Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1998-021-00 - Hood River Fish Habitat Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1998-021-00 - Hood River Fish Habitat
Project Number:
1998-021-00
Title:
Hood River Fish Habitat
Summary:
Implement habitat improvement actions in the Hood River subbasin consistent with the CTWS Hood River Production Program goals and Hood River Watershed Action Plan.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1999
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Gorge Hood 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Smallmouth
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Deschutes River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Resident Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Lamprey, Western Brook
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Brown
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:

McGee Creek LWD Project site plan map.

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 6

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

General site conditions of the West Fork Hood River “Marco” Restoration Area.

Figure Name: Figure 2a

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 6

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

General site conditions of the West Fork Hood River “Marco” Restoration Area.

Figure Name: Figure 2b

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 6

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

POCIS/SPMD membranes included in the FY12 BPA Annual Report.

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 11

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

McGee Creek LWD site plan map.

Figure Name: Figure 5

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 21

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Helicopter transporting LWD to McGee Creek. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 6a

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Helicopter transporting LWD to McGee Creek. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 6b

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Helicopter delivering and placing LWD in McGee Creek and flagger. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 7a

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 23

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Helicopter delivering and placing LWD in McGee Creek and flagger. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 7b

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 23

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Before and after pictures at site 13. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 8a

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 24

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Before and after pictures at site 13. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 8b

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 24

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Before and after pictures at site 18. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 9a

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 24

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Before and after pictures at site 18. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 9b

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 24

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Tieman Creek Fencing Project site plan and location map.

Figure Name: Figure 10

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 25

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Before and after photos of the highly eroded area on Tieman Creek. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 11a

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 26

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Before and after photos of the highly eroded area on Tieman Creek. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 11b

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 26

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Before and after photos of the hardened crossing on Tieman Creek. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 12a

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 26

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Before and after photos of the hardened crossing on Tieman Creek. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 12b

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 26

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Overview photo of the completed Tieman Creek project. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 13

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 26

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Typical riparian fence in the Hood River basin, 2006.

Figure Name: Figure 14

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 27

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Typical stream/ditch in need of riparian vegetation (left) and WINGS crew members installing vegetation at the CGFG pilot riparian planting project location site. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 15a

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 29

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380

Typical stream/ditch in need of riparian vegetation (left) and WINGS crew members installing vegetation at the CGFG pilot riparian planting project location site. 2011.

Figure Name: Figure 15b

Document ID: P124915

Document: Hood River Fish Habitat Project; 10/10 - 9/11

Page Number: 29

Project: 1998-021-00

Contract: 54380


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2019 (Previous) $1,254,422 $1,179,422 $1,179,422 $843,835

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $1,254,422 $1,179,422 $1,179,422 $843,835
FY2020 (Current) $996,814 $996,814 $707,708 $707,708 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $996,814 $707,708 $707,708 $0
FY2021 (Next) $1,009,274 $1,009,274 $0 $0 $0

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $1,009,274 $0 $0 $0
Capital SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2019 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $71,371

Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs $0 $0 $0 $71,371
FY2020 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2021 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 30-Sep-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2019 - FY2021)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2019 Expense $996,814 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2019 Expense $36,405 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (WS, YN, CCT) 10/16/2018 10/16/2018
FY2019 Expense $166,203 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Budget Transfers (WS, YN, CCT) 10/16/2018 10/16/2018
FY2019 Expense $55,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord budget transfer (Warm Springs) 1/8/2019 01/08/2019
FY2020 Expense $996,814 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2021 Expense $1,009,274 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2019 (Draft)
2018 $111,000 10 %
2017 $134,000 6 %
2016 $62,268 12 %
2015 $187,000 21 %
2014 $210,368 35 %
2013 $939,830 35 %
2012 $833,620 37 %
2011 $185,500 15 %
2010 $119,077 28 %
2009 $62,300 7 %
2008 $2,507,300 75 %
2007 $1,232,000 64 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
489 REL 1 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-021-00 HOOD RIVER FISH HAABITAT Terminated $258,309 10/1/1999 - 9/30/2000
974 SOW Applied Archaeological Research CULTURAL RESOURCES - HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT History $5,200 6/19/2000 - 7/15/2001
452 REL 2 SOW JD White Company, Inc. HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT PROJECT History $6,867 4/18/2001 - 9/30/2002
5645 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-021-00 HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT - CTWSRO History $2,227,207 7/1/2001 - 9/30/2004
6388 REL 4 SOW Applied Archaeological Research BALDWIN CREEK FENCING PROJECT History $3,352 10/9/2001 - 12/15/2001
6388 REL 11 SOW Applied Archaeological Research GLACIER DITCH/ EVANS CREEK CULTURAL RESOURCES History $6,566 3/1/2002 - 12/31/2002
6388 REL 24 SOW Applied Archaeological Research SHELLY CREEK FENCING PROJECT NEPA CULTURAL REVIEW 199802100 History $1,893 5/27/2002 - 6/28/2002
6388 REL 31 SOW Applied Archaeological Research EVANS CREEK AND BALDWIN CREEK CULTURAL REVIEWS 199802100 History $2,448 8/12/2002 - 9/30/2002
9656 REL 2 SOW Craven Consulting Group EAST FORK IRRIGATION PIPELINE HR HABITAT 1998-021-00 History $17,564 2/24/2003 - 6/30/2003
6388 REL 48 SOW Applied Archaeological Research 199802100 PL HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT NEPA History $2,503 8/25/2003 - 12/31/2003
6388 REL 63 SOW Applied Archaeological Research CR STUDY - EMIL CREEK FENCING PROJ History $2,309 6/10/2004 - 9/29/2004
20308 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs PI 1998-021-00 HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT History $1,325,245 10/1/2004 - 9/30/2006
30111 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-021-00 EXP HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT History $122,680 10/1/2006 - 9/30/2007
69276 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1988-021-00 EXP RED HILL LOG HAUL Terminated $32,270 6/20/2015 - 6/19/2016
BPA-009773 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 TBL Task Order Active $0 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
75410 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-021-00 EXP USFS LWD Issued $121,966 3/1/2017 - 12/31/2017
77168 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-021-00 EXP HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT Issued $515,346 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
78530 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-021-00 EXP USFS LWD Issued $35,000 3/15/2018 - 12/31/2018
80594 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-021-00 EXP HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT Issued $1,094,422 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
81487 SOW US Forest Service (USFS) 1998-021-00 EXP USFS FISH HABITAT Issued $85,000 3/1/2019 - 12/31/2019
83287 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-021-00 EXP HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT Issued $707,708 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):25
Completed:20
On time:19
Status Reports
Completed:116
On time:83
Avg Days Late:2

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
5645 20308, 30111, 34866, 39395, 44523, 50087, 54380, 58390, 62296, 66119, 70046, 73854, 77168, 80594, 83287 1998-021-00 HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT - CTWSRO Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 07/2001 07/2001 Issued 57 180 0 0 13 193 93.26% 3
29977 34867, 39362, 51364 199802100 CAP HOOD RIVER FISH HABITAT-PIPELINE Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 10/2006 10/2006 Closed 23 17 0 0 1 18 94.44% 0
55956 1998-021-00 EXP MARCO LWD PROJECT US Forest Service (USFS) 02/2012 02/2012 Closed 5 3 0 0 0 3 100.00% 0
61378 199802100 EXP HOOD RIVER LOG HAUL 1MAY US Forest Service (USFS) 06/2013 06/2013 Closed 5 5 0 0 0 5 100.00% 0
63539 1998-021-00 EXP DRC WATER TRANSACTION ASSISTANCE Deschutes River Conservancy (DRC) 12/2013 12/2013 Closed 4 4 0 0 1 5 80.00% 1
66493 1998-021-00 CAP HOOD RIVER PIPING & STREAMFLOW AUGMENTATION Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 10/2014 10/2014 Closed 7 6 0 0 0 6 100.00% 1
69276 1988-021-00 EXP RED HILL LOG HAUL US Forest Service (USFS) 06/2015 06/2015 Terminat 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
72099 75410, 78530, 81487 1998-021-00 EXP USFS LWD US Forest Service (USFS) 04/2016 04/2016 Issued 11 15 0 0 0 15 100.00% 0
BPA-009773 FY17 TBL Task Order Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
77015 1998-021-00 EXP NEAL CREEK PREAQUISITION ACTIVITIES Columbia Land Trust 09/2017 09/2017 Closed 4 2 0 0 0 2 100.00% 0
Project Totals 116 232 0 0 15 247 93.93% 5


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-021-00-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1998-021-00 - Hood River Fish Habitat
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1998-021-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018: Sponsor should consider addressing ISRP qualification #1 in future reviews. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #2).
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor should consider addressing ISRP qualification #1 in future reviews.
Council Condition #2 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #2).
Council Condition #3 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring (ISRP qualification #2).

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-021-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1998-021-00 - Hood River Fish Habitat
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1998-021-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The comments and questions in the sections below are intended to assist the sponsors in improving their project. The ISRP does not request a response.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The Hood River Fish Habitat Project responds to goals and objectives in the following regional plans/programs: Western Hood Subbasin Total Maximum Daily Load (DEQ, 2002), ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia Steelhead (NMFS, in progress), ESA Recovery Plan for Hood River Bull Trout (USFWS, 2002), Hood River Subbasin Plan for Fish and Wildlife (NPPC 2004), plus others.

This project focuses primarily on restoring spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook and steelhead in the Hood River subbasin. Categories of actions include increasing instream flows during the irrigation season, monitoring water quality for agricultural chemicals (used primarily by fruit growers), restoring access to blocked habitat, and increasing channel complexity through large wood additions. The project is in its 15th year and seems reasonably well integrated into other restoration programs in the Columbia Gorge area.

The technical background and problem statements were explained in general terms, but it would have been helpful to provide more details about the extent and nature of habitat degradation. For example, why has there been an extensive effort to re-introduce large wood into the stream network (how far below wood loading targets is the system currently)? Overall, however, the project sponsors have placed their restoration emphasis on addressing obvious problems and their objectives seem clear and well grounded.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

Accomplishments to date are summarized primarily as miles of channel restored, for example treated in some way to achieve habitat targets such as wood loading, pools per mile, area of suitable spawning gravel, miles of stream made available through barrier removal, or additional stream-flow during the irrigation season. Summaries of habitat improvements in the proposal clearly explained what has been done in the past.

How the restoration sites were prioritized and ultimately selected in the Hood River subbasin was somewhat less clear. The proposal does not mention if the EDT analyses were used to prioritize habitat improvement activities, although later in the proposal it is stated that Intrinsic Potential (IP) modeling formed the basis for some of the wood addition projects.

We wish there were a summary of the status and trends of fish populations in the Hood River. The ISRP called for monitoring of fish response to habitat actions in our 2007 review of this project, but the linkage between restoration and population improvements appears to have remained unexamined. Perhaps fish monitoring is taking place as part of other projects, but if so it would have been very helpful to have shown the connection between the habitat work here and what others are learning about population trends.

Fish passage projects completed include installation of two fish screens on irrigation diversions, upstream migrant passage restoration on the Middle Fork Hood River, and preliminary design for a diversion replacement on the East Fork Hood River. Without a presentation of the extent of the problem and the extent to which past efforts have been successful, it is not easy for reviewers to assess these activities. No mention is made of fish abundance. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable progress is likely being made with regard to this objective.

The ISRP was also concerned about the potential effects of residualized hatchery Chinook on naturally produced fish, and the proposal suggests that hatchery residualism might not be as high as formerly thought. Even though the results are stated to be preliminary, it still would have been helpful to see the evidence.

Adjustments in the water quality sampling program in response to what was learned from prior chemical monitoring is an excellent example of adaptive management and shows that the project sponsors have been willing to change their water quality monitoring protocols to address key questions.

Evaluation of Results

Over a decade and a half this project has accomplished an extensive number of habitat protection and restoration actions. Results of these actions as far as the physical characteristics have been adequately reported in the current proposal in the format of summary tables and in annual reports to BPA.

In the ISRP FY07 review of this project the following recommendations were made:

"FY07 review: 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."

In response, the sponsors provided an adequate discussion of results from project 198805303 indicating the level of impact of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead. But no information was included responding to the request for M&E data to measure/evaluate the habitat benefits to fish. The only statement was that the project was waiting for BPA to provide funding to meet their obligations for monitoring. The sponsors should at least coordinate with ODFW project 198805304 to summarize such information and see if changes in fish population status may be correlated with timing of habitat work. The last report from this ODFW project (2011) provided extensive fisheries data regarding the current status of steelhead and Chinook populations in the subbasin. The opportunity to discuss how the habitat restoration work completed may have affected the current status should be explored.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

Restoring summer water flows, reducing herbicide and pesticide inputs, eliminating passage barriers, and increasing channel complexity are the main emphases of this project and in general the proposal does a good job of explaining how project staff has worked well with local landowners, irrigation districts, DEQ, and the Forest Service to accomplish objectives. Emerging limiting factors such as glacial recession leading to lower summer flows and the spread of invasive riparian and aquatic species are touched upon, but strategies for dealing with them are not identified.

Tailored questions are answered briefly.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Overall, the description of deliverables was reasonably complete. There were a few questions, however:

1) What is the anticipated benefit (in CFS to the Hood River) of the combined water conservation and irrigation efficiency actions?

2) The proposal suggests that thousands of logs will be introduced into the channel network over the next four years. Will this wood be anchored to prevent downstream movement, or if not, is there any concern that the mobilization of large quantities of wood during a severe storm could endanger capital structures downstream of the restoration?

3) A few more details about the engineered side channel in the lower Hood River would be helpful. Is it anticipated that the channel will need annual maintenance to continue to function as intended?

4) What species of plants will be planted in riparian buffers between orchards and the stream channels? What, if any, steps will be taken to reduce browse damage on these plants?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Protocols and methods have been entered in MonitoringMethods.org and are completed with adequate details for all objectives.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

The two issues below may be addressed in contracting and focused on in future project planning and proposal development.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
The proposal lacks technical background and details regarding the nature of the habitat degradation and the purpose for the extensive efforts to re-introduce large wood into the stream network. How far below wood loading targets is the system currently?
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
The ISRP repeats its belief that this project deserves to be coupled to a biological monitoring effort (potentially ODFW Project #198805304) so that the benefits of the restoration can be demonstrated. Further information about how effectiveness monitoring could take place should be provided.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

The comments and questions in the sections below are intended to assist the sponsors in improving their project. The ISRP does not request a response.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The Hood River Fish Habitat Project responds to goals and objectives in the following regional plans/programs: Western Hood Subbasin Total Maximum Daily Load (DEQ, 2002), ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia Steelhead (NMFS, in progress), ESA Recovery Plan for Hood River Bull Trout (USFWS, 2002), Hood River Subbasin Plan for Fish and Wildlife (NPPC 2004), plus others.

This project focuses primarily on restoring spawning and rearing habitat for Chinook and steelhead in the Hood River subbasin. Categories of actions include increasing instream flows during the irrigation season, monitoring water quality for agricultural chemicals (used primarily by fruit growers), restoring access to blocked habitat, and increasing channel complexity through large wood additions. The project is in its 15th year and seems reasonably well integrated into other restoration programs in the Columbia Gorge area.

The technical background and problem statements were explained in general terms, but it would have been helpful to provide more details about the extent and nature of habitat degradation. For example, why has there been an extensive effort to re-introduce large wood into the stream network (how far below wood loading targets is the system currently)? Overall, however, the project sponsors have placed their restoration emphasis on addressing obvious problems and their objectives seem clear and well grounded.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

Accomplishments to date are summarized primarily as miles of channel restored, for example treated in some way to achieve habitat targets such as wood loading, pools per mile, area of suitable spawning gravel, miles of stream made available through barrier removal, or additional stream-flow during the irrigation season. Summaries of habitat improvements in the proposal clearly explained what has been done in the past.

How the restoration sites were prioritized and ultimately selected in the Hood River subbasin was somewhat less clear. The proposal does not mention if the EDT analyses were used to prioritize habitat improvement activities, although later in the proposal it is stated that Intrinsic Potential (IP) modeling formed the basis for some of the wood addition projects.

We wish there were a summary of the status and trends of fish populations in the Hood River. The ISRP called for monitoring of fish response to habitat actions in our 2007 review of this project, but the linkage between restoration and population improvements appears to have remained unexamined. Perhaps fish monitoring is taking place as part of other projects, but if so it would have been very helpful to have shown the connection between the habitat work here and what others are learning about population trends.

Fish passage projects completed include installation of two fish screens on irrigation diversions, upstream migrant passage restoration on the Middle Fork Hood River, and preliminary design for a diversion replacement on the East Fork Hood River. Without a presentation of the extent of the problem and the extent to which past efforts have been successful, it is not easy for reviewers to assess these activities. No mention is made of fish abundance. Nevertheless, it seems reasonable progress is likely being made with regard to this objective.

The ISRP was also concerned about the potential effects of residualized hatchery Chinook on naturally produced fish, and the proposal suggests that hatchery residualism might not be as high as formerly thought. Even though the results are stated to be preliminary, it still would have been helpful to see the evidence.

Adjustments in the water quality sampling program in response to what was learned from prior chemical monitoring is an excellent example of adaptive management and shows that the project sponsors have been willing to change their water quality monitoring protocols to address key questions.

Evaluation of Results

Over a decade and a half this project has accomplished an extensive number of habitat protection and restoration actions. Results of these actions as far as the physical characteristics have been adequately reported in the current proposal in the format of summary tables and in annual reports to BPA.

In the ISRP FY07 review of this project the following recommendations were made:

"FY07 review: 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."

In response, the sponsors provided an adequate discussion of results from project 198805303 indicating the level of impact of hatchery steelhead on wild steelhead. But no information was included responding to the request for M&E data to measure/evaluate the habitat benefits to fish. The only statement was that the project was waiting for BPA to provide funding to meet their obligations for monitoring. The sponsors should at least coordinate with ODFW project 198805304 to summarize such information and see if changes in fish population status may be correlated with timing of habitat work. The last report from this ODFW project (2011) provided extensive fisheries data regarding the current status of steelhead and Chinook populations in the subbasin. The opportunity to discuss how the habitat restoration work completed may have affected the current status should be explored.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

Restoring summer water flows, reducing herbicide and pesticide inputs, eliminating passage barriers, and increasing channel complexity are the main emphases of this project and in general the proposal does a good job of explaining how project staff has worked well with local landowners, irrigation districts, DEQ, and the Forest Service to accomplish objectives. Emerging limiting factors such as glacial recession leading to lower summer flows and the spread of invasive riparian and aquatic species are touched upon, but strategies for dealing with them are not identified.

Tailored questions are answered briefly.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Overall, the description of deliverables was reasonably complete. There were a few questions, however:

1) What is the anticipated benefit (in CFS to the Hood River) of the combined water conservation and irrigation efficiency actions?

2) The proposal suggests that thousands of logs will be introduced into the channel network over the next four years. Will this wood be anchored to prevent downstream movement, or if not, is there any concern that the mobilization of large quantities of wood during a severe storm could endanger capital structures downstream of the restoration?

3) A few more details about the engineered side channel in the lower Hood River would be helpful. Is it anticipated that the channel will need annual maintenance to continue to function as intended?

4) What species of plants will be planted in riparian buffers between orchards and the stream channels? What, if any, steps will be taken to reduce browse damage on these plants?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Protocols and methods have been entered in MonitoringMethods.org and are completed with adequate details for all objectives.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

The two issues below may be addressed in contracting and focused on in future project planning and proposal development.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 11:54:59 AM.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-021-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1998-021-00 - Hood River Fish Habitat
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Address the ISRP concerns in the annual reporting of results to Bonneville, in terms of benefits to fish.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-021-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1998-021-00 - Hood River Fish Habitat
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1998-021-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1998-021-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 1 - Appears reasonable
Comment: Multiple protection and restoration activities, including activities that other entities may be authorized/required to perform; recommend confirmation of screening to ensure BPA not funding activities where another entity already required to perform.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-021-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1998-021-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 9/19/2007
Capital Rating: Qualifies for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: Fish Passage Improvement
Comment: Capital funding approval submitted by BPA COTR. The COTR, COTR's Manager and BPA Accountant certified that the request meets the BPA F&W capital policy and is approved for capital funding (if capital funds are available).

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Brad Houslet Interested Party Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Israel Duran Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Eric Leitzinger Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Darcy Saiget Technical Contact US Forest Service (USFS)
Chris Brun Supervisor Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Blayne Eineichner Project Lead Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Leona Ike Administrative Contact Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs