Surveying the rivers by boat and boot

By Joyce Campbell

Snorkeling in the cold waters of the Methow and Chewuch rivers, survey plotting by boot and by boat, scanning with radio receivers and fishing with nets, hooks and electro-shockers, teams of researchers are collecting data to track the restoration of endangered and threatened fish in the Methow Valley.

With a dozen fish-monitoring programs looking at 34 projects this year and funders like the Bonneville Power Administration wanting to know if millions of dollars are being spent on effective measures, the Methow Restoration Council and the Wild Fish Conservancy teamed up to assess the effect of restoration projects on fish recovery. 

John Crandall, fisheries ecologist with the Wild Fish Conservancy, interviewed agency, tribe and non-government organization personnel monitoring the population, status and trends of salmonid fish populations and their habitat and authored the 2009 Methow Subbasin Monitoring Inventory.

The Methow and Chewuch rivers are the most intensely monitored streams because of their important habitat for spawning and rearing of spring Chinook and steelhead, said Crandall. Different monitoring procedures and protocols make summarizing or sharing results difficult or impossible, complicated by lack of standardized protocols for data storage and reporting of results, said Crandall. There is some duplication of effort.

Important partnerships in data collection were revealed by the study. For example, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service collaborates with the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Wild Fish Conservancy to complete the annual redd survey for bull trout. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation contracts with the USFS to collect temperature and habitat data for restoration-related projects and reach assessments on private lands. The projects use the same protocol, illustrating coordinated monitoring in the Methow.

The USGS Middle Methow project is the only monitoring program specifically addressing limiting factors to recovery in the Methow across a reach, including habitat diversity and quantity, excessive artificial channel stability, water quantity, water quality, obstructions and sediment. 

The Middle Methow monitoring project, dubbed M2, started in 2008 to survey the Methow River from Twisp to Winthrop prior to upcoming Bureau of Reclamation projects. Several other reaches are also monitored to complete a scientific model in adjacent habitats within the same time period. 

“We’re comparing M2 with sections outside M2 – Big Valley, the Chewuch and below Twisp,” said Wes Tibbits, fisheries biologist with USGS. Tibbits and his crew had just peeled off their drysuits after snorkeling five miles of the Methow south of Twisp.

“It’s important to get an idea of the fish community before habitat enhancement,” said Tibbits. He said about 80 percent of the fish community is mountain whitefish. The native fish impacts food availability, competing with juvenile ESA-listed fish, but it is also a food source and an important part of the food base because it is the largest part of it. .

This week there were a few steelhead and bull trout, some bridge-lipped suckers and adult coho and summer Chinook salmon counted, said Tibbits. 

“This is the extreme side of fish counting,” said Crandall. The USGS team goes over and over the same sections and sees seasonal variables in fish counts. “Cold is the operative word,” said Crandall.

Photo by John Hanron

Preparing to submerge into a frigid Methow River Monday were, from left, Grace Eger (USGS), Brian Fisher (Methow Salmon Recovery Foundation), John Crandall (Wild Fish Conservancy) and Wes Tibbets (USGS). The group drifted facedown in the river for about five miles, counting fish.