FY07-09 proposal 200729200
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
Proposal title | Effectiveness Monitoring of In-Stream Habitat Restoration in the Lower Entiat Basin at Microhabitat and Reach Scales |
Proposal ID | 200729200 |
Organization | US Forest Service (USFS) - Pacific Northwest Research Station |
Short description | We will use techniques from population ecology at the microhabitat and reach scale to monitor the response of juvenile fish populations to restoration of rearing habitat. |
Information transfer | The information will be disseminated through technical reports and peer-reviewed publications. The results will be useful to the Entiat Watershed Planning Unit in determining the type and extent of in-stream habitat structures that will be effective in enhancing fish populations in this heavily impacted watershed. |
Proposal contact person or principal investigator |
Contacts
Contact | Organization | |
---|---|---|
Form submitter | ||
Karl Polivka | USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station | kpolivka@fs.fed.us |
All assigned contacts | ||
Karl Polivka | USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station | kpolivka@fs.fed.us |
Karl Polivka | USDA Forest Service, PNW Research Station | kpolivka@fs.fed.us |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Columbia Cascade / Entiat
Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
---|---|---|---|
Entiat River | Lower reaches of the Entiat River at the USFWS Hatchery near the "Bridge-to-Bridge" restoration project |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Spring ESUprimary: Chinook Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
primary: Steelhead Upper Columbia River ESU
secondary: Chinook Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
secondary: Coho Unspecified Population
secondary: Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESU
Section 4. Past accomplishments
Year | Accomplishments |
---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
---|---|---|---|
BPA | 200301700 | Integrated Status/Effect Progr | Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) efforts are necessary to scientifically validate the effectiveness of in-stream habitat restoration projects designed to enhance the numerical and performance response of fish in key watersheds. Our research is related to the expansion of integrated status and effectiveness monitoring in the Wenatchee River Basin to the adjacent Entiat River Basin |
Other: Proposed study | 200705500 | Lower Entiat Off-Channel Restoration | Our work directly addresses techniques to monitor the fish response to habitat restoration activities. Our results will be relevant to effectiveness monitoring of not only in-stream habitat restoration projects, but off-channel projects such as this one. |
Other: Proposed study | 200705400 | Entiat River-UPA-Stillwater restoration | Our work provides a set of tools for measuring fish performance in newly restored habitat. These methods will be applicable to effectiveness monitoring in other types of habitat restoration. |
PCSRF - WSRFB | 04-1503 | Entiat R. BridgeToBridge Reach | We will apply a rigorous experimental approach to determine the effectiveness of restoring habitat complexity, off-channel habitat and shading, for sensitive anadromous and resident salmonids. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
---|---|---|---|
Evaluate In-stream structural diversity | Increasing spawning and rearing habitat is cited as a restoration activity with high potential to improve production of listed anadromous fish stocks. Monitoring of the effectiveness of habitat improvement projects is one of the key management needs identified by subbasin planners in multiple sub-basins of the upper Columbia River. | Entiat | Placement of in-stream structures, large woody debris. Effectiveness monitoring for individual and population level performance. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Analyze/Interpret Data | Data Analysis | Variability of fish abundance within and among natural and artificial pools will be compared among natural and artificial pools using ANOVA on coefficient of variation. At the reach scale, we will compare treated and untreated reaches using a BACI (before-after-control-impact) design using census data obtained before and after our manipulation of habitat. We will analyze growth data with a split-plot ANOVA where the type of pool will be the whole-plot factor and the density treatment will be the subplot factor. We will calculate isodars and expect them to reflect divergent regulation if habitat enhancements improve not only the numerical response of fish, but the qualitative response to density dependence. We will compare time series census data in each of the selected study areas to determine whether there is concordance in the primary methods for generating isodars. This will serve as both a quality control check and as a contribution to the theoretical development of isodars. | 9/30/2007 | 9/30/2008 | $19,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Collect fish abundance data in experimental and control reaches | Censuses of fish abundance will be performed by snorkeling and by a modified seining procedure developed during our Pilot Study. We will perform weekly censuses of control and experimental reaches June-September in both years of the study. At each census, pool size will be measured to note any subtle changes in fish density as a result of shallower pools during low-flow parts of the field season. To more effectively estimate changes in fish abundance due to in-stream habitat enhancement, we will census the locations of artificial pools on multiple occasions prior to applying the structure to create the pools. | 6/1/2007 | 9/30/2008 | $39,000 |
Biological objectives Evaluate In-stream structural diversity |
Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: Action effectiveness Research |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Experimental manipulations of fish density in the field | We will construct small rectangular enclosures in natural and experimental pools about 1.5 m2 in size with 6 mm mesh hardware cloth to permit the inflow of drifting macroinvertebrates, but restrict the escape of fish. Three density treatments will be employed in each pool based on ambient density observations from the 2005 pilot experiment and initial censuses following the construction of new rock weirs. Stocking densities will be based on 2007 census data. Fish in enclosures will be censused weekly for growth and condition and performance in terms of growth will be used as a correlate of habitat suitability. We expect this relationship to be linear and different for natural vs. artificial pools. | 6/1/2008 | 9/30/2008 | $39,000 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research |
||||
Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data | Recapture and census of fish in experimental and control reaches | We will further compare the performance of fish after repeated estimates of density obtained through snorkeling, trapping, electrofishing (in accordance with permitting limitations) or seining. We will obtain growth and survivorship data and compare average performance in natural vs. experimental pools. | 6/10/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $11,500 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research |
||||
Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results | Publication of results | We will publish results of this study in peer reviewed journals, provide technical reports to the Entiat Watershed Planning Unit, and provide reports on stages of project completion through BPA's Pisces software program | 9/30/2007 | 9/30/2008 | $0 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Install Fish Monitoring Equipment | Establish in-stream habitat structure | In several replicate reaches within the Lower Entiat River, we will construct rock weirs as done in our pilot study using hand placed boulders to create ten small scour pools per treated reach with some additional woody debris added just downstream to ensure the formation of a distinct flow break at each study location. Pools are expected to be approximately 6 m2 in surface dimensions with depth depending on the flow regime at the start of the experiment. Some of these weirs may span the width of small side channels to simulate cross channel weirs that are characteristic of the habitat enhancement project proposed by the watershed planning unit. | 6/1/2007 | 6/10/2007 | $2,531 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics |
||||
Mark/Tag Animals | Marking of fish in experimental and control pools | Fish from experimental structures and control reach pools will be captured and marked with a visual implant elastomer tag. Color combinations will be used to identify fish individually for the calculation of growth rates under ambient and manipulated density conditions | 6/10/2007 | 9/30/2007 | $14,500 |
Biological objectives |
Metrics Secondary R, M, and E Type: Action Effectiveness Research |
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Personnel | GS-4 Technician 0.5 FTE | $15,405 | $15,405 | $0 |
Personnel | GS-4 Technician 0.2 FTE | $5,925 | $5,925 | $0 |
Personnel | GS-9 Forest Fish Biologist, 0.1 FTE | $4,600 | $4,600 | $0 |
Supplies | Fish Marking Kit | $575 | $0 | $0 |
Supplies | Replacement elastomer paint (fish marking) | $400 | $400 | $0 |
Supplies | Seine nets | $900 | $0 | $0 |
Supplies | Hand dipnets | $40 | $40 | $0 |
Supplies | Coolers | $50 | $0 | $0 |
Supplies | ice packs | $50 | $0 | $0 |
Supplies | Field Balance | $600 | $0 | $0 |
Supplies | Miscellaneous supplies (field notebooks, buckets) | $1,000 | $1,000 | $0 |
Travel | GSA Vehicle 6 mo.@ $318/mo | $1,908 | $1,908 | $0 |
Travel | Mileage for GSA vehicle (2500 mi. @ 0.26/mi) | $650 | $650 | $0 |
Other | Personnel Administrative Charge 1.38 FTE @ $18,500/FTE | $25,530 | $25,530 | $0 |
Overhead | PNW Indirect Costs (11%) | $6,340 | $6,100 | $0 |
Totals | $63,973 | $61,558 | $0 |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: | $125,531 |
Total work element budget: | $125,531 |
Cost sharing
Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
USFS PNW Research Station | PI Salary 0.2 FTE | $14,000 | $14,000 | $0 | In-Kind | Under Review |
USFS PNW Research Station | Technician Salary, 0.5 FTE | $15,405 | $15,405 | $0 | In-Kind | Under Review |
USFS PNW Research Station | Technician Salary 0.2 FTE | $5,925 | $5,925 | $0 | In-Kind | Under Review |
Totals | $35,330 | $35,330 | $0 |
Section 9. Project future
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 30 Sept 2008
Comments: We expect this study to be completed in two field seasons. This expectation is reasonable considering the amount of pilot research completed and the direct nature of the experimental studies
Final deliverables: Peer reviewed publications authored by the PI will be submitted to (1) report the usefulness of ecological theory in developing tools for effectiveness monitoring and (2) evaluate the success of in-stream structure in favorably altering population dynamic processes for early life stages of sensitive species. Technical reports will be provided to the Entiat Watershed Planning unit and to BPA via status reports on the Pisces project management software.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
Reviews and recommendations
FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Basinwide | ||
NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
$0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense |
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: This project will provide useful information on the response of Chinook and steelhead to a commonly utilized enhancement method. Accounting for density-dependent effects is an unusual aspect of this study design and an important aspect ignored by most other projects that have attempted to assess fish response to habitat improvements. There may be some difficulties in extending results to larger spatial scales. Although the ISRP is not requesting a response, the project would be strengthened by addressing the following comments. Technical and scientific background: The background provided is complete and does indicate that there are some interesting questions that can be addressed at the habitat/reach scale at which this project will be conducted. The background information greatly benefits from data collected during a pilot study. However, the relationship of the responses observed in this project to responses at much larger spatial scales (subbasin, ESU, etc.) is unclear. The statement is made that variability in responses at the microsite or reach scale will indicate if it is likely that a response to treatment at larger spatial scales are likely to be detected. However, this assumes that the treated and control sites used for the experiment are representative of all reaches in the Entiat. It is entirely possible that the underlying conditions at the study sites will constrain a response to wood addition, but in other areas of the watershed such treatments might elicit a large response. Some clearer description of how the results of this study will be extended to larger spatial scales should be included in the proposal. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: Placement of wood or other materials in stream channels to increase pool habitat and cover is an action identified in the Entiat subbasin plan. Therefore, this experiment can provide valuable information on the effectiveness of this approach for Chinook and steelhead. The issue with extending the microsite and reach level responses to more relevant spatial scales for salmon recovery remains an issue, but the project does align well with regional programs. Relationships to other projects: This project is aligned with some of the United States Forest Service (USFS) and other projects being implemented in the Entiat. Objectives: The proposal provides a single, clear objective and specific hypotheses (objectives) to be tested. The objective is to assess the response of Chinook and steelhead to placement of instream structures. This restoration strategy is being widely applied across the Columbia basin. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods are fully described; they are also quite innovative in that the study explicitly accounts for density dependent effects in assessing fish response to the placement of in-stream structures. Failure to account for density dependence has been a problem with many studies conducted on this subject. There are two specific points related to the methods that the authors may want to consider: 1) The reliance on snorkel surveys and seining to estimate population levels may pose a problem. Increasing structural complexity of habitat will make the proposed census techniques less effective; it is harder to see or net fish if they have lots of places to hide. As the fish will be tagged anyway, why not recapture fish by seining the day after they have been tagged and develop a mark-recapture estimate of population size? This would be more accurate than relying on the snorkel estimates. 2) The enclosure experiments are likely to expose the experimental fish to many different conditions than would be the case if they were free to move about the pool. The ability of the fish to move from feeding to resting locations may play a role in determining their performance. The experimental fish may be prevented from using some important microhabitat types. The enclosures also will prevent predation. If this mechanism is an important determinant of habitat carrying capacity, it will not be captured by the enclosure experiments. Could entire pools be used for these manipulative experiments (i.e., isolate the pools with screens or nets and manipulate density by adding or removing fish from nearby habitats)? This approach would avoid some of the artificial properties introduced by using cages. Monitoring and evaluation: This is a monitoring and evaluation effort. As noted above, most components of this proposed study are technically very good. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: The personnel are well qualified and facilities appear adequate. Information transfer: Information will be communicated through standard scientific channels. There is no mention of a process to communicate results directly to restoration practitioners in the Entiat of other subbasins. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The knowledge generated by this study will be of value in guiding future in-stream habitat enhancement projects. The problems related to extending the results to spatial scales of primary relevance to recovery efforts are a potential issue. There may be very minor impacts on non-focal species in the areas where sampling occurs or where habitat is manipulated. These impacts should be very short-lived. There may be positive effects for non-focal species that utilize pool habitat in streams.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
NPCC comments: This project will provide useful information on the response of Chinook and steelhead to a commonly utilized enhancement method. Accounting for density-dependent effects is an unusual aspect of this study design and an important aspect ignored by most other projects that have attempted to assess fish response to habitat improvements. There may be some difficulties in extending results to larger spatial scales. Although the ISRP is not requesting a response, the project would be strengthened by addressing the following comments. Technical and scientific background: The background provided is complete and does indicate that there are some interesting questions that can be addressed at the habitat/reach scale at which this project will be conducted. The background information greatly benefits from data collected during a pilot study. However, the relationship of the responses observed in this project to responses at much larger spatial scales (subbasin, ESU, etc.) is unclear. The statement is made that variability in responses at the microsite or reach scale will indicate if it is likely that a response to treatment at larger spatial scales are likely to be detected. However, this assumes that the treated and control sites used for the experiment are representative of all reaches in the Entiat. It is entirely possible that the underlying conditions at the study sites will constrain a response to wood addition, but in other areas of the watershed such treatments might elicit a large response. Some clearer description of how the results of this study will be extended to larger spatial scales should be included in the proposal. Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: Placement of wood or other materials in stream channels to increase pool habitat and cover is an action identified in the Entiat subbasin plan. Therefore, this experiment can provide valuable information on the effectiveness of this approach for Chinook and steelhead. The issue with extending the microsite and reach level responses to more relevant spatial scales for salmon recovery remains an issue, but the project does align well with regional programs. Relationships to other projects: This project is aligned with some of the United States Forest Service (USFS) and other projects being implemented in the Entiat. Objectives: The proposal provides a single, clear objective and specific hypotheses (objectives) to be tested. The objective is to assess the response of Chinook and steelhead to placement of instream structures. This restoration strategy is being widely applied across the Columbia basin. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The methods are fully described; they are also quite innovative in that the study explicitly accounts for density dependent effects in assessing fish response to the placement of in-stream structures. Failure to account for density dependence has been a problem with many studies conducted on this subject. There are two specific points related to the methods that the authors may want to consider: 1) The reliance on snorkel surveys and seining to estimate population levels may pose a problem. Increasing structural complexity of habitat will make the proposed census techniques less effective; it is harder to see or net fish if they have lots of places to hide. As the fish will be tagged anyway, why not recapture fish by seining the day after they have been tagged and develop a mark-recapture estimate of population size? This would be more accurate than relying on the snorkel estimates. 2) The enclosure experiments are likely to expose the experimental fish to many different conditions than would be the case if they were free to move about the pool. The ability of the fish to move from feeding to resting locations may play a role in determining their performance. The experimental fish may be prevented from using some important microhabitat types. The enclosures also will prevent predation. If this mechanism is an important determinant of habitat carrying capacity, it will not be captured by the enclosure experiments. Could entire pools be used for these manipulative experiments (i.e., isolate the pools with screens or nets and manipulate density by adding or removing fish from nearby habitats)? This approach would avoid some of the artificial properties introduced by using cages. Monitoring and evaluation: This is a monitoring and evaluation effort. As noted above, most components of this proposed study are technically very good. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: The personnel are well qualified and facilities appear adequate. Information transfer: Information will be communicated through standard scientific channels. There is no mention of a process to communicate results directly to restoration practitioners in the Entiat of other subbasins. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The knowledge generated by this study will be of value in guiding future in-stream habitat enhancement projects. The problems related to extending the results to spatial scales of primary relevance to recovery efforts are a potential issue. There may be very minor impacts on non-focal species in the areas where sampling occurs or where habitat is manipulated. These impacts should be very short-lived. There may be positive effects for non-focal species that utilize pool habitat in streams.