Fundable; however, the qualification is that the sponsors need to provide some interpretation of data already collected that summarizes what they have learned from the data collected. The project would benefit from further peer review once the results to date are summarized. The ISRP will specifically look for this type of results reporting in the next review cycle.

The ISRP is aware of how important Trout Creek is to steelhead production in the Deschutes subbasin and how much production potential exists in Trout Creek after habitat improvement actions are implemented. Sponsor responses are more effective if written in a neutral informative tone than the defensive tone used in this response.

The sponsors provided some quantitative information on habitat changes that have occurred in the Upper and Lower project areas of Trout Creek. Habitat has clearly improved since institution of the projects. The ISRP remains concerned about the lack of data on fish abundance and habitat use in the project areas, although we recognize the constraints faced by the sponsors in accomplishing this task. The sponsors are concerned that this sort of data has high natural variability and attributing biological changes to treatments can be tenuous. The ISRP agrees with this concern but assessing this variability is highly important for statistical analysis and for providing context for future work. In their response to why there isn't more M&E on biological response parameters the sponsors described the effect of natural variability in increasing the difficulty of effects monitoring, but in their examples, provided information that demonstrates the value of M&E for adaptive management of habitat projects.

The sponsors stated that reference reaches are not available in the Trout Creek basin. Have they looked for references outside the basin? The sponsors presented numerous tables showing considerable data on smolt outmigration, length, redd counts, etc, but they need to provide interpretation of the data.