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.

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================

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================