The sponsors provided an adequate response regarding the physical and biological monitoring related to this project, clarified the relationship between the various entities conducting monitoring on the Middle Fork John Day (project sponsors, ODFW, Middle Fork IMW), and described the data sharing that takes place among these entities. The sponsors’ present data suggests a positive response in fish abundance following habitat enhancement, but only one year of post-project data are available. The data are from three reaches within the project. The sponsors plan to continue to collect post-project data.

It is important that there be effective monitoring and evaluation (M&E) of the effects of this very intensive habitat management project on invertebrates, fish, and riparian habitat within the manipulated areas. The sponsors need to be sure that the monitoring program’s objectives and overall design moving forward are adequate. There needs to be quantitative evidence that the objectives are being attained within a reasonable time frame and that the target fish are the beneficiaries of the actions. The projects are experiments and should be treated as such; each action requires a hypothesis. The data may be collected by others, but the sponsors should use the results of the data analysis to evaluate what is working and what aspects need improvement or alteration.

The sponsors indicate that there is difficulty in detecting fish population responses, but it is not clear why this is so. Even snorkel counts or minnow traps give data for comparisons. The use of regional status and trend data is not sufficient for detecting whether or not local actions are being effective. It would be informative to see the data collected on Chinook spawning (collected by ODFW) and on other components by the IMW within the property.

While considerable monitoring data were presented in the proposal, in future proposals the sponsors should (1) strive to improve the organization of the presentation of monitoring results; (2) provide more detailed interpretation of the data, i.e., not just a table or graph but an explanation of what the data are implying; (3) provide a better description of the design of the project monitoring program; and (4) draw general conclusions. This information is critical for the ISRP’s evaluation of the success of the project. The sponsors indicate that more effort will be placed on analysis of monitoring data and that a monitoring report will be completed by 2016. This prospect is encouraging and signals a commitment by the sponsors to M&E.

This project has a history of favorable ISRP reviews and many strong components. However, the ISRP requests a response of the following items:

1) Provide data to show how the past actions are affecting fish abundance or production.

2) Provide details on how this project fits mechanistically with associated regional programs. In other words, which project is responsible for what activities and how is the information shared, integrated and used?

3) Provide more detail on the status of the RM&E program, the specific role of cooperators in RM&E on the Conservation Area, and progress on data analyses and reporting. Details are provided in the narrative of this review.

In addition, the ISRP offers the following recommendations to improve the project. The sponsors do not have to address these recommendations in their response.

1) Develop an overarching restoration model that can be used to guide and integrate the activities. The sponsors need an overall description of how the project and other related projects fit into an overall model of restoration.

2) Develop a more detailed accounting of specific monitoring actions and analyses. The work is very intensive in a small portion of the watershed. Sponsors need to identify some measures within the restoration areas that will show a response.

3) Develop quantitative objectives and timelines that eventually can be used to evaluate success. Some specific 1, 5, and 10-year monitoring benchmarks for progress should be established for this ambitious, intricate project. It is important to specify what kinds of responses the sponsors are anticipating over these time frames.

4) Provide evidence that the proposed modifications to the stream/mine tailings will produce positive results. This evidence may include data, literature review or an adequate rationale to suggest that this action will be successful.

5) Consider alternative actions. For example, would the benefits to fish be greater if the funds were used for other actions over a broader area of the watershed, for example, to control water temperatures?

6) Considering that most invasive species are here to stay, develop strategies that address the presence of hybrid communities, that increase riparian shade to naturally repel invasive plants, and that only institute control measures for species causing extensive ecological harm to the river, such as knotweed does to riparian areas west of the Cascades.

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

The Oxbow Conservation Area was purchased in 2001 with the commendable goal to “protect, manage, and restore habitat in the Oxbow Conservation Area … to aid in the recovery of Chinook salmon and summer steelhead in the Middle Fork John Day River that supports culturally significant fish populations and other biota for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs and secure access to these resources for its tribal members." Protecting and enhancing habitat is anticipated to benefit ESA-listed spring Chinook and summer steelhead and help maintain a sustainable harvest of fish for tribal members. The project sets aside a substantial amount of floodplain, riparian, and upland habitat. Habitat has been severely degraded, so substantial habitat enhancement work is needed.

A comprehensive Habitat Management Plan for the Forrest and Oxbow Conservation Areas was developed in March 2010 (a link to the Plan was provided in the proposal). The Plan has well-defined objectives, general approaches for accomplishing the objectives, a prioritized set of projects related to each objective, and a timeline for completion. That Plan should provide the context, direction, and justification for the work outlined in this proposal. A critical element in this review is whether the work is progressing according to the Plan, whether the sponsors have encountered any difficulties, and how these difficulties will be dealt with. An overview of the Plan in the Problem Statement section of the proposal would have helped set the stage for the proposed work.

The proposal would have been improved significantly if its objectives, deliverables, and timeline for expected results for the project were more directly linked to the Plan, making clear how the proposed work directly contributes to accomplishment of the Plan’s objectives. The objectives in the proposal could have been more closely aligned with the objectives in the Habitat Management Plan. For example:

Objective 1: At some place in the proposal the sponsors should have defined high quality habitat and discussed how it is identified, how much of it is available, and where it is located within the Conservation Area.

Objective 2: This objective is very broad in scope and encompasses at least four objectives in the Plan.

Objective 3: The proposal narrative implies a broad commitment to RM&E. The ISRP concurs that monitoring should be an essential part of the proposed work.

Objective 4: The ISRP concurs that a managed grazing program that both protects riparian vegetation and provides economic benefits is worthwhile, and it can serve to demonstrate to neighboring landowners that conservation values are not necessarily inconsistent with properly managed livestock grazing. The Habitat Management Plan describes in some detail a Riparian Pilot Grazing Project to be developed by 2014. The sponsors should have explained how Objective 4 relates to this pilot project.

Objective 5: The sponsors have put a lot of effort into outreach and education. This is one of the strongest aspects of the proposed work.

Objective 6: A practical necessity.

It would also have been helpful if the proposal had provided more information specifically related to fish. For example, what life stages would most benefit by habitat restoration in the Conservation Area? How much habitat will be created for each life stage and where is this habitat located within the Area? The Habitat Management Plan does not explicitly define quantitative goals for fish abundance and production; however, it would be useful for the sponsors to estimate the abundances of juvenile and spawning fish that can be expected to result from habitat enhancement. Results from fish surveys in “high quality” habitat may be useful in developing this estimate.

It is also important for the sponsors to discuss how they identified and prioritized potential habitat enhancement sites. Was the prioritization based on expected benefits of each project for habitat and fish? If so, how were expected benefits determined?

In addressing these issues, it would also be beneficial if the project sponsors had provided more background and framed their proposed and ongoing activities in terms of an overarching ecological-based model to guide and integrate the restoration activities.

Like most restoration projects in the Basin, this project is small-scale from a landscape perspective. The funds and activities are targeted on a short stretch of the river which has received major perturbations in the past rather than less intense actions at larger and better integrated scales. Therefore, the project by itself may not measurably improve basin-wide salmon conditions abundance as measured in a basin-wide way. With their current data the sponsors may not be able to tie any juvenile improvement to the habitat project. The ISRP suggests that it is important to have a way to assess if investments made in the restoration actions are having a positive outcome on fish abundance or production. The ISRP is concerned that because monitoring is very limited, the adaptive management process will not work as efficiently. Monitoring, when it occurs, is apparently conducted mainly by other projects and partners. The IMW work will work nicely in conjunction with this effort. However, the sponsors could also do some additional basic monitoring, with a well-crafted design, such as some electro-shock runs or minnow traps a couple of times a year.

Although the project may have some significance to regional programs and cooperation with other projects is indicated, it is not clear how this project fits mechanistically with those programs. In other words, which project is responsible for what activities and how is the information shared, integrated and used?

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

The sponsors have successfully implemented numerous specific projects. Photo points and some quantitative information on stream temperate suggest that improvement in riparian vegetation and stream habitat has occurred. However, it is difficult to evaluate the overall success of the project’s efforts to date. While some quantitative information on habitat and fish was presented more explanation would be useful.

It would have been helpful if the sponsors had used the Habitat Management Plan as a framework for structuring a discussion of accomplishments and results. One of the crucial questions that reviewers need to consider is whether the work to date is achieving the objectives set forth in the Plan. Results presented in the proposal should clearly demonstrate the progress that is being made. Several habitat surveys were conducted by various agencies in the early 2000s. The sponsors suggest that these surveys can serve as a baseline which can be compared to current habitat conditions to assess the effectiveness of enhancement actions. This is a viable approach for demonstrating progress. Data should be clearly and concisely explained and general conclusions drawn about whether the project is achieving its overall goals and its future needs.

A strength of this proposal is its excellent outreach and education program. The sponsors have gone to great length in enlisting the participation and support of landowners and other members of the public and keeping them informed of the project’s progress. The sponsors engage in many conservation-oriented programs and projects, including conservation education for children.

Past accomplishments and results are individually summarized in the proposal as follows:

1. Establish Vegetation
2. Install Large Wood Structures
3. Phase 1 Mine Tailings Rehabilitation
4. Phase 2 Mine Tailings Rehabilitation
5. Build Browse Exclosure Cages Around Phase 2 Riparian Planting Zone
6. Maintain Vegetation
7. Information Sign Updating, Access Regulation, Hunting Program
8. Project Outreach and Opportunities, Information Distribution
9. Fish, Weather, and Habitat Monitoring

The text describing the accomplishments and results reinforces the need for an overall model or strategic plan guiding the research to assure that the collective actions are having the desired effect on fish abundance, survivorship or production.

In addition, information provided on 1. The Middle Fork Intensively Monitored Watershed Program 2. Data Gathering Conducted by OCA Staff 3. Bureau of Reclamation Reach Assessment 4. Caged vs. Browsed CREP Planting Study suffers from insufficient integration and analysis of effectiveness in terms of the stated goal. Further, information is given on Complete Grazing Season, Facility Maintenance, Dredge Tailing Restoration Design, and Install Fences. While relevant to the stated goal to restore Chinook and steelhead, connections are not made as to whether the information and actions are improving fish abundance, survival or productivity.

The ISRP suggests that beaver should be considered as an active participant in the restoration. What efforts are being made to include that natural ecosystem engineer in the restoration process?

The project has been ongoing for 12 years so data should be presented to show whether the actions are having any effects on salmonid abundance or productivity. The management plan calls for status and trend and effectiveness monitoring so analysis of data should be presented.

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

Project relationships (to other projects) are not easily understood. The sponsors appear to have a close working relationship with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The sponsors state that they use fish data collected by ODFW for project monitoring within the Conservation Area. It is not clear, however, whether these data are collected specifically for monitoring projects in the Conservation Area. The BOR provides technical assistance and assists with development of restoration project designs.

The Habitat Management Plan expresses a clear commitment to RM&E. The Habitat Management Plan broadly outlines the kinds of RM&E that will be undertaken in the Conservation Area including status and trends and effectiveness monitoring. Objective 3 and Deliverable 12 in the proposal explicitly call for RM&E. However the status of the RM&E program is unclear. The sponsors should provide an up-to-date summary of ongoing monitoring activities. Apparently several cooperators will be involved in conducting RM&E. The role of each of these cooperators needs to be clarified. For example, it appears that ODFW will be involved with monitoring fish populations. Is their monitoring program tailored to the objectives of CTUIR’s management plan or is it a part of a larger subbasin-wide program where fish sampling sites happen to occur in the Conservation Area? The sponsors also should clarify the role of the Middle Fork IMW in RM&E. The proposal needs more detail on how the independent monitoring efforts such as the IMW are providing results. Will the IMW design provide evaluation of whether the mine tailing restoration work is having positive results?

The sponsors should discuss how monitoring data from different cooperators will be compiled, who will conduct the data analyses, and when the analyses will be brought up to date. It seems that data analysis and interpretation are lagging behind other proposed work.

It was good to see climate change listed as an emerging limiting factor. The sponsors are encouraged to use the newer climate-hydrology models to prepare forecasts for the John Day River in terms of flows and temperatures for the coming decades (see, for example, Donley et al. 2012. Strategic planning for instream flow restoration: a case study of potential climate change impacts in the central Columbia River basin. Global Change Biology doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2012.02773). The results may be revealing and could help guide the restoration activities.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The Deliverables represent actions and activities that should lead to habitat improvement. They would be more meaningful if they were linked directly to elements of the Habitat Management Plan. The sponsors should provide the rationale for selection of the sites that will be enhanced.

DELV-1: Restore Mine Tailings Site. The restoration of the mine tailing work can act as a demonstration project. More evidence is needed that the proposed modifications will produce positive results. There are no data, literature review, or adequate rationale presented in the proposal to suggest that this action will be successful. DELV-2: Noxious Weed Control. The ISRP suggests that because many invasive species are here to stay, managers are faced with the emergence of dynamic hybrid communities going forward. It may be more effective to develop strategies that accepted the presence of some hybrid communities, increase riparian shade to naturally repel invasive plants, and only institute control measures for species causing extensive ecological harm to the river (for example, knotweed, to the west of the Cascades).

DELV-7: Grazing Program.This activity seems a bit peripheral to the goal of restoring fish abundance and should be carefully evaluated for relevance.

DELV-8: Reduce Forest Fuels.This activity seems a bit peripheral to the goal of restoring fish abundance and should be carefully evaluated.

DELV-11: Irrigation Ditch Efficiency.If the purpose of the project is to restore fish populations, why is water being diverted for pasture? This aspect should be carefully examined and justified, as it seems at odds with the stated goals of the project.

DELV-12: Monitor Fish and Habitat.This monitoring should include documenting hatchery strays on the spawning grounds.

DELV-14: Maintain Restoration Project: Timelines should be established beyond which the each restoration action becomes self-maintaining.

A professional publication (or two) in a refereed journal should be listed as a deliverable. It is important for large scale projects, like this one, to provide leadership in the broader restoration community

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon

ISRP Response

Oxbow Conservation Area #2000-015-00

Forrest Conservation Area #2001-041-01

July 9, 2013

Introduction

Both the Oxbow Conservation Area and the Forrest Conservation Area geographical review proposals were reviewed by ISRP with a “response requested” result.  Below are the responses to the identified questions.  The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon is managing these two properties under one management plan, therefore we are lumping both properties into one response document.  We thank ISRP for their comments.

The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (CTWSRO), Branch of Natural Resources, Fisheries Department Mission is: “To provide fish populations at harvestable levels, allowing harvest opportunities for tribal members using information gained through the research, management, production, and habitat programs while excising our co-management authority”.  A key piece to meeting the department’s mission is the identification of habitat-based bottlenecks, which limit the production of culturally significant fishes.  With funding for acquisition from Bonneville Power Administration, the Fisheries Habitat Program (a division of the Fisheries Department) is managing and executing the Oxbow Conservation Area Project and the Forrest Conservation Area Project.  The goal of these projects is to protect, manage and restore habitat in accordance with the properties’ habitat management plan to address factors limiting salmonid and other native fish production within the property boundaries.

These projects are neither studies nor experiments.  These projects intend to help enhance culturally significant fish populations for the CTWSRO while mitigating for the FCRPS.  These conservation areas are to be managed and operated to meet the goals and objectives identified in the management plan.  The specific projects implemented on these mitigation properties are to restore process and function so future environmental disturbances (fire, flood, drought, etc.) will interact with a resilient, functioning ecosystem, and that salmonids will encounter optimum habitat.

Oxbow and Forrest Conservation Areas use BPA funding to monitor baseline and project effectiveness as identified in the management plan. However, these projects are not and should not be considered RM&E projects.  These two projects rely on basin-wide partners for monitoring fish recovery in the John Day Basin.  Consistent with the BPA Programmatic Action Effectiveness Monitoring (AEM) program reviewed by the ISRP (ISRP 2013-2) and recommended for implementation by the Council on June 17, 2013, it is not the responsibility of this project to provide data or document protocols of other projects for RM&E as part of this proposal.  Although this project is not tasked with implementing AEM, it does align with the Programmatic AEM approach.  Project monitoring will be carried out by other projects focused on collecting data to support the Programmatic AEM approach. The known RM&E projects associated with this project are referenced in the “Relationship to Other Projects” section in the proposal form, or were referenced as part of the programmatic processes previously provided to the ISRP and ISAB by BPA for review of the Programmatic AEM approach.  However, this project will continue to work with BPA and Council staff to identity whether restoration actions proposed under this project may be candidates for use in the AEM program.   In accordance with the ISRP and Council recommendation, BPA will provide the ISRP updates on the ISEMP (IMWs fish and habitat relationships), CHaMP (Status and Trends) and the AEM program (with updated list of actions and related projects that contribute to the AEM program).

In the past, BPA has restricted monitoring to 5% of our contract funding.   Current fish monitoring has been limited to juvenile fish snorkel counts on the properties. Fish production in these rivers is quantified in a smolts per redd ratio by Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife’s BPA monitoring project (BPA Project #1998-016-00).  The Oxbow and Forrest property monitoring has demonstrated that the large wood structures constructed have higher densities of fish than at the same site prior to project implementation. Data collected by ODFW (BPA Project #1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead) and work conducted by the Intensively Monitored Watershed Group will produce more conclusive information of productivity changes at the subbasin scale.

Responses

2000-015-00 - Oxbow Conservation Area

This project has a history of favorable ISRP reviews and many strong components. However, the ISRP requests a response of the following items:

1) Provide data to show how the past actions are affecting fish abundance or production.

This CTWSRO habitat project is intended to protect, manage, and restore aquatic habitat in accordance with its management plan. We perform monitoring of physical aspects of restoration actions to detect whether the desired physical change is achieved. There is difficulty of detecting a fish population response at a local project scale. We rely upon regional status and trend as well as watershed effectiveness programs, such as Intensively Monitored Watersheds (IMWs), to provide within the appropriate timeframe the evidence that these types of habitat restoration actions do contribute to improved fish condition and productivity. This level of RM&E is beyond what is being proposed as part of this project.  Any additional RM&E beyond what is currently being implemented will be considered by BPA and the Council.

See below data from existing survey work.  This project only performs localized monitoring of fish response to project work.  These data are annual snapshots of fish distribution in the river at base flow.  We have not correlated this data with subsequent escapement data from ODFW.  Presented are three reaches on the Oxbow Conservation Area:  Coyote Bluffs, South Channel, and Beaver to Ragged. 

• Coyote Bluffs area of the Oxbow is generally regarded as a control reach and is about one-half mile long.  It is not a good reference reach, as this area was heavily grazed, but it does have a meandering profile of pool-riffle sequences, comparatively decent riparian vegetation, and hasn’t been significantly altered in the past by dredging or straightening activities. There is more natural woody debris in this section than found elsewhere on the property. This section is slightly entrenched but flooding does occur along the floodplain in this section. The riparian zone was enrolled in the CREP program in 2005, which stopped all grazing and introduced significant planting of woody species in 2006.
• South Channel is nearly a mile long reach of the river left un-dredged during the dredge mining in the 1940s along this zone of the property.  The channel is sinuous and well-connected to the floodplain.  The dredging resulted in a bifurcated river with an artificial channel in this section (North Channel), which formerly would split off about two-thirds of river flows during base flow conditions.  The South Channel was extensively grazed and had poor riparian vegetation but was enrolled in CREP in 2005, which removed all cattle grazing and introduced planting of woody species in 2006.  In 2011, this reach was treated with an addition of 400+ whole trees to create large woody material structures in the channel.  In 2012, the North Channel was removed and Granite Boulder Creek was re-connected to the South Channel for the first time in seventy years.
• Beaver to Ragged is a half-mile reach that is moderately well connected to the floodplain and sinuous.  This reach is downstream of the dredged zone of the property.  It was enrolled in CREP in 2005 and was significantly planted and riparian fencing was greatly expanded in 2006.  In 2009, 34 rock barbs were removed from the banks and 15 large wood structures were installed to increase rearing habitat for salmonids.

In the bar charts below (Figures 1-2), 2006, 2009, and 2011 show fish densities on these three reaches before any instream restoration was completed.  Year 2012 shows post-treatment snorkeling data for the Beaver to Ragged project and for the South Channel project work.  Data from 2006 was part of a property-wide survey and averages reflect averages from a higher number of pools and riffles than surveys completed in 2009, 2011, and 2012.  More snorkeling data collection is planned for future years. 

Figure 1. Average densities of Oncorhynchus mykiss parr in pools. 

Figure 2.  Average densities of Chinook salmon parr in pools.

We only have one year of post-project data for these major instream restoration actions, although conservation management, resource protection, tree planting, weed control, and other practices may be influencing these numbers.  It is also noteworthy to add that the Middle Fork John Day River has conservation actions on many surrounding properties further fostering fish numbers.  As the fish numbers change from year to year, we need several years of post-project data to answer question on fish productivity of a site. Figures 1 and 2 show overall fish densities trending upward.  Post-project snorkeling (2012) of the Beaver to Ragged Reach as shown has shown a six-fold increase in Chinook densities in pools over pre-project data.  Post-project densities in pools area similar to the control site densities at Coyote (Figure 2).

2) Provide details on how this project fits mechanistically with associated regional programs. In other words, which project is responsible for what activities and how is the information shared, integrated and used?

CTWSRO has identified properties with critical habitat for salmonids (exhibiting rearing and spawning habitat of both spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead) in the John Day Subbasin.  The Oxbow and Forrest properties were identified due to exhibition of cold-water inputs from tributaries, pools for rearing juveniles and holding adults, and spawning glides.  These properties had a long history of livestock grazing and haying, and some mining and logging.  These properties serve as excellent opportunities for maximizing recovery potential.  As additional opportunities for land acquisition become available with critical fish habitat attributes, it will be beneficial to the CTWSRO and BPA to obtain them. 

The data collected on these properties is shared as requested, and summaries are posted to annual BPA reports.  For research, fish monitoring, and evaluation, these properties rely on ODFW’s BPA Project #1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead.  This RM&E project calculates the smolts per redd production of salmonids for these watersheds, as well as collects some of the localized data.  ODFW receives additional funding from the IMW program to further look at salmonid use and production in the Middle Fork John Day River.  ODFW shares their reports with the CTWSRO, and we request raw data of Chinook salmon spawning so that we can calculate the total redds for the properties, etc.  Tribal staff assists ODFW on steelhead and Chinook spawning surveys annually, especially associated with the properties.

The properties work frequently with the Tribes’ John Day Watershed Restoration Project (BPA #2007-397-00). These projects share staff, partner on education and outreach, and share project implementation techniques and methods.  We also discuss and share restoration techniques with the Tribes’ BPA Project 2008-301-00 - Habitat Restoration Planning/Design/Implementation within boundaries of Warm Springs Reservation lower Deschutes River, Oregon. 

ODFW’s BPA Project 1984-021-00 - John Day Habitat Enhancement has shared projects with these properties in the past.  Riparian fences on the Oxbow property were once managed under this project, though the CTWSRO have either replaced these fences with expanded riparian buffers or have otherwise assumed responsibility for maintenance.  The ODFW Project was key at funding and managing the Oxbow Tailings Rehabilitation Project in 2005. 

The remaining BPA project that the Oxbow and Forrest Project relate to is ODFW’s Project 1993-066-00 - Oregon Fish Screens Project, of which property manager’s have coordinated with on the replacement or improvement of irrigation ditch fish screen facilities.  These fish screens are mostly replaced on the properties, though some irrigation improvements are planned that may require future planning with this Project.  The screens on the property are inspected and maintained regularly by this screen project, and Tribal staff and ODFW staff interact on the ground regularly.

Outside of BPA-funded entities, the Tribes partner with other agencies and organizations for additional funding and assistance of restoration actions on the properties.  The Oxbow and Forrest play a key role in the Middle Fork John Day Working Group with its IMW program in terms of data collection, group consultants, hosting multiple study sites, and acting as a field station in the case of the Oxbow.

3) Provide more detail on the status of the RM&E program, the specific role of cooperators in RM&E on the Conservation Area, and progress on data analyses and reporting. Details are provided in the narrative of this review.

The Oxbow is a habitat project with some RM&E components. Monitoring is a minor component of the project. Development and implementation of restoration projects, property maintenance, funding acquisition, and project administration comprise the majority of the project management workload.  The Oxbow Conservation Area management plan directs baseline monitoring, such as stream temperature, photo point collection, irrigation usage, and redd surveys.  Staff also conduct project effectiveness monitoring, including project photo points, vegetation survival, longitudinal profile and cross-section channel surveys, etc.  BPA does not direct this project to perform any monitoring.  However, we are required perform various monitoring by other funders, and we want to know that our restoration actions are effective, even though we know the practices used elsewhere have resulted in success.  Property staff perform presence/absence snorkel survey of project and control sites to collect densities of salmonids and other species. ODFW (BPA Project #1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead) monitors fish-in and fish-out production on the Middle Fork John Day Watershed.  CTWSRO relies on this project to understand fish production response in the Middle Fork John Day River.  CTWSRO also works closely with the Middle Fork John Day IMW Group to better understand fish response to habitat restoration on the Middle Fork John Day River. The redd data collected by ODFW is reported at a watershed scale, but they break down that data to identify the number of spring Chinook spawning within the property.

The Middle Fork John Day River IMW has other components, which collect data from the property.  These were detailed in the Oxbow proposal.  This IMW data is shared with the property staff.  As it is reported on elsewhere, Oxbow staff do not repeat this IMW data in our BPA reports, as it is generally targeted at the Middle Fork John Day River Watershed scale, and not specific only to the Oxbow or Forrest properties. 

Analysis of Oxbow data has been limited by staff and funding.  We recently reorganized since the submission of the proposal.  Instead of a Forrest Habitat Manager and an Oxbow Habitat Manager, we have split the duties across both properties generally as “project management” focus and “monitoring management” focus.  The monitoring biologist will be assembling data sets from the past and working on a monitoring data report for completion by 2016.  As monitoring has not received dedicated staffing before, more data results will be expected.

200104101 - Forrest Ranch Conservation Area

This project has a history of favorable ISRP reviews and is an impressive demonstration project. However, the ISRP requests a response of the following items:

1) Evidence of success in the social arena should be provided, as well as a plan to assess future success.

The property management is gauged by the quality of our work, relating to the “protect, manage, restore” approach.  These properties serve as models for conservation and habitat by engaging in restoration actions while continuing agricultural activities.  The Forrest and Oxbow Projects assist other tribal staff in their work with ranchers on private lands in the John Day Basin because the ranchers know we are part of the agricultural community on these properties.  We have also had success with our neighboring landowners by the Mainstem Forrest Parcel embracing and/or requesting large wood jams for their own properties.  In 2008 we did an instream project where we installed wood jams on our upstream neighbors’ property as well as our own.  We were also able to convince this same upstream neighbor to allow ODFW to regain access to their property for Chinook redd surveys after access had originally been denied.  And most recently our downstream neighbor has requested wood jams for her property as well.  

In addition to having some success with our neighbors, we also have helped sponsor many Free Fishing Day events with ODFW and the US Forest Service, which are very popular with families in the nearby communities.  We get good attendance at these events and average around 50 children along with numerous parents, grandparents, and other relatives.  School groups are also very interested in coming to the properties to see spawning Chinook in the fall and any outreach in the classroom is welcomed with open arms.  

2) The importance of this study in a broader landscape context should be described.

For clarification this project should not be characterized as a study, but habitat protection, management, and restoration endeavor. 

The Forrest Conservation Area has the following goals, as stated in the approved management plan:

• Protect and maintain fish and wildlife populations with foremost attention to anadromous fish, threatened and endangered species, and their associated habitat quality.
• Restore native habitat to its full ecological potential and to naturally self-sustaining conditions, where applicable. Management methods will utilize both active and passive restoration and rehabilitation techniques directed at population limiting factors for fish and wildlife.
• Monitor and evaluate management activities and collect baseline, ongoing, and long-term habitat information to ascertain ecological function, trends, and health on the properties.
• Utilize agricultural activities in harmony with fish and wildlife goals as management tools to achieve vegetation objectives, provide sustainable revenue generation, promote local economic stability, and provide information where such agricultural practices could benefit other landowners.
• Participate and cooperate with the community, agencies, and organizations to facilitate and promote education, recreation, natural resource planning, monitoring, and research of these properties and conservation activities.
• Identify, protect, manage, and celebrate cultural, historical and archaeological resources on the Conservation Areas to further enrich the lives of Tribal members and surrounding communities.
• Budget, plan, and consult for activities following federal, state, tribal, and the property MOA and conservation easement guidelines regarding these conservation properties.
• Upgrade, repair, and build property facilities to conditions that minimize annual maintenance, allow for efficient utility, and is compatible with other property and tribal program goals.

This work is important because these properties have critical habitat for salmonids.  The Mainstem Forrest Parcel averages 6.5% of the spring Chinook salmon spawning on the 1.7 miles of river.  The Middle Fork John Day River Parcel of the Forrest exhibits the highest densities of Chinook spawning in the watershed with an average 35.2% of the Middle Fork redds.  The four miles of river on the Middle Fork Forrest represents only about 11% of the total river on which Chinook salmon spawning occurs.  The habitat protection and restoration efforts maximize fish use potential.  These parcels are also very visual to the public. The Forrest Project performs these habitat enhancement efforts to achieve Tribal goals and BPA mitigation goals, while maintaining the agricultural activities that connect the project to the identity of the local community.  Add to that the project’s education and outreach efforts, and this conservation area program becomes a very important mouthpiece for salmon recovery in the Upper John Day River Subbasin.

3) Provide details on how this project fits mechanistically with associated programs. In other words, which project is responsible for what activities and how is the information shared, integrated and used?

CTWSRO has identified properties with critical habitat for salmonids (exhibiting rearing and spawning habitat of both spring Chinook salmon and summer steelhead) in the John Day Subbasin.  The Oxbow and Forrest properties were identified due to exhibition of cold-water inputs from tributaries, pools for rearing juveniles and holding adults, and spawning glides.  These properties had a long history of livestock grazing and haying, and some mining and logging.  These properties serve as excellent opportunities for maximizing recovery potential.  As additional opportunities for land acquisition become available with critical fish habitat attributes, it will be beneficial to the CTWSRO and BPA to obtain them. 

The data collected on these properties is shared as requested, and summaries are posted to annual BPA reports.  For research, fish monitoring, and evaluation, these properties rely on ODFW’s BPA Project #1998-016-00 - Escapement and Productivity of Spring Chinook and Steelhead.  This RM&E project calculates the smolts per redd production of salmonids for these watersheds, as well as collects some of the localized data.  ODFW receives additional funding from the IMW program to further look at salmonid use and production in the Middle Fork John Day River.  ODFW shares their reports with the CTWSRO, and we request raw data of Chinook salmon spawning so that we can calculate the total redds for the properties, etc.  Tribal staff assists ODFW on steelhead and Chinook spawning surveys annually, especially associated with the properties.

The properties work frequently with the Tribes’ John Day Watershed Restoration Project (BPA #2007-397-00). These projects share staff, partner on education and outreach, and share project implementation techniques and methods.  We also discuss and share restoration techniques with the Tribes’ BPA Project 2008-301-00 - Habitat Restoration Planning/Design/Implementation within boundaries of Warm Springs Reservation lower Deschutes River, Oregon. 

ODFW’s BPA Project 1984-021-00 - John Day Habitat Enhancement has shared projects with these properties in the past.  Riparian fences on the Oxbow property were once managed under this project, though the CTWSRO have either replaced these fences with expanded riparian buffers or have otherwise assumed responsibility for maintenance.  The ODFW Project was key at funding and managing the Oxbow Tailings Rehabilitation Project in 2005. 

The remaining BPA project that the Oxbow and Forrest Project relate to is ODFW’s Project 1993-066-00 - Oregon Fish Screens Project, of which property manager’s have coordinated with on the replacement or improvement of irrigation ditch fish screen facilities.  These fish screens are mostly replaced on the properties, though some irrigation improvements are planned that may require future planning with this Project.  The screens on the property are inspected and maintained regularly by this screen project, and Tribal staff and ODFW staff interact on the ground regularly.

Outside of BPA-funded entities, the Tribes partner with other agencies and organizations for additional funding and assistance of restoration actions on the properties.  The Oxbow and Forrest play a key role in the Middle Fork John Day Working Group with its IMW program in terms of data collection, group consultants, hosting multiple study sites, and acting as a field station in the case of the Oxbow.

4) Additional information is needed on the approach to data management.

Data is collected for this and other projects at multiple levels by staff.  It is compiled and stored in a structured query language (SQL) server project-tracker database at the Department level.  Project specific results are also reported to BPA annually as part of contract reporting requirements.  BPA annual reports are available to the public.  The Tribes are working towards their own public accessible options to these data sets.

Raw physical data is collected and stored in a server based computer program on hard disk storage with redundancy backup in our John Day offices and backed up weekly to the server in Warm Springs.  Water temperature data is locally stored in John Day and also inputted in the Tribal water temperature database in Warm Springs.  Biological data such as snorkeling are currently stored locally in the John Day Server and backed up in Warm Springs.  CTWSRO is currently developing a database that would house all snorkel data.  Analyzed and summarized project data are entered into a SQL based tribal database.  Project data such as redd surveys are entered.  This database also contains project implementation year, project description, UTM coordinates, partners, and allows attachments of written reports, photos, and data collection methods.