FY07-09 proposal 200102100

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Gorge / Fifteenmile

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: No Cost to BPA. O&M costs funded by USDA in annual maintenance payments to landowners.

Termination date: 2014
Comments: Termination date to be determined. There is potential for approximately 1,000 stream miles of Riparian Buffers in Wasco County, although realistically 500 miles is the maximum we should expect to enroll for a variety of reasons. As of December 2005, 223.88 miles of buffer had been contracted for about 22% of the total. Assuming progress continues at the current rate, half the potential buffers (about 500 miles) will be under contract by the time the first contracts begin to expire in 2014. Therefore a 2014 tentative termination date seems reasonable.

Final deliverables: Final Reports

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: Protection of riparian areas has been given a high priority in this subbasin, as noted in the subbasin plan. The proposal, however, does not adequately describe what this project will do. With some difficulty, reviewers determined that the purpose of this project was to assist in the planning and coordination of additional riparian protection in the Fifteenmile Creek system but that the funds will not actually be used to build or maintain fences of off-stream stock watering systems. A response is requested regarding reporting of past results in terms of benefit to fish and wildlife and other issues raised below. A map with the project sites clearly identified would have made an excellent addition to the proposal and eased understanding of the effectiveness of the treatment proposed. It still is not clear why this was submitted as a stand-alone project and not combined with another proposal that actually implements habitat improvements. Although it is not clear why the planning and coordination phase of the Fifteenmile riparian protection effort is being submitted as a separate proposal, it is nevertheless an important step, and if more landowners are encouraged to enroll in the CREP/CRP program, there will be long-term benefits. The effort appears positive - significant buffer zone implementation and planning (over 44 miles of streambank) should provide positive results. The proposal describes some other projects in the Fifteenmile Creek system, but it doesn't clarify how this project has or will contribute to them. Additional details should be provided in the response. For example, what problems were the other projects having that this one helped solve? The proposal adequately describes the biological objectives for improving riparian areas in the Fifteenmile subbasin. The "physical objectives of this project" are to develop 40 new riparian buffer plans that will benefit 44 miles of stream and 900 acres of riparian habitat. The actual objectives of this project do not involve on-the-ground implementation but instead focus on planning, coordination, enrollment on the USDA buffer program, and technical feedback to landowners. The planning, coordination, and technical transfer steps are reasonably well described. It would be helpful for the response to show where the 40 new riparian buffers would be likely to be located, and their relationship to focal species distribution. See also the ISRP’s programmatic comments and proposal review comments on 200706100 - Deschutes Sub-basin Riparian Restoration through USDA Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) and the relation of this project to these issues: 1. How enrollment objectives are determined. 2. The potential to develop a cooperative effort with ODFW to monitor fisheries and stream habitat response to the implementation of riparian buffers. 3. 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. 4. 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? See also: 200203400 - Wheeler Co Riparian Buffers and 200203500 - Gilliam Co Riparian Buffers. This proposal might coordinate a response to the items above with sponsors of these other related proposals.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The consolidated response of the conservation districts to this and other riparian buffer proposals in central Oregon argues that BPA funding will enable the districts and constituent landowners to produce plans that can be put forward for Farm Bill and OWEB support for project implementation. The ISRP endorses this approach, in principle. However, the response sheds little light on the specific ecological questions raised in the first review; specifically, where will riparian buffers be sited, how do these sites fit within the context of the applicable subbasin plan (i.e., priority areas in relation to focal species), and how will their success be monitored? Those questions need to be answered in more than general terms in order for the projects to be assessed scientifically. Adequate responses seem limited to the list of four programmatic questions at the end of the review. Although a narrative with a much-improved presentation was provided, the response ignored most of the ISRP’s preliminary requests that focused on clarification of the 15-Mile proposal. With regard to the 15 Mile proposal, the only information provided on the buffers relative to the focal species (steelhead) is that EDT analysis identified riparian buffers in the lower watershed as a priority restoration action. That was helpful, but more details really are needed. There remains the need to show definitively that the buffer projects fall out of a watershed assessment as a priority, and that there is a plan for effectiveness evaluation, including a biological response through an adaptive management experiment. Without a map of where these buffers are proposed, for example, it is impossible to assess the degree of continuity achievable, which is an important factor in the efficacy of buffers. Opportunities for installing buffers may not coincide with the areas most in need of them but that does not prevent a map being prepared that shows the relationship between the areas with highest priority and those being proposed as a result of landowner willingness and other opportunities. Answers should have been given to all the questions raised in the review, not just the selected few. The Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program has been underway for some time and in theory has resulted in significant improvements in stream and riparian conditions. The programs also have provided an excellent means of engaging local landowners in the conservation process. The planning effort is valuable, but it must include an appropriate level of monitoring, and it should build on the 15 Mile subbasin plan. It is not enough to assume that riparian buffers are working if no evidence is being gathered to support this assumption. It is time to demonstrate real improvements, and this will require a more explicit and substantial monitoring program (perhaps basinwide) than was generally described in the response. Basically, the ISRP would like some evidence that (1) the buffers are being sited where they will do substantial good, and (2) implementation of the buffers is resulting in demonstrated ecosystem benefits where steelhead and other focal species occur (e.g., surface water temperature reduction and recruitment of stream cover). Therefore, the project appears fundable with the qualification that procedures for demonstrating proof of effectiveness will be included in the plan. Specifically, the tie to the biological monitoring by ODFW was missing and must be included. There remains a need to establish a coordinated effort of effectiveness evaluation from the suite of riparian buffer projects within the basin, where a system of treatments and controls might be examined for a biological response from fish, including from within 15 Mile Riparian Buffers. The scientific justification for the project, the ISRP’s fundable recommendation, is contingent upon development of that assessment.