1. Objectives and outcomes

The Summary referred readers to the 2003 Management Plan for primary objectives. The Management Plan listed 25 aspirational objectives. None of the objectives were quantifiable with explicit timelines. The proponents described their work since 2009 thoroughly and provided useful descriptions of site conditions. The Management Plan provided substantial information on historical conditions, terrestrial and aquatic communities, and physical properties of the geology, soils, and stream channels. The Management Plan provides a reasonable foundation for developing quantifiable objectives and explicit timelines. While it seems logical that the restoration actions will improve wildlife conditions, rigorous analysis of trend data are needed to show that is in fact the case.

2. Scientific principles and methods

The report provided a well-organized summary of the actions the proponents have implemented to date. This was extremely helpful in understanding the scope, extent, and likely outcomes of their restoration practices. The Management Plan provided a better explanation of the ecological basis for their planned actions than the Summary. The proponents are actively evaluating methods from other regions (e.g., Africa) to improve their effectiveness.

More explicit identification of specific ecological concepts related to the site conditions, restoration actions, and anticipated trajectories of change or recovery would strengthen the program and facilitate future adaptive management. For example, actions being taken on the ground to control invasive vegetation and juniper spread, among other actions (e.g., removal of fencing), are impressive but are not related explicitly to responses by individual species or community groups. What are the expected ecological outcomes from juniper removal or invasive weed control? What would be an ecologically acceptable fire-return interval for specific vegetative communities, and how would wildlife respond? There are dozens of basic ecological questions and associated hypotheses that could be addressed and would strengthen the foundation for this program.

3. Monitoring and evaluation

The proponent has developed a monitoring program and partnered with regional agencies to expand their monitoring effort. The Summary includes information on trends in vegetation cover, riparian vegetation, Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) of stream channels, water temperature, bird communities, mule deer and elk, and invasive plants. The proponents should note that the PFC method is designed to address sediment transport and sedimentation, not a broad measure of ecological functions. Consideration of specific ecological relationships may strengthen the application of their PFC monitoring results. Evaluations of trends did not include or provide statistical analyses. Native bunchgrasses and riparian woody vegetation increased and juniper cover decreased. The Summary suggested that upland plant richness increased by 4.3% since 2002, but it is unclear whether this increase is statistically or ecologically significant. The proportion of stream reaches categorized as in PFC increased substantially since 2002. Approximately half of the reaches are now Properly Functioning. Water temperatures in Pine Creek have decreased by as much as 5-7°C since 2005. This is a major improvement and should be verified by comparison with local reference systems (e.g., monitored streams in the region for comparison). Mule deer and elk populations are variable and unchanged (though the Summary suggests elk have increased). Upland and riparian bird counts have increased from 2001-2013. Steelhead spawning has been variable and steelhead densities have declined. Interpretation of all of these trends would be strengthened by statistical analyses and use of reference systems for comparison. Future monitoring and evaluation could focus on the entire community of native fish and develop objectives for fish diversity. ODFW and the Ichthyology Collection at Oregon State University could assist in identifying fish species captured. The proponents have done a good job of accounting in terms of acres treated or length of streams restored.

Monitoring and evaluation of the Pine Creek Conservation Area is more complete than in many Wildlife Mitigation Projects. The project would be improved, however, by including more specific quantifiable objectives based on explicit ecological principles and explicit timelines for achieving these objectives so that the project’s success can be assessed and adaptive management alternatives can be developed. The project should continue to work with regional agencies. In addition, they could work with local universities to encourage the use of their site by graduate students or field classes. They could partner with citizen science programs in the region, such as Ducks Unlimited or Trout Unlimited. The managers know their sites very well and should continue use their education and outreach efforts to expand their ongoing partnerships to provide critical evaluations of the status and trends of critical objectives, effectiveness of their management actions, and unforeseen challenges.

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

The proponents have observed positive responses in several key ecological resources, indicating success in creating desired trajectories of ecosystem recovery. The project would benefit from more explicit and quantifiable objectives and timelines. The Summary included an extensive description of the application of M&E information and other sources of information to make decisions, work with partners, and address challenges. They could easily build on these strengths by developing more focused objectives and timeframes for future responses and identification of alternative trends and potential actions in the future. There does not appear to be a formal Adaptive Management process, at least as related to the wildlife communities. This critical management element needs to be developed soon.

Restoration programs tend to focus on “benefits” but information on disease outbreaks, vectors, and other avenues of population control that are integral to wildlife communities would make the program more comprehensive. As a comprehensive program, they could work with collaborators to obtain information on mammalian predators, fossorial rodents (as indicators of soil conditions), a broader array of the bird community, as well as amphibians, reptiles and perhaps insects (e.g., pollinators, butterflies).    

It is requested that the proponents provide the following additional information in the 2018 annual report for the project or to insert this information into a new project management plan: 1. A new Management Plan is needed. This will be an excellent opportunity to provide requested quantifiable objectives, explicit timelines, monitoring actions, and a description of the project’s adaptive management process. 2. Clearly stated, quantitative objectives with explicit timelines for the project are needed. These should focus on a few major objectives that relate directly to the goal and desired outcomes of the program. M&E actions should be identified for each objective. 3. An adaptive management process is needed. The new management plan should link quantifiable objectives and timelines to observed monitoring information. A contingency plan is also needed. It should contain alternative management actions that can be implemented if expected effects are not realized.

The project should move forward as planned. This project has produced one of the best monitoring reports in all of the wildlife projects (i.e., the Feb 2006 monitoring report is very comprehensive and thorough). Once again, this is a strong and exemplary proposal that could serve as a reporting model for others.

A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments, but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed for proper review and evaluation. If shorter periods existed between similarly thorough reports, benefits from the project could be tracked in a timelier manner to adapt to successes and failures – adaptive management.

The ISRP FY 2007-09 review comments still hold true, "This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria, benefits wildlife, and is an exemplary proposal among the wildlife set of proposals. The project sponsors may want to explore work with their neighbors to expand the benefits of this project."

The ISRP regrets the sponsors did not participate in the project proposal presentations during the March 3-4, 2009 ISRP meeting. Presentations are informative and allow for dialogue with the review team members to enhance understanding of the projects goals, objectives, and progress. We encourage sponsors to present their project and work in the next review cycle.

Additional comments on each of the sections of the proposal are provided below:

1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships:
This is an exceptionally well constructed and presented project proposal. It provides a clear description of the project's significance to the Program, its relationships to other subbasin and regional projects, and its technical justification. Technical justification for this proposal is excellent and includes a large number of supporting references, links to further supporting information/reports, photo comparisons, etc. The project is fully justified with significant potential benefits, to not only wildlife and their habitats, but also fish and aquatic habitats. Significance to regional plans and programs is well detailed including the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, John Day Subbasin Plan, Oregon Land Trust and many others. This project is linked with many local projects and partnerships including: CWCD, ODFW, OMSI, USFWS, and USGS.

2. Project History and Results
This section is well done. The sponsors use this extensive section of the proposal as a detailed reporting document, and it includes a good summary of much of the M&E reporting and results. This section is somewhat difficult to review because of its size, but it is better to include too much than not enough. The monitoring results report in the appendix are excellent and are outstanding as an example of how M&E data can indicate the value of well thought-out habitat restoration projects. This proposal is a model worthy of emulation.

A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed. If shorter periods between such reports could be done, benefits from the project could be tracked in a timelier manner to adapt to successes and failures - adaptive management.

3. Objectives, work elements, and methods
The sponsors provide a complete and detailed response. This is a large project with many work elements ranging from noxious weed control, to habitat improvements on Pine Creek, which when water conditions allow, appears to be a significant steelhead spawning area. Objectives, work elements, and methods seem appropriate to the management goals for the project.

4. M&E
This is an excellent example of what a detailed monitoring program should look like.
We support continuation of the photo-plot monitoring but recommend more rigorous analysis (Dr. Fred Hall has a fine publication on this). Validation with on-the-ground monitoring is recommended because of resolution/interpretation difficulties associated with satellite imagery.

The project should move forward as planned. This project has produced one of the best monitoring reports in all of the wildlife projects (i.e., the Feb 2006 monitoring report is very comprehensive and thorough). Once again, this is a strong and exemplary proposal that could serve as a reporting model for others. A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments, but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed for proper review and evaluation. If shorter periods existed between similarly thorough reports, benefits from the project could be tracked in a more timely manner to adapt to successes and failures ¬- adaptive management. The ISRP FY 2007-09 review comments still hold true "This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria, benefits wildlife, and is an exemplary proposal among the wildlife set of proposals. The project sponsors may want to explore work with their neighbors to expand the benefits of this project." The ISRP regrets the sponsors did not participate in the project proposal presentations during the March 3-4 2009 ISRP meeting. Presentations are informative and allow for dialogue with the review team members to enhance understanding of the projects goals, objectives, and progress. We encourage sponsors to present their project and work in the next review cycle. Additional comments on each of the sections of the proposal are provided below: 1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships: This is an exceptionally well constructed and presented project proposal. It provides a clear description of the project's significance to the Program, its relationships to other subbasin and regional projects, and its technical justification. Technical justification for this proposal is excellent and includes a large number of supporting references, links to further supporting information/reports, photo comparisons, etc. The project is fully justified with significant potential benefits, to not only wildlife and their habitats, but also fish and aquatic habitats. Significance to regional plans and programs is well detailed including the Council’s 2000 Fish and Wildlife Program, John Day Subbasin Plan, Oregon Land Trust and many others. This project is linked with many local projects and partnerships including: CWCD, ODFW, OMSI, USFWS, and USGS. 2. Project History and Results This section is well done. The sponsors use this extensive section of the proposal as a detailed reporting document, and it includes a good summary of much of the M&E reporting and results. This section is somewhat difficult to review because of its size, but it is better to include too much than not enough. The monitoring results report in the appendix are excellent and are outstanding as an example of how M&E data can indicate the value of well thought-out habitat restoration projects. This proposal is a model worthy of emulation. A search of BPA Annual reports finds regular reports which usually were brief narrative reports of accomplishments but the 1999-2005 monitoring report is what is needed. If shorter periods between such reports could be done, benefits from the project could be tracked in a more timely manner to adapt to successes and failures - adaptive management. 3. Objectives, work elements, and methods The sponsors provide a complete and detailed response. This is a large project with many work elements ranging from noxious weed control, to habitat improvements on Pine Creek, which when water conditions allow, appears to be a significant steelhead spawning area. Objectives, work elements, and methods seem appropriate to the management goals for the project. 4. M&E This is an excellent example of what a detailed monitoring program should look like. We support continuation of the photo-plot monitoring but recommend more rigorous analysis (Dr. Fred Hall has a fine publication on this). Validation with on-the-ground monitoring is recommended because of resolution/interpretation difficulties associated with satellite imagery.

This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria, benefits wildlife, and is an exemplary proposal among the wildlife set of proposals. The project sponsors may want to explore work with their neighbors to expand the benefits of this project.