Local or MSRT Comments: No change to proposed budget

The portion of the proposal to develop/negotiate water right transactions is fundable. It is clearly described, preceded by strong preliminary study, and has a very high potential for benefiting native salmonids. Flow restoration in tributaries and removal of barriers to fish migration are justified. The ISRP recognizes the difficulties involved in formalizing water transfers in this area at this time, but encourages the sponsors to keep this future possibility in mind (see Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program criteria).

It is not clear that streambank and habitat restoration as presently planned will be the most effective strategy to benefit Yellowstone cutthroat trout after flow restoration. Two-thirds of the cost of the work proposed is for restoring a section of the bank of Trail Creek. Unfortunately the "hard" approach proposed (rock "stabilization" and structure placement) is expensive and subject to failure. In addition, details were lacking and neither the proposal nor response provides enough material for thorough review of this project component at this time. Sponsors are strongly encouraged to fully explore softer bioengineering and passive restoration techniques. Habitat restoration design can be funded at this point, but not implementation. Monitoring results of the current Trail Creek restoration work described in the response will be useful in developing plans for the segment currently proposed.

The pilot habitat project is not adequately justified in terms of fish benefits. This area of the watershed has a long history of being de-watered and populated by non-natives. The portion of the project dealing with irrigation management strategy seems valuable. What more would this funding add to outcome of Idaho Department of Water Resources contract to develop an irrigation management plan? Irrigation planning methods seem reasonable, but what types of changes are envisioned that would provide the needed water? And what are the water rights implications of these? How many cfs are needed to restore flow and connectivity?

The restoration proposal might be worthwhile, and the problem identification sounds reasonable. However, a response is needed on several questions related to the lack of an accurate description of where the restoration area is and how it functions in the larger landscape. How much stream habitat is degraded? Why is Trail Creek given highest priority for a pilot habitat restoration effort? No information was given on fish populations, and no specific information was provided regarding limiting factors. What gains in fish populations could be expected after project completion? How much sediment is being produced by damaged banks? Are these actions alone sufficient given the trout problem? Are there conditions up- or down-stream that might negate improvements? Who owns the land to be restored, and how will the improvements be maintained? Will the water saved be reserved for instream use? See the Columbia Basin Water Transaction Program’s criteria. Without such detail, it is difficult to assess suitability of the ("widely accepted") riparian restoration techniques selected. In-stream structures often do more harm than good and apparently no independent engineering assessment or review is planned. Permit reviews would not be sufficient in this regard.

Most sources of technical and scientific background are in-house. The proposers note the subbasin plan and cite its objectives. It seems there are only Friends of Teton River projects and general partnerships, except for the contract with IDWR. The Irrigation District is not mentioned. Personnel appear experienced and qualified, but their role and degree of involvement is not explicit and the personnel section of budget is modest for this stable of personnel. Major equipment will be needed. Will this be contracted? Information transfer is not explicit, nor are any data issues addressed.

Effectiveness monitoring is needed, and project objectives would need to be more specific to develop a sound monitoring and evaluation plan. It seems all that will be monitored is implementation of the irrigation plan. No plan to monitor fish response is proposed, nor any parameters associated with fish population declines. A response should better describe their monitoring and evaluation plans.