The SWCD projects in the John Day River basin provide valuable riparian protection and landowner outreach and education through the USDA/NRCS CREP program. The riparian buffers contribute to the overall goals of the John Day River Partnership, the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan, and the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program. The ISRP encourages the SWCD to continue to develop working relationships with OWEB and ODFW to expand their efforts and provide critical monitoring information for strengthening the program.

The proponents have adequately responded to previous ISRP suggestions and qualifications. As well, the ISRP is pleased that the project is encouraging beaver presence, using beaver dam analogs and post assisted log structures to improve riparian conditions, and that the proponents are cooperating broadly with other regional projects.

The ISRP’s recommended Conditions are listed below. The proponents need to assist with development of an M&E Matrix during the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021) and to provide information to address the other following Conditions in future annual reports and work plans:

1. Explanation of Objective 1. The proponents should provide a more thorough explanation as to why Objective 1 was dropped. When was it first proposed? The ISRP assumes that the objective was deleted because the proponents do not feel that the actions of this project are likely to substantially change basinwide abundances of steelhead, and many other factors are likely responsible for the basin trends. The proponents should clarify the reasons for the change in objectives in their Annual Report and indicate what objectives will guide them without this previous objective. For example, the proponents should consider developing more quantitative objectives for steelhead and Chinook based on their collaborative monitoring efforts with ODFW. 
   
   
2. Success in meeting targets. The number of buffer agreements established annually seems to be less than the target value of 10. What factors have prevented the proponents from achieving their objective for CREP agreements? Will the proposed actions in the next funding period overcome the factors that have limited their enrollments? Should the enrollment target be adjusted? If so, explain the basis for the new objective. 
   
   
3. Documentation of methods. Are the methods used by the project for planning, prioritizing areas of focus, implementing specific projects, and instream restoration (BDAs, PALS) documented? Provide documents, if they have been developed, or appropriate linkages to MonitoringResources.org. 
   
   
4. SVAP assessment. Do all contracts incorporate sequential SVAP assessment? The proposal simply states that “all the contracts evaluated showed an increased score, indicating that CREP had improved the habitat conditions.” How many projects were assessed? What was the average change in score? How close did they come to the SVAP objective? 
   
   
5. SVAP repeatability. Has the SVAP ever been evaluated for repeatability among those conducting the surveys? If so, what have been the results and how have SVAP assessments been modified? Other similar projects have demonstrated serious problems with observer-based evaluations. The ISRP recommends an evaluation of the repeatability of the SVAP. 
   
   
6. Stream temperature. The ISRP recommends collecting water temperature data. Collecting water temperature measurements to evaluate the effectiveness of riparian plantings and channel mitigation efforts is a major omission from the monitoring efforts. Given the importance of temperature to steelhead and other native fishes and given the likelihood that it will increase with changing climate, it seems imperative to understand the degree to which the restoration actions may be helping to mitigate warming waters. For instance, the web site for the John Day Basin Partnership indicates that the 7-day daily average maximum temperature is a metric that can be used to evaluate projects. Regrettably, no projects seem to be collecting such data (as indicated on the web site). If data collected above and below restoration sites indicate reduced rates of warming and cooler habitats, it would provide additional evidence for potential fish benefits and may encourage greater landowner participation. 
   
   
7. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a crosswalk to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the John Day River Salmonid Monitoring to Inform Recovery Project (199801600) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the basin. During the response loop, we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard. 
   
   
8. Pace of restoration. The ISRP asks the proponents to provide an assessment of the pace of restoration as compared to the overall length of streams needing treatment. This assessment would be best addressed as a cooperative effort with the John Day Basin Partnership, which has much of the basin-level riparian information.

The ISRP provides the following additional comments to consider in future documentation and proposals, but these are suggestions (not Conditions) for the project and BPA.

Additional Comments:

For Objectives 1 (John Day Summer Steelhead Productivity) and 2 (Riparian Buffer Systems on 50 miles), it would be useful to know when the project started and if the trends are moving in a positive direction.

The quantitative biological objective is to protect with fencing and plant 10 miles of stream and 250 (300 acres?) acres of habitat through 2027. Is this annually or during the entire project period? From the graphic, it appears to be annually, but the total acreage to be protected does not match the information in the graphic.

The quantitative social objective is to increase the adoption of in-stream process-based actions on CREP streams by 20%. Is this annually or during the entire project period? The graphic does not provide the needed information.

In the section titled Progress to Date, the authors mention that when techniques are found to be successful, they are always shared with others working in similar environments to improve the success of the CREP program. More detail is needed on how this occurs, including if any exchanges occur at specific meetings, for example.

Toward the end of the Problem Statement, the authors indicate that degraded water quality should be improved by riparian shading, suggesting that temperature is the issue. Later in the proposal, however, sediments are also mentioned as a cause of degraded water quality. Clarify what specific parameters are being targeted as improvements

The macroinvertebrate study from Wasco County provides evidence for the effectiveness of riparian buffers. When was the study conducted? Could such a study be repeated for locations in Gilliam County and the John Day basin? Would such a study be relevant for the John Day Basin FIP project funded by OWEB?

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The primary goal of the Gilliam County Riparian Habitat Protection and Enhancement project is to protect and enhance riparian and floodplain habitat for fish and wildlife with an emphasis on steelhead habitat that will address limiting factors outlined in the Mid-Columbia Recovery Plan using the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and process-based restoration technical assistance. They intend to implement riparian fencing projects with 10 private landowners in the lower mainstem John Day River. The CREP buffer agreements provide critical riparian protection on private lands in the John Day River basin.

The proposal identifies SMART objectives, including two biological objectives, one social objective, and one implementation objective. The first biological objective—to improve the initial Stream Visual Assessment score by 1.5 points five years after implementation—is appropriate and is socially valuable because it involves landowner assessment of ecological conditions. SVAP, when compared with other indices in the Pacific Northwest and throughout the U.S. (Hughes et al. 2010), was weakly to moderately correlated with biological indicators. As well, collaboration with other monitoring groups, when possible, will strengthen the measures of outcomes. The second biological objective—“to protect with fence and plant 10 miles of stream and 250 acres of habitat per (???) through 2027”—basically is an implementation objective with biological relevance. It is not clear whether this is a target for each year, the biennium, or the funding period. The social and implementation objectives are reasonable measures of project success.

The proponents removed biological objectives that specified responses of juvenile and adult steelhead for the entire John Day River basin because their project is directed at riparian area protection. While the ultimate purpose of this protection includes recovery of steelhead populations, the basinwide objectives are part of the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan rather than the specific actions of this project. While their point is valid, the project could develop more quantitative objectives for steelhead and Chinook based on their collaborative monitoring efforts with ODFW.

Q2: Methods

The proposal describes the context for the project and the approaches used to enlist landowners to develop CREP buffers. They note that currently 135 miles of steelhead stream in Gilliam County lack riparian fencing, and they use the Atlas dataset to prioritize their efforts to contact and enlist landowners in the program. The approach is a formal process developed by NRCS and is coordinated with other regional planning groups, such as the John Day Partnership. Stream reaches are evaluated for the opportunity for riparian fencing, riparian planting, off- stream water source, and beaver restoration management. Sub-watersheds are prioritized based on geomorphic potential, current habitat condition, and future habitat condition. Outreach is focused on steelhead streams with the highest priority scores. This approach is informed by landscape conditions and fish populations and is appropriate for the project’s goals and objectives.

The project encourages beaver presence on sites with adequate food sources and pool habitat to promote natural processes. They have identified sites and worked with landowners and ODFW to encourage beaver activity but also control nuisance beaver damage. They also are using beaver dam analogs (BDAs) to improve instream and riparian conditions.

The proposal includes a Gantt chart of the typical annual schedule of activities. The ISRP anticipates that the project will work with BPA to provide plans for specific projects as part of their work plans and Annual Reports.

The proposal identifies climate change as a major confounding factor, and the proponents have incorporated regional data on assessments of potential changes in temperature and precipitation for planning. They are using several methods, such as BDAs, plantings of drought-tolerant species, pot-rooted stock, and hardwood cuttings, to increase survival and ability to withstand future climate conditions.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proponents use SVAP for monitoring the physical and biological outcomes of their CREP enrollments. This is appropriate for the activities being assessed. While the SVAP generally has low to moderate correlations with more detailed biological measurements (Hughes et al. 2010), it has several major strengths. It is rapid, inexpensive, and focused on channel and riparian conditions, which are the primary actions of the program. Even more importantly, it teaches the landowners to use the visual assessment, thereby giving them ownership in the assessment process and educating them about stream geomorphology and riparian structure and function. The project also tracks its implementation, landowner participation, and total acreage protected. These are reasonable assessments for these CREP projects for riparian protection. Additional information is needed about the proportion of contracts that include SVAP assessment, the number of projects assessed, and average change in score across all projects. The project also should conduct comparisons of assessments using different survey personnel or landowners to evaluate the method for repeatability. Other similar projects have demonstrated serious problems with observer-based evaluations. The ISRP recommends an evaluation of the repeatability of the SVAP.

The proponents also strengthened their program by collaborating with ODFW’s fish monitoring project in the John Day basin. This type of integration of implementation projects with monitoring projects has the potential to provide valuable information and use regional funding resources more efficiently.

The project has developed and expanded the use of before-and-after drone imagery and SVAP scores to help evaluate all projects

The project’s adaptive management uses a structured nine-step planning and evaluation process by USDA/NRCS.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The activities are improving riparian conditions along streams receiving restoration. Overall, conditions are improving based on SVAP scores.

Gilliam County established 2,279 acres of riparian buffers on 115 miles of streams from 2002-2013 and 1,146 acres of riparian buffers on 88.5 miles of stream from 2014 to 2020. SVAP scores increased by 0.8 for 18 projects that had been enrolled and implemented between 2005 and 2014. Newer projects increased by 1.25, indicating that their practices may be improving. The proponents also obtained OWEB funding to supplement their existing funds. Previous ISRP reviews recommended increased collaboration with ODFW and OWEB, and the project has been successful in developing greater interaction with these agencies.

Reference

Hughes, R.M., A.T. Herlihy, and P.R. Kaufmann. 2010. An evaluation of qualitative indexes of physical habitat applied to agricultural streams in ten U.S. states. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 46: 792-806. https://doi-org.ezproxy.proxy.library.oregonstate.edu/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2010.00455.x