Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1998-028-00 - Trout Creek Watershed Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1998-028-00 - Trout Creek Watershed Restoration
Project Number:
1998-028-00
Title:
Trout Creek Watershed Restoration
Summary:
The focus of these efforts is on the development of a long-range action plan for the Trout Creek Watershed and the implementation of those actions that will improve fish and wildlife resources in the basin. This project is located in portions of Wasco, Jefferson and Crook Counties, Oregon, that lie east of the Deschutes River, and generally north of Madras, south of Shaniko, and east of Mitchell, Oregon. The latitude and longitude of Trout Creek at its confluence with the Deschutes River is; 44 degrees, 49 minutes and 18 seconds, North and 121 degrees 05 minutes and 13 seconds, West. The latitude and longitude of the headwater area of Trout Creek is; 44 degrees, 30 minutes and 22 seconds North and 120 degrees, 33 minutes and 42 seconds West.

This project satisfies the goals listed in the Deschutes River Sub-basin Summary (Nelson, 2001), that portion of the draft Deschutes Subbasin Plan (2004) that addresses Trout Creek, and the Trout Creek Watershed Assessment (2003), and addresses four essential elements of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds (Oregon Plan for Salmon and Watersheds, 1999): 1) Coordinated agency programs, 2) Community based actions, 3) Monitoring and Evaluation, and 4) Corrective changes (adaptive management and regulations). This project also satisfies the objectives of Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives 150 and 153 of the 2000 FCRPS Biological Opinion calling for protection of riparian buffers by protecting high quality habitat and by leveraging the agricultural incentive programs.

The assessment follows the guidelines set in the Oregon Watershed Assessment Manual (Watershed Professionals Network, 1999). Key components that assessment is: 1) Historical conditions, 2) Channel habitat type classification, 3) Hydrology and water use, 4) Riparian and wetland conditions, 5) Sediment sources, 6) Channel modification, 7) Water quality, and 8) Fish and Wildlife habitat. The proposed work also complements the work required in Trout Creek by FERC of PGE in the Re-licensing Settlement Agreement for the Pelton Round Butte Hydroelectric Project.

The long-range watershed restoration plan For Trout Creek will coordinate efforts of local landowners and private timber companies as well as state, federal, and tribal agencies to improve habitat conditions for fish and wildlife. The plan would take a "top to bottom" approach. The watershed assessment will be the key part of this plan and will describe potential problems, where they are located, and recommend way of resolving the issues and concerns. A technical advisory committee made up of representatives from state, federal, and tribal agencies is being set up to develop scientifically sound restoration approaches.

Demonstration projects will also be implemented by this project. For example, a need for immediate restoration efforts along Trout Creek exists. Implementing these projects will demonstrate to local landowners what can be accomplished by working with the watershed council. Landowners will be involved in projects throughout the watershed assessment/long-range watershed restoration planning process.

Trout Creek Watershed Council and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Trout Creek Project have been working cooperatively throughout the watershed assessment process. The two groups will continue to work together developing the long-range action plan and seeing that habitat restoration projects are properly implemented. This cooperation helps to leverage other funding sources, particularly the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board and the Deschutes Basin Resource Conservancy, in habitat restoration projects in the Trout Creek Basin.

The costs of the proposed actions are shared with a number of other funding sources. BPA has funded approximately thirty-three percent of the habitat improvement work JCSWCD does in the Trout Creek Watershed.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) (SWCD)
Starting FY:
1998
Ending FY:
2017
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau Deschutes 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Other Resident
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
FCRPS 2008 – view list of

Tributary Habitat Implementation 2007 to 2009,
Tributary Habitat Implementation 2010 to 2018

Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project Sites

Figure Name: Map 1

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 7

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Upper Trout Relocation Project

Figure Name: Map 2

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 8

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#1 from Left – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 1

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 9

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#1 from Left – 7-20-11

Figure Name: Photo 2

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 9

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#1 from Right – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 3

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 9

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#1 from Right – 7-20-11

Figure Name: Photo 4

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 9

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#2 from Left – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 5

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 10

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#2 from Left – 7-20-11

Figure Name: Photo 6

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 10

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#2 from Right – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 7

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 10

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#2 from Right – 7-20-11

Figure Name: Photo 8

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 10

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#3 from Left – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 9

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 11

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#3 from Left – 7-20-11

Figure Name: Photo 10

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 11

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#3 from Right – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 11

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 11

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

XS#3 from Right – 7-20-11

Figure Name: Photo 12

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 11

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site from Above – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 13

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 12

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site from Above – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 14

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 12

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

From Road looking down – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 15

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 12

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

From Road looking down – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 16

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 12

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

From Road looking Up – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 17

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 12

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

From Road looking Up – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 18

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 12

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

From Road looking Up – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 19

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 12

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

From Road looking Up – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 20

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 12

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking east – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 21

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 13

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking east– 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 22

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 13

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 23

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 13

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 24

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 13

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking downstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 25

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 13

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking downstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 26

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 13

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 27

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 14

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 28

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 14

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking downstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 29

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 14

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking downstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 30

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 14

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking downstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 31

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 14

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking downstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 32

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 14

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking downstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 33

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 15

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking downstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 34

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 15

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 35

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 15

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 36

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 15

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site from Below – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 37

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 15

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site from Below – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 38

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 15

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 39

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 40

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 41

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 42

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 43

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 44

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 6-23-10

Figure Name: Photo 45

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Project Site looking upstream – 7-13-11

Figure Name: Photo 46

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 16

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Feral Pig Damage in Amity Creek

Figure Name: Photo 47

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 18

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Riparian planting on Trout Creek. Courtesy of Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District.

Figure Name: Photo 48a

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 18

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Tree Planter hand planting trees/shrubs

Figure Name: Photo 48b

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 18

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Tree Planter hand planting trees/shrubs

Figure Name: Photo 48c

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 18

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Planted Tree along Trout Creek

Figure Name: Photo 49

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 18

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Scotch Thistle Patches Prior to Treatment

Figure Name: Photo 50

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 20

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Scotch Thistle Patches Prior to Treatment

Figure Name: Photo 51

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 20

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Scotch Thistle Patches Prior to Treatment

Figure Name: Photo 52

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 20

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Scotch Thistle Patches Prior to Treatment

Figure Name: Photo 53

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 20

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

High Water Photos (directly following 20 year event) Dec 14, 2010

Figure Name: Photo 54

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

High Water Photos (directly following 20 year event) Dec 14, 2010

Figure Name: Photo 55

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

High Water Photos (directly following 20 year event) Dec 14, 2010

Figure Name: Photo 56

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

High Water Photos (directly following 20 year event) Dec 14, 2010

Figure Name: Photo 57

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

High Water Photos (directly following 20 year event) Dec 14, 2010

Figure Name: Photo 58

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 22

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Reach 1 - Cottonwoods, Willows, and Dogwoods – June 28, 2011

Figure Name: Photo 59

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 23

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Reach 1 Looking Downstream – June 28, 2011

Figure Name: Photo 60

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 24

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457

Reach 3.5 Looking Downstream – June 22, 2011

Figure Name: Photo 61

Document ID: P122974

Document: Trout Creek Watershed Improvement Project, 4/2010 - 3/2011

Page Number: 24

Project: 1998-028-00

Contract: 52457


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2016 (Previous) $166,473 $201,473 $201,473 $201,473 $158,488

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $201,473 $201,473 $201,473 $158,488
FY2017 (Current) $166,473 $166,473 $166,473 $166,473 $97,087

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $166,473 $166,473 $166,473 $97,087
FY2018 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 28-Feb-2017

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2016 - FY2018)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2016 Expense $166,473 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY16 Initial Planning Budgets - Expense 05/22/2015
FY2016 Expense $35,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) 1998-028-00 January Transfer 01/13/2017
FY2017 Expense $166,473 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY17 SOY Budgets 06/02/2016
FY2017 Expense $35,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) 1998-028-00 FY17 12/27/2016
FY2017 Expense $35,000 To: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) 1998-028-00 January Transfer 01/13/2017

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Project Cost Share:

FY2016 75 %
FY2015 6 %
FY2014 8 %
FY2013 3 %
FY2012 20 %
FY2011 21 %
FY2010 0 %
FY2009 55 %
FY2008 19 %
FY2007 37 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution
FY2015 Local project sponsors $10,320
FY2015 Portland General Electric $0
FY2015 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) $0
FY2016 Local project sponsors $205,000
FY2016 Portland General Electric $300,600
FY2016 US Department of Agriculture (USDA) $104,375

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
505 REL 1 SOW Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1998-028-00 TROUT CREEK WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT History $61,625 1/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
71821 SOW Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 1998-028-00 EXP IMPLEMENT TROUT CK WATERSHED REST/ENHANCE Issued $201,473 4/1/2016 - 3/31/2017



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):12
Completed:11
On time:11
Status Reports
Completed:47
On time:20
Avg Days Late:5

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
505 REL 1 4063, 24542, 32933, 37479, 42118, 46911, 52457, 56903, 60805, 64200, 68323, 71821 1998-028-00 TROUT CREEK WATERSHED IMPROVEMENT Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) 01/2000 01/2000 Approved 47 125 10 0 18 153 88.24% 28
Project Totals 47 125 10 0 18 153 88.24% 28


Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-028-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 1998-028-00 - Trout Creek Watershed Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-1998-028-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This proposal is concisely written, and the projects that will be undertaken are well described. It is apparent that this is a successful program doing a good job and likely making a positive difference. The two major drawbacks to the proposal are a clear and comprehensive discussion of the RM&E program and a better documented strategic approach to prioritizing and completing work in a reasonable time frame. Additionally, adaptive management and effectiveness monitoring need to be modified to provide feedback information for program operation and project location and design.

The sponsors appear to be doing an excellent job of community and landowner outreach and engagement. It appears that some information materials, targeted for this audience, could be useful to show the projects that have been completed and what the results have been to date. Also, these materials should also identify what remains to be done and the role of landowners and the community in helping to achieve that.

In the future, the sponsors should consider more directly formalizing the relation between the District and ODFW on this long-term project, especially their respective roles regarding monitoring. They appear to be working well together but should resolve how best to monitor the progress across the watershed and whether to request additional funding for such an effort.

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

The purpose of this project is to enhance stream and riparian habitat to benefit ESA listed summer steelhead. Trout Creek steelhead make up a large percentage of the summer steelhead run in the Lower Deschutes River. As is usually the case in Columbia Basin watersheds, reduced watershed health and aquatic habitat degradation is a threat to sustainability of the fish population. This project is consistent with the Deschutes Subbasin Plan, the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and the Oregon Middle Columbia (Mid-C) Steelhead Recovery Plan (2010).

This project is well justified. The proposed work is intended to serve as a demonstration project for what can be achieved through the restoration of 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 accomplishment is significant because it is likely that increased abundance of steelhead cannot be achieved without habitat enhancement on private lands. The project appears to be very cost effective in relation to other habitat enhancement projects in the Columbia Basin. PGE apparently provides substantial funding for this project.

It would be helpful to know how much private land is in the basin, on how much of this land projects have been implemented, and what are the locations of the private land. A map of the locations of past and future projects would provide this information. The sponsors state that there is a lot of high quality habitat in the basin. It also would be helpful to know the amount and location of this habitat, perhaps shown on a map.

It is not apparent if there is an overall action/management plan to guide restoration across the watershed. If there is such a plan specific for Trout Creek in place, the sponsors should have discussed what the priority restoration actions are, where they are located, and how the proposed work relates to the plan. Such a plan would provide objectives, direction, and justification for the proposed work. Evaluation of this project could then consist, in part, of a determination of whether the proposed work is meeting the plan's objectives. If a plan is not in place, one should be developed immediately.

Although the objective of this project is to increase abundance of summer steelhead, the project deals almost exclusively with riparian and aquatic habitat improvement. Hopefully habitat enhancement will lead to increased abundance of steelhead, but comprehensive fish monitoring is required to demonstrate this increase. Apparently, current monitoring is limited to redd counts by ODFW. Monitoring of juvenile abundance and productivity would be desirable but does not appear to be taking place.

Planning, funding, and implementation activities are closely coordinated. The restoration program is guided by a basinwide approach based on 1983 and 1998 ODFW surveys, a 2002 watershed assessment, and a 2005-2007 action plan. The sponsors also stated that this work "resulted in restoration actions that are concentrated in subbasins where actions are thought to maximize and increase in fish populations." Unfortunately these subbasins are not identified nor is the project action plan provided to show how past work has been focused in them. It would be very useful to see these documents and discuss more on this potentially solid, watershed-wide approach. It would also be interesting to hear how well the sponsors feel this approach is working given that this approach has apparently been used for more than 10 years.

Objectives for the proposal are stated as goals and lack quantitative description of desired results and a time frame for the expected response to restoration treatments.

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

There is a wide range of completed projects and some excellent accomplishments for Trout Creek. Results were primarily presented through photo points. The sponsors also provided quantitative summaries of general habitat changes following implementation of enhancement projects at several sites. Taken together, the photo points and quantitative information suggest that improvements in habitat and perhaps redd counts have occurred at project sites. It is unclear, however, whether the limited presentation of results is due to lack of monitoring or a lag in data analysis.

There is a good discussion of changes in restoration practices, for example instream treatment designs and materials, riparian planting practices, and materials and approaches used to avoid the use of push up dams that have resulted from past lessons learned. There is no discussion of programmatic changes in the overall restoration strategy, division of duties or in the approach to monitoring fish and habitat. The sponsors are using adaptive management in the sense of learning what works and what does not work with the flashiness of the system. For example, they have adapted by using more wood instead of j-hook structures because the latter are deemed ineffective at flashy high flows and have altered expectations for width/depth ratio based on the distinct conditions of their stream.

Although a number of very good photo sequences showing riparian and stream response are provided, there is no associated, quantitative habitat data to validate the visual changes in habitat other than increase in stream length and number of pool-riffle sequences. There is not fish data to show even local responses nor is there water temp data to show reach scale response. After many years of restoration, this type of information to quantitatively describe the results of past treatments is a major shortcoming.

There is also a thoughtful observation that "true restoration" will only be achieved if sustainable agricultural practices are adopted. This could also be said for sustainable forestry practices. It appears that this approach is a guiding principle in working with local landowners.

The history of the project since 1998 is well laid out. Accomplishments are presented mostly in terms of photos and redd counts, the latter conducted by ODFW. Coordination between the sponsors and ODFW seems well-established, although, it would have been useful to clearly identify what ODFW has committed to do on the project, and perhaps have developed a joint proposal to ensure collaborative dovetailing of habitat actions and fish/aquatic monitoring.

In sum, there is little or no monitoring to document an improved ecological situation for salmonids, other than what is willingly done by ODFW. It was not quantitatively indicated how well one structure type did versus another.

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

The sponsors appear to be closely coordinating habitat restoration activities with the ODFW Trout Creek Project. ODFW has provided results from their fish monitoring program to the sponsors. More details about the collaborative effort would have been helpful. For example, how did the sponsors decide which parts of the basin they each would be working in? Are data being shared?

The sponsors state that their restoration projects will help ameliorate impacts of climate change on stream water temperature. This should be discussed in more detail as the importance of this issue is likely to increase over time.

The sponsors could have provided a better explanation of the RM&E plan including the objectives and sampling design. The sponsors state that a lack of funds limits the amount of RM&E that can be conducted. In this case, they should consider measuring only those habitat variables that are likely to show the greatest change in response to habitat restoration actions. They also should consider restricting monitoring activities to a few representative sites.

Limiting factors for fish were identified through EDT. It would be useful to know more about the fish monitoring especially its design and whether it is conducted at a scale that will allow status and trends or effectiveness monitoring to be meaningful. It appears that the only fish data that are being collected are redd counts. It is unfortunate that juvenile abundance and productivity are not being measured. It also appears that there is some uncertainty about how long fish monitoring will continue.

There was some discussion on climate change and the need for riparian restoration to respond to potentially increased stream heating and reduced flows. No mention was made about potentially important changes that will be needed in land and resource management on private land. Also, no mention was made of non-game fish and possible challenges of future increased water temperatures.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Most deliverables clearly describe the enhancement projects that will be undertaken. If properly implemented, these projects should lead to improvements in habitat conditions. It would be informative to know how the sites were selected and prioritized.

There is a long list of deliverables that appear to reflect important restoration treatments. Most of these are described in terms of completed actions, such as remove three culverts, not in terms of the desired results, for example provide fish passage to x miles of habitat. The projects appear to use accepted methods that have shown positive results in Trout Creek in the past.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The proposal states that ODFW does the monitoring but later includes deliverables for habitat monitoring. This is a bit confusing. It also appears that the habitat monitoring has not provided much information as none is summarized on the excellent photos sets and stream information. There was no discussion of ISEMP, CHAMP or AEM or how it may be incorporated into future program work.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
If a project management plan is not in place, one should be developed. The plan should include background information including a thorough discussion of limiting factors, specific objectives, and a strategy for addressing these factors. A means of selecting and prioritizing potential restoration sites should also be included. Ideally, the plan should provide specific information on the projects that will be undertaken and a timeline.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

This proposal is concisely written, and the projects that will be undertaken are well described. It is apparent that this is a successful program doing a good job and likely making a positive difference. The two major drawbacks to the proposal are a clear and comprehensive discussion of the RM&E program and a better documented strategic approach to prioritizing and completing work in a reasonable time frame. Additionally, adaptive management and effectiveness monitoring need to be modified to provide feedback information for program operation and project location and design.

The sponsors appear to be doing an excellent job of community and landowner outreach and engagement. It appears that some information materials, targeted for this audience, could be useful to show the projects that have been completed and what the results have been to date. Also, these materials should also identify what remains to be done and the role of landowners and the community in helping to achieve that.

In the future, the sponsors should consider more directly formalizing the relation between the District and ODFW on this long-term project, especially their respective roles regarding monitoring. They appear to be working well together but should resolve how best to monitor the progress across the watershed and whether to request additional funding for such an effort.

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

The purpose of this project is to enhance stream and riparian habitat to benefit ESA listed summer steelhead. Trout Creek steelhead make up a large percentage of the summer steelhead run in the Lower Deschutes River. As is usually the case in Columbia Basin watersheds, reduced watershed health and aquatic habitat degradation is a threat to sustainability of the fish population. This project is consistent with the Deschutes Subbasin Plan, the 2008 FCRPS Biological Opinion and the Oregon Middle Columbia (Mid-C) Steelhead Recovery Plan (2010).

This project is well justified. The proposed work is intended to serve as a demonstration project for what can be achieved through the restoration of 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 accomplishment is significant because it is likely that increased abundance of steelhead cannot be achieved without habitat enhancement on private lands. The project appears to be very cost effective in relation to other habitat enhancement projects in the Columbia Basin. PGE apparently provides substantial funding for this project.

It would be helpful to know how much private land is in the basin, on how much of this land projects have been implemented, and what are the locations of the private land. A map of the locations of past and future projects would provide this information. The sponsors state that there is a lot of high quality habitat in the basin. It also would be helpful to know the amount and location of this habitat, perhaps shown on a map.

It is not apparent if there is an overall action/management plan to guide restoration across the watershed. If there is such a plan specific for Trout Creek in place, the sponsors should have discussed what the priority restoration actions are, where they are located, and how the proposed work relates to the plan. Such a plan would provide objectives, direction, and justification for the proposed work. Evaluation of this project could then consist, in part, of a determination of whether the proposed work is meeting the plan's objectives. If a plan is not in place, one should be developed immediately.

Although the objective of this project is to increase abundance of summer steelhead, the project deals almost exclusively with riparian and aquatic habitat improvement. Hopefully habitat enhancement will lead to increased abundance of steelhead, but comprehensive fish monitoring is required to demonstrate this increase. Apparently, current monitoring is limited to redd counts by ODFW. Monitoring of juvenile abundance and productivity would be desirable but does not appear to be taking place.

Planning, funding, and implementation activities are closely coordinated. The restoration program is guided by a basinwide approach based on 1983 and 1998 ODFW surveys, a 2002 watershed assessment, and a 2005-2007 action plan. The sponsors also stated that this work "resulted in restoration actions that are concentrated in subbasins where actions are thought to maximize and increase in fish populations." Unfortunately these subbasins are not identified nor is the project action plan provided to show how past work has been focused in them. It would be very useful to see these documents and discuss more on this potentially solid, watershed-wide approach. It would also be interesting to hear how well the sponsors feel this approach is working given that this approach has apparently been used for more than 10 years.

Objectives for the proposal are stated as goals and lack quantitative description of desired results and a time frame for the expected response to restoration treatments.

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

There is a wide range of completed projects and some excellent accomplishments for Trout Creek. Results were primarily presented through photo points. The sponsors also provided quantitative summaries of general habitat changes following implementation of enhancement projects at several sites. Taken together, the photo points and quantitative information suggest that improvements in habitat and perhaps redd counts have occurred at project sites. It is unclear, however, whether the limited presentation of results is due to lack of monitoring or a lag in data analysis.

There is a good discussion of changes in restoration practices, for example instream treatment designs and materials, riparian planting practices, and materials and approaches used to avoid the use of push up dams that have resulted from past lessons learned. There is no discussion of programmatic changes in the overall restoration strategy, division of duties or in the approach to monitoring fish and habitat. The sponsors are using adaptive management in the sense of learning what works and what does not work with the flashiness of the system. For example, they have adapted by using more wood instead of j-hook structures because the latter are deemed ineffective at flashy high flows and have altered expectations for width/depth ratio based on the distinct conditions of their stream.

Although a number of very good photo sequences showing riparian and stream response are provided, there is no associated, quantitative habitat data to validate the visual changes in habitat other than increase in stream length and number of pool-riffle sequences. There is not fish data to show even local responses nor is there water temp data to show reach scale response. After many years of restoration, this type of information to quantitatively describe the results of past treatments is a major shortcoming.

There is also a thoughtful observation that "true restoration" will only be achieved if sustainable agricultural practices are adopted. This could also be said for sustainable forestry practices. It appears that this approach is a guiding principle in working with local landowners.

The history of the project since 1998 is well laid out. Accomplishments are presented mostly in terms of photos and redd counts, the latter conducted by ODFW. Coordination between the sponsors and ODFW seems well-established, although, it would have been useful to clearly identify what ODFW has committed to do on the project, and perhaps have developed a joint proposal to ensure collaborative dovetailing of habitat actions and fish/aquatic monitoring.

In sum, there is little or no monitoring to document an improved ecological situation for salmonids, other than what is willingly done by ODFW. It was not quantitatively indicated how well one structure type did versus another.

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

The sponsors appear to be closely coordinating habitat restoration activities with the ODFW Trout Creek Project. ODFW has provided results from their fish monitoring program to the sponsors. More details about the collaborative effort would have been helpful. For example, how did the sponsors decide which parts of the basin they each would be working in? Are data being shared?

The sponsors state that their restoration projects will help ameliorate impacts of climate change on stream water temperature. This should be discussed in more detail as the importance of this issue is likely to increase over time.

The sponsors could have provided a better explanation of the RM&E plan including the objectives and sampling design. The sponsors state that a lack of funds limits the amount of RM&E that can be conducted. In this case, they should consider measuring only those habitat variables that are likely to show the greatest change in response to habitat restoration actions. They also should consider restricting monitoring activities to a few representative sites.

Limiting factors for fish were identified through EDT. It would be useful to know more about the fish monitoring especially its design and whether it is conducted at a scale that will allow status and trends or effectiveness monitoring to be meaningful. It appears that the only fish data that are being collected are redd counts. It is unfortunate that juvenile abundance and productivity are not being measured. It also appears that there is some uncertainty about how long fish monitoring will continue.

There was some discussion on climate change and the need for riparian restoration to respond to potentially increased stream heating and reduced flows. No mention was made about potentially important changes that will be needed in land and resource management on private land. Also, no mention was made of non-game fish and possible challenges of future increased water temperatures.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Most deliverables clearly describe the enhancement projects that will be undertaken. If properly implemented, these projects should lead to improvements in habitat conditions. It would be informative to know how the sites were selected and prioritized.

There is a long list of deliverables that appear to reflect important restoration treatments. Most of these are described in terms of completed actions, such as remove three culverts, not in terms of the desired results, for example provide fish passage to x miles of habitat. The projects appear to use accepted methods that have shown positive results in Trout Creek in the past.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

The proposal states that ODFW does the monitoring but later includes deliverables for habitat monitoring. This is a bit confusing. It also appears that the habitat monitoring has not provided much information as none is summarized on the excellent photos sets and stream information. There was no discussion of ISEMP, CHAMP or AEM or how it may be incorporated into future program work.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 3:39:38 PM.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-028-00-NPCC-20131125
Project: 1998-028-00 - Trout Creek Watershed Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-1998-028-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018: Sponsor to work with ODFW through project #1994-04-200 to develop a joint strategic plan for implementation and submit to BPA by FY 2015. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—Sponsor to work with ODFW through project #1994-04-200 to develop a joint strategic plan for implementation and submit to BPA by FY 2015.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: A. Implement Monitoring, and Evaluation at a Regional Scale—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation A for effectiveness monitoring.
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1998-028-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1998-028-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 1 - Appears reasonable
Comment: Multiple restoration activates on private lands; recommend confirming that activities occurring on private land where landowner not already required to perform.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-028-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1998-028-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-028-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1998-028-00 - Trout Creek Watershed Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-028-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1998-028-00 - Trout Creek Watershed Restoration
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Budget reductions not specific. Project to be implemented with reduced scope. Sponsor should address ISRP concerns during the next project review process.

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Adam Haarberg Project Lead Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Debbe Chadwick Supervisor Jefferson County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)
Jesse Wilson Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Richard Golden Jr Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration