This is a well-written proposal for another cost-effective SWCD project that will leverage private and public money to achieve subbasin environmental improvements. The proposal shows good collaboration with other resource agencies and is well integrated with private interests.

The proposal does a good job describing the causes and effects of watershed impairment, as well as the history of collaboration among landowners and agencies in addressing problems of aquatic habitat quality and quantity. The project is clearly linked to the limiting factors and restoration priorities identified in the John Day Subbasin Plan, as well as to regional programs. Benefits are clearly defined; however, it would be useful to have more detail on the nature of the linkages among the various riparian buffer projects

Specific results of the project's several years of implementation are reported. The accomplishments are impressive and represent good cost-sharing and leveraging. However, more evaluative detail on the effectiveness of past projects (actual impact, beyond enrollment numbers) would be helpful. It would also be useful to know how the results of the project fit within the overall needs of the watershed to have a better understanding of how recovery is progressing.

Objectives are clearly stated in measurable terms, with time lines, in ways that address limiting factors identified in the subbasin plan. The project will use straightforward approaches. M&E is tied to each objective. Methods are clearly described in specific terms and relate well to objectives. Justification for each work element is clearly provided. This project appears to have excellent interagency and landowner coordination in implementing work elements.

Effectiveness monitoring is conducted in collaboration with ODFW and landowners. The effect of restoration is monitored in part through redd counts and water temperature. The redd count data presented in the proposal show sensitivity to drought years, and it would be interesting to know the sponsors' thinking on how this effect might be alleviated. M&E is also a component of the work elements for each habitat improvement project. Lists of indicators and performance standards are provided as a way to monitor habitat improvements. The metrics are measurable and reasonable. Information on project results will be reported on the form of metrics: water quality improvement, number of stream miles, water quality projects, etc.

Benefits to focal species in the John Day Subbasin Plan (steelhead and redband trout) are clear and should be long lasting. The changes being made in the process of restoration are likely to be permanent, although the question of how to further protect in-stream flows in drought years should be addressed.

Overall, this proposal outlines a practical, on-the-ground approach to protection of focal species. The improvements provided by project activities should also benefit a wide range of non-focal aquatic and terrestrial species.

See comments under proposal 200201900 and the programmatic section of this report on SWCD projects.