1	Rawding	Merwin, Yale, and Swift store more than 60 days of water.  The remaining reaches are not influenced by water stirage in reserviors	2/25/04	2/29/04	1		
2	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	2/25/04	2/25/04	3		
3	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	2/25/04	2/25/04	3		
4	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	2/25/04	2/25/04	3		
5	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	2/25/04	2/25/04	3		
6	Rawding	All reaches above Horseshoe Falls are rain on snow, while others are rainfall dominated.	2/29/04	2/29/04	2		
7	Rawding	Assumed historical same as current	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
8	Rawding	Research is inconclusive regarding the effect of land use on low flow.  Assumed no difference between template and currrent	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
9	Rawding	Rating by definition	2/29/04	2/29/04	1		
10	Rawding	Low flow has increased compare to the template due to hydro-electric regualtion	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
11	Rawding	Watershed not influenced by ramping, or significant stormwater run off.  Therefore rating remain the same as historic accept for Lewis River below Merwin Dam	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
12	Rawding	Q2yr calculation showed no difference during the period of record.  However, EF Lewis was recovering from the Yacolt burn when the gage was installed.  USFS watershed analysis suggest >10% increase in peak flow.  Washougal and Wind showed a 17% and 13% increase in Q2yr. These rating suggest 2.3 to 2.4 rating.  We used 2.3 for the EF Lewis above Lucia Falls and 2.4 for the area below Lucia Falls.  Cedar Creek was assumed to be 2.3 and Lewis below Merwin 1.0 due to hydro-regulation	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
13	Rawding	Larry Lestelle (MBI) suggested that FlwHigh be used as a surrgoate for this attribute	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
14	Rawding	Larry Lestelle (MBI) suggested that the FlwHigh attribute be used as a surrogate for this rating.	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
15	Rawding	EF Lewis alkalinity was estimated to be 20 mg/L at  Heisson Gage based on cunductivity measurements using Ptolmey. All EF Lewis reaches were rated the same. NF Lewis was estimated to be 16 mg/L and all NF reaxhes were rated the same.  Cedar Cr was estimated to be 17 mg/L from DOE.  All NF tribs were rated same as Cedar Cr.	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
16	Rawding	EF Lewis water quality at Heisson and Cedar CR showed ratings above 8 mg/L for DO.	2/29/04	3/1/04			
17	Rawding	Assumed template same as patient. Template ratings were Do above 8 mg/L except on EF Lewis below Lockwood and NF below EF	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
18	Rawding	No data on this attribute assumed to be 0..	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
19	Rawding	No data for this attribute but Fecal Colifirm was used as an indication of nutrient enrichment on lower EF Lewis and Cedar Cr.  In addition, hatchery effluent was assumed to contribute to nutient enrichment on the NF Lewis	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
20	Rawding	Historic rating 0.6 for all reches except lower EF and Lewis reaches which were 1.0	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
21	Rawding	B-IBI scores indicate little to no degradation in Wind River for Rosgen B channels.  Therefore uised the 0;6 reference reach ratring for current.  For C channels ratings were degraded to 1.6 based on Wind data.  Historic reaches in the lower basin were rated at 1, current rating was increased to 2 based on nutrients, water temps and DO.  Cedar CR had B-IBI scor eof 2.3.  Reaches up to Chelatchie were feather to get to score of 1.0 for Cedar 6.	2/29/04	2/29/04	3		
22	Rawding	Predation risks increase on NF Lewis below hatcheries and EF Lewis below Lewisville Park (hatchery steelhead release site). Cedar Creek coho releases have been discontinued	3/1/04	3/1/04	3		
23	Rawding	Highest use areas are LewisvillePark and on NF lewis to Woodland were rated at 4.  Mainstem reaches were rated at 2 of EF Lewis and NF Lewis were rated at 2, except Sunset Falls to Horeshoe falls and rock cr to moulton Falls which were rated as 1 due to limited access.  All other reaches were rated as 1..	3/1/04	3/1/04	3		
24	Rawding	Hatchery operating on NF lewis @ Merwin and Lewis River and all tribs = 4.  Direct Steelhead releases at Lewisville and Daybreak Park = 4, and EF and tribs below Horseshoe =2  Coho and steelhead stray into Cedar Cr. coho acclimation site on Cedar Cr., Hatchery adults released above Elliot Rd. Br..	3/1/04	3/1/04	1		
25	Rawding	NF Lewis hatchery reaches rated 3 and lower reaches 2.  NF Lewis tribs RSI = 2 Cedar Creek triibs RSI, adult plants, and juvenile plants = 2.  Steelhead releases in EF lewis below Horsshoe =2.	3/1/04	3/1/04			
26	Rawding	Hatchery salmonids have no species introductions.  Species introductions are due to warmwater fishes in the lower reaches of EF and NF Leiws.  Lowest reaches were rated 3 based on derived info from other basins.  Ratings were reduced above Woodland on NF and Mason Cr. on EF based on professional opinion and summer snorkel observations	3/1/04	3/1/04	3		
27	Rawding	Anadromous sih had access to above Merwin on NF Lewis.  On EF lewis chum dropped out at Rock Cr and all salmonids except steelhead dropped out at Lucia Falls.  Only mykiss, clarkii, whitefish, scuplins amd Lamprey above Lucia.	3/1/04	3/1/04			
28	Rawding	Historic chum, chinook, coho, in NF and EF upto EF -7 were rated as 0.  Tribs with chum were rated as 2. EF tribs manly, mill, dean, mason, lockwood, amd Breeze, Cedar 1b, johnson, ross, robinson, houghton..  Remaining basin were rated as 3 except above Luica as 4.	3/1/04	3/1/04			
29	Rawding	Limited USGS and DOE sampling in Cedar Cr, EF Lewis, and NF Lewis suggests turbidity is low less than 50 mg/L.  Used estimate for small tribs. Med tribs, and larger tribs of 0, 0.3, and 0.5 for historic	3/1/04	3/1/04	3		
30	Rawding	Limited USGS and DOE sampling in Cedar Cr, EF Lewis, and NF Lewis suggests turbidity is low less than 50 mg/L.  Used historic estimate for small tribs. Med tribs, and larger tribs of 0, 0.3, and 0.5 and increased to 0.3, 0.5, 1.0 for current condition.  Except Lewis below dam was rated as the same as historic due to reservior.	3/1/04	3/1/04	3		
31	Rawding	Historic fines were assumed to be 1.0 except for lower EF Lewis and Lewis which were between 3-4.	3/1/04	3/1/04			
32	Rawding	Fines used the Wind river data that suggested that fines increased by 1.3% per 1 mi/mi^2 of road.  Used Poad density from URS report to LCFRB.  Used PacifiCorp relinse data for reaches below Merwin	3/1/04	3/1/04	3		
33	Rawding	Used historical ratinmg of 0.5 for embeddedness based on assumption between fines and embeddedness	3/1/04	3/1/04			
34	Rawding	Used 1.3% increase in fines mi/mi^2 from road and applied the same to embeddedness	3/1/04	3/1/04			
35	Rawding	Waterwithdrawals are at the Lewis River hatchery and for the Grist Mill fish ladder.  Other withdrawals for personal use could be occuring on other receaches but since they were not documented, they were ignores	3/1/04	3/1/04	1		
36	Rawding	Hydroconfinement primarily occurs in the EF Lewis below Daybreak Park and in the NF Lewis Below Woodland due to loss of muti-thread channels into signle thread channel in part due to dikes and filling in of side channels	3/1/04	3/1/04			
37	Rawding	Riparian function in most channel sections (EF above Lewisville and NF above Johnson) remains very functional except for lack of shade.  Below these areas lack of connectivity, stability, and shade reduce function	3/1/04	3/1/04			
38	Rawding	Wood was plentiful in this basin.  Therefore, all reaches were assumed to be 0, except mainstem canyon reaches which were 0.	3/2/04	3/2/04	3		
39	Rawding	WDFW surveys ssuggest that wood was 3 in Rock Cr and mainstem Lewis except 4 in Rock 1, Lucia to Rock, and Molton to Lucia.  Used 3 for all reaches except Upper to Lower Rock Cr.  Additional USFS rating support poor wood for anadromous reaches above Sunset Falls	3/2/04	3/2/04	3		
40	Rawding	Length estimated from GIS except extra length added around eagle island	3/2/04	3/2/04	1		
41	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	3/2/04	3/2/04	3		
42	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	3/2/04	3/2/04	3		
43	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	3/4/04	3/4/04	3		
44	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	3/4/04	3/4/04	3		
45	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	3/5/04	3/5/04	3		
46	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	3/5/04	3/5/04	3		
47	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	3/5/04	3/5/04	3		
48	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	3/5/04	3/5/04	3		
49	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	3/7/04	3/7/04	3		
50	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	3/7/04	3/7/04	3		
51	EDT	Ratings describe degraded conditions for analysis of preservation priorities; degraded attribute ratings drafted for Yakima Basin. The need review	3/9/04	3/9/04	3		
52	EDT	Unable to find a degraded assumption for this attribute - default use current conditions	3/9/04	3/9/04	3		
