FY 2007 Solicitation Homepage

Project Proposal Request for FY 2007 - FY 2009 Funding (Revised Summer 2006)

Proposal 199404200: Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project

Download this document in MS Word format
Open this document in PDF format

Table of Contents
Part 1. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative
Section 2: Project Location
Section 3: Project Species
Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Section 5: Relationship to Other Projects
Section 6: Biological Objectives
Section 7: Work Elements
Section 8: Budget
Section 9: Project Future
Section 10: Documents
Part 2. Reviews
Part 1 of 2. Administration and Budgeting
Section 1: General Administrative Information
Process Information:
Date Proposal Submitted & Finalized Status Form Generator
July 11, 2006 Finalized Tom Nelson

Proposal Type: Ongoing
Proposal Number: 199404200
Proposal Name: Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration Project
BPA Project Manager: Jamie Swan
Agency, Institution or Organization: Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife (ODFW)
Short Description: Construction, O&M, and M&E of numerous new and existing instream and riparian habitat restoration projects; Monitoring and Evaluation of summer steelhead smolt production and adult return. M&E of instream and riparian habitat restoration activities.
Information Transfer: Informational documents and presentations at basin tours and basin meetings.
 
Project Proposal Contacts
Contact Organization Address Phone/Email Roles Notes
Form Submitter
Tom Nelson ODFW 1950 NW Mill Ave
Madras, Oregon, 97741
Ph: 541-475-2183
Fax: 541-475-2937
Email: tnelson@dialoregon.net
Form Submitter
All Assigned Contacts
Tom Nelson ODFW 1950 NW Mill Ave
Madras, Oregon, 97741
Ph: 541-475-2183
Fax: 541-475-2937
Email: tnelson@dialoregon.net
Technical Contact

Section 2: Project Location
Sponsor Province: Columbia Plateau ARG Province: No Change
Sponsor Subbasin: Deschutes ARG Subbasin: No Change
Location(s) at which the action will be implemented
Latitude Longitude Waterbody Location Description County/State Subbasin Primary?
Trout Creek Numerous locations in the Trout Creek basin. Jefferson/Wasco/Crook, Oregon Deschutes No

Section 3: Focal Species
Focal Species:
Primary Secondary Additional Species
Steelhead Middle Columbia River ESU
Interior Redband Trout
Numerous wildlife species

Section 4: Past Accomplishments
Past Accomplishments for Each Fiscal Year of This Project
Fiscal Year Accomplishments
2005 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Tasks included pre/post-project surveys and data collection, co-developed project design, Constructed 2.9 miles berm removal/channel reconstruction project. Supervised contractors and performed construction tasks.
2004 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Tasks included pre/post-project surveys and data collection, co-developed project design, Constructed 2.34 miles berm removal/channel reconstruction project. Supervised contractors and performed construction tasks.
2003 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Assisted in the grant writing that secured an additional $480K and obtained necessary permits for berm removal/channel reconstruction project. Tasks included pre-project surveys and data collection.
2002 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Partnered with other agencies and a private landowner in the upper basin to install a riparian exclosure on 5 stream miles. Partnered with JCSWCD on a H2O conservation project that removed three gravel push up dams.
2001 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Increased data collection at selected photo points to include permanent cross sections, and stream shading. Co-authored Fishery section to the Trout Creek watershed assessment.
2000 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Conducted ongoing negoiation with USACE and other agencies to achieve the goal of restoring 19 miles of stream that were altered after the 1965 flood.
1999 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Conducted ongoing negoiation with USACE and other agencies to achieve the goal of restoring 19 miles of stream that were altered after the 1965 flood
1998 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Conducted ongoing negoiation with USACE and other agencies to achieve the goal of restoring 19 miles of stream that were altered after the 1965 flood. First year of Summer steelhead smolt trapping operation.
1997 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Facilitated USACE involvement with the goal of restoring 19 miles of stream that were altered after the 1965 flood. Target project implementation 2002. Increased SSt redd counts to all access areas (56 miles).
1996 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Monitored and will continue to monitor water temperature on 18 sites increase duration of monitoring to 12 months.
1995 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks.
1994 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks.
1993 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks.
1992 Work for the past 9 years has resulted in the installlation of 236 Rock weirs, 189 log weir, 3.7 miles of Juniper rip-rap, 3397 habitat boulder, 498 pieces of LWD. Installlation of ~139 miles of riparian and pasture cross fencing. Developed 14 H2O sites.
1991 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks.
1990 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks.
1989 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks.
1988 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks.
1987 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. Built and monitored 236 Rock weirs, 189 log weir, 3.7 miles of Juniper rip-rap, placed 3397 habitat boulder, placed 498 pieces of LWD. Built and maintained ~139 miles of riparian and pasture cross fencing.
1986 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks.
1985 Performed annual WS O&M and M&E tasks. built and maintained ~139 miles of riparian and pasture cross fencing.
1984 Survey and Design riparian fencing for FY1985

Section 5: Relationships to Other Projects
Other Current Projects Related to this Project (any funding source)
Funding Source Related ID Related Project Title Relationship
Other: WHIP [no entry] Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Program Cost Share partner for Trout Creek berm removal/channel reconstruction project. Funding with Jefferson SWCD.
Other: Deschutes River Conservatory [no entry] Trout Creek habitat restoration Cost Share partner for Trout Creek berm removal/channel reconstruction project. Funding with Jefferson SWCD.
BPA 199802800 Implement Trout Cr Watershed R Jefferson SWCD co-partner in Trout Creek berm removal/ channel reconstruction project
OWEB - State 204-138 Trout Cr Berm Removal/Channel Cost Share partner for Trout Creek berm removal/ channel reconstruction project. Funding with Jefferson SWCD.
Other: Portland Genreal Electric Trout Creek Trout Creek habitat restoration 2007-9 potential Trout Creek berm removal/ channel reconstruction project partner.

Section 6: Biological Objectives
Biological Objectives of this Proposed Project
Biological Objective Full Description Associated Subbasin Plan Strategy Page Nos
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production in the Trout Creek Basin to an annual average of 100,000 outmigrants by increasing rearing capacity with targeted instream and riparian habitat restoration projects. Deschutes Protect and restore fish and wildlife habitat, beginning in the headwater areas and progressing downstream to restore fish distribution and abundance to meet biological and habitat objectives. MP-23,30 ES-13
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production in the Trout Creek Basin to an annual average of 100,000 outmigrants by increasing rearing capacity with targeted instream and riparian habitat restoration projects. Deschutes Restore and maintain healthy riparian and floodplain areas with good habitat complexity and species diversity to meet biological objectives. MP-23,30 ES-13
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production in the Trout Creek Basin to an annual average of 100,000 outmigrants by increasing rearing capacity with targeted instream and riparian habitat restoration projects Deschutes Restore water tables under former wet meadows and stream floodplains to provide natural sub-irrigation and stream flow and stream temperature moderation. MP-23,30-31
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production steelhead smolt production Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production in the Trout Creek Basin to an annual average of 100,000 outmigrants by increasing rearing capacity with targeted instream and riparian habitat restoration projects. Deschutes Manage riparian ecosystems to encourage restoration of beaver populations through restoration of woody and herbaceous vegetation, oxbow sloughs, and backwaters. MP-24,30-31
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production Use riparian fencing andor seeding and planting to establish periennal vegetation adjacent to streams. Deschutes Restore natural permanent grasslands, beginning with areas adjacent to streams in the upper watersheds as the highest priority. MP-24,30-31
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production in the Trout Creek Basin to an annual average of 100,000 outmigrants by increasing rearing capacity with targeted instream and riparian habitat restoration projects. Deschutes Prioritize and plan future habitat restoration to protect or restore habitat for core populations of summer steelhead and/or redband trout populations and expand their range. MP-23,31 ES-13
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production in the Trout Creek Basin to an annual average of 100,000 outmigrants by increasing rearing capacity with targeted instream and riparian habitat restoration projects. Deschutes Increase minimum stream flows and channel habitat complexity, and provide fish passage at all artificial barriers to support production of summer steelhead and/or redband trout populations during all life stages and provide connectivity to areas where MP-23,31 ES-13
Maintain navite genetic diversity. Collect samples from adult and smolts to determine disease spread. Collect genetic samples to assess hatchery introgression into native stocks. Deschutes Work with Columbia Basin co-managers to address genetic and disease concerns from out-of-subbasin steelhead hatchery strays. MP-24,31
Maintain navite genetic diversity. Conduct annual adult trapping to determine number and type of strays. Collect genetic samples to assess hatchery introgression into native stocks. Deschutes Conduct an aggressive monitoring program to determine whether and/or where out-of-subbasin steelhead are spawning with native steelhead. MP-24,31

Section 7: Work Elements
Work Elements and Associated Biological Objectives
Work Element Name Work Element Title Description Start Date End Date Estimated Budget
01: Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel Trout Creek Channel Habitat Improvement - Nye Property Trout Creek berm removal channel reconstruction project Nye project site phase III is scheduled for completion in FY 07 if current funding level is maintained for this project and for project 199802800 (JCSWCD). 10/1/2006 9/30/2007 $50,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
* # of stream miles before treatment: 1.4
* # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 1.75

02: Enhance Floodplain Trout Creek Channel habitat improvement - Nye Property Floodplain and channel connectivity is an intergral part of the project goals. 10/1/2006 9/30/2007 $25,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
* # of acres treated: 65

03: Produce Design and/or Specifications Co-development of channel habitat improvement plans for PGE, priday Collect on site physical data to be used in the development of a stream channel design. This might also include time for securing additional cost share funds. 3/1/2007 7/1/2009 $75,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
No Metrics for this Work Element

04: Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel Priday PGE property Build upon work and knowledge gained from 8 mile Trout Creek berm removal/channel reconstruction project. Construct a channel with the proper dimension, pattern and profile on Antelope and Trout Creeks. This project will be cost shared by several different sources. 7/1/2007 10/31/2009 $60,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
* # of stream miles before treatment: 4.0
* # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 4.6

05: Enhance Floodplain Priday, PGE property Establishing floodplain connectivity is one of the primary goals in the project. 7/1/2007 10/31/2009 $60,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
* # of acres treated: 125

06: Maintain Vegetation Riparian buffer fencing and offsite site water developments Continue to maintain 120 miles of riparian buffer fencing from livestock to promote riparian vegetation vigor and density. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $614,600
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
No Metrics for this Work Element

07: Develop Alternative Water Source Develop offsite water sources to decrease livestock need to access stream Locate and develop suitable off site water options to reduce pressure on riparian exclosure fence and to decrease maintenance of water gaps. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $24,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
No Metrics for this Work Element

08: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Adult Redd Counts Perforn annual redd counts to determine run time, spawning location hatchery/native component, and condition and age of returning adults. Verify results obtained at adult trap. 2/1/2007 6/1/2009 $91,895
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
Primary R, M, and E Type: 55 miles

09: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Monitor Smolt Production & Adult Escapement Collect annual adult Adult Summer Steelhead run time, duration, fish condition/age, and hatchery/wild composition. Smolt run time, duration, size, fish age, size, condition, and health 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $180,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
Maintain navite genetic diversity.
Primary R, M, and E Type: collect run information

10: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Document The Changes Of Habitat Restoration Practices By Utilizing Photo Points Document The Changes Of Habitat Restoration Practices By Utilizing Photo Points, permanent cross sections and stream shading. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $21,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
Primary R, M, and E Type: Document habitat changes over time.

11: Collect/Generate/Validate Field and Lab Data Monitor Stream Water Temperature Monitor stream water temperature to help assess if habitat improvements are helping to lower water temperature. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $13,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
Secondary R, M, and E Type: Document water temperature trend over time

13: Disseminate Raw/Summary Data and Results Operate outmigrant and adult Summer steelhead traps, and conduct basin wide redd counts Take information collected in smolt trap, adult trap, and redd counts and generate summarized data reports that will assess; Adult Summer Steelhead run time, duration, fish condition/age, and hatchery/wild composition. Smolt run time, duration, size, fish age, size, condition, and health. Redd count to assess habitat utilization and location to target future protection and restoration projects. 2/1/2007 6/30/2009 $36,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
Maintain navite genetic diversity.
No Metrics for this Work Element

14: Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation Obtain Environmental Compliance Obtain all necessary permits to complete work elements. Some of this will be conducted by the project sponsor and some tasks will contracted out. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $45,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

16: Identify and Select Projects New project areas Work with interested private landowners to develop habitat resotration plans/projects within the Trout Creek Basin. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $15,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
No Metrics for this Work Element

17: Provide Technical Review Provide Technical Assistance To Other Agencies, Landowners & The Trout Creek Watershed Council Assist other agencies in developing restoration plans. Assist JCSWCD and lanowners in development of CREP, or other restoration plans or projects. 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $9,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
No Metrics for this Work Element

18: Produce Annual Report Annual Report Produce annual report for each fiscal year. 2/15/2007 2/15/2010 $12,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
No Metrics for this Work Element

19: Manage and Administer Projects Manage & Administer Project Provide skill sets to effectivly and efficently administer work elements set forth in this document 10/1/2006 9/30/2009 $177,000
Biological Objectives Metrics
Increase natural summer steelhead smolt production
No Metrics for this Work Element


Section 8: Budget

Itemized Estimated Budget
Item Note FY 2007 Cost FY 2008 Cost FY 2009 Cost
Personnel 4 FTE $156,000 $163,800 $172,000
Fringe Benefits average 45% $70,000 $73,500 $77,400
Supplies [blank] $98,000 $102,000 $105,000
Capital Equipment ATV $ 0 $ 0 $7,500
Overhead ODFW proposed 2007 rate =35.87% $125,545 $131,750 $141,000
Travel vehicles travel $26,000 $28,000 $31,000
Totals $475,545 $499,050 $533,900

Total Estimated FY 2007-2009 Budgets
Total Itemized Budget$1,508,495
Total Work Element budget$1,508,495

Cost sharing
Funding Source or Organization Item or Service Provided FY 2007 Est Value ($) FY 2008 Est Value ($) FY 2009 Est Value ($) Cash or in-kind? Status
DRC Project cost share $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Cash Under Development
FSA CREP Project cost share $60,000 $40,000 $ 0 Cash Under Development
Landowner Project material/equipment $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 In-Kind Confirmed
NRCS WHIP FUNDS $30,000 $30,000 $40,000 Cash Under Development
OWEB Project cost share $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Cash Under Development
PGE Project cost share $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 Cash Under Review
Totals $500,000 $480,000 $450,000

Section 9: Project Future
Project Future Costs and/or Termination
FY 2010 Est Budget FY 2011 Est Budget Comments
$525,000 $550,000 Major habitat improvemnts i.e. berm removal to be completed by 2015 in the lower Trout and Antelope sub-basins.
Future Operations & Maintenance 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 Comments
2030 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
Document Type Size Date
Fix-it Loop Documents
Documents Originally Submitted with this Proposal

Part 2 of 2. Reviews of Proposal
Administrative Review Group (ARG) Results
Account Type:
Expense
Location:
Province: No Change
Subbasin: No Change
Primary Focal Species
No Change
ARG Comments:


NPCC Final Funding Recommendations (October 23, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$400,000
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$400,000
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$400,000
Total NPCC Rec
$1,200,000
Budget Type:Expense
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
Recommendation:Fund
NPCC Comments: Budget reductions not specific. Project to be implemented with reduced scope. Sponsor should address ISRP concerns during the next project review process


NPCC Draft Funding Recommendations (September 15, 2006) [Full NPCC Council Recs]

FY 2007 NPCC Rec
$404,213
FY 2008 NPCC Rec
$404,213
FY 2009 NPCC Rec
$404,213
Total NPCC Rec
$1,212,639
FY 2007 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2008 MSRT Rec
$ 0
FY 2009 MSRT Rec
$ 0
Total MSRT Rec
$ 0
Budget Category:ProvinceExpense
NPCC Comments:
NPCC Staff Comments: M&E comment pending. See M&E decision memo discussion.

Local or MSRT Comments: OSPIT recommends reducing the budget by 15%, and removed one work element from the FY07 budget, then flatlining the budget in the out years.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Final Review (August 31, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)
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.


Independent Scientific Review Panel Preliminary Review (June 2, 2006) [Download full document]

Recommendation: Response requested
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.

Maintained by the Columbia Basin Fish & Wildlife Authority. Please direct comments or questions to the webmaster.