This is a well-written and organized proposal covering long-term, watershed-scale habitat restoration in Trout Creek. It documents the many activities and accomplishments for this project that began in 1999. The use of photo series to show results of past projects helps to demonstrate the quality and effectiveness of past work. The project reflects a strong commitment to develop many partnerships to contribute expertise and resources needed in the restoration of key areas of this Deschutes River tributary. However, it was not clear how far the past and planned activities go towards the totality of stream restoration needed to meet the goal of increasing fish carrying capacity.

In future annual reports and work plans, the proponents need to provide information to address the following Conditions:

1. SMART objectives. The proponents should provide SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) at the project or reach scale. Although there are some well-written objectives for expected outcomes from various individual restoration projects included in annual reports and appendices, the main body of the proposal does not include them. It might be useful to develop template objectives for various activity types and to develop quantitative measures based on individual projects. Examples could include, “Within 10 years of planting achieve ___% canopy cover of riparian vegetation and at least ___%. stream surface shading.“ Also, it may be useful to develop these for use at the priority watershed scale. 
   
   
2. Monitoring summary. The proponents should provide a brief summary of planned monitoring and evaluation activities for the time period covered by the proposal. Given the anticipated reductions in funding, description of a base-level program for effectiveness/trend monitoring would be helpful. Also, provide a time frame for the annual evaluation and reporting of M&E data and information. 
   
   
3. A synthesis. The proponents should develop a synthesis and summary of key findings from past monitoring and evaluation efforts. This would include a retrospective look on the prioritization and implementation of various restoration treatments, their effectiveness at meeting desired fish and habitat outcomes, key lessons learned, and a summary of resulting future actions to improve program performance. The proponents are encouraged to present the response of the Trout Creek system in terms of habitat forming processes and fish production. For example, how reliant is the Trout Creek system on site-by-site fixes? Are the projects done-to-date large enough and linked enough to promote sustainable habitat in the Trout Creek system? What influence has the project had on carrying capacity of native salmonids and steelhead smolt production?

A synthesis for this has been requested in various forms for the last two ISRP reviews but has not been provided. There is a long history of monitoring activities but a very limited statistical evaluation and summary of important findings. Given the long history of this project, the synthesis will directly benefit this project and will be of value to other projects well beyond the immediate project area. The ISRP is available for future discussion on the synthesis and would like to review the finished report.

It is anticipated that the proponent will work with ODFW in addressing these Conditions. Given the close working relationship with ODFW, the vast amount of collective knowledge and experience for the project and insights into its history, accomplishments and future plans, this coordination will likely be most efficient.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The justification for the project is very clear. The proposal provides a complete discussion of the primary limiting factors for the watershed and description of the major categories of restoration treatments that will be used to address each. It is notable that all restoration efforts are being done on private lands and that the proponent has an admirable record of attracting matching funds for their efforts. A detailed list of projects and predicted accomplishments (quantitative) is provided for the time period 2021-2033. An additional summary table is provided to show all the primary goals and the total estimated measurable objectives the Jefferson County SWCD plans to accomplish for funded and currently unfunded projects through 2033. Quantitative implementation objectives identifying the expected accomplishments from each project are provided; however, implementation objectives for project monitoring and evaluation and project maintenance activities are not included.

Unfortunately, there are no corresponding objectives that describe desired outcomes and time frames for the planned protection and restoration activities. No monitoring objectives and associated time frames describing desired outcomes (physical or biological responses to restoration) were provided that would indicate if or how success towards increasing salmonid carrying capacity would be assessed. The need to develop a core set of objectives describing desired outcomes and time frames is discussed in Condition 1.

The project is designed to address whole watersheds, from the uplands to the stream channels. Although the proposal provides a very complete discussion of why protection and restoration are needed, which includes the major categories of work/restoration treatments that will be used to address each, there are two potential areas that were not discussed in the problem description. They include 1) the potential effects of irrigation diversions on stream flow, and 2) the possible effects of toxic runoff associated with agriculture practices in the basin, particularly in the valley bottoms. These should likely be addressed in future proposals.

Q2: Methods

The proposal and appendices provide a thorough discussion of methods that will be used to accomplish planned restoration work. A detailed listing and description for each of the methods/steps required for Stream Channel/Floodplain Connection Restoration are also provided and describe the time and effort invested in planning this type of restoration work. This listing is very useful to better understand the overall design and implementation process. Additionally, the project team’s acknowledgement of the time needed to develop trust with landowners is appreciated. The proponent made it clear that extensive planning and pre-project assessment efforts are a part of their process before implementation of proven stream improvement techniques. A detailed timeline was provided that helped to elucidate the flow of the project activities.

The proponent made it clear that extensive planning and pre-project assessment efforts are a part of their process before implementation of proven stream improvement techniques. There is additional discussion about changes to the design and implementation of various treatments that have occurred over the life of the project that are a result of long-term observation and experience.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Monitoring and evaluation are generally addressed, but there is not a description of planned M&E activities for the projects and associated time frames for completion in the current proposal. The authors do a good job of reporting project accomplishment metrics (i.e., number of stream miles straightened, etc.), but quantitative evidence is not provided to show their effectiveness in achieving goals and objectives. The proposal notes that the proponents coordinate extensively with Project 199404200 (ODFW lead proponent) for project activities and physical attributes monitoring. For overall project monitoring, the proposal states, “Our process is simple, get in the field and observe. The Jefferson SWCD Project Lead and the ODFW Project Lead spend as much time as possible observing past restoration efforts during different flow levels and times of the year, albeit our time seems to be much more limited these days.” Efforts to evaluate project outcomes are not fully described. It is clear that the consistent use of long-term observations has provided strong insights into the performance of various treatments over time and under a wide range of conditions. As an example, the proponents note, “long-term experience and observation of past habitat improvement project work have allowed the project leaders of both projects to refine the design of stream pattern and profile, develop better construction techniques, and modify project revegetation methods enabling better long-term project results. These lessons have combined to deliver an evolving approach to project design that results in high quality habitat restoration projects at a cost-effective price.” A number of excellent photo point sequences are also provided when describing lessons learned. One suggestion would be to include text more consistently to highlight those features that the pictures are best meant to compare. Also, documentation of a more formal process for establishing and using a network of photo points would be useful. Unfortunately, there is no discussion regarding the periodic evaluation of monitoring data and summarization and reporting of important findings.

The degree of fish monitoring for measuring success towards the goal of increasing carrying capacity for summer steelhead was not presented in the proposal. The proponent noted that they aid ODFW in fish assessment efforts such as redd surveys, video weir, trapping, and PIT tagging summer steelhead smolts, but results of these efforts (e.g., fish density, fish survival) were not provided, nor were these fish monitoring efforts provided in the closely related project proposal 199404200 led by ODFW. The question not addressed is if the stream improvement actions are having a measurable positive influence on the focal fish species of summer steelhead and redband trout. Furthermore, it was not made apparent that the fish monitoring efforts are specific and adequate enough to allow assessment of the fish response.

Providing better quantitative measures of success could have an important role in securing additional funding and in gaining support from landowners in the basin. Additionally, quantitative metrics to evaluate shortcomings in efforts would be helpful in making specific modifications to actions. One example where quantitative metrics could be useful is in reference to Antelope Creek, a formerly intermittent stream now reported as being perennial due to the presence of beaver dams. This is an important achievement, and it would be helpful to see outcomes supported by measured changes in flow and/or some characterization of the number/size of beaver dams providing storage. This type of understanding could benefit not only other projects in this subbasin but could serve as a benchmark for other restoration efforts in many other places.

There is also a description that generally addresses “large-scale” habitat projects and notes, “On our large-scale habitat projects, we do have monitoring frequency, timing, and duration thresholds above and beyond just observation. These activities include surveying stream reaches to determine changes in structure, vegetation composition, and re-taking annual photo points.” A monitoring frequency and duration flow chart is provided for the Little Trout Creek Habitat Improvement Project. It is an informative chart but does not include steps for evaluation of data and reporting of results. Also, there is no discussion of the process for evaluating long-term data sets or in reporting results and findings. A useful addition to the proposal would be the description of a possible "base level" trend/effectiveness monitoring program. This could be as focused as a network of thermographs for measuring summer and winter stream temperatures and use of the index, mentioned in the proposal, to measure "greenness" of riparian vegetation corridors using Landsat data.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

Benefits are generally well described, although use of more quantitative measures of project outcomes could likely yield more insights into the success of work that has been accomplished. A summary table of past accomplishments is provided. It documents quantitative accomplishments of past work activities. Reported accomplishments include items such as Length of Stream Restoration, Added Stream Length (miles), Average Flood Prone Width Increase (% change), Wetland/Pond Habitat Created (acres), Added Pool/Riffle Complexes (number of complexes) and Added Alcove Refugia (number of sites).

Although there is limited reporting of overall outcomes by project type or by priority watershed, there are some good examples of successful project results provided. They include some excellent photo point series showing project site conditions before and for many years after project completion. Many of the results shown are quite impressive. It is noted, “We have also been able to see the progression over time of these types of restoration efforts. Once a stream channel is reconnected to the floodplain and vigorous riparian vegetation gets established, we have observed a massive increase in the beaver population and associated beaver activity in these stream reaches.”

A summary of qualitative and quantitative results/outcomes of past work, by priority watershed, would be extremely useful to fully describe the scope and benefits of this impressive, long-running project.

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================

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================