FY07-09 proposal 199404200

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Deschutes

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: As long as riparian fences are used to improve habitat O&M is necessary, or else the riparian exclosures will quickly become enclosures. This would quickly erase long term habitat gains. Upon completion of berm removal/floodplain reconnection, project focus in this basin should center on maintaining the positive habitat recovery trend.

Termination date: 2030
Comments: Some form of O&M and M&E should always exist to protect investment, and monitor results. Over the long term that should be minimal and effort of basin recovery should shift to the next priority basin within the watershed with the goal of increasing summer steelhead smolt production.

Final deliverables: An average outmigrant run of 100,000 SSt smolts per year, and perennial flow in all stream reaches. Stream and floodplain connectivity in all areas feasable. Established, diverse, and sustainable riparian and aquatic habitats

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The project has a record of successful restoration activities. To merit continued funding, the sponsors need to provide a summary analysis of changes in habitat and fish abundance that have occurred as a result of the past projects. They also need to revise the objectives to more accurately reflect the proposed work and develop a more comprehensive monitoring program. Technical and scientific background: The proposal is very readable and lays out in a very logical manner the work that is proposed. This is a large long-term project of mid-level expense that appears to be a valuable investment and is yielding important results. Restoration of habitats and the steelhead population in the Trout Creek watershed is the number one priority in the Deschutes subbasin and this project appears to be a credit to that priority status. The problem is well defined. Trout Creek is one of the most productive streams for summer steelhead in the Deschutes basin, but habitat has been seriously degraded. The potential for increased production apparently is great. The sponsors provide an excellent summary of the habitat and genetic problems in the basin and discuss how they are addressing the problems. One question: are the stray hatchery fish being moved elsewhere or are they allowed to pass through to the spawning grounds? If the latter is the case, the sponsors need to justify this action, given the dangers to wild fish that the sponsors say exist. Sponsors supply ample evidence of the habitat work that has been conducted in recent years, although actual data on many of the important long-term metrics were not supplied. Sponsors’ response will need to include additional biological data that address metrics of direct impact on fish survival (i.e., changes in temperature, habitat characteristics, numbers of redds, etc.,) so as to better understand if the habitat changes so readily observed in the proposal photos are in fact altering the stream in a manner that fish are responding to (or are likely to respond to) in a positive manner. Authors note that such results were readily available upon request (as was an offer for a guided on-site visit that would be of value to the ISRP) and note that their existing proposal already exceeded the recommended 25-page limit. Under genetics concerns (p. 5, first bullet) the word trap after is missing after outmigrant. Second bullet refers to adult trap. Where are the two traps located? Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The Trout Creek habitat project was ranked as the #1 priority in the Deschutes Subbasin Plan. It also addresses elements of the Oregon Plan and the Fish and Wildlife Program. Relationships to other projects: The sponsors have worked cooperatively with several agencies and groups on restoration projects and more cooperative work is planned. They have worked with local landowners to develop restoration projects. Project history: The project has an impressive list of accomplishments, and the photos suggest significant improvements in riparian vegetation and channel form. The sponsors have focused the discussion on the activities that have been undertaken but need to provide a better discussion how successful the restoration actions have been from an action effectiveness perspective, particularly as it relates to fish use (all life stages) and abundance. Quantitatively, if possible, they need to summarize what changes have occurred in habitat conditions (e.g., has the number of deep pools increased, have summer temperatures been reduced, has the amount of large wood increased, has summer flow increased, has the amount of spawning area increased). Quantitatively, if possible, how have fish responded to the habitat changes (fish use by all life stages, and abundance)? What are the results of the smolt trapping and redd count surveys, and adult returns. Objectives: The stated biological objective is too general and would best serve as an overall goal for the project. The objective will not be achieved solely by the proposed work, nor does it provide a clearly measurable outcome for the project period. The habitat restoration objectives should be stated in a way that accomplishment of the objectives within the project period can be assessed. A map of the area identifying current and planned project sites should be provided. The sponsors also needed to explain how the sites were selected and the method for prioritizing sites. New sites should be listed and an explanation of why they were selected should be given, in terms of habitat potential and fish productivity. Tasks (work elements) and methods are well described in general terms. Sponsors chose to present this section in broad brush due to the suggested proposal length limitation of the proposal and the multi-faceted nature of this ongoing project. The supporting photos were very helpful. The methods principally involve installation and maintenance of restoration projects. The sponsors seem to be experienced with this kind of work. The methods, however, will not be sufficient to achieve the stated objective. Monitoring and evaluation: The sponsors need to give more thought to the M&E program. More detail would have been appreciated here. The design of the program is not clear. How will the monitoring sites be selected? Will unexcluded areas and reference sites in relatively intact habitat be included for comparison with changes at the project site. Have the sponsors considered a BACI-type design? Will longitudinal stream surveys be conducted using EMAP or some other protocol? The EMAP approach is being widely applied within the basin. Will fish habitat use and abundance at the reach and channel unit scale be conducted? How will genetic introgression be assessed? Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Facilities are adequate, and the personnel seem well qualified. There is a good track record of cost-sharing and collaboration with other projects and entities. Information transfer will apparently occur through interaction with landowners and other agencies. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The habitat improvements made thus far, and those proposed, are likely to have lasting positive benefits on Trout Creek steelhead and redband trout populations, but the sponsors did not provide enough information on fish response to habitat changes to make a definitive assessment of the benefit. Non-focal species should benefit due to extensive improvement in instream and riparian habitat conditions.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: 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.