FY07-09 proposal 200201900

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Plateau / Deschutes

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 are funded by USDA through annual maintenance payments to landowners with Buffer Contracts.

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: 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 a strong potential to benefit aquatic habitat and species (summer steelhead and resident fish), as well as non-aquatic riparian species. The proposal shows a clear connection to the limiting factors identified in the John Day and Deschutes Subbasin Plans, many of which can be addressed by riparian buffers, and to subbasin restoration priorities. It has excellent collaboration and complementarity with other projects. A brief history of the project to date is described in terms of the number, area and amount of USDA contracts leveraged, but without analysis of the determinants (plus or minus) of enrollment rates or locations. The SWCD projects would benefit from an analytical assessment of what works and what doesn't. Specific objectives are stated in terms of the # buffer acres, # riparian acres, and # miles to be implemented in riparian buffers. It is good to have these objectives quantified, but as with other riparian buffer projects there is no discussion of the basis for these numbers. How do the SWCDs develop their enrollment targets? How do these targeted enrollments relate to the total need? Tasks are appropriate to the objectives. Monitoring and evaluation will 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. Given the growing body of experience in the implementation of these USDA contracts, it would be timely and useful to assess what works, what doesn't work, and nature of the constraints facing voluntary habitat improvement programs. The ISRP recommends that SWCDs collaborate in developing a report assessing the determinants of successful implementation processes for these USDA programs. 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.

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: This is a combined response from the group of SWCD projects. The response letter raises concerns that ISRP reviewers are unaware of the nature of leveraged funding (with OWEB and USDA) that these projects allow. However, reviewers found that proposals make that relationship clear. ISRP review comments are directed at extending the benefits generated through these cost-effective proposals by developing monitoring collaborations and expanding evaluative assessment of the SWCD work. Review comments are also directed at encouraging the SWCDs to prioritize projects not only on the basis of opportunity but also on the basis of priority areas for conservation; i.e., to actively target areas prioritized in subbasin plans. The response addresses five areas identified by the ISRP. In the response, the SWCDs indicate that they will initiate a cooperative buffer effectiveness monitoring effort with ODFW, describe how enrollment is targeted, provide a plan to resolve the buffer contract data confidentiality issue, agree to collaboratively document SWCD experience with riparian buffer contracts, and identify the relation of SWCD projects to other riparian projects. However, the issue of the effectiveness of these riparian buffer contracts in improving physical status of habitats and the biological status of fish populations remains. Fish and physical habitat response need to be evaluated. The number of acres under contract is impressive, but sites at different areas should be monitored for factors such as parr utilization. At present, the tie to the ODFW biological monitoring is inadequate and should be more actively coordinated. In developing the collaborative document assessing SWCD experience with riparian buffer contracts, the ISRP urges the SWCDs to include information on "what hasn't worked" as well as "what has worked" and reasons why. The document should be as analytical as possible about effective and ineffective approaches, opportunities and constraints. If written as an analytical assessment the document could be an important educational tool providing information transfer to other districts and entities as they implement similar types of incentive programs. The recommended qualification to funding is that the project should develop: 1. a collaboration plan (with ODFW) for buffer effectiveness monitoring; and 2. a work element to assess SWCD experience with buffer contract development and implementation.