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 the sponsors need 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 development of 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. General issues that were identified by ISRP in 2006 do not appear to have been resolved. It seems that now is the time to bring this program up to standard by providing a response that includes:

1) identification of areas of linkage to other plans/efforts for conservation/restoration,

2) a clear method for the prioritization and focus of treatments,

3) a clear description of desired vegetative conditions that reflect a fully-functioning riparian area and

4) a more complete description of method for monitoring project and program effectiveness

5) a description of a strategy for improving enrollments in light of the recent low rate of enrollments and low miles protected.

Other concerns are articulated in the review and may have important implications for activities on the ground and for the eventual success of the project – these should be also addressed in a response.

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

The purpose of the proposal is for Gilliam 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 Sub basins.” They plan is to establish riparian buffers on at least 50 miles of stream (10 mi/yr). Gilliam County believes that this project is important because it helps implement FCRPS 2008 BIOP RPA 35, and strategies to address limiting factors identified in sub basin plans and 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 – all species of concern.

Riparian area restoration, particularly on private land, is key element to meet improved habitat conditions in the John Day catchment. SWCD has, or can obtain, technical expertise to address conditions and needs on private land has reported consistent accomplishments over the last several years.

Actual project objectives are generally qualitative regarding riparian and habitat outcomes to be achieved. They focus primarily on numbers of agreements and miles of stream per year.

There appears limited coordination, other than with the ODFW JDEP and Wheeler and Wasco County riparian buffer programs, with the variety of other restoration projects in the basin. This array of programs does not seem to be unified by an overarching strategy and accompanying list of geographic and treatment priorities.

The proposal notes that there are 7 priority locations for restoring natural riparian vegetation and 4 priority geographic locations for protecting high quality habitat. How these are used as a basis for work is unclear. The sponsors state "the SWCD has some programmatic constraints the CREP program limiting our ability to prioritize where buffer work occurs." This apparently relates to the fact that a conservation plan is first prepared for an area (scale not described for this) and then landowners must agree to participate. Overall, it appears that lack of defining how much work needs to occur, where it should occur, and the ability to focus that work remain major issues.

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 and productivity, improving instream habitat, for example water temperature, or riparian condition. Limited data on temperature, EDT riparian function ranking, and miles of stream protected by year are provided in the proposal. None of these data 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. Further, there is some discussion on adaptive management which discusses application of lessons learned for site specific project implementation. It is stated that these changes greatly increased success although no quantitative description is provided. A state-wide, programmatic change which allows treatment of all streams, not just those with anadromous fish, is mentioned and will be a benefit for dealing with water quality issues including elevated stream temperature.

The project has had consistent accomplishments over the last 10 years averaging 7 contracts, 11+ stream miles and 228 acres per year. Details on the ecological response to the work are much less clear despite implementation of an NRCS SVAP monitoring effort looking solely at vegetative response.

There seems limited progress in incorporating suggested changes in prioritization and effectiveness monitoring (ISRP, 2006).

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

Gilliam County has developed a relationship with ODFW but the details of that relationship are not especially clear. As well, there is limited linkage to the wide array of other conservation and restoration work occurring in the basin.

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. Possible program adjustments including wider buffers given more frequent high flow events and use of more drought tolerant plant species should be considered.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

In general, deliverables are clearly spelled out although a number appear to be somewhat vague and relate to administration, coordination and oversight. Preparation of conservation plans is a major activity but there is no mention of what the plans should contain and whether they have evolved in response to lessons learned over the last several years. Also, metrics deal with treated areas such as acres and steam miles, rather than the actual, desired vegetative/ecological response that is desired.

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. Also, 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 and 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

Effectiveness monitoring remains weak for the project. An initial ODFW stream survey has been completed on 30 Mile Creek, where there are a number of treatments in various stages of implementation/completion. Follow up surveys are planned to evaluate changes that may have occurred. There are no target attributes or expected changes described and a follow up survey has not occurred. Additionally a standardized visual monitoring protocol (SVAP) has been initiated to evaluate vegetative response (Pre and post) treatment. Apparently only initial surveys have been completed. It seems likely that this method will offer a broad indication of vegetative response. There are no metrics regarding species diversity or density for the vegetation considered to be a desired condition for a recovered riparian area.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 11:59:39 AM.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 1:40:58 PM.

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

 

1) identification of areas of linkage to other plans/efforts for conservation/restoration,

This project addresses Sub-basin plan limiting factors.  The SWCD focuses outreach and implementation efforts in priority watersheds.  The SWCD also partners with NRCS and the local Watershed Council in their critical planning areas. 

 

2) a clear method for the prioritization and focus of treatments,

The SWCD has created and uses a CREP status data layer to prioritize and focus treatments.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nbi3gkc0vr34gm1/Gilliam_Priority_CREP.png

 

3) a clear description of desired vegetative conditions that reflect a fully-functioning riparian area and

The program uses NRCS Stream Visual Assessment Protocol.  This is a programmatic for CREP.  The protocol has 16 stream assessment elements that the technician uses to evaluate riparian condition.  Each element is scaled from 0-10, with 10 being fully functional.  The document link is listed below. 

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb1043252.pdf

 

4) a more complete description of method for monitoring project and program effectiveness

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.

 

5) a description of a strategy for improving enrollments in light of the recent low rate of enrollments and low miles protected.

The SWCD also uses the CREP Status Data layer (see attachment in question two) 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. 

Other concerns are articulated in the review and may have important implications for activities on the ground and for the eventual success of the project – these should be also addressed in a response.

 

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

The purpose of the proposal is for Gilliam 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 Sub basins.” They plan is to establish riparian buffers on at least 50 miles of stream (10 mi/yr). Gilliam County believes that this project is important because it helps implement FCRPS 2008 BIOP RPA 35, and strategies to address limiting factors identified in sub basin plans and 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 – 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. 

Riparian area restoration, particularly on private land, is key element to meet improved habitat conditions in the John Day catchment.  SWCD has, or can obtain, technical expertise to address conditions and needs on private land has reported consistent accomplishments over the last several years.

Actual project objectives are generally qualitative regarding riparian and habitat outcomes to be achieved. They focus primarily on numbers of agreements and miles of stream per year.

There appears limited coordination, other than with the ODFW JDEP and Wheeler and Wasco County riparian buffer programs, with the variety of other restoration projects in the basin. This array of programs does not seem to be unified by an overarching strategy and accompanying list of geographic and treatment priorities.

The overarching strategy for these programs exists in the Sub-basin Plan and the Mid-C Recover Plan.  Partners include:  Bonneville Power Administration, Farm Service Agency, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Oregon Dept. of Forestry, Oregon Water Resources Dept. and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs. The SWCD is currently working with several of these partners on private land projects, where some were initiated by CREP outreach.

The proposal notes that there are 7 priority locations for restoring natural riparian vegetation and 4 priority geographic locations for protecting high quality habitat. How these are used as a basis for work is unclear. The sponsors state "the SWCD has some programmatic constraints the CREP program limiting our ability to prioritize where buffer work occurs." This apparently relates to the fact that a conservation plan is first prepared for an area (scale not described for this) and then landowners must agree to participate. Overall, it appears that lack of defining how much work needs to occur, where it should occur, and the ability to focus that work remain major issues.

The link to the Gilliam Priority Map is https://www.dropbox.com/s/nbi3gkc0vr34gm1/Gilliam_Priority_CREP.png

This is how the SWCD uses the sub-basin plan and its priorities for focusing outreach and implementation.  This is a voluntary program.  The SWCD focuses outreach in priority areas outlined by the sub-basin and mid-c recovery plans, but it is ultimately up to a landowner’s willingness to participate in this federally funded program.

 

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 and productivity, improving instream habitat, for example water temperature, or riparian condition. Limited data on temperature, EDT riparian function ranking, and miles of stream protected by year are provided in the proposal. None of these data 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 created a CREP enrollment status data layer.  See attached map.  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. 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nbi3gkc0vr34gm1/Gilliam_Priority_CREP.png

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. Further, there is some discussion on adaptive management which discusses application of lessons learned for site specific project implementation. It is stated that these changes greatly increased success although no quantitative description is provided. A state-wide, programmatic change which allows treatment of all streams, not just those with anadromous fish, is mentioned and will be a benefit for dealing with water quality issues including elevated stream temperature.

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.    Additionally, when performing outreach the SWCD focuses on the most significant (largest drainage area) and tributaries to anadromous fish streams.   

The project has had consistent accomplishments over the last 10 years averaging 7 contracts, 11+ stream miles and 228 acres per year. Details on the ecological response to the work are much less clear despite implementation of an NRCS SVAP monitoring effort looking solely at vegetative response.

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. 

There seems limited progress in incorporating suggested changes in prioritization and effectiveness monitoring (ISRP, 2006). 

This project provides technical assistance to implement a federal program.  No major changes have been made to the program regarding effectiveness monitoring.  But 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.

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

Gilliam County has developed a relationship with ODFW but the details of that relationship are not especially clear. As well, there is limited linkage to the wide array of other conservation and restoration work occurring in the basin.

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 have used CREP as part of the entire project. 

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. Possible program adjustments including wider buffers given more frequent high flow events and use of more drought tolerant plant species should be considered.

 

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

In general, deliverables are clearly spelled out although a number appear to be somewhat vague and relate to administration, coordination and oversight. Preparation of conservation plans is a major activity but there is no mention of what the plans should contain and whether they have evolved in response to lessons learned over the last several years. Also, metrics deal with treated areas such as acres and steam miles, rather than the actual, desired vegetative/ecological response that is desired.

Conservation plans must meet NRCS requirements.  As NRCS adapts plan mechanics so does the SWCD.  These metrics mirror the reporting requirements of the Farm Service Agency.  Multiple aspects of planning, implementation, and monitoring are constrained by CREP programmatics. 

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. Also, a couple questions about the scope of the restoration:

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

 

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 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. The SWCD requested to be involved in this process.

 

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.  The NRCS Jobsheet for fencing is attached.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2ovwriayb3vm51x/382ajsStandardWire.doc

 

Manage and 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.  

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

 

Effectiveness monitoring remains weak for the project. An initial ODFW stream survey has been completed on 30 Mile Creek, where there are a number of treatments in various stages of implementation/completion. Follow up surveys are planned to evaluate changes that may have occurred. There are no target attributes or expected changes described and a follow up survey has not occurred. Additionally a standardized visual monitoring protocol (SVAP) has been initiated to evaluate vegetative response (Pre and post) treatment. Apparently only initial surveys have been completed. It seems likely that this method will offer a broad indication of vegetative response. There are no metrics regarding species diversity or density for the vegetation considered to be a desired condition for a recovered riparian area.

The SWCD uses the SVAP as a requirement for the program as designed by NRCS.  The SWCD sought additional funding for the ODFW stream survey in an attempt to have baseline data to prove that our work is improving riparian conditions.  However, this project receives no additional funds from BPA to perform effectiveness monitoring.