The primary goal has been to convert agricultural fields to shrub steppe habitat to support focal species (i.e., threatened Columbia sharp-tailed grouse and mule deer). The project appears to be on track in that 3500 acres of agricultural land have now been converted and the abundance trend for Columbia sharp-tailed grouse is increasing. However, the management plan does not include quantitative objectives with timelines for expected outcomes. 

It is not clear if monitoring exists to track continuing changes in vegetation in the converted agricultural fields. The 2012 update of the management plan provided results to 2010-2011; if possible, these results should be updated through 2016 in the next annual report. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

The 2006 Management Plan states “the primary goal and specific reason for purchasing the property is to establish a viable sharp-tailed grouse population in and adjacent to the SCWA" (Scotch Creek Wildlife Area). The 2017 Summary Report states “the primary biological objective is to increase the Columbia sharp-tailed grouse population through habitat manipulation, maintenance, and protection measures, and by local population recruitment and population augmentation if necessary. A closely related secondary goal is to protect, enhance, and maintain shrub-steppe and riparian habitats for Columbia sharp-tailed grouse and other shrubsteppe obligate species, and forested habitats to increase mule deer use of the project area.” 

These objectives are clear statements of intention and are adequately justified as supporting the recovery of the threatened Columbia sharp-tailed grouse (extensive references are provided). However, because they are not quantitative and lack timelines, they cannot be used to track progress or re-evaluate assumptions as part of adaptive management. On the other hand, the ISRP was pleased to see that the 2012 update to the management plan did provide an explicit set of quantitative performance measures for 2011 for the purpose of evaluation. 

Has an abundance target been identified for Columbia sharp-tailed grouse in the SCWA? A target exists for the entire state of Washington, but what fraction of that target is expected to be achieved by this project? The objective has been to increase breeding abundance from very low levels, but the premise of the habitat mitigation project is that shrub-steppe habitat has been or will become a limiting factor. Has the carrying capacity of current habitat in the SCWA been estimated? It would have been useful to include lek counts in the SCWA and surrounding areas in the Summary Report (instead of just citing the status and trends report for the entire state). 

Similarly, an abundance target for mule deer was not mentioned, perhaps because the species is not listed. Even so, expected outcomes and timelines should be identified to help track progress and re-evaluate assumptions. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

An extensive set of management plans, research reports, and published scientific papers was provided to justify habitat restoration actions in support of the threatened Columbia sharptailed grouse. Much of the research and monitoring was conducted in the SCWA and adjacent wildlife areas (e.g., Swanson Lake and Sagebrush Flat). The cited reports indicate a high level of understanding of the natural history and habitat requirements for Columbia sharp-tailed grouse and provide a good scientific basis for the translocation experiments. 

No information or discussion is provided about how this project might be affected by expected changes in climate. Will the project still be viable if climate changes in this region as predicted? 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

Excellent monitoring and thorough evaluation of benefits for focal species is evident in the scientific reports cited. For example, several theses focus on studying the responses of translocated Columbia sharp-tailed grouse. It is noted that this work was funded by organizations other than BPA, primarily WDFW and USFWS. 

In contrast, it is not clear if monitoring exists to track continuing changes in vegetation in the converted agricultural fields. The 2012 update of the management plan provided results to 2010-2011. If possible, these results should be updated through 2016. For example, are reference pictures (i.e., small scale photos, landscape photos) available for these sites for future comparisons? Also, is there any information to show successful use of the nest platforms installed for great grey owls? Any such information should be included in the next annual report.

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

The project is maintaining various improvements to habitat that benefits focal species. Efforts to bolster Columbia sharp-tailed grouse abundance by translocating birds from other areas between 2009 and 2013 have been discontinued pending evaluation of benefits. So far the program appears to have been successful. 

The Summary Report also includes a useful summary of lessons learned about specific habitat restoration actions and administrative policies. The decisions or recommendations for changes are described clearly, and seem reasonable, but are not well supported by evidence or references to analyses in other documents. No formal adaptive management process is evident. 

Clearly the proponents of this project and others are finding some activities will require more funding or a different approach. More planning is needed to budget long-term maintenance and repair, with appropriate consideration for the impacts of wild fires or other unscheduled events.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents update the management plan to include quantitative objectives with timelines for expected outcomes so that progress can be tracked and assumptions re-evaluated as part of adaptive management.

This project supports the recovery of sharp-tailed grouse and mule deer and complements sharp-tail projects at several other locations in the region. The goals and objectives described in the Scotch Creek mitigation project support both the WDFW management strategies and goals for sharp-tailed grouse and the Okanogan Subbasin Plan goals and objectives. Much progress has been made at Scotch Creek on weed control and seeding with about 3200 acres converted back to native shrub-steppe habitat.

This project is linked and coordinated with a number of other similar projects including sharp-tailed grouse and shrub-steppe recovery efforts at Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area, Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area and on the Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) Reservation. This project has collaborated with the CCT in many ways to develop strategies to establish and maintain meta- populations within the Okanogan (Columbia Cascade Province), Crab Creek (Columbia Plateau Province), and Lake Roosevelt (Mountain Columbia Province) subbasins.

The inter-project cooperation and collaboration is commendable. The ISRP asks that because all of the sharp-tailed grouse populations on the various Wildlife Areas are not responding in a similar manner (some increasing, some decreasing), in the future can the habitat data being collected (apparently using the same protocols with Schroeder as the coordinator) be used effectively to better understand observed sharp-tailed grouse population responses to habitat conditions at each Wildlife Area? Perhaps the issues are more complicated than general habitat condition, e.g., wintering habitat issues at some areas vs. nesting conditions at others?

Basically, the ISRP is asking if the other Wildlife Areas are benefiting, or can benefit more, from the knowledge gained at Scotch Creek. It was noted that future data analyses will compare treatment sites with reference sites (hopefully among the Wildlife Areas and not just at local sites on a Management Area). Some Scotch Creek habitat data were presented (1996 vs. 2006) from HEP sites, but there appears to be a desire to collect additional habitat information. The ISRP believes that results from this and other similar projects have great potential to result in adaptive management at a regional scale.

This project supports the recovery of sharp-tailed grouse and mule deer and complements sharp-tail projects at several other locations in the region. The goals and objectives described in the Scotch Creek mitigation project support both the WDFW management strategies and goals for sharp-tailed grouse and the Okanogan Subbasin Plan goals and objectives. Much progress has been made at Scotch Creek on weed control and seeding with about 3200 acres converted back to native shrub-steppe habitat. This project is linked and coordinated with a number of other similar projects including sharp-tailed grouse and shrub-steppe recovery efforts at Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area, Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area and on the Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) Reservation. This project has collaborated with the CCT in many ways to develop strategies to establish and maintain meta- populations within the Okanogan (Columbia Cascade Province), Crab Creek (Columbia Plateau Province), and Lake Roosevelt (Mountain Columbia Province) subbasins. The inter-project cooperation and collaboration is commendable. The ISRP asks that because all of the sharp-tailed grouse populations on the various Wildlife Areas are not responding in a similar manner (some increasing, some decreasing), in the future can the habitat data being collected (apparently using the same protocols with Schroeder as the coordinator) be used effectively to better understand observed sharp-tailed grouse population responses to habitat conditions at each Wildlife Area? Perhaps the issues are more complicated than general habitat condition, e.g., wintering habitat issues at some areas vs. nesting conditions at others? Basically, the ISRP is asking if the other Wildlife Areas are benefitting, or can benefit more, from the knowledge gained at Scotch Creek. It was noted that future data analyses will compare treatment sites with reference sites (hopefully among the Wildlife Areas and not just at local sites on a Management Area). Some Scotch Creek habitat data were presented (1996 vs. 2006) from HEP sites, but there appears to be a desire to collect additional habitat information. The ISRP believes that results from this and other similar projects have great potential to result in adaptive management at a regional scale.

This project began in 1991 with major land purchases (now 16,500 acres). Much habitat work has been completed including collecting native plant seeds and commercially growing them to develop a large quantity of locally adapted seed stock for reseeding.

This project has meaningful goals with appropriate monitoring data collected to evaluate the sharp-tailed grouse population change over time. With much management activity on a relatively large study area, the ISRP was pleased to see grouse population increases in recent years. Additionally, the ISRP was impressed with the inclusion of the grouse data in the proposal.