The CREP buffer projects 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 Basin Partnership, the Mid-Columbia Steelhead Recovery Plan, and the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program.

The ISRP notes that this project effectively incorporates digital images, a useful methodical approach.

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 make the reasons for the change in objectives clear 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. 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, for M&E methods. 
   
   
3. 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? Do they show similar improvement to that observed in Gilliam County? 
   
   
4. 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. 
   
   
5. 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. 
   
   
6. 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. 
   
   
7. 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 future annual reports and proposals, provide a brief empirical narrative of the results of aerial photos, such as the photos in the proposal’s Appendix. The temporal sequence of aerial photos in the Appendix appears to be potentially informative. However, an interpretation of each pair would have improved understanding. For instance, the biophysical meaning of the various scales is not clear. Also, going forward, photographs should include identification of standard points assessed across multiple time periods (i.e., 5, 10, and 15 years after efforts have been implemented) as opposed to just using pairs of images for two time periods.

The proposal indicates that the John Day Basin Partnership received FIP funding from OWEB in 2019. Is any of that effort being conducted as part of the implementation or monitoring of the Wheeler County CREP buffers? If so, what is the nature of the activities? Does the John Day FIP provide monitoring or assessment for this project?

Under the first pathway to achieve the stated goal, the proposal notes that “site appropriate vegetation” will be planted as part of the restoration action. Later, it states that the vegetation selected in past restoration efforts may not have been as effective as vegetation used more recently due to differences in methods and plant selection. The ISRP encourages the proponents to provide more detail on what specific changes were made and why. In the section on Confounding Factors, the proposal states that it may be effective to plant more drought tolerant species (i.e., common choke cherry), further indicating why it is helpful to clearly describe changes made in the planting strategy.

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 Wheeler 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 Wheeler County Riparian Buffers project implements riparian protection for fish and wildlife with an emphasis on steelhead habitat. The project addresses limiting factors in Mid-Columbia Recovery Plan using the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). They currently are implementing four large process-based restoration projects in Wheeler County.

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 through 2027—basically is an implementation objective with biological relevance. 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 John Day Basin Partnership and 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 986 miles of steelhead stream in Wheeler 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 Basin 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.

In their process-based restoration approach, the proponents also are using beaver dam analogs (BDAs) and post assisted log structures (PALS) to improve instream and riparian conditions. The project is encouraging 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.

The proposal includes a table indicating a monthly schedule of activities for 2023 to 2025. 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

Post-implementation evaluations are conducted regularly on a schedule (SVAP protocols). Also, an adaptive management process that is appropriate for the activities is being used.

The proponents use SVAP for monitoring the physical and biological outcomes of their CREP enrollments. While 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.

The project’s adaptive management uses a structured nine-step planning and evaluation process developed 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 and from looking at aerial and photo-point sequences. Wheeler County established 1,770 acres of riparian buffers on 115 miles of streams from 2013 to 2020. Since 2018, they established process-based restoration projects on 4.1 miles of stream with 260 BDAs and PALS from 2018 to 2020. However, the proponents note that, “There are currently 986 miles of steelhead stream in Wheeler County without riparian fencing.” With the project restoring about 5 miles annually, it will take nearly two centuries before full riparian restoration/protection is achieved. Can the activities be accelerated? Is the relatively slow pace of riparian restoration/protection having positive effects at the basin scale?

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

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.

The SWCD projects as a group continue to be cost-effective approaches to leveraging a large amount of USDA money in CCRP/CREP contracts that would probably not be implemented without the funding of these development positions. The riparian buffer contracts have the potential for strong benefits to aquatic habitat, and so aquatic species, as well as to non-aquatic riparian species.

The proposal briefly but clearly describes the nature of the riparian problem and the need for private landowner cooperation. It specifically identifies how riparian buffers will address the aquatic habitat limiting factors identified in the John Day Subbasin Plan as well as the listing factors in the DEQ 303(d) stream segments in Wheeler County. Wheeler SWCD has developed, in collaboration with ODFW, and OWR, a map of passage barriers and habitat potential, and has used this map to prioritize riparian enhancement projects. This project has extensive links and collaborative efforts with other projects conducted through a number of different entities throughout the subbasin.

The proposal describes the project history in terms of what did or did not happen, but does not go beyond this to evaluate why things did or did not happen. The proposal would be improved if it presented the project history in more analytical terms, going beyond description to evaluation of why the position has been hard to fill, why landowners do not see it in their interest to sign on, and how to make it in landowner interest to adopt riparian buffer plans, etc. How was the 2002 enrollment target of 60 contracts developed? Why wasn't it achieved?

Objectives are linked to the focal species of the John Day Subbasin Plan and reflect components of riparian buffer contracts. They are measured in: # contracts, acres, miles. It is good to have these objectives quantified, but as with other riparian buffer projects it would be helpful to know the basis for these numbers, to understand how the SWCDs develop their enrollment targets or how these targeted enrollments relate to the total need.

The work elements are reasonable and follow NRCS protocols. The project will monitor riparian buffer implementation and the effectiveness of livestock exclusion. Monitoring and evaluation will also be conducted through the application of NRCS protocols, in which a baseline visual stream assessment is followed by subsequent periodic assessments to assess terrestrial change within the riparian buffer. The ISRP recommends that to more completely assess post-project results and effectiveness a cooperative effort be implemented with ODFW to also monitor fisheries and stream habitat response to the implementation of riparian buffers.

The sponsors should clarify whether the conservation plans developed as part of CREP enrollment are kept confidential or are reported as part of the project results. If conservation plans are not reported, can they be synthesized in a way that will allow monitoring of progress toward meeting their objectives? The issue of project data provision vs. USDA confidentiality requirements should be addressed.

The proposal mentions low rates of adoption in the last funding period. It would be useful to have the sponsors explain how these will be addressed in the next funding cycle. Will outreach and education be conducted in a different manner or target specific areas of concern, or reasons for non-adoption? Will the outreach and education effort have the information to identify landowner concerns, for the purpose of understanding and acknowledgement of reasons for nonparticipation, and to better identify how it might be made in their interest? Has the project learned from its history and is it able to modify practice to improve the number of CREP/CCRP contracts?

As with other riparian buffer projects the evaluation aspect could be enhanced by evaluating factors influencing enrollment (although this proposal is notable for having included some discussion of this aspect in the rationale section) and lessons learned from the development and implementation of these contracts. The ISRP recommends that the Oregon SWCDs work together to identify general findings as well as outcomes that vary by SWCD. The evaluation could identify ways to tie in outreach and education with landowner incentives and constraints. Additional thinking might be developed on how to target new audiences.

The ISRP requests a response clarifying the following issues identified in the review:
1. The potential to develop a cooperative effort with ODFW to monitor fisheries and stream habitat response to the implementation of riparian buffers.
2. How enrollment objectives are determined.
3. Whether the conservation plans developed as part of CREP enrollment are kept confidential or are reported as part of the project results. If conservation plans are not reported, can they be synthesized in a way that will allow monitoring of progress toward meeting their objectives?
4. The potential for SWCD collaborative development of a report assessing the determinants of successful implementation processes for riparian buffer contracts and other USDA voluntary conservation programs.