This proposal is a key part of the Hood River Production Program (HRPP), which also includes a fish production and monitoring and evaluation project (198805303). The proposal was comprehensive and informative. It clearly described current and emerging issues affecting fish populations and aquatic habitat and a generally strategic effort to accomplish meaningful restoration at the whole watershed scale. Innovative use of Intrinsic Potential Assessment to identify priority areas for future restoration was described. Discussion and analyses of the potential impacts of climate change on stream flow and stream temperature and associated potential responses were very informative. Findings on the effectiveness of past work in achieving desired habitat conditions were also particularly useful. Finally, the table showing increased total steelhead smolt production from 1994 to present demonstrates benefits from the HRPP projects. A positive trend appears to begin around 2000. Unfortunately, there is no formal analysis of these data. Additional statistical analysis of these data and discussion regarding links to the restoration program should be included in the proposal.

In future annual reports and work plans, the proponents need to provide information to address the following Conditions:

1. Implementation and outcome objectives. Describe activities and outcomes for the time period 2023-2027. Particular focus should be to provide quantitative and time-bound outcome descriptions for Objective 2 (spawning and rearing habitat) and the four sub-objectives linked to it. Objectives for project maintenance, public outreach/ information sharing, and project-scale monitoring and evaluation should also be provided.
2. Strategic plan. Provide a concise description of the strategic plan that guides priority setting and implementation of this program. Include a list or analysis of prioritization of sites and projects proposed based on a quantitative model, EDT, or other technique to guide setting priorities.
3. Standard Operating Procedures. Provide a more detailed description of Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) or a more detailed description of methods associated with the six specific objectives.
4. Coordination. Provide additional detail on coordination within the HRPP, particularly with the CTWS monitoring and evaluation project 198805303. More detailed information on findings to date regarding fish responses to restoration work at the watershed/subbasin scale and at project and/or reach scales is needed. Also, opportunities for improved coordination with the habitat restoration project should be addressed.
5. Trends in steelhead smolt production. Provide statistical analysis of the changes in steelhead smolt production from 1994 to present and discuss the implications of the trends for the restoration program.

Note: A qualification from the ISRP's 2007-2009 Project Review to “develop and implement monitoring and evaluation of the fish response to habitat related actions” has not yet been adequately addressed. The proponents are aware of this and state that they are waiting for direction from BPA regarding monitoring protocols to more fully assess the effectiveness of habitat restoration projects. Please provide a description of this once an agreement is reached with BPA.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal provides a detailed discussion of the major factors affecting aquatic habitat and the associated primary limiting factors to steelhead production. Four primary Limiting Factors and 14 Contributing Factors/Threats are listed in Figure 3. From these emerge the proposed activities to address them. The proponents provide a clear history of their work and report a modest level of results and EDT model outputs (found in the subbasin plan) to demonstrate issues, progress, and a logical framework for moving forward. Although steelhead are the target species, the Hood River has one of the most diverse assemblages of anadromous and resident fish in Oregon. The proposal provides very informative maps showing the distribution of species of particular interest.

There has been a recent review of limiting factors in the Hood River basin in state and federal recovery plans and the Subbasin Plan (ODFW 2010, NMFS 2013, USFWS 2015, Coccoli 2004) and their incorporation into the most recent strategic action plan for the watershed (Thieman 2021). This review is supplemented with findings from a number of past assessments and investigations in the basin including a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) study of approaches for reducing stream temperatures, an assessment of riparian vegetation and potential for introduction of large wood on the 170 miles of stream in the watershed, opportunities to increase summer stream flows, and use of an Intrinsic Potential Assessment to identify specific stream reaches with high potential for benefits from future habitat restoration. Additional plans supporting the work of the Hood River Habitat Project include the Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi-Wa-Kish-Wit: Spirit of the Salmon and the Hood River Subbasin Summary. Unfortunately, it is not clear if there is a primary overarching strategic plan that synthesizes and unifies key elements of the plans to guide the project.

More detail is needed to better describe how the specific sites and activities are tied to a strategic list of projects to elevate the overall habitat improvement for the subbasin. The proposal contains three tables (Table 4 for water conservation actions, and Tables 5 & 6 for some project prioritization) that provide a qualitative linkage to physical objectives, but no quantitative, desired biological responses for proposed restoration treatments. Specifically, providing this information would really take the proposal to a higher level of usefulness.

A single primary biological objective (Objective 1) provides quantitative fish production targets for all species and identifies the long-term, desired outcome for the project. Objective 1 is accompanied by five other physical habitat objectives, most of which generally meet SMART criteria, although their listed time for completion (2042) is well beyond the timeline for this proposal. Objective 2, which addresses spawning and rearing habitat provides four sub-objectives describing type location and amounts of restoration work to be accomplished. Unfortunately, there are no quantitative objectives describing desired outcomes for these spawning and rearing habitat restoration activities. Also, despite stating that the proponents will continue to monitor physical habitat responses to individual restoration projects, using accepted protocols, no objectives for project monitoring and evaluation are provided. Finally, there are no objectives for project maintenance or public outreach and information sharing.

Q2: Methods

General methods for project prioritization are provided and describe a series of information resources and considerations used by the Technical Advisory Committee. These include aerial photography, Intrinsic Potential Assessment (Appendix B), fish use, and knowledge of site conditions and potential. Although there is no single, formal process described for priority setting, there is discussion of how general restoration opportunities have been prioritized using the Atlas model. It is not clear whether a single restoration plan/strategy is used to guide the process.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

A positive feature of the proposal is that Project monitoring has been adequate to demonstrate that desired physical outcomes have been achieved for most projects. There is an ongoing program for project implementation and effectiveness monitoring, but the proposal provides no detail regarding implementation monitoring. For effectiveness monitoring, the proposal states that the proponents will monitor physical habitat responses to restoration projects using accepted protocols to gauge the effectiveness of project activities. There is a list of the methods for various physical parameters and links to the protocols used. This includes the use of photo points and canopy measurements recorded for riparian vegetation for assessing the effectiveness of fencing and planting projects. For example, this monitoring has shown that the large wood placement projects, particularly those implemented in the last five years, have resulted in desired increases in spawning gravel, pool frequency, and pool area. These parameters could be used to describe or make predictions about desired future outcomes for restoration of spawning and rearing habitat (Objective 2).

There is little discussion of links to ongoing biological monitoring being done in the basin by other projects. For example, this challenging and long-standing issue is the first qualification from the ISRP’s 2007-2009 Project Review to “Develop and implement monitoring and evaluation of the fish response to habitat related actions.” The proponents say they are waiting for direction from BPA regarding monitoring protocols to assess the effectiveness of habitat restoration projects in meeting their FRCPS Biological Opinion obligations. It is noted that this project is one of three HRPP projects and that the focus of project 198805303 is to monitor the natural production of steelhead trout and Chinook salmon in the basin and to use this information in “determining fish distribution, providing context for habitat restoration efforts, and tracking population status and trends of fish in the watershed to potentially document the influence of habitat restoration activities on fish abundance.” There is no mention of formal data/ information sharing or coordination activities among the three projects. Additional detail on this coordination is needed, especially given that past reviews have identified it as a condition for the project.

The primary tool for making project adjustments is The Hood River Watershed Group (HRWG), which meets annually. These meetings include staff from the CTWS, USFS, and ODFW to review monitoring data related to habitat program effectiveness and lessons learned from implementing current or past-year projects. If projects have not yielded expected ecological outcomes, they are discussed in detail to develop suggestions for alternative implementation strategies. There is no mention of any other activities such as field visits, project design reviews or general coordination and information sharing meetings, which could broaden the scope of current adaptive management.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Active protection and restoration of aquatic habitat in the Hood River basin has been ongoing since 1998. The proposal provides details for a range of past accomplishments. This includes accomplishments tied to a diversity of restoration treatment types including fish passage, riparian fencing, instream treatments, road decommissioning, water conservation and stream flow additions, and work with private landowners to reduce the introduction of toxic materials into streams. The removal of Powerdale Dam substantially expanded the range and number of lamprey in the system, and the HRPP has been documenting this recovery. However, more description would be useful of biological responses to other target fish species populations (especially native species) following dam removal.

Information addressing the effectiveness of past restoration work was particularly useful for this review. Project monitoring results have shown positive outcomes for most restoration actions. Examples include findings that large wood placement projects, particularly those implemented in the last five years, have shown desired increases in spawning gravel, pool frequency, and pool area (Eineichner 2020). Also, results from riparian buffer plantings and education on pesticide Best Management Practices (BMP’s) appear to be continuing to maintain lower pesticide levels in streams. The proposal states that, “a summary table of project effectiveness results was not possible for this proposal due to HRPP staff transitions.” Unfortunately, quantitative descriptions describing desired outcomes for some of the work, especially spawning and rearing habitat improvement, were not provided in the proposal.

An informative table in the section on Responses to Past Reviews illustrates the abundance of wild steelhead smolts (= 150 mm FL) by age category to the mainstem rotary screw trap (rm 4.5) from 1994 to the present (courtesy of Phil Simpson). Although no statistical analysis of the data is provided, the data potentially show a positive trend in total smolts from about year 2000 to the present. Additional detail and analysis of biological sampling would be very useful to summarize and include in future annual reports and proposals for this project.