FY07-09 proposal 199802100

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Gorge / Hood

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: No operation and/or maintenance costs are expected in out years.

Termination date: 2020
Comments: There will most likely always be fish habitat projects that will increase ecosystem function, however if this project remains funded through 2020 many of the key projects currently identified in the Hood River Watershed Action Plan will be completed.

Final deliverables: Annual reports will be provided to BPA. Publications regarding restoration activities and effectiveness will be included.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The proposal is to continue to implement habitat improvement actions in the Hood River subbasin that will support wild fish and supplementation efforts of the Hood River Production Program (HRPP). The ISRP believes the project is potentially fundable, but requests a response to the following points before a final recommendation can be made. Selection of specific actions included in this project was conducted utilizing the Hood River Watershed Action Plan (Coccoli, 2002) and the Hood River Subbasin Plan (Coccoli, 2004). Limiting factors derived from the EDT model and further addressed in the subbasin plan were used to outline the actions for FY 2007-2009." This was precisely the correct approach called for in proposals and the sponsors deserve praise for getting this right. Over the past seven years fish habitat restoration projects have been completed within the Hood River subbasin; however, many opportunities for improvement still exist. The Hood River Fish Habitat Protection, Restoration, and Monitoring Plan (CTWS, 2000) lists fish habitat restoration opportunities within the Hood River subbasin, and the Hood River Action Plan (Coccoli, 2002) further describes many of these actions and prioritizes them. The 2004 Hood River Subbasin Plan provides substantial support for the actions selected in this proposal based upon results from the EDT model and other assessment information used to develop working hypotheses in the plan. The proposed actions are expected to help restore the environmental conditions necessary to meet the biological objectives identified in the Subbasin Plan. Proposed actions are prioritized from EDT modeling – it’s great to see an organized, active process of prioritization. The HRPP is composed of seven separate contracts (Project # 1998-021-00, 1988-053-06, 1988-053-07, 1988-053-08, 1988-053-03, 1988-053-04, and 2003-054-00) that could impact the program if one or more contracts are not funded. The seven contracts primarily provide funding for three broad categories of activities. These include habitat; operation, maintenance and implementation; and monitoring and evaluation studies. The habitat funding in this proposal is used for restoring degraded habitat and increasing habitat quantity to increase carrying capacity. Funding for the operation, maintenance and implementation component of the HRPP provides for all project activities at the HRPP facilities, including broodstock collection, holding and spawning, rearing, marking, tagging, and some acclimation. Funding for monitoring and evaluation studies provides evaluation of the HRPP, monitors what effects the hatchery program may be having on wild populations of fish, and also provides funds for acclimation. The activities in this ongoing program extend back to 1996, and are described fully, except for the results of the work and any adaptive management needed. Another project is responsible for the monitoring (198805304: Hood River Production M&E-ODFW), but that is no reason why the results should not be discussed in this proposal. There is no discussion of how fish populations have changed as a result of project activities. This was a criticism of the most recent ISRP review and does not seem to have been taken seriously. Past ISRP comments apply to this proposal: "Many of the ISRP's FY2000 review comments remain pertinent to our present review of this project. This is a complex project involving substantial funding from a large number of sources. It is linked to a number of other projects within the subbasin. The cost share looks attractive; the rationale looks appropriate. The proposal would have benefited from more presentation of biological gains, even at this relatively early juncture in the project's proposed tenure. We recognize that the project is relatively new and that benefits to fish and wildlife from habitat improvement projects take time to accrue and measure. Nevertheless, the project sponsors generally tended to describe past accomplishments in terms of actions completed without discussing the biological benefits gained from the action (some of which could have been measured even at this early stage)." The proposal still lacks discussion of the biological benefits from past actions, even though a monitoring program is mentioned: "Through long-term monitoring of biological parameters, habitat restoration is monitored. This work, in cooperation with planning efforts, aids in developing priorities for habitat restoration that uses a watershed approach to ecosystem recovery." It is recommended that the proponents submit an addendum that states clearly what benefits have accrued from the expenditure to date, before further funding is agreed. What is the in-stream juvenile response? Residualism of hatchery steelhead may impact habitat work because residualized fish prey on fry and juveniles, and compete, displacing wild parr, etc. What is the impact of residual males? What is the interaction with the habitat improvement work and its evaluation?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: A history of watershed assessment and prescription within the Hood River indicates good planning, based on previous Provincial reviews, and has served as an example for other studies. Lacking to date, however, is an understanding of results in terms of benefits to fish. There is an ongoing fish M&E effort in the subbasin that this project might have drawn from, but benefits to fish and wildlife were not indicated in the proposal or response. The lack of fish data and results within the proposal or the response is viewed by the ISRP as a serious concern. In addition, the reporting of activities towards achieving project goals was lacking, and only a short list of activities exists for the time since commencement (1998). The response leads to the ISRP recommendation of "Fundable (Qualified)" with the qualification that sponsors: (a) develop and implement monitoring and evaluation of the fish response to their habitat-related actions and (b) assess the extent to which the residualism of hatchery steelhead is resulting in the displacement of wild fish from Hood River habitat. It is expected that much of both tasks will be done in close conjunction with projects 198805303 and 198805304. There is a need to evaluate the biological benefits of the work because some of the work might be confounded by residualized steelhead. It is important to ensure that the benefits to wild salmon and steelhead are fully realized. Effective investigation is required to document the assumed benefits, at least from some representative sites. Furthermore, a more comprehensive demonstration of the scale of work needed in the subbasin relative to the ability to reach their objectives is required, and some indication of where they are on achieving their goals. No solid evidence of an increase in fish production (smolt yield or wild parr densities) is presented. More detail on the project sponsor’s response is provided here below with questions from the ISRP original review followed by ISRP comment on how well the sponsors responded. 1) “There is no discussion of how fish populations have changed as a result of project activities.” The response was brief and inadequate. A limited amount of data on steelhead (only) smolt trends was presented in three figures, which indicated that there has been no detectable response that could be attributed to habitat improvements. The typical response was "not determined at this time" or "project not completed." 2) “It is recommended that the proponents submit an addendum that states clearly what benefits have accrued from the expenditures to date, before further funding is agreed. What is the in-stream juvenile response?” In the response, benefits were briefly discussed, largely based on assumptions about the fish response to habitat work. No data on the instream juvenile response was indicated. 3) “What is the impact of residual males? What is the interaction with the habitat improvement work and its evaluation?” A description of the smolt release and monitoring process was briefly described. There was no indication that an adequate search and evaluation of residualized steelhead occurs – the assumption is that fish that fail to leave the acclimatization site (released elsewhere) represent the residuals, but there may be many residuals that leave the acclimatization site with smolts but then remain in the river, with the consequences previously described in our review. There remains a need to explore this and its interaction with habitat work. The information provided in the response disagrees with information provided by Underwood et al. (2003), to which the response refers. Under “Hatchery Residuals,” Underwood et al. (2003) report: “An uncertain number of released hatchery steelhead residualized and did not contribute to the adult steelhead fishery or spawning population. Little data were available to estimate this proportion. However, Blouin (2003) found that up to 30% of parents of F1 generation steelhead returning to the Hood Basin had not in previous years passed Powerdale Dam. This indicated that a potentially substantial amount of steelhead returns to the Hood Basin were strays, or a large amount of steelhead production was being derived from resident rainbow trout or residual hatchery steelhead. Steelhead straying in the Hood Basin was thought to be low, and the degree of residualism versus anadromous production from resident rainbow was unknown, so we conservatively assumed that 5% of the released hatchery steelhead residualized.” They go on to estimate that a hatchery residual had the potential to displace approximately 10 wild parr. An estimated 5% rate of residualization among releases of very large numbers of hatchery steelhead smolts equates to a potential for several thousand residual parr, thus a substantial impact to wild parr and to utilization of wild parr habitat and the improved habitat from this project. Many of these residual parr likely die or contribute little to wild production after displacing wild parr.