FY07-09 proposal 199802800

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: None at this time.

Termination date: 2030
Comments: After major channel restoration projects are complete in the watershed, the focus can be shifted to smaller projects. As long as the majority of land in the watershed is under private ownership, their will be a need for this project.

Final deliverables: An average annual run of 1,000 - 1,200 adult steelhead in the Trout Creek watershed and perennial flow in all stream reaches. Stream and floodplain connectivity in all areas feasable. Established, diverse, and sustainable riparian, aquatic and upland habitats.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: The response needs to provide substantially more detail on past results in biological effectiveness terms. Also more detail is needed on objectives, methods and especially, monitoring and evaluation. 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: This is an ongoing project that works with private landowners and multiple funding agencies/sources to improve riparian, aquatic, and upland habitat in the Trout Creek Watershed. It is a companion project to the ODFW Project #199404200) and works to leverage BPA funds by writing grants to numerous funding sources, as sponsors move to finish Phase 3 of the Trout Creek Channel Habitat Improvement Project. This project has, and continues to, implement extensive instream and riparian habitat improvement projects on a basin wide scale to significantly improve habitat for Mid Columbia ESU summer steelhead with several planned projects. The 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. The 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. 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. In past years, the ISRP has been impressed with SWCD's abilities to leverage BPA dollars into additional dollars -- sometimes achieving quite high overall funding levels relative to BPA funding levels. Much of this work occurs through enrollment of local ranchers into stream habitat conservation programs such as CREP. This approach makes BPA dollars go much farther than anticipated. The Jefferson SWCD has been particularly good at this in years past (e.g., Table 1 on Page 5 of proposal). The Jefferson SWCD has also been instrumental in signing up landowners into FSA’s CREP program in Trout Creek. To date, the SWCD has enrolled 9.92 miles of stream, totaling 145.6 acres into the program, with more planned in the near future. Project history (for ongoing projects): The sponsors have focused the discussion on the activities that have been undertaken. They needed to provide a better discussion of 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 needed 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, they should have explained how fish have responded to the habitat changes (fish use by all life stages, and abundance)? Objectives: The objectives do not accurately reflect the work that will be conducted and do not provide measurable outcomes. Accomplishment of the first biological objective will not be achieved solely by the proposed work. The first objective, however, may serve as an overall goal. The Work Elements appear to be directed more toward a habitat restoration objective and an objective involving landowners participation. A map of the area and project sites is needed. The sponsors also need to explain how the sites were selected and what is the method for prioritizing sites for restoration? It is not clear why the second objective is separate from the first because both involve habitat restoration. Tasks (work elements) and methods: The sponsors did not clearly explain how the proposed tasks will lead to the accomplishment of objective 2. The methods will not be sufficient to achieve the objective 1. Monitoring and evaluation: M&E was not addressed. Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Facilities are adequate, and the personnel appear to have limited experience in habitat restoration. Information transfer is not addressed. It probably will occur via landowner participation. Benefits to focal and non-focal species: The benefits to focal species cannot be adequately assessed because objectives and some methods are unclear, the site prioritization is not explained, and information on past project effectiveness is not given. The effect on non-focal species is unclear, but the project probably will not cause harm

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: Fundable; however, the qualification is that like its companion project from ODFW (199404200: Trout Creek Fish Habitat Restoration), this project needs to provide more reporting on the results of their work and the measured biological benefits to date. This response and proposal provides even less information than project 199404200. We recognize the project has a shorter history and consequently, sponsors are in less of a position to report than for project 199404200, but the sponsors might consider coordinating data analysis efforts between the two projects. Even if this project (199802800) isn't doing the monitoring, it should report the results of other monitoring in Trout Creek and the subbasin. The ISRP will be expecting and looking for more thorough reporting of results in the next review cycle.