, federal land management agencies such as the US National Park Service, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Forest Service, US Bureau of Land Management and state wildlife management agencies such as the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and Idaho Fish and Game have invested in collaborative, interagency bat monitoring to close the gap in information about bat welfare and to inform bat conservation strategies. Bats are notoriously difficult to track and study and there remains a paucity of fundamental information about the seasonal patterns of bat activity and habitat use and population distributions and abundances. Moreover, because bats are so highly mobile and difficult to survey (e.g., nocturnal flight), this information needs to be contextualized at broad regional (e.g., 10,000 km2) and range-wide extents. Delimiting bat populations at local scales (e.g., 100 km2) is very difficult and it is not clear, for example, how a declining trend in local (e.g., a small park unit) patterns of bat activity or relative abundance should be interpreted without broader context. In recognition of these challenges, a plan for coordinated continental-scale monitoring of bats, the North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABat) was developed (Loeb et al. 2015). The centerpiece of the plan is the use of a spatially-balanced randomized master sample of grid-cell sample units from a grid-based sampling frame to provide the architecture for collaboration and the statistical foundation for making inferences about bat populations across broad regions and entire bat geographic ranges. The plan outlines general goals, survey design, and field methods for both summertime acoustic surveys of bats as well as winter and summer counts of bats in hibernacula and maternity colonies but it does not provide field-level protocol and standard operating procedures for consistent and efficient implementation. This regional protocol provides these details for one component of NABat, the deployment of stationary acoustic detectors to record bats during summer, as is called for by the NABat plan. This protocol was written specifically to provide guidance and consistency across the Pacific Northwestern US (N. California [California Department of Fish and Wildlife Northern Region], Idaho, Washington, and Oregon; US Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1 and portion of Region 8 [in Northern California and Klamath Basin]; US Forest Service Region 6 and portions of Regions 1 and 5 in Idaho; and the Upper Columbia Basin, North Coast Cascades, and Klamath Networks of the National Park Service). This region has internal cohesion, sharing a distinct bat faunal assemblage of 15 species (with several additional species occurring on the southern periphery of the region), and a long history of collaborative bat monitoring beginning with the interagency Bat Grid Program which operated from 2003-2010 across Oregon and Washington (US Forest Service Region 6). This protocol will be coordinated and implemented by the Northwestern Bat Hub, on behalf of the collective interagency partnership. The Northwestern Bat Hub is housed on the Oregon State University-Cascades campus and leverages pooled partner funds and resources to maintain a small staff that coordinates and conducts monitoring, provides training and oversight, ensures high-quality data quality and control, and analyzes data and reports on results.

California, Idaho, Oregon, Washington↗

Identification and description of potential ground-water quality monitoring wells in Florida

The results of a survey of existing wells in Florida that meet the following criteria are presented: (1) well location is known , (2) principal aquifer is known, (3) depth of well is known, (4) well casing depth is known, (5) well water had been analyzed between 1970 and 1982, and (6) well data are stored in the U.S. Geological Survey 's (USGS) computer files. Information for more than 20,000 wells in Florida were stored in the USGS Master Water Data Index of the National Water Data Exchange and in the National Water Data Storage and Retrieval System 's Groundwater Site Inventory computerized files in 1982. Wells in these computer files that had been sampled for groundwater quality before November 1982 in Florida number 13,739; 1,846 of these wells met the above criteria and are the potential (or candidate) groundwater quality monitoring wells included in this report. The distribution by principal aquifer of the 1,846 wells identified as potential groundwater quality monitoring wells is as follows: 1,022 tap the Floridan aquifer system, 114 tap the intermediate aquifers, 232 tap the surficial aquifers, 246 tap the Biscayne aquifer, and 232 tap the sand-and-gravel aquifer. These wells are located in 59 of Florida 's 67 counties. This report presents the station descriptions, which include location , site characteristics, period of record, and the type and frequency of chemical water quality data collected for each well. The 1,846 well locations are plotted on 14 USGS 1:250,000 scale, 1 degree by 2 degree, quadrangle maps. This relatively large number of potential (or candidate) monitoring wells, geographically and geohydrologically dispersed, provides a basis for a future groundwater quality monitoring network and computerized data base for Florida. There is a large variety of water quality determinations available from these wells, both areally and temporally. Future sampling of these wells would permit analyses of time and areal trends for selected water quality characteristics throughout the State. The identification and description of the potential monitoring wells and the listing of the type and frequency of the groundwater quality data forms a foundation for both the network and the data base. (Author 's abstract)

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗

Comparison of two approaches for determining ground-water discharge and pumpage in the lower Arkansas River Basin, Colorado, 1997-98

In March 1994, the Colorado Division of Water Resources (CDWR) adopted “Rules Governing the Measurement of Tributary Ground Water Diversions Located in the Arkansas River Basin” (Office of the State Engineer, 1994); these initial rules were amended in February 1996 (Office of the State Engineer, 1996). The amended rules require users of wells that divert tributary ground water to annually report the water pumped monthly by each well. The rules allow a well owner to report the pumpage measured by a totalizing flowmeter (TFM) or pumpage determined from electrical power data and a power conversion coefficient (PCC) (Hurr and Litke, 1989). Opinions by representatives of the State of Kansas, presented before the Special Master hearing a court case [State of Kansas v. State of Colorado, No. 105 Original (1996)] concerning post-Compact well pumping, stated that the PCC approach does not provide the same level of accuracy and reliability as a TFM when used to determine pumpage. In 1997, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in cooperation with the CDWR, began a 2-year study to compare ground-water pumpage estimates made using the TFM and the PCC approaches. The study area was along the Arkansas River between Pueblo, Colorado, and the Colorado-Kansas State line (fig. 1). The two approaches for estimating ground-water discharge and pumpage were compared for more than 100 wells completed in the alluvial aquifer of the Arkansas River Basin. The TFM approach uses an inline flowmeter to directly measure instantaneous discharge and the total volume of water pumped at a well. The PCC approach uses electrical power consumption records and a power conversion coefficient to estimate the pumpage at ground-water wells. This executive summary describes the results of the comparison of the two approaches. Specifically, (1) the differences in instantaneous discharge measured with three portable flowmeters and measured with an inline TFM are evaluated, and the statistical differences in paired instantaneous discharge between the two approaches are determined; (2) short- and long-term variations in the PCC’s are presented; (3) differences in pumpage between the two approaches are evaluated, and the statistical differences in pumpage between the two approaches are determined; (4) potential sources of discrepancy between pumpage estimates are discussed; and (5) differences in total network pumpage using the two approaches are presented. During the irrigation seasons of 1997 and 1998, instantaneous discharge and electrical power demand were measured at randomly selected wells to determine PCC’s. At more than 100 wells, the PCC’s determined during the 1998 season were applied to total electrical power consumption data that was recorded between the initial and final readings at each network well site in 1998 to estimate total ground-water pumpage. At each site, an inline TFM was installed in a full-flowing, acceptable test section of pipe on the discharge side of the pump where the measurement of discharge was made. Measurements of instantaneous ground-water discharge also were made using three different types of portable flowmeters. The average velocity multiplied by the cross-sectional area of the discharge pipe was used to compute the discharge in gallons per minute. Whenever possible, discharge measurements were made at each network site using all three types of portable flowmeters.

Colorado↗

Travel times of P and S from the global digital seismic networks: Implications for the relative variation of P and S velocity in the mantle

We present new data sets of P and S arrival times which have been handpicked from long-period vertical and transverse component recordings of the various global seismic networks. Using events which occurred from 1976 to 1994 results in ∼38,000 globally well-distributed measurements of teleseismic P and ∼41,000 measurements of S . These data are particularly useful for looking at the relative variation of S and P velocities in the lower mantle. We describe both the measurement techniques and the gross characteristics of the data sets. The size of our data sets allows us to exploit the internal consistency of the data to identify outliers using a summary ray analysis. Since the polarity of each arrival is also known, we can construct fault plane solutions and/or compare with polarities predicted by the Harvard centroid moment tensor solutions to further diagnose phase misidentification. This analysis results in ∼5% of the data being identified as outliers. An analysis of variance indicates that the S residual travel times are dominated by the effects of three-dimensional structure but the P data have comparable contributions from noise and source mislocation effects. The summary ray analysis reveals the basic character of lower mantle structure, and there are large-scale patterns in both the S and P data sets that correlate quite well with each other. This analysis suggests that on average, d ln v s / d ln v p is an increasing function of depth in the mantle going from a value of ∼1.7 at the top of the lower mantle to an apparent value of 4 near the base of the mantle. This latter extreme value of R seems to result mainly from data which sample one region in the lowermost mantle under the central Pacific, where large positive S residuals are associated with very small P residuals. Such an anomaly cannot be thermal in origin.

Journal of Geophysical Research B: Solid Earth↗

Wind River Subbasin Restoration Annual Report of USGS Activities January 2021 through December 2022

We sampled juvenile wild Steelhead Trout Oncorhynchus mykiss in headwater streams of the Wind River, WA, to characterize population attributes and investigate life-history metrics, particularly migratory patterns, and early life-stage survival. We used passive integrated transponder (PIT) tagging and a series of instream PIT-tag interrogation systems (PTISs) to track juveniles and adults. The Wind River subbasin is considered a wild Steelhead refuge by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). No hatchery Steelhead Trout have been released in the Wind River subbasin since 1997, and hatchery adults are estimated at less than one percent of spawners in most years. Over twenty years of Steelhead Trout status and trend monitoring and research in the subbasin is contributing to understanding of population response to numerous restoration actions in the subbasin, including removal of Hemlock Dam from Trout Creek in 2009, which had an outdated adult ladder and contributed to increased water temperatures reducing performance of juvenile Steelhead Trout. Data from our study, and companion work by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, are contributing to Bonneville Power Administrations (BPA) Research, Monitoring, and Evaluation (RM&E) Program Strategy of Fish Population Status Monitoring (https://www.cbfish.org/ProgramStrategy.mvc/Index). Specifically, this work addresses the sub-strategies of 1) Assessing the Status and Trends of Diversity of Natural Origin Fish Populations and Uncertainties Research regarding differing life histories of a wild Steelhead Trout population, 2) Assessing the Status and Trend of Adult Natural Origin Fish Populations, and 3) Monitoring and Evaluating the Effectiveness of Tributary Habitat Actions Relative to Environmental, Physical, or Biological Performance Objectives. During summer and fall 2021 and 2022, we PIT-tagged 1,889 and 1,391 Steelhead parr (age-0 and age-1), respectively, in the Trout Creek and upper Wind River watersheds. Age-0 parr were at lower densities in 2022 than many years due to a poor return of adult Steelhead spawners in 2022. Steelhead Trout parr were recaptured and detected through repeat headwater sampling, smolt trap operations, and instream PTISs and Columbia River PIT-tag detection infrastructure. We maintained, and upgraded in 2022, a series of six instream PTISs to monitor movement of tagged Steelhead Trout parr, smolts, and adults, providing data to population assessments, and life-cycle research and modeling. We continue to improve our PTISs in the Wind River subbasin. The improvements in siting and addition of grid power to the upper Wind River PTIS (site code WRU, rkm 27.6) during 2016 and 2017, and the addition of the Mine Reach site (site code MIN, rkm 36.0) have much improved PIT-tagged fish monitoring in the upper Wind River watershed. The paired PTIS design in the upper Wind River watershed (sites WRU and MIN) matches that in the Trout Creek watershed (sites TRC, rkm 2.0; and TC4, rkm 11.5) and will allow comparisons of Steelhead Trout population metrics between the two watersheds as response to Hemlock Dam removal continues and future restoration efforts occur in Trout Creek. During summer 2022, we upgraded three PTISs with new transceivers and new or reconfigured antennas. We replaced the Biomark 1001 Multiplexing Transceivers with Biomark MTS IS1001 Master Controller and individual IS1001 Transceivers at WRU, TRC (Trout Creek, rkm 2.0), and TC4 (Trout Creek at 43 Road Bridge, rkm 11.5). These new transceivers and antennas will improve detection performance due to increased read range and decreased susceptibility to noise. We also installed an additional IS1001 Transceiver and 11-foot antenna at WRA in summer 2021 to increase cross-channel and water column coverage. Detection data from PIT-tagged adult Steelhead Trout at PTISs allow assessment of adult escapement to tributary watersheds within the Wind River subbasin. Adult Steelhead Trout detection efficiency estimates at our primary PTIS in Trout Creek have been greater than 99 percent during six of the past eight years and have exceeded 97% at our primary PTIS in the Wind River during seven of the past eight years. Adult escapement estimates to tributary watersheds are helping us evaluate the efficacy of the 2009 removal of Hemlock Dam from rkm 2.0 of Trout Creek. The dam had potential negative effects on Steelhead Trout populations in Trout Creek due to hydrologic impairment, increased temperatures, and adult passage issues. Hemlock Dam was laddered for adult passage, but not to modern standards, which likely resulted in avoidance by some adult Steelhead Trout. Detections at the instream PTISs have demonstrated trends of age-0 and age-1 parr emigration from natal areas during summer and fall, in addition to the expected movement of parr and smolts in spring. We have estimated that from 15 to 51% of parr tagged as age-0 fish in headwater areas make downstream migrations at age 1 for additional rearing. Downstream movement occurs primarily during spring but also in fall. We have estimated that up to 27% of Steelhead Trout parr, tagged as age-1 fish, make downstream migrations during fall. Fall migration of age-1 parr has been more common in the upper Wind River watershed than the Trout Creek watershed. These findings raise questions about where parr most successfully rear and whether migrations are density- or habitat-quality driven. Broader monitoring programs would give a more comprehensive understanding of juvenile Steelhead Trout production and rearing and contributions to adult recruitment from varied rearing strategies. Repeat sampling at consistent locations in the subbasin has enabled assessment of juvenile Steelhead Trout growth patterns. Growth rates (relative change in weight) of age-0 PIT-tagged parr during summer were similar across the subbasin, though slightly lower in the Trout Creek watershed. The greatest summer growth rate was in the mainstem of the Wind River (rkm 37 and 41). Summer growth rates were lower for age-1 parr in the Trout Creek watershed than the upper Wind River watershed. Yearly relative growth was similar across the subbasin for both age-0 and age-1 tagged parr. Lower Layout Creek had the highest yearly growth rate of parr from age-0 to age-1. Mainstem Wind River (rkm 37) had the highest yearly growth rate of parr from age-1 to age-2. Non-native Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis are present in the subbasin, chiefly the Trout Creek watershed, and repeat sampling provides an index of their prevalence. Mean percent-of-catch that is Brook Trout, at four sample sites in Trout Creek, has declined from the period 1998 2003 to the period 2011 2022. Percent-of-catch and number of Brook Trout at the Trout Creek sites from 2011 through 2022 has generally declined, though both metrics have been somewhat variable. Evaluation and planning of habitat restoration efforts are critical to ensure efficient use of money and resources. Assessing Steelhead Trout life history variation in the Wind River subbasin will inform research and tracking of many populations and help inform habitat restoration and water allocation planning. Movement of Steelhead Trout parr from natal areas to other rearing areas raises questions regarding juvenile abundance, origin, and habitat use within watersheds. Improved PTISs and focused PIT-tagging of age-0 and age-1 Steelhead Trout parr allow investigation of such questions. Increasingly detailed viable salmonid population information, such as that provided by PIT-tagging and instream PTIS networks like those in the Wind River, can provide data to inform fisheries policy and management and understand life-history strategies and limiting factors. Such efforts also enable assessment of long-term effects of habitat restoration actions such as the removal of Hemlock Dam on Trout Creek, and the proposed Stage-0 restoration effort for upper Trout Creek, which would be a large-scale effort to reset sections of stream within their floodplain, restoring connectivity and interaction with surrounding landscape.

Report↗