This is a long-running project that has made significant accomplishments restoring riparian and aquatic habitat in Trout Creek. It is impressive how a small number of highly experienced personnel have worked together for many years to accomplish a substantial amount of high-quality stream restoration work. It is evident from the proposal that there has been consistent completion of planned work and a strong linkage to local landowners and the general community. There has also been a significant amount of cost sharing in the implementation for a wide suite of restoration projects. Although the project is titled an operations and maintenance effort, it proposes not only to complete annual maintenance activities but also to implement habitat restoration actions and monitor restoration results, smolt out migration, and adult abundance. The title of the project does not adequately explain the purpose and function of this project. A name change is in order.

The current proposal provides a good amount of detail but lacks specifics in some key areas. In future annual reports and proposals, the proponents need to provide information to address the following Conditions:

1. SMART objectives. Development of SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) describing desired outcomes is needed to evaluate restoration project/treatment effectiveness. Although there are quantitative measures describing expected accomplishments, there also need to be time frames for expected completion of the activities. Also, although there are some well-written objectives for expected outcomes for some individual restoration activities, there is no consistent process described for their development to cover the full range of restoration treatments. It might be useful to develop template objectives for various activity types and develop specific quantitative measures for individual projects. Examples could include: “Within 10 years of planting achieve ___% canopy cover of riparian vegetation and at least ___%. stream surface shading.” Also, objectives could be developed using the web-based NVDI “greenness index.” It may be useful to develop these for use at the priority watershed scale. 
   
   
2. Monitoring summary. A brief summary of planned monitoring and evaluation activities for the time period covered by the proposal. Also, please provide a description and time frame for the evaluation and reporting of this information. 
   
   
3. Synthesis. A synthesis and summary of key findings from past monitoring and evaluation efforts. This would include a retrospective look on the prioritization and implementation of various restoration treatments, their effectiveness at meeting desired fish and habitat outcomes, key lessons learned, and a summary of resulting future actions to improve program performance. The proponents are encouraged to present the response of the Trout Creek system in terms of habitat forming processes and fish production. For example, how reliant is the Trout Creek system on site-by-site fixes? Are the projects done-to-date large enough and linked enough to promote sustainable habitat in the Trout Creek system? What influence has the project had on carrying capacity of native salmonids and steelhead smolt production?

The synthesis has been requested in various forms for the last two ISRP reviews but has not been provided. There is a long history of monitoring activities but a very limited statistical analysis (e.g., trend analysis) and summary of important findings. Given the long history of this project, the synthesis will directly benefit the project and will be of value to other projects well beyond the immediate project area.

The ISRP suggests that the proponents work with Jefferson County SWCD in addressing these Conditions. This coordination will likely be most efficient given the close working relationship, vast amount of collective knowledge, and insights into its history, accomplishments, and future plans. The ISRP is available for future discussion on the synthesis and would like to be provided the finished report.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The proposal provides a detailed description of major problems and limiting factors for summer steelhead trout. However, it did not mention any potential issues associated with irrigation diversions and reduced flows or runoff of toxic materials linked to valley bottom agricultural activities, road maintenance, and/or forest management.

The project has a clearly stated over-arching Goal (actually an objective) for 100,000 smolts by 2050 and provides support including information in Appendix A. One aspect in Appendix A that was useful was the process used to prioritize projects. That information could be included in the main proposal in more detail. The proposal also provides a number of detailed accomplishment objectives for planned work that are quantitative but lack any time frame for expected accomplishment. What is lacking are clearly stated objectives that describe key outcomes expected from planned work activities. A simple example is work done to correct fish passage barriers. The proposal states that two barriers are to be removed but does not state that improved passage will be provided for access to ____ stream miles for ____ species. Another example would be noting that riparian/floodplain ____acres are to be planted, but there is no description of the expected outcomes such as percent ground cover, percent stream surface shading, etc. A tool that is already being used, the web-based tools to measure the “NVDI greenness index,” appears to be an excellent source for use in developing future objectives that describe desired outcomes.

Recent annual reports do include metrics, measures, and monitoring timing and frequency for much of the work. This information would be extremely useful to summarize in the actual description of planned projects and maintenance activities. Also, it could be very useful to develop outcome objectives at the priority watershed scale for key conditions (stream surface shading and summer/winter stream temperatures, percent of riparian zones in fully functioning condition, percent of historic steelhead habitat that is fully accessible, etc.).

Q2: Methods

The project does a generally complete job of describing a wide range of methods that are included in the three major components of the project: operations and maintenance, monitoring and evaluation, and project planning and implementation. In most cases this information is contained in annual reports and/or appendices for the proposal. While many of the objectives are fairly technical in nature, the Methods section felt limited in terms of specific details used to actually implement projects. Moving some detail into the proposal (from appendices and other reports) would be helpful. Although fish monitoring efforts are described in annual reports, which include adult fish monitoring (trapping in the past, video currently), redd surveys, smolt trapping, PIT tagging, and PIT tag detectors, more detail could be included in the proposal.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proposal provides a very limited description of ongoing monitoring and evaluation activities that are planned for various future types of restoration activities. This project has had a very complete set of past monitoring (implementation, effectiveness, and validation) activities. Included is some excellent photo point monitoring of various restoration treatments over several years, which provide excellent documentation of various treatments and outcomes over time. The proponents should consistently include text to highlight those features that the pictures are intended to illustrate and to document a more formal process for creating and implementing a photo point network for individual projects.

It is noted in the proposal that Appendix C provides information on M&E and the management adjustment process for the full project. Appendix C is actually the “Little Trout Creek Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan.” Unfortunately, there is no discussion of how this Plan for an individual stand-alone project relates to a program of activities for the full project. Appendix C and annual reports emphasize that water temperature data are being collected for these projects. Given the importance of temperature to steelhead and to the fact that it is likely to change with climate, some evaluation of trends in temperature with restoration actions would be informative within this report. In the section on Confounding Factors, the authors pose the question as to whether or not the restoration work and ongoing recovery will be enough to address changes in climate. Beginning to understand the effectiveness of treatments for adaptation to climate change by evaluating temperature data will be an important start in a longer and more comprehensive effort.

With over 25 years of project history, the proponents are encouraged to present the response of the Trout Creek system in terms of habitat forming processes and fish production. Key questions include: How reliant is the Trout Creek system on site-by-site fixes? Are the projects done-to-date large enough and linked enough to promote sustainable habitat in the Trout Creek system? What influence has the project had on carrying capacity of native salmonids and steelhead smolt production?

Given constrained funding in the near future, discussion of a base level trend/effectiveness monitoring program would be a useful addition. It could potentially be applied at the priority watershed scale and use parameters such as stream surface shading, summer/winter stream temperatures, percent of historic fish habitat with full passage, and riparian condition using the index of "greenness" described in the SWCD Trout Creek proposal. Also, it may be helpful to explore opportunities for partnering with other groups working in close proximity to the basin. In particular, working with NRCS on monitoring efforts could benefit this project and similar projects being undertaken through CREP.

Past ISRP Reviews (2014 and 2005) have consistently identified the need to synthesize monitoring and evaluation results and lessons learned from this long running project. Although there is a detailed table on long-term accomplishments, there is no summary of the evaluation of past work (particularly results), actual vs predicted outcomes, and major lessons learned. For such a long running project, this information would be particularly useful for informing future work and for other similar project activities in the Columbia Plateau. One approach could be to use select sets of photo point sequences to summarize key findings on the efficacy of various treatments. Key results and lessons learned could be included in the captions for these photo sets. More detail is provided in Condition 3 above.

It is apparent that many lessons learned have been used to modify management and treatment practices. It appears that this has been facilitated by a relatively small group of project personnel who have been with the project for long periods of time. The proposal notes, “Retrospective evaluation of past project work occurs constantly.” Unfortunately, there is relatively little information presented in the proposal describing any actual process for project evaluation and adjustment. A more complete description of this would be useful, especially as long-term employees retire or leave the project and are replaced by new personnel with limited background on past practices and management.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proposal provides a detailed table displaying quantitative measures of past accomplishments (acres of riparian area protected, numbers of fish passage projects completed, miles of stream improved, etc.). How these accomplishments compare with the original implementation objectives is not discussed. Discussion of the ecological results (outcomes) of these actions also are not discussed in detail as part of the proposal. Some excellent photo point sequences are provided in the proposal. Although they were limited to a few projects, they are useful in showing results of various activity types over several years. More detail is found in Annual Reports and Appendices. It would be very beneficial to summarize select, key results and lessons learned as part of the main proposal.

There is a long history of status and trend monitoring for fish. There is little discussion of the data set for this work or major findings from its evaluation in the body of the main proposal. Much more detail is provided in Annual Reports and Appendices. Of particular note is the strong negative correlation between numbers of smolt outmigrants and their condition factor. This is not discussed, particularly as related to attainment of the long-term objective of 100,000 smolts by 2050. Also, some discussion of how non-salmonid fishes and amphibians could be monitored would be useful. Again, in acknowledgement of resource limitations, there may be opportunities to partner to get this information.