ISRP Request 1: Evidence of success in the social arena should be provided, as well as a plan to assess future success. The sponsors indicated that they have engaged in some social activities such as involving local landowners in stream habitat conservation efforts. They also helped sponsor a free fishing day for kids. However, the ISRP would like to see a more formalized plan for social engagement, a long term plan for engaging the public, with more formal milestones and deliverables. Such a plan is not provided in adequate detail in the proposal or the response. A goal of the project is to "Participate and cooperate with the community, agencies, and organizations to facilitate and promote education, recreation, natural resource planning, monitoring, and research of these properties and conservation activities." The entire project has a substantial social component. As such, the social aspects should have activities that can be quantified.

ISRP Request 2: The importance of this study in a broader landscape context should be described. The sponsors only partly addressed this request. They should consider, for example, how land use practices outside the project will influence watershed processes (e.g., occurrence and magnitude of floods) that could affect the project. They should also consider whether fish abundance in the watershed (e.g., redds or number of spawners) is simply following watershedwide trends or whether abundance within the project area is trending higher. These comments are also relevant to the Oxbow Project. This issue should be addressed in future proposals.

ISRP Requests 3 and 4. The sponsors adequately addressed these requests.

The ISRP recommends that the project sponsor develop a long term plan for public engagement and submit it for ISRP review early in 2014.

This project has a history of favorable ISRP reviews and is an impressive demonstration project. However, the ISRP requests a response of the following items:

1) Evidence of success in the social arena should be provided, as well as a plan to assess future success.

2) The importance of this study in a broader landscape context should be described.

3) Provide details on how this project fits mechanistically with associated programs. In other words, which project is responsible for what activities and how is the information shared, integrated and used?

4) Additional information is needed on the approach to data management.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The Forrest Conservation Area was purchased in 2002 with the goal of promoting “natural production and ecological functions to increase the larger focal species recovery effort of the John Day Subbasin.” More specifically, the project will protect and enhance habitat to benefit ESA-listed spring Chinook and summer steelhead and help maintain a sustainable harvest of fish for tribal members. The Project is a key component of the John Day Subbasin Plan as it addresses habitat protection and improvements, passage improvements, flow augmentations, upland improvements, education and outreach, and restoration of altered landscapes that help achieve the full natural production potential of the subbasin and the Columbia River Basin. The project sets aside a substantial amount of floodplain, riparian, and upland habitat. The habitat has been severely degraded and so substantial habitat enhancement is needed. The sponsors have well-defined goals and provided a good discussion of factors limiting fish production on the Conservation area.

A comprehensive Habitat Management Plan for the Forrest and Oxbow Conservation Areas was developed in March 2010 (a link to the Plan was provided in the proposal). The Plan has well defined objectives, general approaches for accomplishing the objectives, a prioritized set of projects related to each objective, and a timeline for completion. The Plan should provide the context, direction, and justification for the work outlined in this proposal. A critical element is whether the work is progressing according to the Plan, whether the sponsors have encountered any difficulties, and how these difficulties will be dealt with. The proposal would have been improved significantly if its objectives, deliverables, and results were more directly linked to the Plan, making clear how the proposed work directly contributes to accomplishment of the Plan’s objectives. An overview of the Plan in the Problem Statement section of the proposal would have helped set the stage for the proposed work.

It would have been helpful if the proposal provided more information on fish. For example, what life stages would be most benefitted by habitat restoration in the Conservation Area? How much habitat will be created for each life stage, and where is this habitat located within the Area? The Habitat Management Plan does not explicitly define quantitative goals for fish abundance and productivity; however, it would be useful for the sponsors to estimate the abundances of juvenile and spawning fish that can be expected to result from habitat enhancement. Results from fish surveys in “high quality” habitat may be useful in developing this estimate.

It also would be helpful if sponsors discussed how they identified and prioritized potential habitat enhancement sites. Was the prioritization based on expected benefits of each project for habitat and fish? If so, how were benefits determined?

The objectives in the proposal could have been more closely aligned with the objectives in the Habitat Management Plan.

Objective 1: At some place in the proposal the sponsors should have defined high quality habitat and discussed how it is identified, how much of it is available, and where it is located within the Conservation Area.

Objective 2: This objective is very broad in scope and encompasses at least four objectives in the Plan.

Objective 3: The proposal narrative implies a broad commitment to RME. The ISRP concurs that monitoring should be an essential part of the proposed work.

Objective 4: The ISRP concurs that a managed grazing program that both protects riparian vegetation and provides economic benefits is worthwhile, and it can serve to demonstrate to neighboring landowners that conservation values are not necessarily inconsistent with properly managed livestock grazing. The Habitat Management Plan describes in some detail a Riparian Pilot Grazing Project to be developed by 2014. The sponsors should have explained how Objective 4 relates to this pilot project.

Objective 5: The sponsors have put a lot of effort into outreach and education. This is one of the strongest aspects of the proposed work.

Objective 6: A practical necessity.

The proposal would be improved if quantitative goals had been provided. For example, how much can fish abundance and freshwater productivity be expected to increase over given time periods? Is it possible to develop these estimates using habitat data?  It would be beneficial to establish some intermediate benchmarks for success at 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 year intervals. For example, with riparian restoration - what will be the shorter term trophic effects on primary and secondary production?

The sponsors should consider how large disturbances might affect the ability of the project to meet its objectives. Will the restoration work lead to more resilient ecosystems, less flood damage, and vegetation that responds to fire?

The ISRP has the following concerns: 1) While there is considerable activity planned, there should be an overarching model to guide and integrate the activities. 2) The objectives should state quantitative goals and timelines for specific activities to be successful. 3) The monitoring is sparse and has no systematic structure. Monitoring is apparently mostly conducted by other projects and partners. 4) As a result of concerns 1-3, there is no way to determine if the investments made in the restoration actions are having a positive outcome on fish abundance, survivorship or production. The project may have some significance to regional programs but it is not clear how this project fits mechanistically with programs beyond the John Day catchment as well as within it. In other words, which project is responsible for what activities and how is the information shared, integrated and used? Certainly, there is considerable cooperation.

This is a demonstration project for showing harmony of grazing and conservation work. It is a good site for this. The sponsors could benefit from communication with others doing similar work in the Pacific Northwest. For example, the sponsors should contact the Nature Conservancy to share the results of grazing work at Sycan Marsh in the Klamath Basin.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The sponsors have implemented a number of projects intended to improve riparian conditions, quality and quantity of instream habitat, and fish passage. Although some quantitative information is presented most results are shown with high quality, effective photographs illustrating the kinds of enhancement activities that have taken place and habitat conditions pre-and post enhancement. It would have been helpful if the sponsors had used the Habitat Management Plan as a framework for structuring a discussion of accomplishments and results. One of the crucial questions that reviewers need to consider is whether the work to date is achieving the objectives set forth in the Plan. Results presented in the proposal should clearly demonstrate the progress that is being made. Several habitat surveys were conducted by various agencies in the early 2000s. The sponsors suggest that these surveys can serve as a baseline which can be compared to current habitat conditions to assess the effectiveness of enhancement actions. This is a viable approach for demonstrating progress. Data should be clearly and concisely explained and general conclusions drawn about whether the project is achieving its overall goals and its future needs.

A strength of this proposal is its excellent outreach and education program. The sponsors have gone to great length in enlisting the participation and support of landowners and other members of the public and keeping them informed of the project’s progress. The sponsors engage in many conservation oriented programs and projects, including conservation education for children.

Management changes discussed by the sponsors are modification of ongoing enhancement projects that typically would be made in a project like this. There do not appear to be major project wide changes in direction and restoration methodology.

The ISRP is skeptical about the overall project being able to meet the goal by 2030 (see the stated vision in the proposal). There are no testable hypotheses (at least none are provided), the objectives are vague (not quantitative and no specific timelines), monitoring is inadequate and, therefore, the adaptive management process cannot work as intended. Without testable hypotheses and the monitoring data to test them, the Adaptive Management process cannot work efficiently. It is not clear if Structured Decision Making is being used.

The sponsors indicated that “The Forrest Conservation Area’s contracted deliverable history is 81%, which seems an average, reasonable percentage rate of success.” In addition to completion of deliverables, success should be measured ultimately by improvements in the fish population and secondarily in steam and riparian conditions.

In terms of past deliverables, the information provided was limited. For example, statements such as “The Tribes attempt to monitor the property and the restoration projects as much as possible given limited funds and time to do so” and “The Tribes are in the early phases of developing a web based data storage site to host all the data and make it accessible to interested parties.” Monitoring of restoration actions should be a core activity and data management should be well developed. Concerning data, how does the project interface with ISEMP or CHaMP? Further, redd counts are conducted for steelhead but what about Chinook and bull trout? How are lamprey monitored? How are the photo point images used? What data are generated?

P.29: What species is being stocked in the ponds for recreational fishing?

Further, beaver should be an active participant in the restoration. What efforts are being made to include that natural ecosystem engineer in the restoration process?

The project has been in place since 2002 but the few data provided appear to show no response from the fish.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

Project relationships (to other projects) are not easily understood. The project expresses a clear commitment to RM&E. The sponsors appear to have a close working relationship with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR). The sponsors state that they use fish data collected by ODFW for project monitoring within the Conservation Area. It is not clear, however, whether these data are collected specifically for monitoring purposes in the Conservation Area and so is suitable for assessment of project effectiveness, or whether it is part of a larger scale monitoring effort in which some of the sample sites happen to fall within the Area.

The Habitat Management Plan broadly outlines the kinds of RM&E that will be undertaken in the Conservation Area including status and trends and effectiveness monitoring.  Objective 3 and Deliverable 12 in the proposal explicitly call for RM&E. The status of the RM&E program, however, is unclear. The sponsors should provide an up-to-date summary of ongoing monitoring activities. Apparently several cooperators will be involved in conducting RM&E. The role of each of these cooperators needs to be clarified. The sponsors also should clarify the role of the Middle Fork IMW in RM&E. The sponsors should discuss how monitoring data from different cooperators will be compiled, who will conduct the data analyses, and when the analyses will be brought up to date. It appears that data analysis and interpretation is lagging behind other proposed work.

It was beneficial 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

With some exceptions the Deliverables are not specific regarding project locations and desired outcomes of restoration actions. Deliverable 3 pertains to conduct of RM&E, but few details of the RM&E plan are given. Methods and metrics for RM&E are cited in MonitoringMethods.org, but they would be more meaningful if they were in the context of an RM&E program. The sponsors should provide the rationale for selection of the sites that will be enhanced.

Operation of the nursery is a step in the right direction. However, its capacity to produce plants is relatively limited. The 12,000 plants per year equates to a community density of less than a hectare on a young native riparian stand (~15 years old). Nursery operations should be carefully examined with a focus on increasing capacity in the near future. The scale is small for the work they are doing. They offer the ability to collect materials from the specific restoration sites and local areas. They may want to expand their nursery aspect.

Planting in stages looked like a good strategy to allow stratification. They should monitor the success of this approach.

Most invasive species are here to stay. While some control may be attempted – usually at very high costs – the fact is that managers are faced with the emergence of dynamic hybrid communities going forward. It may be more effective to develop strategies that in some instances tolerate the presence of hybrid communities, increase riparian shade to naturally repel invasive plants, and only institute control measures for species causing extensive ecological harm to the river (for example, knotweed, west of the cascades). Has fire been considered as a control measure? It has been very effective in other fire dominated communities (including riparian zones). See review: Pettit, N.E. and R.J. Naiman. 2007. Fire in the riparian zone: Characteristics and ecological consequences. Ecosystems 10:673-687.

A professional publication (or two) in a refereed journal should be listed as a deliverable. It is important for large scale projects, like this one, to provide leadership in the broader restoration community.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

P. 47: What type of data are you collecting and how are you documenting supporting metadata? “This information is covered by the protocol(s) set up in monitoringmethods.org account linked to this geographical review. Data is documented with the metadata where possible.” A more comprehensive response is needed for this question. Perhaps provide a Table showing how the metadata are linked to each deliverable

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 11:57:27 AM.

This is a well-written proposal with a clear history and clear objectives, methods, M&E, and demonstrated cooperation with other related projects. The Forrest Conservation Area was purchased by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon (Tribes) in 2002 as a high priority project with BPA mitigation funds. The project has since received BPA annual funding for O&M as part of the Memorandum of Agreement between the Tribes and BPA. The Conservation Area is 4,232 acres and is split into two geographically separate parcels located along the Upper Middle Fork and Upper Mainstem John Day Rivers in the John Day Subbasin.

Though currently well below its potential for fish and wildlife due to previous habitat degradation, the property contains critical habitat used by spring Chinook, summer steelhead, and a variety of wildlife. Spawning spring Chinook densities on the Middle Fork property are the highest in the basin and the property represents 4,083 Habitat Units (HU) of protection for 7 wildlife mitigation species for BPA. Benefits from this project to focal and non-focal species should persist over the long term.

Previous ISRP reviews of this proposal were very positive and noted that it was an important high priority project. The current project proposal recounts biological results (gains) that have occurred since acquisition of the property.

Technical and scientific background: The technical and scientific background is excellent. It describes in detail the subbasin context and the Forrest Conservation area within it. It includes a description of the property, assessments conducted, baseline conditions, limiting factors, desired future conditions, and restoration strategies to achieve these. It also contains information that probably should be included in other sections (ties to other projects, history, objectives, etc). The section on spring Chinook contains a statement that the fish are protected under MSFCMA, when the reference should be to ESA. Helpful photos are provided. A good description of habitat issues that need to be addressed by the activities proposed in this project is also provided.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposal establishes good rationales and significance through linkages to the 2000 FCRPS BiOp and to the John Day Subbasin Plan (JD SBP). The conservation area is a key component of the JD SBP. Recovery strategies identified as highest priority in the SBP for are consistent with activities contained in the proposed project. Project actions are motivated by the limiting factors and their corresponding strategies in the JD SBP. The proposal also describes links to the 2002 Fish and Wildlife Program habitat strategies. The proposal also notes links to the Wy-Kan-Ush-Mi-Wa-Kish-Wit.

Relationships to other projects: An extensive list of direct links to and complementarities with other projects is provided. These projects are managed by CTWS, ODFW, CTUIR, OYCC, BOR, Grant SWCD, ODEQ, public schools, USDA NRCS, etc. The proposal describes very strong links with description of the nature of the link.

Project history is extensive and well documented, particularly for a project that is only 3+ years old. A short history of project development and funding is presented, followed by an extensive description of project activities by category such as fencing, planting, CREP, flow enhancements, irrigation improvements, fish screening, etc. The project clearly has implemented a substantial amount of restoration work. Good detail is provided as justification for the activities. A detailed description of monitoring of project activities is included.

Objectives: Objectives relate to those specified in the JD SBP and to specific restoration goals for the Forrest Conservation Area. Objectives are stated in general form, but become more specific in the expression of work elements and quite specific and measurable in the metrics presented in the administrative section. Objectives are reasonable and comprehensive.

Tasks (work elements) and methods: Several work elements are associated with each objective. Some of the work elements are presented in general, rather than specific terms ((e.g. remove vegetation) but do contain discussion that establish the intention, context and rationale in more detail. Other work elements (replace culverts) are specific and measurable. The objectives and work elements cover a lot of ground and consist of reasonable sounding activities, but lack discussion of their motivation contained in the Oxbow proposal. Each work element contains collection of data for monitoring and evaluation. Specific measurable quantities are contained in the work element metrics (admin and budgeting section).

Monitoring and evaluation: A detailed description of monitoring activities is included in the section on project history. Work elements also contain components to "collect, generate, validate field and lab data" with a description of how these data will be used in evaluating success of the strategies. It would be useful to see the Forrest Area Management Plan to see how the monitoring is integrated to inform decision making on the area as a whole.

Facilities, equipment, and personnel: Facilities and personnel are well situated in place with strong ties to related projects. A specific list of equipment and facilities, with functions and conditions noted, is provided.

Information transfer: Good description of not only routine reporting to BPA but also specific details on information sharing and coordination with other projects and agencies. Indirectly addressed through listing of proposed reports.