The project sponsors have provided reasonably detailed answers to most of the ISRP's questions. However, as the project progresses, we feel that more thought should be given to establishing metrics that will enable biological assessment of restoration success. The response to question 1 (What quantitative evidence exists that habitat projects have led to increases in steelhead abundance or distribution within the drainage system?) shows that steelhead spawning is now more dispersed in the drainage network than was the case a decade ago, but the link between this observation and restoration actions was not fully discussed. As pointed out, the monitoring period has likely not been sufficiently long to detect trends in smolt production or adult steelhead escapement, but it would be very helpful to identify a time frame for expected benefits, the life history stages most likely to be influenced by restoration actions, and a target trajectory for population recovery. We realize that annual variability makes it very difficult to establish meaningful, realistic fish population goals. But without some quantitative biological metrics and targets, it will be impossible to gauge long-term restoration success.

The response to Question 6 was not complete. The ISRP asked how biological targets for steelhead were being established for Fifteenmile Creek. The project sponsors indicated that the objective was to achieve "highly viable" status for the steelhead population as at least one eastside Cascade tributary needs to achieve this status for recovery. The project sponsors should collaborate with the group conducting the RM&E project on this stream to develop realistic, quantitative objectives for the steelhead population recovery.

Adult and smolt data from the RM&E project were provided, but interpretation of these data was very brief. The project sponsors suggest fish data have not been collected for a sufficiently long period of time to detect any response to habitat improvements. However, there are also suggestions of a response in terms of improved distribution of spawning steelhead and an increase in smolts leaving the system the last several years. Continuing these monitoring efforts should eventually provide some indication of the overall success of the restoration program for steelhead. Juvenile steelhead density and distribution will be monitored at large-scale habitat projects. These data will be most useful if they are collected in a manner that enables estimation of the contribution that fish from these project sites make to system productivity.

The photo-points and descriptions of riparian habitat improvements in the Fifteenmile subbasin were appreciated. More detailed description of how the working relationship with the ODFW research and habitat project has benefited the project (including the use of data to develop specific steelhead population goals) would improve the project proposal and help focus future habitat improvement work.

Evaluation of Results

The restoration efforts in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin are remarkable in that they have covered a very significant portion of privately owned lands. The extent of restoration coverage, and the obviously successful collaboration between conservation organizations and local stakeholders, is an example for other subbasins to follow. Given this high level of cooperation and the high percentage of riparian zones enrolled in the CREP program, measureable improvements in freshwater production ought to be achieved over time. Carefully selected biological metrics can help document long-term population recovery.

The project has achieved important improvements in stream and riparian habitat on private lands in the Fifteenmile Creek subbasin, and the ISRP continues to find this effort justified. Because the project has been in place for two decades, we would like more details about the results of the restoration efforts to date. Specifically in the response, we would like to know (1) what quantitative evidence exists that the habitat projects have led to increases in steelhead abundance or distribution within the drainage system, and (2) what improvements in riparian communities have resulted from livestock exclosures and alternative watering sites. The response also should include summarized results from the ODFW monitoring project, acknowledging that monitoring is indicating that more adult steelhead are spawning in Fifteenmile Creek and that smolt production has increased. We would also like a little more detail about the budget requests for habitat complexity improvements in FY 2017 and 2018, and about the methods being used to monitor restoration success.

The components of the proposal related to O&M of existing habitat projects are adequately justified. We request more detail about the process being used to identify and prioritize new projects to determine if this part of the proposal is scientifically sound. Also, a more thorough description of the process to be used for adaptive management should be included. The existence of research programs for steelhead and lamprey in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed provides the opportunity to develop a very powerful adaptive management strategy for identifying future habitat projects, and a formal process should be established to ensure the research results are utilized to their full potential.

Other questions include:

If the project is intended to become a programmatic umbrella project, how will future restoration actions be selected and prioritized?

How are biological/fish targets for restoration benefits derived?

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

This project is now in its 20th year and deals with stream and riparian habitat restoration in Fifteenmile Creek, the easternmost limit of winter steelhead distribution in the Columbia River. Currently, Fifteenmile Creak supports one of two viable steelhead populations in the mid-Columbia, although adult population estimates are believed to be only about 30% of pre-development numbers. The steelhead population is also notable in that is entirely of natural origin and has never been supplemented with hatchery fish, and thus it is of interest for assessing the success of habitat restoration in a location where artificial production has not confounded the interpretation of population status and trends. Project sponsors have done a good job of relating this project to regional restoration programs. The technical background was clearly explained, and the habitat objectives in general were clear. No quantitative targets for habitat conditions over the entire subbasin were given, but the specific objectives of projects to be implemented in Fiscal Years 2014-2018 were clearly delineated.

This proposal covers a wide range of habitat restoration activities on Fifteenmile Creek. Effectiveness assessments associated with these projects have included photo points and water temperature monitoring. In addition, a project designed to assess steelhead population attributes has been implemented in this watershed. However, the only information provided about results from these efforts was before-after photos of vegetation recovery at several of the riparian fencing sites. Little information is provided about the temperature response at restoration locations or if water temperatures, in general, in the watershed are trending downwards as a result of the efforts. The proposal did not include information about steelhead response to the projects that have already been implemented. Even if insufficient data have been collected to determine the response of steelhead to the restoration efforts, some discussion of current status of the population would have provided valuable context for the habitat restoration program.

The objectives are appropriate for the project, but they are rather generic. Objective 1 does provide a quantitative goal in terms of increased steelhead smolt production. There is no link between this goal and the contribution past and future habitat restoration projects are expected to make towards achieving this goal.

The ISRP would like to have seen more information about what is being done to monitor agricultural chemicals. Because most steelhead spawning takes place above Dufur and a large fraction of Fifteenmile Creek spawning habitat lies in privately owned lands, chemical contamination of aquatic ecosystems could constitute a limiting factor.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

Habitat accomplishments to date were adequately summarized. Although barrier removal and instream structure placement have figured prominently in the project's history, the centerpiece has been fencing 206 miles of riparian zones and installing 52 off-channel livestock watering sites. The photographs were helpful, although adding dates of the photos would have provided useful time references. The ODFW has also devoted resources and expertise to installing PIT-tag detectors and a screw trap to monitor juvenile movements on private lands, although data management has largely been given over to project 2010-035-00.

As noted above, there is relatively little presentation of results from the monitoring that has been conducted under this project or the companion steelhead monitoring project (2010-035-00). It would have been informative to provide an overview of the monitoring results to date to complement the description of the types of habitat projects that have been implemented.

The adaptive management discussion in the proposal needs further detail. The project sponsors focus on the critical need for good landowner relationships and the problems they have encountered with noxious weeds at their project sites as evidence of an adaptive management element for this project. However, no description was provided of how results from the steelhead population studies or the water temperature monitoring at project locations are being used to guide the selection of future projects. The existence of the steelhead research program in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed could provide information that could greatly improve the effectiveness of future habitat restoration efforts. There should be a formal process for reviewing the fish data regularly and incorporating these findings into the process for identifying and prioritizing future projects. This type of process would represent a true adaptive management component for this project.

The recent history of accomplishments, which uses photo point comparisons and documents 208 miles of fencing, is generally adequate.

Evaluation of Results

In our last review (2006) the ISRP requested information on how the restoration projects were affecting the distribution and abundance of steelhead and secondary focal species in the Fifteen Mile Creek subbasin. In this proposal, the project sponsors essentially point to project 2010-035-00 for a summary of population trends. We feel, however, that it would be helpful to show, in brief summary form, a graph or table of estimated adult steelhead escapement to Fifteenmile Creek over the last decade (or however long a reasonable database exists); a map or graph showing the current distribution of steelhead in the subbasin relative to the distribution prior to passage barrier removal; and a graph or table of the number of estimated steelhead smolts leaving Fifteenmile Creek. These data would help indicate whether the anticipated benefits of habitat restoration have been expressed over the last decade or so.

In addition, it would also be helpful to know how riparian areas are responding to livestock exclosures. Apart from before-after photos, have any vegetation plots been established to document riparian recovery over time? As well, can an indication of the extent of spread of invasive plants be provided? These data would provide evidence of the anticipated benefits of riparian protection.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

The other projects occurring in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed were listed and briefly described. However, the actual linkages between these various projects and the one described in this proposal were not provided. For example, the proposal indicates that the monitoring projects for steelhead and lamprey in Fifteenmile Creek will generate information relevant to the design of habitat restoration efforts, but no evidence is provided that results from these projects were considered in identifying the new habitat actions included in this proposal. A more detailed description of the relationships among these projects is needed. Also, some discussion of the extent to which this habitat project is attempting to take advantage of results from the large habitat research programs in the Columbia Basin, for example ISEMP and CHaMP, should be included in the proposal.

The emerging limiting factors discussed in the proposal are climate change and the problems that have been encountered with noxious weeds. The climate change discussion is appropriate, and it is clear that many of the activities that have been included in this restoration program do have the potential to help mitigate for the expected changes in water quantity and quality caused by a warming climate. It is gratifying to know that the emphasis has been on improving habitat on private lands, which have often been overlooked in other subbasins. One of the climate-related factors that could affect habitat in Fifteenmile Creek and its tributaries is a change in the incidence of wildfire. In the event of a severe fire season, it will be interesting to examine how the riparian fencing projects hold up.

The significance of the noxious weed issue as a limiting factor for steelhead was less clear. Noxious weeds can certainly impact terrestrial systems, especially wildlife, but the manner in which these undesirable plants impact steelhead survival or the productive capacity of freshwater habitats in the Fifteenmile Creek watershed was not convincingly presented. Continued vigilance with respect to invasive plants is appropriate as an O&M activity associated with this project; however, this activity would likely be of greater significance to terrestrial system conditions than aquatic.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The deliverables, work elements, and methods were described in a straightforward manner. The Dufur water intake bypass project seems appropriate. The additional 2 miles of riparian fence will only increase the fenced total in the subbasin by 1%, so it is assumed that most of the work will be on maintaining and repairing existing fences. A little more detail could have been provided for the Schanno, Remington, and Fulton habitat complexity projects, including location in the drainage network and perhaps a schematic diagram of the 5-mile reach after restoration has been implemented.

The project budget shows a large increase in facilities and equipment in FY2017 and 2018, but few details are given about these significant cost increases. What, specifically, will the funds be used for in these two fiscal years?

Maintaining the integrity of the fenced riparian areas and instream structures will be required for restoration efforts to positively influence steelhead production. The work elements associated with the new restoration projects, however, are not yet described fully enough to assess their technical merit. A more complete description of the process being used to identify the highest priority projects should be included in the proposal. Landowner willingness to participate is identified as the major factor for selecting projects in this watershed. However, the process being used to select projects from among those with a willing landowner is not fully described. The manner in which research results from the steelhead and lamprey projects has influenced the selection of the sites for future restoration projects also was not described. A clear description of how projects are prioritized and the manner in which research results will be used to modify the project selection process should be incorporated into the proposal.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The methods listed in the proposal all address assessing the impact of livestock on streams. Because livestock exclusion from riparian areas is a major restoration element in this project, these methods do seem appropriate. However, several of the methods are related to assessing sediment levels in the stream or assessing the extent of bank erosion. The proposal indicates that the only monitoring associated with this project is compliance monitoring of project implementation, photo points, and temperature monitoring. If the project-scale monitoring does include an assessment of sediment, the manner in which these methods will be applied should be included in the proposal. None of the listed methods appear to be relevant for assessing the effectiveness of instream structures. What monitoring will be associated with the placement on logs or other structures in the stream?

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 11:05:17 AM.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 11:15:53 AM.

This is essential work that is fundamental to stock management and monitoring. The ISRP comments are intended to improve on this already promising approach. In summary: • Consider alternative smolt and adult capture and sampling techniques following a thorough review of the history • Use the recruitment results that will be generated to evaluate previous habitat work and also test some hypotheses related to the biology—several options are suggested. • Eventually include AHA/EDT and recruitment simulation model testing and ground-truthing and begin planning for this early in the project. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The proponents have done a good job at establishing clear justification for this project. The linkage with RPAs was well documented. The project will significantly improve the basic understanding of this easternmost run of winter steelhead, now on the endangered species list. ODFW is also conducting many other studies in the vicinity, and knowledge sharing will be taking place. The proposed data acquisition is essential for comprehensive population monitoring and management of this unique winter-run steelhead population, and, eventually, for evaluation of extensive watershed improvements already completed and planned. The program is entirely consistent with a well-designed population and watershed monitoring program, and will serve as an intensively monitored watershed and index site for Oregon and the Columbia Basin. The results will serve several watershed and Basin projects, as listed, and assist in stock status determinations over the broad area, as well as ground truthing of habitat and population dynamics models, in the future. Some suggestions, recommendations, and considerations as the project moves forward are included below. 2. Project History and Results This is a new project, but earlier work has been conducted in the area (including 15 years of habitat restoration work). It will be very useful to compare results of adult returns over the weir with redd counts and assess how accurately past (pre-project) redd counts may have actually indexed adult abundance. A summary of current knowledge of stock status and abundance (smolts and adults) would have benefited reviewers and planners, and should prove useful to future plans and comparisons. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods There were two basic objectives: (1) determine life cycle survival and performance metric (smolt abundance, smolts/redd, SAR), and (2) determine spawner abundance and spawner distribution (now have 60 miles of known spawning habitat). The work elements and methods seemed fairly complete, and protocols were adequately outlined. It was clear to the reviewers what major activities will be undertaken. In gaining the most benefit of this information for management purposes, it would be useful to specifically consider the following issues: 1. In most cases, it will be adequate to estimate screw trap efficiencies once per week. However, during times of high flows (depending on general watershed runoff characteristics and interannual flow variations), it may not be adequate. Peak smolt emigrations often coincide with high water periods, and inappropriate estimates of trap efficiency applied to catches at those critical times may generate much greater overall errors in some abundance estimates than at other times. It is safe to say that poor efficiency estimates during two days at the peak of the outmigration may be worse than two weeks during a slow time. For that reason, it would be worth developing a general protocol for estimating trap efficiencies that is at a minimum once per week but that is at shorter intervals for high flow/peak migration times. This should not be too difficult to do. It may require a bit more personnel at the peak times. 2. Although the proponents did not discuss the value of any hypothesis testing and the smolt run, they may have thought about the desirability of evaluating some specific aspects of the run itself and effects on SARs. For example, they might hypothesize that larger or older smolts might return at higher rates than smaller smolts or that smolts in the middle portion of the run might perform better than those near the beginning and end. It would necessitate measuring and weighing PIT tagged smolts. Smolt condition might also play a role, not just Fulton's condition index but fat reserves. It might be useful to evaluate if the non-invasive "fat meter" (from work in Ireland) now available for use can be sensitive enough to detect the fat reserves of smolts, which might be linked to their survival. 3. Similarly, it is possible to develop several testable hypotheses about factors affecting the timing of the smolt emigration, including discharge, turbidity, lunar cycle, water temperature, and such. USGS gauging stations are in the basin and this data (water discharge, turbidity, etc.) could be used to relate to smolt emigrations, adult counts at the weir, and redd counts. Several other suggestions or alternatives should be considered. Researchers have considered nearly all aspects of parr, smolt, and adult steelhead monitoring but hopefully have also considered alternative techniques for several aspects, and should be encouraged to review/visit sites with similar experiences (e.g., Keogh River, B.C., Snow Ck. WA). Adult monitoring by video alone will not permit sufficient biological sampling (e.g., scales, weight, condition, fecundity, etc. would not be available). An alternative may be partial live capture (traps) supplemented by resistivity or video counter(s). Radio tagging may be preferred to PIT tagging of adults to determine watershed distribution, proportionate composition within tributaries (given the overall estimate or count), and migratory behavior, which would also elucidate more on discreet habitat utilization and importance. Note that marked adults may be recaptured as kelts in their downstream migration, further confirming population estimates and/or counts. Likewise, full smolt enumeration and sampling (~15%, checked regularly) is preferably to RSTs. The latter provide unreliable M-R estimates with broad confidence levels. Steelhead trout, like Atlantic salmon smolts, are known to exhibit trap avoidance behavior as well as residualism, confounding M-R estimates. If using RSTs, separate mark and recapture sites are recommended, with minimal handling at the marking site, biological sampling at the recovery site. Sampling for age structure must be stratified by age and migration timing. There was little or no discussion of steelhead recruitment analyses, but the reference list indicated some awareness, although some key references on winter steelhead recruitment were missing. EDT and AHA models (which utilize EDT) may eventually be testable at this site as data accumulates. Preparations for these and related analyses (e.g., recruitment models) should begin as operation and maintenance of field work and trapping evolves. 4. M&E The M & E component was paramount and well defined; however, an attempt to evaluate habitat improvement activities conducted over the last 15 years should be considered (e.g., EDT model predictions and smolt yield, or smolts per spawner), and in relation to locations of redds, or habitat parameters.

This group continues to impress, and is congratulated on preparing an excellent proposal that follows the subbasin plan and the previous advice of the ISRP. Fifteenmile Creek is one of the Basin's success stories in terms of bringing stakeholders and management organizations together. The work deserves to be continued, but it is time for the project managers to begin showing results in terms of improved population characteristics (e.g., VSP parameters) and long-term trends in habitat improvements. Although we are not requesting a response, the ISRP believes the project sponsors should consider the following points:

This project is an ODFW-led effort that has been ongoing for about a dozen years. The major emphases of the project are livestock exclusion from riparian areas, in-stream habitat improvements, and smolt monitoring. The technical background section provides a good description of the watershed's history and the significance of its fishery resources. Overall, Fifteenmile Creek has served as an excellent example of cooperation by local, federal, state, and tribal organizations, with a concerted effort to build local support. It could serve as a demonstration project for the basin, particularly for the bank stabilization work. However, a better documentation of biological response is required.

The proposal does a good job of describing the history of the project, going back to its genesis in 1987. The table giving a list of the accomplishments by year, including cost breakdowns, was helpful. The project history did not include a subbasin-wide summary of habitat improvements (e.g., total miles of stream fenced, numbers of structures placed, accompanied by an estimate of new pool habitat created), reductions in fine sediment in spawning gravels, and other performance metrics. Having those kinds of summary numbers would help evaluate the overall project effectiveness, and improve the proposal. The Fifteenmile Creek Restoration Project has implemented riparian protection and instream habitat improvement for almost 20 years. Much of this work is now demonstrating improved ecological health indicative of riparian corridor vegetation and improved channel stability. The minimal monitoring and evaluation of the project to date has primarily been useful to qualitatively demonstrate these improvements. Photopoint documentation and previous redd surveys are useful tools to document improvements but offer minimal quantified evidence to monitor successful fisheries and water quality recovery objectives.

This project proposes more scientific-based quantitative monitoring and evaluation to determine the success of implemented measures on fisheries populations. Previous temperature monitoring has suggested slight localized improvements to late summer water temperatures but is often obscured by conditions such as beaver impoundments, and increased water withdrawal. The steelhead redd survey protocol was modified in 2003 to incorporate a stratified random reach survey with index stations. Although this method has more scientific rational, it is still difficult to statistically enumerate adult escapement in the basin. This is the basis for proposing a quantitative approach to monitoring and evaluating the effects of habitat improvement using rotary screw traps and an adult monitoring facility.

This proposal will address instream habitat improvements that the Fifteenmile Subbasin Plan (WCSWCD 2004, pg 16) identified as the number two limiting factor in improving steelhead recovery as modeled by the EDT Scenario Builder. This will be accomplished through the design and construction of large woody debris complexes in areas defined in the subbasin plan and ODFW stream survey as productive but limiting in rearing habitat. This component will be the future direction for project implementation now that an estimated 85% of the riparian corridor is excluded from livestock grazing and undergoing vegetative recovery.

The objectives are clearly stated and measurable. Timelines were not always spelled out and should be clearer. The objectives called for increasing steelhead smolt output, but the proposal does not address the issue of adult returns and how this might influence smolt production, as we know they do. The abundance of adult steelhead returning to Fifteenmile Creek is estimated, thus it should be possible to estimate an egg-to-smolt survival rate (assuming a certain number of eggs per female), which would be an excellent indicator of restoration effectiveness. The appropriate response variable would be the smolt yield per spawner as a function of the number of spawners.

The project sponsors should publish the results of their bank stabilization efforts -- successes and failures. They have put over 2000 fish habitat structures. What are the results? There is a need for more literature in this area, towards evaluation of it as a cost-effective restoration approach. What is the tie between the efforts and the geomorphologic processes? Like the Wind River, this could be a good demonstration area. Fifteenmile Creek is the eastern-most stream for winter steelhead, thus critically important.

The background section of the proposal would have been more persuasive if it had included information about the recent status and trend of fish populations and habitat. Since this project has been in place for over a decade, what have we learned about its effects on fish (especially winter steelhead) populations and stream habitat? What is the evidence that all the hard work has really helped? The second objective (page 13) describes the monitoring program. Although this section was reasonably complete in terms of field techniques, there was no description of how that data would be analyzed, i.e., what statistical approaches would be used to measure response to the restoration work.

Some further suggestions should be considered. Methods are clearly described, and it was good to see some discussion of the changes that have been made in response to past difficulties. PIT tags will be utilized to determine in-subbasin and out-of-subbasin effects on Fifteenmile Creek's wild winter steelhead population. Because of the duration of the Fifteenmile Creek project, this watershed is an ideal place for PIT-tagging to determine the effectiveness of different restoration actions in different parts of the system. Although steelhead/rainbow trout will be PIT-tagged, it appears that the focus is on determining smolt trap efficiency and the proportion of age 0 downstream migrants to "true" smolts. Additional PIT-tag detectors on some of the tributaries and in the lower mainstem could yield important information. The assistance of a statistician may help design this level of evaluation.