See qualification.

The sponsors provided adequate responses to all of the ISRP's qualifications of the original proposal, with the exception of one item. The exception, and the reason for the qualification on this version of the proposal, is that the ISRP believes that the sponsors need to provide a reasonable plan/strategy to monitor the effectiveness of the restoration actions. This can be accomplished in cooperation with others (e.g., ODFW and OWEB). Further, it appears that much of the baseline strategy could be extracted from the SVAP process elements and used in the objective statements. This could establish a sound foundation for post project monitoring. The monitoring should include all fish species of concern (i.e., steelhead, Chinook, lamprey, bull trout), their food supplies (e.g., aquatic insects) and riparian responses to the conservation and restoration actions. It would be useful in future proposals for the SWCD to involve OWEB and their new staff person in planning a low cost assessment protocol. This work does not need to be expensive to implement. More information on monitoring progress and results should be provided in future reporting.

This is basically a good proposal, but the ISRP has some concerns. The following issues should be addressed in a response:

1) What is the strategy for improving enrollments in light of the recent low rate of enrollment and low miles protected?

2) Beaver can be useful ecosystem-scale engineers in riparian rehabilitation. How are they being used in this project?

3) The riparian actions should restore benefits to wildlife and should be quantified over time. What actions are being taken to acquire these data?

4) Does the fencing only exclude cattle or does it exclude native ungulates too? This will be important when active plantings are part of the restoration actions.

5) What provisions are being made to quantify the number of returning adult steelhead each year and the use of the streams by adult Chinook, bull trout and lamprey and their juveniles?

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

The purpose of the proposal is for Wheeler County SWCD to “provide technical assistance working with landowners and partner agencies to plan and implement riparian buffers to improve anadromous fish habitat in the lower John Day Subbasins.” They plan to establish riparian buffers on at least 50 miles of stream (10 mi/yr). Wheeler County believes that this project is important because it helps implement FCRPS 2008 BIOP RPA 35 and strategies to address limiting factors identified in subbasin plans and the Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan. As such, it supports other BPA funded projects in the John Day catchment. The staff involved appears to have adequate technical training and experience to accomplish the proposed activities.

The objectives are clearly stated and have quantitative goals and timelines. However, it is not clear how a goal of 24,900 adult steelhead in 25 years was determined. Further, there are no quantitative goals for Chinook, bull trout, or lamprey, which are all species of concern.

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

It is not clear how effective past actions have been in terms of improving fish abundance/productivity, instream habitat, or riparian condition. Few data are provided in the proposal – only temperature, EDT Riparian function ranking, and miles of stream protected by year – and none specifically address fish. Further the temperature and riparian data appear to be one-time measurements; no temporal trends are provided. Data need to be provided on these and other related aspects of the restoration actions to reveal trends over time. Also, the number of stream miles protected by the program has declined in recent years and are well below the 10 miles/year goal set for future years. How realistic is the goal for future years? An indication of landowners showing an inclination to adopt riparian protection would be useful.

Adaptive management could go beyond the project level where it is limited to site-specific adaptations for individual conservation plans. While each site may be somewhat unique, there are generalities that would apply to all sites; the adaptive management process could be better used to achieve overall program effectiveness. Hypotheses at the individual project scale or as a collection of sites could be used to rigorously test restoration actions and assumptions.

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

Wheeler County has developed a relationship with ODFW, but the details of that relationship are not especially clear.

It is refreshing 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

All seem adequate to meet the Objectives. However, provisions should be made to quantify the number of returning adult steelhead each year and, as well, the use of the streams by adult Chinook, bull trout and lamprey and their juveniles. These data will be essential in evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration actions.

A couple questions about the scope of the restoration:

1) Beaver can be useful ecosystem-scale engineers in riparian rehabilitation. How are they being used in this project?

2) The riparian actions should restore benefits to wildlife, and should be quantified over time. What actions are being taken to acquire these data?

3) Does the fencing only exclude cattle or does it exclude native ungulates too? This will be important when active plantings are part of the restoration actions.

Manage & Administer Project (DELV-8): Why is this a deliverable when overhead is charged on the budget?

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No comments at this time.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 2:11:44 PM.

This is basically a good proposal, but the ISRP has some concerns. The following issues should be addressed in a response:

 

1) What is the strategy for improving enrollments in light of the recent low rate of enrollment and low miles protected?

The SWCD has created a CREP enrollment status data layer

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ct1drd8olc9sem1/Wheeler_Priority_CREP2.png

This layer is being used to strategically provide outreach within the county.  The technician utilizes the Cumulative Impact Incentive Bonus (CIIB).  Oregon’s CREP program is unique in the nation in having a cumulative impact incentive payment where landowners who enroll more than one-half of a five mile stream segment receive greater compensation.  (This applies to adjacent landowners)  The SWCD plans to use the enrollment status layer and the CIIB to increase outreach to neighbors of participants and thereby increase enrollments and protected miles.

 

2) Beaver can be useful ecosystem-scale engineers in riparian rehabilitation. How are they being used in this project?

This project does not specifically use beavers for riparian rehabilitation.  However, this project implements conservation practices that improve riparian vegetation thus providing improved habitat for beaver.  It is understood that with improving habitat beaver migration may occur.  This has happened on several projects within the county.  However, the SWCD lacks the resources to monitor the migration. 

 

3) The riparian actions should restore benefits to wildlife and should be quantified over time. What actions are being taken to acquire these data?

Riparian conditions improve immediately upon exclusion fence installation.  However, the SWCD does not have the resources to scientifically acquire data to prove this.  The ISRP recommendation for additional effectiveness monitoring 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. 

The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board is the only local agency that has studied the effectiveness of buffers.  In 2007 OWEB awarded a grant for a buffer effectiveness study.  Wasco County SWCD assisted the researchers in contacting landowners with buffers and making site visits.  In May 2009 the final report (Project No. 207-905) of this initial effort was published.  It showed higher population levels of caddis flies, stone flies, and may flies than neighboring un-buffered sites despite the fact that all the buffers were under 5 years old.  This is the first biological effectiveness data we have had that is directly attributable to buffers.  OWEB is planning additional effectiveness monitoring and in a recent communication with the OWEB Deputy Director we have learned that they will have a new effectiveness monitoring staff person on board in the coming months (~summer 2013) and will be moving forward with more effectiveness monitoring at that time.

 

4) Does the fencing only exclude cattle or does it exclude native ungulates too? This will be important when active plantings are part of the restoration actions.

This project implements NRCS specified exclusion fence designed to allow wildlife crossings.  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends maximum fence heights of 42 inches where wildlife crossings are a concern.  The bottom wire will be 16 inches from the groundline and the wire will be smooth allowing safe wildlife travel above and below the installed fence. The NRCS Jobsheet can be found at https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ovwriayb3vm51x/382ajsStandardWire.doc. 

 

5) What provisions are being made to quantify the number of returning adult steelhead each year and the use of the streams by adult Chinook, bull trout and lamprey and their juveniles?

This number was derived from the John Day Sub-basin plan.  These species were listed as species of concern because ODFW has identified the project area as migratory habitat.   A goal of 12,000 adult chinook in 25 years was determined.  Objectives for the other species were not listed in the sub-basin plan.   www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/johnday/plan

 

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

The purpose of the proposal is for Wheeler County SWCD to “provide technical assistance working with landowners and partner agencies to plan and implement riparian buffers to improve anadromous fish habitat in the lower John Day Subbasins.” They plan to establish riparian buffers on at least 50 miles of stream (10 mi/yr). Wheeler County believes that this project is important because it helps implement FCRPS 2008 BIOP RPA 35 and strategies to address limiting factors identified in subbasin plans and the Mid-C Steelhead Recovery Plan. As such, it supports other BPA funded projects in the John Day catchment. The staff involved appears to have adequate technical training and experience to accomplish the proposed activities. 

The objectives are clearly stated and have quantitative goals and timelines. However, it is not clear how a goal of 24,900 adult steelhead in 25 years was determined. Further, there are no quantitative goals for Chinook, bull trout, or lamprey, which are all species of concern.

This number was derived from the John Day Sub-basin plan.  These species were listed as species of concern because ODFW has identified the project area as migratory habitat.   A goal of 12,000 adult Chinook in 25 years was determined.  Objectives for the other species were not listed in the sub-basin plan.   www.nwcouncil.org/fw/subbasinplanning/johnday/plan

 

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

It is not clear how effective past actions have been in terms of improving fish abundance/productivity, instream habitat, or riparian condition. Few data are provided in the proposal – only temperature, EDT Riparian function ranking, and miles of stream protected by year – and none specifically address fish. Further the temperature and riparian data appear to be one-time measurements; no temporal trends are provided. Data need to be provided on these and other related aspects of the restoration actions to reveal trends over time. Also, the number of stream miles protected by the program has declined in recent years and are well below the 10 miles/year goal set for future years. How realistic is the goal for future years? An indication of landowners showing an inclination to adopt riparian protection would be useful. 

The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board is the only local agency that has studied the effectiveness of buffers.  In 2007 OWEB awarded a grant for a buffer effectiveness study.  Wasco County SWCD assisted the researchers in contacting landowners with buffers and making site visits.  In May 2009 the final report (Project No. 207-905) of this initial effort was published.  It showed higher population levels of caddis flies, stone flies, and may flies than neighboring un-buffered sites despite the fact that all the buffers were under 5 years old.  This is the first biological effectiveness data we have had that is directly attributable to buffers.  OWEB is planning additional effectiveness monitoring and in a recent communication with the OWEB Deputy Director we have learned that they will have a new effectiveness monitoring staff person on board in the coming months (~summer 2013) and will be moving forward with more effectiveness monitoring at that time.  The SWCD has requested to be involved in this process

The SWCD has created a CREP enrollment status data layer.  Please refer to link provided on page 1.  This layer is being used to strategically provide outreach within the county.  The technician utilizes the Cumulative Impact Incentive Bonus (CIIB).  Oregon’s CREP program is unique in the nation in having a cumulative impact incentive payment where landowners who enroll more than one-half of a five mile stream segment receive greater compensation.  (This applies to adjacent landowners)  The SWCD plans to use the enrollment status layer and the CIIB to increase outreach to neighbors of participants and thereby increase enrollments and protected miles.  Additionally, by using these new methods landowner participation has increased in the past year.  The deliverables (CREP contracts) have not been completed yet because multiple projects are in the planning phase.  The SWCD believes that the goals for 10 miles a year is realistic.  

Adaptive management could go beyond the project level where it is limited to site-specific adaptations for individual conservation plans. While each site may be somewhat unique, there are generalities that would apply to all sites; the adaptive management process could be better used to achieve overall program effectiveness. Hypotheses at the individual project scale or as a collection of sites could be used to rigorously test restoration actions and assumptions. 

The SWCD is constantly using adaptive management to improve project performance.  Unfortunately other than photo points and long term observation the SWCD does not have the resources to scientifically prove that the changes are working. Below is a photo of tree tubes vs. wire cages.  This is just an example of the adaptive management that is used on projects.   

 

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

 Wheeler County has developed a relationship with ODFW, but the details of that relationship are not especially clear.

This program works in conjunction with ODFW and the John Day Fish Habitat Enhancement Program (1984-021-00). The primary program restoration method for 1984-21-00 is a passive approach for habitat restoration, using riparian enclosure fencing and associated off-channel water developments to protect and restore degraded streams. Implementation is primarily on private lands and requires considerable time in developing landowner trust and maintains those relationships through 15-year cooperative riparian area agreements. Both projects have project leads on the ground meeting with private landowners. Through these interactions the private landowner’s objectives are assessed and these projects then work together to provide best management practices for each site.  The John Day Fish Habitat Enhancement Program provides fencing materials and construction and CREP provides active restoration with NRCS practices associated with the program.   CREP is a program that the SWCD uses as tool in all conservation work done in the county.  It is the primary restoration tool for the riparian area.  Multiple OWEB large grants that have used CREP as part of the entire project.  Below are two links showcasing cooperative projects in Wheeler County.

http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Habitat/ISRPTour2013/MountainCreekSWCD.aspx

http://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Habitat/ISRPTour2013/JohnDay.aspx 

It is refreshing 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 do: 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

All seem adequate to meet the Objectives. However, provisions should be made to quantify the number of returning adult steelhead each year and, as well, the use of the streams by adult Chinook, bull trout and lamprey and their juveniles. These data will be essential in evaluating the effectiveness of the restoration actions. 

The SWCD does not have the resources to collect this data, but the ODFW monitoring program within the basin is ongoing.

A couple questions about the scope of the restoration:

 

1) Beaver can be useful ecosystem-scale engineers in riparian rehabilitation. How are they being used in this project?

This project does not specifically use beavers for riparian rehabilitation.  However, this project implements conservation practices that improve riparian vegetation thus providing improved habitat for beaver.  It is understood that with improving habitat beaver migration may occur.  This has happened on several projects within the county.  However, the SWCD lacks the resources to monitor the migration. 

 

2) The riparian actions should restore benefits to wildlife, and should be quantified over time. What actions are being taken to acquire these data?

Riparian conditions improve immediately upon exclusion fencing installation.  However, the SWCD does not have the resources to scientifically acquire data to prove this.  The ISRP recommendation for additional effectiveness monitoring 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. 

 

3) Does the fencing only exclude cattle or does it exclude native ungulates too? This will be important when active plantings are part of the restoration actions.

This project implements NRCS specified exclusion fence designed to allow wildlife crossings.  Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife recommends maximum fence heights of 42 inches where wildlife crossings are a concern.  The bottom wire will be 16 inches from the groundline and the wire will be smooth.  https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ovwriayb3vm51x/382ajsStandardWire.doc

Manage & Administer Project (DELV-8): Why is this a deliverable when overhead is charged on the budget?

This is a contracting requirement that applies to all BPA fish and wildlife projects.