Warm Springs River Wood Placement - Response Requested

The portion of this proposal package that deals with the plans for restoration of the Warm Springs River (WSR) was well done for many elements but incomplete for others. The process used to identify the project location was very complete. The method used to determine habitat limitations and design habitat actions to address these deficiencies also was very well done. However, the proposal does not include a description of work elements. Presumably, most of these would be associated with the implementation of the restoration design and establishment of the monitoring program. But they need to be included in the proposal to complete the review.

The ISRP understands that the Council recommended that RM&E needs for the Warm Springs River wood placement project be met through BPA's new Action Effectiveness Monitoring Plan (AEM). This AEM process is in its infancy. The ISRP recommends that it review the pilot study design once it is drafted. This applies to the full suite of Warm Springs’ projects that the ISRP has reviewed - Mill, Beaver, and the Large Woody Debris projects. It would be preferable to do this through the response loop time period, but if this is not feasible the ISRP will review the study design when a detailed draft is prepared.

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

This proposal does a very good job of explaining the significance of this project to the regional effort to increase fish populations in this area of the Deschutes River watershed. The technical background for the project is complete. Information on current habitat conditions throughout the Warm Springs River watershed is provided. The discussion of wood delivery and routing and how this understanding was used to select sites and design of LWD treatments was very thorough. A discussion of WSR hydrology and incorporation into project design was included but there was minimal discussion of how long it will take for expected flows to scour the habitats that are anticipated to develop at project sites. Table 2 does a nice job of projecting expected habitat responses to treatment and focal species response to the new habitat. Also, it was mentioned that sediment is limiting factor but no discussion on dominant sources. If upland sources are dominant, additional information on priority locations and treatments is needed. If bank erosion is a major sediment source, the potential for LWD projects to accelerate local bank erosion should have been evaluated.

Increases in fine sediment and elevated water temperatures are both listed as limiting factors. There is no discussion of complementary treatments to LWD additions such as riparian reforestation and/or silvicultural treatments to increase stream shading and enhance long-term LWD recruitment and/or road decommissioning or improvement to reduce erosion and sediment delivery. Given that LWD recruitment is described as occurring locally through fire and windstorm disturbance events, it would seem that identification and treatment of riparian areas that are understocked with trees (future LWD) would be beneficial. Although this is not a requirement, it would be useful to help understand the entire suite of projects envisioned for restoring conditions in the Warm Springs River.

Information on spawner distribution and some data on juvenile salmonid abundance also are provided. These data are used to justify the priority reaches selected for restoration and to identify the appropriate restoration approaches and designs. Although there is no explicit statement of objectives in the proposal, the description of the current habitat conditions clearly indicates that the objective is to increase spawning and rearing habitat for salmonid fishes and lamprey in a reach of the Warm Springs River where these actions have the potential to have the greatest possible benefit. The appropriateness of this objective is well supported by the information provide in the proposal.

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

This project is new and, therefore, there were no past accomplishments to include in the proposal. However, the process described in the proposal for the identification of the restoration reach and the development of a series of LWD structures to achieve different habitat objectives clearly indicates that this project already has been employing certain elements of the adaptive management process. Project site selection was based on a thorough assessment of current habitat conditions in the Warm Springs River augmented with information of fish distribution and abundance. These data, in conjunction with published information from unmanaged watersheds with climate and vegetation similar to the Warm Springs River, were used to identify the reach within the Warm Springs River where habitat was degraded but with a high potential for response by the focal species. Designs for wood structures were, in part, based on observations of the architecture of wood accumulations in the unmanaged, headwaters reach of the WSR. The project sponsors also sought design advice from BPA engineers. An additional resource could be restoration practitioners on the Mt. Hood and Deschutes National Forests. Both of these National Forests have a long history of LWD placement and monitoring of physical response. Specific locations for wood structures in the restoration reach were determined using a LiDAR-based DEM coupled with on-the-ground verification. Finally, an estimate of the potential gain in abundance of spawning steelhead and Chinook salmon based on the predicted increase in gravel availability and a prediction of increased juvenile parr density based on increases in pool area and cover were provided. These estimates could form the basis of a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of this project (more on RME below). At each stage of the project development the sponsors used available information or collected new data to improve the design of the project.

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

The relationship between this project and the other ongoing habitat restoration and fish monitoring projects on the Warm Springs Reservation was not described. It seems likely that some of the fish data presented in the proposal were collected by the fish monitoring program on the reservation. If so, there is a link between this project and the monitoring program, and this linkage could be very productive in the development of a monitoring plan for this project. The habitat RME effort associated with this project is only briefly mentioned. This project will be one of the projects evaluated under the new Action Effectiveness Monitoring Program. The ISRP recently reviewed the proposal for this monitoring program, and this project would be very appropriate for inclusion, given the availability of existing data and an ongoing program collecting fish population data. However, it is not possible to judge the technical adequacy of the monitoring effort that will be associated with this project until the monitoring design and methods are developed. The ISRP should review a revised version of the proposal that includes the details of the AEM effort and clearly describes the linkages between this project-scale monitoring and the fish population monitoring that is already occurring.

The proposal did include a discussion of probable, local flow responses to climate change. Models developed for drainages with similar hydro-geomorphic characteristics were used to predict potential changes in flow with expected changes in precipitation patterns and temperature. However, it is not entirely clear how this analysis is being incorporated into conservation and restoration planning for the area. Climate change also may affect general forest health and increase the frequency of fires. Some consideration of this factor in project design also would be worthwhile.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The process used for designing the project was very complete, and the methods employed to collect the information used in the design phase were appropriate. The work elements to be completed as part of this project were not completely specified in the proposal. Presumably, most of the work elements would be related to the placement of the wood structures. Some information on the timing and logistical details of implementing the project should have been included in the proposal.

A description of methods that will be employed in executing the RM&E component of this project should be included in a revised proposal (or a link to a description of AEM project that will assess this project). This project will be a pilot for the new AEM program. The proposal indicates that habitat monitoring will be conducted in years 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 after treatment. The most recent stream surveys were completed in 2000, but it is not clear if additional pre-project data will be gathered. In addition to the planned surveys, evaluations should be conducted after any flood events with a return interval equal to or greater than 5 to 10 years. The sponsors also may consider continuing habitat monitoring for longer than 10 years given dependence of the treatments on flows sufficient to scour stream bed materials. If no flows of sufficient magnitude occur within the planned 10-year monitoring period, the effectiveness of the treatments could not be completely assessed. There is no mention of fish population monitoring response to restoration treatments. If information useful for this purpose will be collected by other monitoring programs, a description of this activity should be included in the proposal.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

 

The proposal did not reference MonitoringMethods.org protocols.

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

Response to Qualifications on Beaver and Mill Creeks

The ISRP review of the Beaver and Mill creek restoration proposal, completed in December 2012, indicated that two areas of the plan still required some additional attention:

1. Essential details of actions at a number of project restoration sites have not yet been worked out (see first two paragraphs under Section III, p. 21). The general approach to identifying candidate sites and addressing specific limiting factors appears to be sound, but site-specific details should include (1) quantitative habitat information on existing conditions and improvements expected after restoration, (2) descriptions of how restoration of the site will contribute to improvement in viable salmonid population (VSP) parameters of focal species, and (3) estimates of the increased carrying capacity of the site following habitat improvement, which can be tracked over time to see if initial assumptions were justified. These issues should be addressed adequately as detailed information is gathered as part of annual reporting requirements, and certainly before restoration work begins.

More details about the habitat project monitoring efforts are needed. The proposal states that PNAMP protocols will be followed, with physical and biological components of the monitoring constituting separate phases of the monitoring and evaluation work. Each project site should have its own monitoring and evaluation plan, as the specific restoration actions will vary from place to place and will require different habitat and fish population metrics for monitoring purposes. Site-specific monitoring details should be developed and reported as part of annual reporting requirements, and the details should be clear before restoration work begins. The ISRP understands that the level of detail in plans will vary according to the scope and scale of restoration actions at a particular site and recommends that project-specific scientific review be commensurate with the complexity of the proposed action.

The revised proposal does address several of the issues raised by the ISRP in the last review. More detail on the activities associated with the projects on Quartz and Coyote creeks (projects sites in the Beaver Creek system) has been provided. This additional information does provide a much more comprehensive picture of what will be done at these sites and why it is considered important for fish recovery in Beaver Creek. Additional information also has been added on the exiting habitat conditions at the project sites. The discussion provided as to the expected response of the focal species to the habitat actions remains very generic and no quantitative estimates of improvements in carrying capacity for the project sites have been included. Developing these estimates would be very useful for designing a monitoring approach for these projects (see comments below on RME). Nonetheless, the description of the projects is much more complete than it was in the prior proposal. The revised proposal does include more detailed information about the methods that will be employed to track changes in physical habitat over time. Channel form will be monitored using channel cross-section and longitudinal profile measurements. This information should provide a good indication of changes in width-depth ratio and pool frequency and size, basic habitat elements that are considered key to improving ecological conditions at the project sites.

As reduction in sediment delivery is an objective of several of the planned habitat actions, the inclusion of a sampling element to track fine sediment levels in streambed gravel is appropriate. A well-designed process for photo points also has been included in the proposal and should provide useful information about the response of vegetation to the riparian fencing projects. The major remaining deficiency in the revised monitoring plan appears to be the lack of any biological information. The proposal does contend that measuring biological response to the individual projects would be too expensive and labor intensive to include as a component of this project. This point would be valid if there were not any other monitoring efforts in place in the project area that are already collecting data on the fish populations. It would be very beneficial for the restoration program on the Warm Springs Reservation if the biological monitoring in Beaver and Mill creeks could be done in a manner that provided some indication of the contribution the habitat projects were making to any change in fish population metrics. As improvements in fish populations are the ultimate goal of all these projects, some understanding of how fish are responding to habitat restoration actions would be extremely valuable for modifying the process used for selecting future habitat projects.

Warm Springs River Wood Placement - Response Requested

The portion of this proposal package that deals with the plans for restoration of the Warm Springs River (WSR) was well done for many elements but incomplete for others. The process used to identify the project location was very complete. The method used to determine habitat limitations and design habitat actions to address these deficiencies also was very well done. However, the proposal does not include a description of work elements. Presumably, most of these would be associated with the implementation of the restoration design and establishment of the monitoring program. But they need to be included in the proposal to complete the review.

The ISRP understands that the Council recommended that RM&E needs for the Warm Springs River wood placement project be met through BPA's new Action Effectiveness Monitoring Plan (AEM). This AEM process is in its infancy. The ISRP recommends that it review the pilot study design once it is drafted. This applies to the full suite of Warm Springs’ projects that the ISRP has reviewed - Mill, Beaver, and the Large Woody Debris projects. It would be preferable to do this through the response loop time period, but if this is not feasible the ISRP will review the study design when a detailed draft is prepared.

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

This proposal does a very good job of explaining the significance of this project to the regional effort to increase fish populations in this area of the Deschutes River watershed. The technical background for the project is complete. Information on current habitat conditions throughout the Warm Springs River watershed is provided. The discussion of wood delivery and routing and how this understanding was used to select sites and design of LWD treatments was very thorough. A discussion of WSR hydrology and incorporation into project design was included but there was minimal discussion of how long it will take for expected flows to scour the habitats that are anticipated to develop at project sites. Table 2 does a nice job of projecting expected habitat responses to treatment and focal species response to the new habitat. Also, it was mentioned that sediment is limiting factor but no discussion on dominant sources. If upland sources are dominant, additional information on priority locations and treatments is needed. If bank erosion is a major sediment source, the potential for LWD projects to accelerate local bank erosion should have been evaluated.

Increases in fine sediment and elevated water temperatures are both listed as limiting factors. There is no discussion of complementary treatments to LWD additions such as riparian reforestation and/or silvicultural treatments to increase stream shading and enhance long-term LWD recruitment and/or road decommissioning or improvement to reduce erosion and sediment delivery. Given that LWD recruitment is described as occurring locally through fire and windstorm disturbance events, it would seem that identification and treatment of riparian areas that are understocked with trees (future LWD) would be beneficial. Although this is not a requirement, it would be useful to help understand the entire suite of projects envisioned for restoring conditions in the Warm Springs River.

Information on spawner distribution and some data on juvenile salmonid abundance also are provided. These data are used to justify the priority reaches selected for restoration and to identify the appropriate restoration approaches and designs. Although there is no explicit statement of objectives in the proposal, the description of the current habitat conditions clearly indicates that the objective is to increase spawning and rearing habitat for salmonid fishes and lamprey in a reach of the Warm Springs River where these actions have the potential to have the greatest possible benefit. The appropriateness of this objective is well supported by the information provide in the proposal.

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

This project is new and, therefore, there were no past accomplishments to include in the proposal. However, the process described in the proposal for the identification of the restoration reach and the development of a series of LWD structures to achieve different habitat objectives clearly indicates that this project already has been employing certain elements of the adaptive management process. Project site selection was based on a thorough assessment of current habitat conditions in the Warm Springs River augmented with information of fish distribution and abundance. These data, in conjunction with published information from unmanaged watersheds with climate and vegetation similar to the Warm Springs River, were used to identify the reach within the Warm Springs River where habitat was degraded but with a high potential for response by the focal species. Designs for wood structures were, in part, based on observations of the architecture of wood accumulations in the unmanaged, headwaters reach of the WSR. The project sponsors also sought design advice from BPA engineers. An additional resource could be restoration practitioners on the Mt. Hood and Deschutes National Forests. Both of these National Forests have a long history of LWD placement and monitoring of physical response. Specific locations for wood structures in the restoration reach were determined using a LiDAR-based DEM coupled with on-the-ground verification. Finally, an estimate of the potential gain in abundance of spawning steelhead and Chinook salmon based on the predicted increase in gravel availability and a prediction of increased juvenile parr density based on increases in pool area and cover were provided. These estimates could form the basis of a monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of this project (more on RME below). At each stage of the project development the sponsors used available information or collected new data to improve the design of the project.

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

The relationship between this project and the other ongoing habitat restoration and fish monitoring projects on the Warm Springs Reservation was not described. It seems likely that some of the fish data presented in the proposal were collected by the fish monitoring program on the reservation. If so, there is a link between this project and the monitoring program, and this linkage could be very productive in the development of a monitoring plan for this project. The habitat RME effort associated with this project is only briefly mentioned. This project will be one of the projects evaluated under the new Action Effectiveness Monitoring Program. The ISRP recently reviewed the proposal for this monitoring program, and this project would be very appropriate for inclusion, given the availability of existing data and an ongoing program collecting fish population data. However, it is not possible to judge the technical adequacy of the monitoring effort that will be associated with this project until the monitoring design and methods are developed. The ISRP should review a revised version of the proposal that includes the details of the AEM effort and clearly describes the linkages between this project-scale monitoring and the fish population monitoring that is already occurring.

The proposal did include a discussion of probable, local flow responses to climate change. Models developed for drainages with similar hydro-geomorphic characteristics were used to predict potential changes in flow with expected changes in precipitation patterns and temperature. However, it is not entirely clear how this analysis is being incorporated into conservation and restoration planning for the area. Climate change also may affect general forest health and increase the frequency of fires. Some consideration of this factor in project design also would be worthwhile.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The process used for designing the project was very complete, and the methods employed to collect the information used in the design phase were appropriate. The work elements to be completed as part of this project were not completely specified in the proposal. Presumably, most of the work elements would be related to the placement of the wood structures. Some information on the timing and logistical details of implementing the project should have been included in the proposal.

A description of methods that will be employed in executing the RM&E component of this project should be included in a revised proposal (or a link to a description of AEM project that will assess this project). This project will be a pilot for the new AEM program. The proposal indicates that habitat monitoring will be conducted in years 1, 3, 5, 7 and 10 after treatment. The most recent stream surveys were completed in 2000, but it is not clear if additional pre-project data will be gathered. In addition to the planned surveys, evaluations should be conducted after any flood events with a return interval equal to or greater than 5 to 10 years. The sponsors also may consider continuing habitat monitoring for longer than 10 years given dependence of the treatments on flows sufficient to scour stream bed materials. If no flows of sufficient magnitude occur within the planned 10-year monitoring period, the effectiveness of the treatments could not be completely assessed. There is no mention of fish population monitoring response to restoration treatments. If information useful for this purpose will be collected by other monitoring programs, a description of this activity should be included in the proposal.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

 

The proposal did not reference MonitoringMethods.org protocols.

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

Response to Qualifications on Beaver and Mill Creeks

The ISRP review of the Beaver and Mill creek restoration proposal, completed in December 2012, indicated that two areas of the plan still required some additional attention:

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 1:37:17 PM.