1. Objectives and outcomes

The proponents state that the work is important as partial mitigation for wildlife losses attributed to construction of dams on the Lower Snake River. The Habitat Evaluation Procedure (HEP) from USFWS with Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models for target species was used to estimate available Habitat Units (HUs) on acquired mitigation property and to provide quantitative measure of mitigation credits to the project. It was estimated that 21,166 HUs are being provided by the 16,286 acres of property acquired. A proposed expansion of approximately 2,200 acres with an estimated 2,850 HUs would complete the project acquisitions. The HEP and HUs are not being used to monitor habitat or wildlife following acquisition.

Objectives include some elements of quantification. The first four objectives are stated as “protect,” “enhance,” restore,” or “improve” specified habitat types. Anticipated outcomes are not stated specifically and are best viewed as project goals. However, descriptions of desired future conditions (DFCs) for each of the five general habitat types are provided in the Updated Precious Lands Wildlife Area Management Plan (March 2017). For each habitat type, 3-5 quantitative, vegetation- or physical-habitat-based objectives for DFCs are clearly stated. Six primary monitoring protocols are used to help answer the question: "Is the project meeting or trending toward the community attributes described in the management plan?" The use of clearly defined DFCs is a reasonable approach to identifying quantitative objectives and providing a basis for assessing anticipated outcomes. All six objectives have a stated timeline of 10 years. The DFCs create the structure for annual work plans and allow tracking of progress toward DFCs. The combination of objectives with timelines, DFCs associated with each objective, and monitoring protocols to assess DFCs provides a sound basis for assessing project outcomes. This approach provides a very good example for other mitigation projects that are part of the wildlife mitigation program. This project meshes well with the mitigation efforts of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

It appears that sound scientific principles are in use. The Summary Report provides a comprehensive overview of the project’s activities and accomplishments. A clearly defined array of management activities are described in both the Summary Report and the 2017 management plan. The activities appear to be reasonable and involve standard management actions (e.g. replanting trees, fencing, chemical and biological weed control, etc.). Monitoring methods are documented and appear to be standard techniques (e.g., point counts, vegetation cover, etc.). Monitoring data are available for review and evaluation by resource managers, administrators, and the public through the Monitoring Resources website associated with the project. The ISRP commends the proponents for addressing climate change in their management plan. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

The proponents appear to have a well-structured monitoring and evaluation (M&E) program that is meeting management needs. They describe M&E protocols in the Summary Report, 2017 management plan, and links to Pacific Northwest Aquatic Monitoring Partnership (PNAMP). The M&E program consists of (1) breeding bird surveys, (2) amphibian surveys, (3) habitat evaluations, (4) monitoring of three populations of Spalding’s catchfly, a threatened plant species, (5) assessments of abundance, percent cover, and frequency of occurrence of grassland plant species, and (6) the use of 15 photo points to track community composition and structure. Responses of animal populations to management activities are assessed primarily through breeding bird surveys. 

The monitoring program is being used to assess trends toward DFCs and responses of target bird species to management actions. They also use other sources of information such as data available from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife for monitoring of large mammals and fish. However, they do not indicate specifically how these additional data are used to evaluate or to manage. 

The project has several permanent monitoring stations that will continue to be used over time. However, there does not appear to be provisions for sample site attrition (e.g., what will happen if a monitoring plot is destroyed by fire?). They also expressed a concern that their measurements at some of the permanent plots may be having a deleterious effect. The proponents need to plan for replacement (e.g., rotate out and rotate in) of monitoring stations.

The Summary Report provides the outcome of some analyses of monitoring data in the form of graphs of temporal trends of bird species in specific habitat types over 20 years of sampling, but no information is provided regarding sample sizes, variance around means, or how trend lines have been computed. These elements are standard in scientific papers and presentations, and should be included in future reports and presentations of monitoring data. Several graphs in the Summary Report present data from different bird and vegetation surveys. The graphs present summary data from individual surveys that are equidistance apart which may be misleading if the times between surveys are not equal. Many graphs are shown with trend lines, but there did not appear to be any formal analysis with estimates of trends and measures of uncertainty. Comparisons were made with controls based on the national Breeding Bird Count (BBC), but it was not clear which BBC controls were used (e.g. all of United States, just the Pacific Northwest). 

4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife and adaptive management 

The project appears to be a good example of adaptive management; however, a formal adaptive management process is not described. A process for making decisions for changes in management activities and/or objectives (i.e., DFCs) needs to be defined and described in detail. 

The proponents have made a sound attempt to quantitatively describe the extent to which the project is meeting objectives (i.e., progress toward DFCs). The proponents address lessons learned and project changes by presenting informative lists of "Challenges" and "Opportunities" in the Summary Report. 

Evidence of adaptive management is found in the Summary Report and 2017 management plan. Examples include: (1) modification of DFCs between 2003 and 2017, (2) modification of work schedules to alleviate issues with high air temperatures, and (3) and refinement of how native plant species should be re-introduced in areas that were previously used for agriculture. However, there is no mention in the Summary Report of use of monitoring data to address biological outcomes of management activities. For example, trends in target bird species are provided, but relationships between the trends in target bird species and changes in habitat, and possible changes in management actions are not discussed. 

Rigorous statistical analyses of monitoring data have not occurred (see comment above). The proponents only provide summaries of temporal trends in habitats facilitating assessment of DFCs for grassland, shrub, conifer forest, and riparian area with assessments of progress toward DFCs. There appears to be an abundance of additional data to be analyzed. The project’s monitoring efforts have indicated that “shrub, forest, and riparian communities are progressing toward more stable, later successional stages as evidenced by higher shrub cover, increased tree canopy cover, and stable or positive breeding bird response to…increased habitat complexity.” A different pattern was observed in the grassland habitat where a decline in native bunchgrasses was noted. Uncertainty about the cause of the decline was expressed. The proponents suggest that repeated sampling in two grassland plots over a 15-year period may have disturbed the habitat enough to allow invasive annual grass species to take hold. An alternative sampling procedure will be needed to see how pervasive the observed decline in native grasses may be throughout the project’s grassland habitat areas. 

The proponents have discovered that restoration of old agricultural fields is more complex than previously anticipated, but there does not appear to be a modification to management activities to account for this (e.g., rock and boulders needed in fields). They hypothesize that boulders and stones removed from these locations provided important structural aspects for small mammals and insects that should be replaced. The effects of reintroducing stones to such areas should be evaluated. The formation of a more diverse animal community on these lands may help control noxious weeds as some of these species may be seed-eating specialists. This appears to be an opportunity for active adaptive management. 

The Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) have developed a Mitigation Monitoring and Evaluation Program (UWMEP). Can data from the Northeast Oregon Wildlife Project monitoring program, particularly vegetation data, be included in the UWMEP database to provide more regional coverage? Do the sampling methods provide data that are comparable?

The project is well described, well documented, and in good hands. It should proceed as planned.

The Precious Lands project provides critical habitat and corridor linkages for fish and wildlife populations in the Joseph Creek drainage. The area is steep, remote, and rugged with 18-22 inches rainfall annually. Cheatgrass is diminishing and native bunch grasses are increasing. Lack of fire has increased the shrub component. Their M&E plan, and status and trend monitoring, is guiding the sponsors through the proposed vegetation changes on the landscape. Sponsors are also monitoring cryptogrammic crust and have data. Agricultural land conversions have shown increases in cryptogrammic crust, indicative of increasing ecological integrity.

The areas’ remoteness could affect whether sponsors can accomplish many restoration tasks. Breeding bird biodiversity is very high on the property. One project task is the addition of nest boxes to provide nesting locations for cavity nesting birds due to a lack of large standing snags. Would it be possible for sponsors to girdle large Douglas fir trees to establish snags over time and diminish the use of nest boxes?

To enhance steelhead spawning and rearing habitat, particularly for juvenile steelhead, sponsors are considering the addition of large woody debris (LWD) to Joseph Creek. Joseph Creek has almost no holding pools or deeper runs due in large part to a lack of LWD. The sponsors are aware of the difficulty of seeding streams like Joseph Creek with LWD and retaining it due to flood events. However, they own 9 miles of the stream so have some capacity to absorb logs that may be moved during flood events. They have no timber cutting plans (BPA agreement). The sponsors need to work with fish managers for steelhead monitoring on their project.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
This section is reasonable and well done.

2. Project History and Results
Project history and results are well described. Actions are justified and preliminary data (including tables and figures with results) are promising on some actions. Other actions have not been as fruitful, but have lead to adaptive learning and altered future plans.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Objectives
Project objectives, work elements, and methods are detailed and appropriate to the site, and project goals. The site is remote, arid, and very difficult to work in (steep arid canyons, with difficult winter weather and significant hazards in the summer [fire, falls in rocky steep terrain]). This limits what can be done annually, particularly in the canyon and riparian section. Upland work around the old ranch site and preliminary results are very promising for increasing native vegetation and bird diversity.

4. M&E
The sponsors articulate a plan for monitoring and evaluation. It appears that quality data are being collected on the various bird and vegetation projects conducted on the Precious Lands property. Staff appears competent and well-informed.

The project is well described, well documented, and in good hands. It should proceed as planned. The Precious Lands project provides critical habitat and corridor linkages for fish and wildlife populations in the Joseph Creek drainage. The area is steep, remote, and rugged with 18-22 inches rainfall annually. Cheatgrass is diminishing and native bunch grasses are increasing. Lack of fire has increased the shrub component. Their M&E plan, and status and trend monitoring, is guiding the sponsors through the proposed vegetation changes on the landscape. Sponsors are also monitoring cryptogrammic crust and have data. Agricultural land conversions have shown increases in cryptogamic crust, indicative of increasing ecological integrity. The areas’ remoteness could affect whether sponsors can accomplish many restoration tasks. Breeding bird biodiversity is very high on the property. One project task is the addition of nest boxes to provide nesting locations for cavity nesting birds due to a lack of large standing snags. Would it be possible for sponsors to girdle large Douglas Fir trees to establish snags over time and diminish the use of nest boxes? To enhance steelhead spawning and rearing habitat, particularly for juvenile steelhead, sponsors are considering the addition of large woody debris (LWD) to Joseph Creek. Joseph Creek has almost no holding pools or deeper runs due in large part to a lack of LWD. The sponsors are aware of the difficulty of seeding streams like Joseph Creek with LWD and retaining it due to flood events. However, they own 9 miles of the stream so have some capacity to absorb logs that may be moved during flood events. They have no timber cutting plans (BPA agreement). The sponsors need to work with fish managers for steelhead monitoring on their project. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships This section is reasonable and well done. 2. Project History and Results Project history and results are well described. Actions are justified and preliminary data (including tables and figures with results) are promising on some actions. Other actions have not been as fruitful, but have lead to adaptive learning and altered future plans. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Objectives Project objectives, work elements, and methods are detailed and appropriate to the site, and project goals. The site is remote, arid, and very difficult to work in (steep arid canyons, with difficult winter weather and significant hazards in the summer [fire, falls in rocky steep terrain]). This limits what can be done annually, particularly in the canyon and riparian section. Upland work around the old ranch site and preliminary results are very promising for increasing native vegetation and bird diversity. 4. M&E The sponsors articulate a plan for monitoring and evaluation. It appears that quality data are being collected on the various bird and vegetation projects conducted on the Precious Lands property. Staff appears competent and well-informed.

This proposal is for continuing management of a large tract of land acquired for wildlife mitigation and also supplies benefits to fish. The project history is adequate, but focused on mitigation, not the goals of management, though much active management is included, and monitoring efforts are not presented clearly in the proposal itself. The ISRP in the past has expressed concern that proposals to support this project did not adequately present biological goals, objectives, and M&E. It appears that progress has been made, e.g., specific channel habitat objectives, objectives for riparian conditions (including some data), bird counts underway (though no bird count data were presented), etc.

However, the proposal repeatedly references a Management Plan that is available on the web (a long document of 129 pages that is labeled as a 2002 draft plan). The proposal itself still lacks incorporation of important details that can only be found by searching the online draft Management Plan. For instance, the list of target species in the proposal appears generic, not site specific. And, what are the goals for managing this landscape as important elk winter range? Methods for work elements are not described with enough detail. For instance, the size, number, and location of permanent plots that will be used to monitor vegetation (including weed control) should be stated, as should the key measurements that will be taken (are being taken?). Future proposals should directly summarize the technical and scientific background for managing this specific landscape and should state methods to be applied in adequate detail to facilitate scientific evaluation. Additionally, future proposals for continuation of this project must present results of M&E in order to justify the value of management expenses.