In the Council's decision and BPA contracting process for developing a final statement of work the sponsors should: Develop a better design for using the data generated from PIT tags along the lines of the suggestions made in the ISRP comments.

Consider alternative ways to collect spatially extensive data on rearing juveniles, perhaps using occupancy sampling.

The sponsors prepared a comprehensive, well-written proposal that addresses important issues involving restoration of fluvial and resident redband trout populations and their habitat in the Hangman Creek area of the Spokane subbasin. The sponsors demonstrate that they have good knowledge of the watershed and they have conducted sufficient studies that enable prioritization of ongoing efforts. These studies indicate the benefits of working with beaver to achieve desired stream habitat conditions, such as deeper, cooler pools. The project compliments a habitat acquisition project that also attempts to improve ground water and stream flow conditions. 

The proposal uses a whole-systems approach to address migration barriers such as habitat forming processes including floods, LWD recruitment, and floodplain connections, as well as water temperature, and sedimentation. Pilot data have been collected to show where the work needs to be done. Migrant traps, PIT tags, and antenna arrays will provide important data about the life histories of these potentially mobile trout and could also provide useful data on their abundance, survival, and movement probabilities.

In order to make the most of the substantial investment in PIT tags, traps, antennas, and electrofishing surveys, we suggest that the sponsor consider integrating all of these into a comprehensive design and analysis using Program MARK. This would allow robust estimates of detection probabilities, survival, movement, and abundance, and the uncertainty in these parameters. In turn, this would provide a solid basis for future management. It may also be possible to develop a better method of less intensive "occupancy" sampling, which would allow better understanding of distribution of fish over larger areas using less effort in the field.

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

Significance to Regional Programs: The investigators provide a clear statement for why the work is significant to regional programs.

Background: Overall, the proposal gives very good background information about the ecology of redband trout and the problems with habitat that are perceived to be the main limiting factors. The information was well integrated throughout the proposal.

Objectives: The investigators propose several actions to address the main limiting factors for the fluvial and resident redband trout in the Hangman Creek basin, which apparently have migratory life histories and use tributaries for spawning and rearing.

Overall, the objectives are a useful mix of short-term strategies such as LWD installation and long-term strategies such as aggrading channels by encouraging beavers to build dams to improve habitat for a wide-ranging species like fluvial redband trout. The objectives also involve monitoring to determine the response of redband trout to the habitat restoration activities.

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

Major Accomplishments: To date, it appears that the investigators have made a good start at improving habitat conditions for redband trout throughout the basin.

Response to past ISRP and Council comments and recommendations: The investigators are interested in measuring spatial distribution, abundance, and vital rates of 1) the redband trout rearing in tributaries and 2) the adults migrating into tributaries to spawn. However, they report not having sufficient time to conduct multi-pass electrofishing to achieve #1.

Given that fish will be marked using PIT tags in both migrant traps and during tributary surveys, this project might benefit by integrating all of these results using Program MARK (see web page of Dr. Gary White, Colorado State University), which the Hangman Project Team has considered. This highly flexible analysis program would allow estimates of abundance, survival, and movement among tributaries, as well as "temporary emigration" of fish from tributaries which they may not visit every year. It allows using "model selection and inference" to test treatment-control effects as well as trends through time. Overall, it would likely allow much more robust inference than could be achieved with the current analysis protocol.

Secondly, if one-pass sampling is to be useful for measuring CPUE indices of abundance, then capture probabilities should be either always high, or at least very similar across years, reaches, and crews. This may not be the case and cannot be supported unless data are collected to test it. The Project Team should consider using previous multi-pass data collected in the watershed (Table 6) to validate capture probabilities when changing to a one-pass approach that is appropriately randomized and stratified across sites or of different size and complexity. Otherwise, it might be better to develop an "occupancy sampling" approach where a less intensive sampling protocol could be developed to place fish abundance into, say, four categories of high, moderate, low, and absent. This would allow a wide spatial distribution of sampling, to determine habitats that fish are using seasonally. Analysis tools for these methods are also included in MARK. Regional experts who might be able to help develop these methods include Dr. Paul Lukacs at U of MT, and Drs. Gary White, Kevin Bestgen, Larissa Bailey, Bill Kendall, and Paul Doherty at Colorado State University, and Dr. Jim Peterson at Oregon State University (Coop Unit).

Adaptive management: The investigators appear to have made good choices to adapt their management to key uncertainties in riparian planting survival and the role of beavers in improving floodplain and instream habitat.

ISRP Retrospective Evaluation of Results

The Coeur d’Alene Tribe has acquired much of the land surrounding the Hangman Creek watershed. These acquisitions significantly facilitate the habitat restoration and redband trout population recovery activities. Previous assessments conducted by this project identified factors that may be most limiting to redband trout recovery, and identified reaches where these factors predominate across the southern section of the upper Hangman watershed so that restoration actions can be prioritized. Within the mainstem of Hangman Creek, the results of modeling indicated that the most effective method to increase suitable habitats for redband trout would be to improve rearing temperatures by increasing the amount of stream shading. Further, the sponsor identified the mainstem of Hangman Creek to be a restoration priority given that these reaches likely provide the potential to serve as both critical rearing habitat, such as overwintering, and as migratory corridors that would increase population connectivity. Results from watershed assessments indicate that increasing the quantity of usable physical habitat for redband trout in tributaries would be best accomplished by increasing pool depth. Based on earlier findings, the project proposed to accelerate the trajectory for recovering habitat by utilizing restoration approaches that emulate the ecosystem engineering effects of beaver and enhancing the stability of natural dams or pool habitat where they exist in the watershed.

The sponsor has adaptively managed the restoration project. The initial poor results for survival of riparian plants during 2005-7 forced the project to evaluate and adapt the methods to both the limited financial resources available and the conditions in the watershed. Major channel reconstruction was originally considered as a restoration alternative for several mainstem reaches in the upper Hangman watershed. However, this approach was deemed largely infeasible due to the costs. The project is now using beaver as a means to improve stream conditions, and recent evidence indicates beaver activities are helping the sponsors achieve their objectives. The sponsor has implemented an interesting and beneficial habitat and redband trout restoration plan. Project elements are in place to document implementation effectiveness in the coming years. As described in the ISRP retrospective report (ISRP 2011-25), the full benefits of habitat restoration activities such as these will require many years.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

The project complements an associated restoration effort that acquires land for protection and restoration and improves groundwater and instream flow conditions. The main emerging limiting factor of climate change, causing increased temperature, decreased baseflows, and more variable flow and temperature conditions, would be ameliorated by the proposed habitat work.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project's deliverable status has an average completion rate of 82% (132 of 161 deliverables). Annual report writing accounts for 10 of the total 29 incomplete deliverables. Most of these report deliverables are expected to be complete by early 2012. The information provided to date has been very good.

The investigators seem well positioned to make good progress on increasing LWD, and its recruitment over the long term, to increase deep pools and aggrade channels to provide floodplain connections. Likewise, they have completed pilot work to improve methods of riparian plantings that will provide shade and materials for beavers to build dams. However, it was unclear whether any of these stream segments are subject to cattle grazing, and whether this could also be a limiting factor.

Several fish migration barriers have been removed, and two are slated to be retrofit, but two more will remain. Are there no plans for these remaining two barriers? This is a concern since one poorly-located barrier could potentially disrupt access to habitat for fish from throughout much of the important stream segments.

As described above, one-pass estimates of trout abundance for assessing trends in CPUE through time will not withstand scientific review, and so will not be useful to support management, unless they are validated. Likewise, ageing fish with scales will likely not be useful unless these are also validated against otoliths over the range of sizes and years collected. Scales may underestimate age, especially if YOY trout do not lay down an annulus especially in cold reaches or adults live long but grow relatively slowly in later years so that scales are resorbed each year at the margin.

The staircase design looks suitable and appears to incorporate a number of random effects for time and site. It is important that appropriate error structures be tested for this mixed effects model, to ensure robust inference.

Temperature loggers are apparently in place only March to October, but winter conditions can be as important as summer for fish. Temperatures during winter can be very useful measures of groundwater inflow, since pools without it can freeze, potentially to the bottom in harsh winters. Monitoring temperatures year round is recommended.

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The sponsors developed seven protocols and about 40 methods within these protocols, and documented these in MonitoringMethods.org. The descriptions were very good. The sponsor probably spent considerable time developing text for this web site. However, the ISRP did not find it useful for this proposal review to have methods split into many separate web pages. The continuity of what the project was trying to do was lost when it was split into many separate sections.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:43:42 PM.

The proposal contains good background information and is well prepared. The project has identified priority habitats and activities. The sponsors have responded to previous ISRP concerns. This is a long-term project the sponsors have provided good results from the initial work.  The sponsors are purchasing properties with Avista mitigation money from Albeni Falls, encouraging beaver activity and learning from work in John Day, Coeur d’Alene, and Colorado. One question remains: Is the intent to rebuild resident populations for Tribal harvest or for conservation purposes only?

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

Recovery of redband trout is clearly an appropriate restoration priority, and the efforts implemented under this project to date have been focused in areas that are high priority for these fish in the Hangman Creek watershed. The existing project sites are in riparian areas with potential to contribute to groundwater recharge and located near existing populations of redband trout. This project is designed to address landscape issues that limit base flow at the streams in the project area and is responsible for landscape restoration as a precursor to the work done in stream and near stream to establish a redband trout fishery. This project was submitted in conjunction with 200103200 which studies instream fish habitats in the same area. The project focuses on increasing base stream flows by obtaining access to land in several ways, such as, land acquisition, conservation easements, leases and landowner agreements. This project provides dual benefits, (1) credits against HU ledger of wildlife habitat lost from Albeni Falls Dam, and (2) crucial habitat for redband trout (NPCC established a resident fish substitution policy in areas blocked from anadromous fish passage). 

Once restored, stream channels within the mitigation property will expand the isolated redband population in Sheep Creek and increase the probability of that population’s interactions with the other isolated populations of the Upper Hangman Watershed. This Project will focus on monitoring changes in ground water and provide funding for stream flow monitoring.

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

The project history was described in detail. Restoration efforts target the impaired aquatic and riparian ecosystem processes supported by several citations in a previous limiting factor analysis which included hydraulic modeling. High stream temperatures documented (2004-2007), along with low summer flows, high sediment levels and inadequate DO yielded suboptimal rearing conditions for fish. A genetic analysis of isolated redband trout populations in the project area showed a cohesive group and suggests that historically there was movement among subpopulations in the area. Genetic information now suggests that either substantial inbreeding has occurred or each subpopulation experienced a recent genetic bottleneck. Collectively, results suggest increasing connectivity of tributary subpopulations would promote a more robust and resilient population structure. Also, redband trout are relatively pure in spite of rainbow trout introduced regularly in the Spokane River (1933-2002).

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (hatchery, RME, tagging)

This project is closely related to 200103200 which is the CDA Fisheries Enhancement for the same project area. The ISEMP Bridge Creek Watershed Study provided the direction for addressing large-scale landscape issues associated with entrenched stream channels and low base flows. From 2004 to 2007, high stream temperatures during the spawning/incubation period of early summer (Figure 4) and low flows (e.g., isolated pools and dewatered reaches) coupled with inadequate dissolved oxygen levels (i.e., < 7 mg/L) during summer base flow periods presented suboptimal rearing conditions for redband trout in the lower elevational portions of the Project Area that are heavily impacted by agriculture. These findings join a growing body of evidence that indicate the ubiquitous distribution of the low base flows, lack of oxygen, high summer stream temperatures and high sediment loads in the larger, lower elevation streams of the Project Area have relegated the remnant populations of native redband trout to the isolated, higher elevation, forested stream reaches of the Project Area.

The sponsors also recognized issues involving climate change on ground water tables and noxious weeds. They suggest that restoration of natural vegetation along the riparian zone will help offset these issues. A noxious weed issue has been identified in the agricultural lands associated with native vegetation planting, and control measures, including mowing, burning, and herbicides are being evaluated. In addition to the riparian habitat work, they are assisting the beavers with their dams by providing materials suitable for dam construction.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Four deliverables were mentioned: (1) Access to priority habitats: some priority land has been acquired, with more needed, (2) Riparian/Floodplain Management: decommissioned artificial drainage networks in the agricultural, (3) Create beaver dams that withstand high flows and persist and (4) Develop indices indicating increase in duration of shallow groundwater storage in flood. Initially, three 40 foot wells were established in 2006 at confluence of Hangman and Sheep Creek where water depth did not vary from year to year. Regarding beaver dams, 82 small dams were found in a 2009 survey, and with improvement of dam material, they believe the dams can store considerably more water for the project. Storing water in the area is believed to be a critically important component of achieving restoration goals, and the ISRP agrees. The ongoing project only completed 71% of the contract deliverables, but many of these failures were due to quarterly reports. Annual reports have been on time. 

4a. Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Data collected for this project is limited because the fish and aquatic habitat RME work is covered in a different project (200103200). But project relationships are clearly described. Data collected for this project includes the success of the establishment of native vegetation planted, beaver dam surveys, and the evaluation of shallow groundwater level at 2-week intervals in 18 shallow wells. Interesting data from these wells was provided in the proposal to illustrate baseline patterns of groundwater loss during summer. A USGS gauging station and several others are used to monitor surface flow.

The past ISRP review had concerns about "ongoing pattern of climate and stream flow" not being addressed. The response to this concern was "groundwater modeling” completed in 2007 that demonstrated drain tile removal would assist in maintaining base flows. Also, studies suggest that watershed changes could be brought about with construction and maintenance of beaver dams that would rebuild floodplain connectivity.

Earlier, the ISRP had concerns about explaining the difference between this project and the associated fisheries project. The sponsors responded that this project involves landscape level issues that limit in stream fish habitat dealing with agricultural methods, management rights, riparian management, and terrestrial habitat restoration. Other information regarding M&E is covered in the fisheries project.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 4/17/2012 2:44:35 PM.

The intent of the project is to protect and restore remaining stocks of native resident redband trout and provide harvestable surpluses of naturally reproducing adult fish from Hangman creek and its tributaries. Project objectives include implementation of habitat restoration and enhancement projects, and monitor changes in fish production, productivity, and distribution.

To date, several planning documents have been written to guide and prioritize project implementation and several individual restoration/enhancement treatments have been implemented at two project sites between 2005 and 2006. Biological monitoring has focused on long-term population, production, and life history dynamics of redband trout in the target watershed.

Reviewers saw indications that this is a fairly strong project but constrained by difficulties in communication. The original proposal was overly lengthy and, while being strong in some areas like its discussion on planning and watershed processes, could be improved in the future by a more concise description of biological findings with emphasis on the more important issues, attributes, and metrics. For example, project sponsors give fish density data but no indication of population size. The bar graph showing maximum water temperature at four sites +/- one standard deviation is not the best way to communicate that information.

The response was much more clearly presented and adequately addressed reviewers' queries regarding fish abundance and the causes of the habitat problems that were described in the proposal. The response clarified that there are indeed adequate numbers of redband trout remaining in Hangman Creek tributaries to provide a reservoir capable of expanding as future quality habitat becomes available. The response described an approach to fish habitat restoration, relying largely upon passive restoration techniques, in the upper Hangman system that appears to have a reasonable chance of success. The watershed analysis discussed in the response gives a good basis for implementing rehabilitation plans in the proposal, particularly in the riparian habitat. It will be beneficial and speed the review process if the sponsor includes much of this cycle's response material in future proposals for the project.

Funding is scientifically justified for land acquisition, conservation easement, riparian management, and M&E only. The qualification is that M&E methods need to be expanded to include fish (even before trout return to the project area, if they do).

This long, disorganized proposal contained much irrelevant material and was exceedingly hard to review. The project might work out in the long term, but the proposal did not give confidence that the effort is being soundly conducted. The response retrieved the situation to some extent. The proposal did not present an adequate strategy for the project. The technical and scientific background was poorly organized and contained much information more suited to the project history. The project is a mix of land purchase and managements; the latter not clearly described. The problems to be dealt with are not clearly defined, and the purpose of the project was not stated until page 6.

The "original" project goal (page 6) was: "Protect and/or restore riparian and priority upland habitats . . . to promote healthy, self-sustaining wildlife populations," the present project goal being left unstated. The proposal next says this will involve landscape-level management to complement a companion project (200103200) that deals with fish habitat in the same system. However, the sponsors describe no habitat requirements for wildlife species, allude to little about the area as wildlife habitat, and apparently name wildlife species only once ("monitoring . . . will include parameters on land birds, waterfowl, bald eagles, small mammals, herpetofauna"). Instead, it delves more into matters of fish and streams, including a section on "Native Fish Habitat Protection Work Elements," and even genetic make-up of redband trout. Thus, the project inexplicably changed to deal with both fish and terrestrial wildlife, and to deal with in-stream management, as well as upland and riparian matters. The sponsors do not adequately explain the relationship of this change to Project 200103200, which was to deal with aquatic matters.

Significance to the subbasin plan was adequately shown in the proposal. The response's reporting of results was adequate, considering the short duration of the project.

The proposal's section F, Biological Objectives, Work Elements and Methods, contains no outline of objectives but is a rambling, partly historical discussion involving various diffuse statements of objective with no clearly listed work elements, and with some intermixture of methods.

The ISRP asked for response on the extent to which this project is expected to benefit fish and wildlife, asked how fish and wildlife would use the properties protected by the easements, and commented that the project history section described activities, not results or management implications. A response was needed describing these results and how they have been shown to benefit fish and wildlife. The detailed response augmented the original proposal and clarified the logic behind the effort. As a result, the acquisition and conservation easement portions of the proposal appear justified, although biologically there is some risk.

The ISRP asked why no cogent information was provided to indicate that the proposed activities would benefit redband trout, which compose the fish population at issue. The response explained how obtaining easements and promoting riparian vegetation could help reestablish the habitat connectivity that the small, isolated redband populations need. It did not show that the fish need the proposed in-channel restructuring. The proposal mentioned "Enhancement opportunities" in Section F, but techniques to enhance stream channels for trout were not discussed in any useful detail. From the description of work elements, $400K would be used to realign 0.7 miles of Sheep Creek and $400K would be used to change the channel morphology of 2 miles of upper Hangman Creek. Passive restoration appeared not to have been considered in the proposal, and the response indicated judgment that a fully passive approach would not suffice, but that further physical analyses need to be done. The proposed channel work is not yet scientifically justified. Judging scientific soundness is not possible for the large ($600K) program to realign the Sheep Creek channel and change morphology in Hangman Creek. Given more information, such actions might be justified, but the proposal contains insufficient information on this subject to enable a review. If the sponsors undertake a proposal for stream habitat work in a future review cycle, it should draw significantly on the expertise of hydrologists and fluvial geomorphologists, working in conjunction with stream fish ecologists.

A problem not covered in the proposal is the unfavorable and apparently ongoing pattern of climate and stream flow, in which high stream flow is occurring earlier in the year and is followed by months of extreme low flow during worsening annual droughts. This does not bode well for re-population by trout from higher elevations into re-created habitat lower in the valley, where the water is already excessively warm in summer. Promoting riparian vegetation could help overcome this problem (and would benefit many forms of wildlife, as well), but the proposed channel restructuring, as described, would not.

The ISRP was critical in the past review of this project's lack of M&E, and M&E still was not adequately described in the 2007-2007 proposal either. The response presented detailed material on the M&E plan, which concentrates on terrestrial matters. No M&E elements concerning fish and fish habitat were evident, and this is a major deficiency in view of the project's trend in planned activity toward emphasis on fish habitat. The M&E's aquatic aspects could be improved by more specific linking with the other projects that cover the fish.