Overall, this is an effective project. It is refreshing that it both implements and monitors projects and promises to yield improved monitoring information based on PIT tagging. Additional monitoring by augmenting fisheries expertise to the project could increase benefits.

 

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

The purpose of this project is to enhance stream and riparian habitat to increase outmigration of ESA listed summer steelhead smolts in Trout Creek. Trout Creek steelhead make up a large percentage of the summer steelhead run in the Lower Deschutes River. As is usually the case in Mid-Columbia Basin watersheds, degradation of riparian and aquatic habitat is a threat to sustainability of the fish population. The project is consistent with the Deschutes Subbasin Plan, the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and the Oregon Middle Columbia (Mid-C) Steelhead Recovery Plan (2010), among others. The project involves continued development, design, and implementation of habitat restoration projects that focus primarily on instream and riparian habitat improvement Additionally, this project continues to maintain and monitor the existing habitat restoration work, and monitors focal species in the watershed. The long-term, watershed scale program has reportedly contributed to a "viable" rating for summer steelhead.

All the proposed work will be on private lands. The sponsors state that they have gained the trust of landowners and access to their land over the course of this project. This effort is significant because it is likely that increased abundance of steelhead cannot be achieved without habitat restoration on private lands. The project’s work is consistent with each of the twelve strategic actions in the Oregon Middle Columbia Implementation Spreadsheet for the Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead Population. This is important because it places the Trout Creek project in the context of a larger strategic plan. Is there a management plan specific for Trout Creek, for example a Watershed Restoration Action Plan? If so, an overview the plan and its objectives would have been informative.

This project is unusual in that it proposes not only to implement habitat restoration actions (Objective 3) but also to monitor smolt out migration (Objective 1) and adult abundance (Objective 2). More specific objectives for smolt out-migration and adult abundance monitoring need to be established. There are some questions on this monitoring. Is fish monitoring intended primarily to assess trends in abundance or is it also intended to determine whether fish are responding to habitat enhancement actions, or both? What are the trends in fish abundance? Apparently juvenile distribution and abundance is not being assessed and monitored, which is unfortunate.

A substantial amount of fish and habitat data apparently has been collected, providing a data series that spans 14 years. The fish data that is being collected should allow the sponsors to estimate freshwater survival, one important measure of freshwater productivity, and smolt to adult returns, a measure of the impacts of out of basin factors on survival. In addition, the sponsors indicate that they have been collecting a considerable amount of habitat monitoring data. It seems that this project provides the opportunity to determine basin scale cumulative effects of habitat enhancement actions to improve fish abundance and productivity.

The sponsors have more than 20 years of experience working in the watershed and know the system and landowners well. A watershed assessment was completed for the drainage that examined watershed processes and function, identified major data gaps, and reportedly prioritized each of six sub-watersheds for their importance for restoration. However, no details were given on findings of the assessment, how watersheds were prioritized, or whether the assessment was used to frame a watershed scale restoration strategy.

Objectives are qualitative and do not incorporate a time frame for accomplishment of expected results.

Can what happened in 1998 that led to high out-migration numbers be replicated? The population responds to high water flow years and high rainfall. Late summer rainfall is especially important. Are there any habitat features, for example water depth, that can effectively substitute for the high flows?

 

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

Riparian and aquatic habitat restoration has been ongoing for 30 years in Trout Creek. There have been substantial accomplishments to improve habitat conditions, but there are few, cumulative and quantitative results provided either for improved habitat conditions or fish numbers. It appears that there is a long history of monitoring activities but a very limited evaluation and summary of findings. The project has been monitoring smolt out migration and adult abundance annually for about 14 years. Several tables of fish data were presented in the proposal, but there was little data analysis or interpretation. Results from only a few projects were presented and these consisted of photo point information and brief summaries of quantitative changes in a limited number of habitat variables. Again, there was little or no data analysis and interpretation. The sponsors made little attempt to relate changes in habitat conditions to changes in fish abundance or productivity. They apparently have collected a considerable amount of data on fish and habitat but, based on the results presented in this proposal, it seems that data analysis should be progressing at a more rapid rate. The sponsors should consider enlisting additional agency help in addressing this deficiency. Some analyses such as trends in smolts per redd might prove informative.

Management changes discussed by the sponsors are primarily focused at the project and/or treatment scale. There do not appear to be any planned major project wide changes in direction and restoration methodology. It is likely that a critical evaluation of general program organization, management, and overall performance could provide some insights for further improvement of program efficiency and effectiveness, particularly at a sub-watershed scale.

Additionally, after 30 years of work one would think that the amount of priority work remaining could be located, prioritized and given initial cost estimates. This proposal merely calls for another 5 years of funding without discussion of how to complete priority actions in priority locations.

There are some good specific examples of changes to restoration activities that have resulted from lessons learned, but there is not a coherent program to incorporate an adaptive management approach to the program.

An ISRP review (2006) suggested a summary of lessons learned was needed. A limited summary is provided, but much of the information is actually personal observation and is not accompanied by clear statements as to the lessons learned or how these have been incorporated into the current program.

 

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

Although coordination with Jefferson SWCD seems excellent based on the site visit the sponsors could have provided more details about their working relationship with the closely related BPA-funded project, Trout Creek Watershed Restoration (1998-028-00). Both projects are engaged in habitat enhancement, although the Trout Creek Watershed Restoration is not monitoring fish abundance. If one of the goals of the proposed work is to evaluate fish response to habitat enhancement actions, then the two projects will have to work more closely, including sharing data.

Although it appears that the sponsors are collecting a considerable amount of habitat monitoring data, the actual RM&E plan is not clearly described. The sponsors should have provided the objectives and design of the RM&E program in some detail. The sponsors also should have indicated whether monitoring is occurring at the site, reach, tributary, or basin scale, and discussed the frequency of sampling and the measurements that are being made at each scale. They also should have discussed the status and plans for data analysis.

There is a limited discussion of emerging limiting factors including feral swine, noxious weeds and straying of hatchery fish. Broader-scale emerging issues such as climate change, water use and availability, and forest health are not mentioned.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The sponsors identify several new enhancement projects that they propose to begin. To determine the benefits to fish, it would be informative if the sponsors had estimated changes in aquatic habitat expected for each project such as how much spawning and rearing habitat could be created. It would have been helpful if they provided a map showing the locations of the smolt traps, adult counting facilities, redd surveys, and monitoring sites. These locations are important because they will determine the scale at which fish response to habitat enhancement actions can be assessed.

There is a long list of deliverables that are stated in general terms and do not offer a quantitative description of desired results.

There appears to be a consistent completion of planned work and a strong linkage to local landowners and the general community. Project staff appears to be effective at addressing habitat issues.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

A wide range of monitoring is conducted including smolt outmigrants, returning adults, spawning counts, habitat monitoring and riparian evaluation for agreement compliance. Data are summarized, but there appears to be limited evaluation and summary of findings for individual monitoring elements or for the combined suite of monitoring. This is unfortunate given the long term data sets that are in place.

There is no discussion of future involvement in ISEMP, CHaMP or AEM, although ISEMP methods are cited. It appears that much of the current monitoring program could be affected by these monitoring activities.

PIT arrays should help with monitoring. Resulting data should be analyzed for its benefits to assessing project success.

It is important to monitor juvenile fish densities in addition to smolts. There is more that could be done in this area.

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

The ISRP does not request a response. However, prior to contracting the sponsors should evaluate monitoring data and provide a summary of conclusions. This should be done for each discrete area of monitoring and integrated findings provided for the full suite of past monitoring. A protocol for monitoring vegetative or riparian area should be specified. Also a protocol for monitoring the response to restoration by non-salmonids, such as reptiles and amphibians, should be described.

During contracting a comprehensive review of lessons learned is needed that includes: an examination of the strategic use of the watershed-scale assessment; the value of focusing restoration treatments into a subset of priority sub-watersheds; progress that has been made to fill key data gaps identified in the watershed assessment; findings on the need to move to longer term CREP agreements, given that the time frame for expected response has been changed to 25 years and CREP agreements are for 15 years.

During contracting a discussion is needed of how the current monitoring program is likely to be affected by ISEMP, CHAMP and AEM.

The project has shown much hard work and on the ground project completion. There is a need for a more organized and strategic approach to program organization and delivery.

Overall, this is an effective project. It is refreshing that it both implements and monitors projects and promises to yield improved monitoring information based on PIT tagging. Additional monitoring by augmenting fisheries expertise to the project could increase benefits.

 

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

The purpose of this project is to enhance stream and riparian habitat to increase outmigration of ESA listed summer steelhead smolts in Trout Creek. Trout Creek steelhead make up a large percentage of the summer steelhead run in the Lower Deschutes River. As is usually the case in Mid-Columbia Basin watersheds, degradation of riparian and aquatic habitat is a threat to sustainability of the fish population. The project is consistent with the Deschutes Subbasin Plan, the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and the Oregon Middle Columbia (Mid-C) Steelhead Recovery Plan (2010), among others. The project involves continued development, design, and implementation of habitat restoration projects that focus primarily on instream and riparian habitat improvement Additionally, this project continues to maintain and monitor the existing habitat restoration work, and monitors focal species in the watershed. The long-term, watershed scale program has reportedly contributed to a "viable" rating for summer steelhead.

All the proposed work will be on private lands. The sponsors state that they have gained the trust of landowners and access to their land over the course of this project. This effort is significant because it is likely that increased abundance of steelhead cannot be achieved without habitat restoration on private lands. The project’s work is consistent with each of the twelve strategic actions in the Oregon Middle Columbia Implementation Spreadsheet for the Deschutes Eastside Summer Steelhead Population. This is important because it places the Trout Creek project in the context of a larger strategic plan. Is there a management plan specific for Trout Creek, for example a Watershed Restoration Action Plan? If so, an overview the plan and its objectives would have been informative.

This project is unusual in that it proposes not only to implement habitat restoration actions (Objective 3) but also to monitor smolt out migration (Objective 1) and adult abundance (Objective 2). More specific objectives for smolt out-migration and adult abundance monitoring need to be established. There are some questions on this monitoring. Is fish monitoring intended primarily to assess trends in abundance or is it also intended to determine whether fish are responding to habitat enhancement actions, or both? What are the trends in fish abundance? Apparently juvenile distribution and abundance is not being assessed and monitored, which is unfortunate.

A substantial amount of fish and habitat data apparently has been collected, providing a data series that spans 14 years. The fish data that is being collected should allow the sponsors to estimate freshwater survival, one important measure of freshwater productivity, and smolt to adult returns, a measure of the impacts of out of basin factors on survival. In addition, the sponsors indicate that they have been collecting a considerable amount of habitat monitoring data. It seems that this project provides the opportunity to determine basin scale cumulative effects of habitat enhancement actions to improve fish abundance and productivity.

The sponsors have more than 20 years of experience working in the watershed and know the system and landowners well. A watershed assessment was completed for the drainage that examined watershed processes and function, identified major data gaps, and reportedly prioritized each of six sub-watersheds for their importance for restoration. However, no details were given on findings of the assessment, how watersheds were prioritized, or whether the assessment was used to frame a watershed scale restoration strategy.

Objectives are qualitative and do not incorporate a time frame for accomplishment of expected results.

Can what happened in 1998 that led to high out-migration numbers be replicated? The population responds to high water flow years and high rainfall. Late summer rainfall is especially important. Are there any habitat features, for example water depth, that can effectively substitute for the high flows?

 

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

Riparian and aquatic habitat restoration has been ongoing for 30 years in Trout Creek. There have been substantial accomplishments to improve habitat conditions, but there are few, cumulative and quantitative results provided either for improved habitat conditions or fish numbers. It appears that there is a long history of monitoring activities but a very limited evaluation and summary of findings. The project has been monitoring smolt out migration and adult abundance annually for about 14 years. Several tables of fish data were presented in the proposal, but there was little data analysis or interpretation. Results from only a few projects were presented and these consisted of photo point information and brief summaries of quantitative changes in a limited number of habitat variables. Again, there was little or no data analysis and interpretation. The sponsors made little attempt to relate changes in habitat conditions to changes in fish abundance or productivity. They apparently have collected a considerable amount of data on fish and habitat but, based on the results presented in this proposal, it seems that data analysis should be progressing at a more rapid rate. The sponsors should consider enlisting additional agency help in addressing this deficiency. Some analyses such as trends in smolts per redd might prove informative.

Management changes discussed by the sponsors are primarily focused at the project and/or treatment scale. There do not appear to be any planned major project wide changes in direction and restoration methodology. It is likely that a critical evaluation of general program organization, management, and overall performance could provide some insights for further improvement of program efficiency and effectiveness, particularly at a sub-watershed scale.

Additionally, after 30 years of work one would think that the amount of priority work remaining could be located, prioritized and given initial cost estimates. This proposal merely calls for another 5 years of funding without discussion of how to complete priority actions in priority locations.

There are some good specific examples of changes to restoration activities that have resulted from lessons learned, but there is not a coherent program to incorporate an adaptive management approach to the program.

An ISRP review (2006) suggested a summary of lessons learned was needed. A limited summary is provided, but much of the information is actually personal observation and is not accompanied by clear statements as to the lessons learned or how these have been incorporated into the current program.

 

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

Although coordination with Jefferson SWCD seems excellent based on the site visit the sponsors could have provided more details about their working relationship with the closely related BPA-funded project, Trout Creek Watershed Restoration (1998-028-00). Both projects are engaged in habitat enhancement, although the Trout Creek Watershed Restoration is not monitoring fish abundance. If one of the goals of the proposed work is to evaluate fish response to habitat enhancement actions, then the two projects will have to work more closely, including sharing data.

Although it appears that the sponsors are collecting a considerable amount of habitat monitoring data, the actual RM&E plan is not clearly described. The sponsors should have provided the objectives and design of the RM&E program in some detail. The sponsors also should have indicated whether monitoring is occurring at the site, reach, tributary, or basin scale, and discussed the frequency of sampling and the measurements that are being made at each scale. They also should have discussed the status and plans for data analysis.

There is a limited discussion of emerging limiting factors including feral swine, noxious weeds and straying of hatchery fish. Broader-scale emerging issues such as climate change, water use and availability, and forest health are not mentioned.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The sponsors identify several new enhancement projects that they propose to begin. To determine the benefits to fish, it would be informative if the sponsors had estimated changes in aquatic habitat expected for each project such as how much spawning and rearing habitat could be created. It would have been helpful if they provided a map showing the locations of the smolt traps, adult counting facilities, redd surveys, and monitoring sites. These locations are important because they will determine the scale at which fish response to habitat enhancement actions can be assessed.

There is a long list of deliverables that are stated in general terms and do not offer a quantitative description of desired results.

There appears to be a consistent completion of planned work and a strong linkage to local landowners and the general community. Project staff appears to be effective at addressing habitat issues.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

A wide range of monitoring is conducted including smolt outmigrants, returning adults, spawning counts, habitat monitoring and riparian evaluation for agreement compliance. Data are summarized, but there appears to be limited evaluation and summary of findings for individual monitoring elements or for the combined suite of monitoring. This is unfortunate given the long term data sets that are in place.

There is no discussion of future involvement in ISEMP, CHaMP or AEM, although ISEMP methods are cited. It appears that much of the current monitoring program could be affected by these monitoring activities.

PIT arrays should help with monitoring. Resulting data should be analyzed for its benefits to assessing project success.

It is important to monitor juvenile fish densities in addition to smolts. There is more that could be done in this area.

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

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 1:29:30 PM.