Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Project Number:
1998-022-00
Title:
Pine Creek Conservation Area
Summary:
Contract for Operations & Management of the Pine Creek Conservation Area by the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs.

The Conservation Area includes the Pine Creek Ranch and Wagner Ranch Acquisitions, and is managed by the Tribes in accordance with the Pine Creek Conservation Area Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Management Plan. This plan serves as the site-specific management plan called for in Section 3. (b) of the MOA between the Tribes and BPA. The MOA is the primary legal document guiding the Tribes' management of the property. This plan is supplemental to the MOA, and provides further definition to the Tribes commitment to manage the property for fish and wildlife habitat.

Pine Creek Conservation Area is intended, as a wildlife and watershed mitigation site, to partially offset wildlife habitat losses caused by John Day Dam on the Columbia River. Habitat management will, as specified in the MOA between BPA and the Tribes, to the extent possible, focus on strategies designed to achieve and maintain native habitat that is naturally self-sustaining.

In many cases, recovery of watershed functions or native plant communities may only occur over the course of several decades. Other changes, such as community dominance by invasive species, may be permanent without active intervention on the part of land managers. Future climate changes may also limit or prevent recovery to historic conditions.

Where possible, altered or damaged ecosystem functions will be restored through passive restoration techniques, such as the prevention of activities which degrade or prevent recovery. Passive restoration strategies will be paired with active interventions as needed, such as replacement of culverts creating fish passage barriers. It is hoped that these efforts will lead to conservation of biodiversity in the form of native fish, wildlife, and plant communities.

An additional goal for the project is to work in partnership with neighboring landowners, local, state and federal agencies, conservation organizations, and educational groups, and serve as an example of watershed recovery and wildlife habitat management in the lower John Day Basin. Successful monitoring of changes to vegetation, wildlife, fish use and distribution, and hydrology are critical to this effort.

Specific management objectives are identified in the Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Management Plan.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs (Tribe)
Starting FY:
1998
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia Plateau John Day 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Cutthroat Trout, Westslope
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Pikeminnow, Northern
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 0.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 100.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:

No photos have been uploaded yet for this Project.

Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2020 - FY2022)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2020 Expense $441,259 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2020 Expense $224,992 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Fish Accord Transfers - WS 10/31/19 10/31/2019
FY2020 Expense $218,000 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Transfers (WS, SBT) 12/22/2020 01/08/2021
FY2020 Expense $6,992 To: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Transfers (Warm Springs) 1/14/2021 01/14/2021
FY2021 Expense $446,775 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2021 Expense $102,152 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Fish Accord Budget Transfers - CTWS - 2/13/20 02/13/2020
FY2021 Expense $218,000 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Transfers (WS, SBT) 12/22/2020 01/08/2021
FY2021 Expense $123,575 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Transfers (Warm Springs) 1/14/2021 01/14/2021
FY2021 Expense $54,621 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Transfers (Warm Springs) 1/14/2021 01/14/2021
FY2021 Expense $52,514 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Transfers (Warm Springs) 1/14/2021 01/14/2021
FY2021 Expense $6,992 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Transfers (Warm Springs) 1/14/2021 01/14/2021
FY2022 Expense $452,359 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Accord Extensions (Warm Springs Tribe) 10/1/2018 10/01/2018
FY2022 Expense $19,133 From: Fish Accord - LRT - Warm Springs Fish Accord Budget Transfers - CTWS - 2/13/20 02/13/2020

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2021
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2020 (Draft)
2019 $268,212 38%
2018 $422,488 52%
2017 $206,850 30%
2016 $355,047 (Draft) 50% (Draft)
2015 $124,635 (Draft) 25% (Draft)
2014 $198,791 (Draft) 38% (Draft)
2013 $132,613 (Draft) 25% (Draft)
2012 $117,819 (Draft) 26% (Draft)
2011 $113,460 (Draft) 19% (Draft)
2010 $243,578 (Draft) 43% (Draft)
2009 $111,099 (Draft) 28% (Draft)
2008 $105,280 (Draft) 35% (Draft)
2007 $74,808 (Draft) 26% (Draft)

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
BPA-010893 Bonneville Power Administration FY99 land Active $3,200,000 10/1/1998 - 9/30/1999
98 REL 2 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 PINE CREEK RANCH Terminated $411,867 10/1/2000 - 4/1/2001
BPA-010894 Bonneville Power Administration FY01 land Active $2,610,002 10/1/2000 - 9/30/2001
4284 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 PINE CREEK RANCH Closed $376,616 4/2/2001 - 5/31/2003
15005 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 PINE CREEK RANCH O&M Closed $488,814 6/1/2003 - 1/31/2007
31693 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 PINE CREEK RANCH O&M Closed $194,085 2/1/2007 - 1/31/2008
36591 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Closed $192,960 2/1/2008 - 1/31/2009
41012 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Closed $288,597 2/1/2009 - 1/31/2010
BPA-005057 Bonneville Power Administration FY10 Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Active $2,304 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
45933 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Closed $326,182 2/1/2010 - 1/31/2011
BPA-005419 Bonneville Power Administration Wilderness Land Exchange review Active $0 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
51212 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Closed $787,568 2/1/2011 - 4/30/2013
BPA-006196 Bonneville Power Administration Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Active $13,178 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006852 Bonneville Power Administration Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Active $757 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
59924 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Closed $723,580 2/1/2013 - 1/31/2015
BPA-007493 Bonneville Power Administration 2014 Land Acquisitions Active $0 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-008410 Bonneville Power Administration FY15 Land Acquisitions Active $0 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
68025 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Closed $365,437 2/1/2015 - 1/31/2016
BPA-008813 Bonneville Power Administration FY16 Land Acquisition (expense) Active $2,795 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
71455 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Closed $356,404 2/1/2016 - 1/31/2017
BPA-009452 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 Land Acquisition & TBL Realty Service Active $5,867 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
74959 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Issued $470,580 2/1/2017 - 1/31/2018
BPA-010091 Bonneville Power Administration FY18 Expense Land Acquisitions Active $0 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
78292 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Closed $386,638 2/1/2018 - 1/31/2019
BPA-010601 Bonneville Power Administration FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Active $0 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
81252 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Issued $441,259 2/1/2019 - 1/31/2020
BPA-011472 Bonneville Power Administration FY20 Land Acquisitions Active $0 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
84040 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Issued $441,259 2/1/2020 - 1/31/2021
BPA-012044 Bonneville Power Administration FY21 Land Acquisitions Active $218,000 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
87094 SOW Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 1998-022-00 EXP PINE CREEK CONSERVATION AREA Issued $548,927 2/1/2021 - 1/31/2022



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):15
Completed:14
On time:14
Status Reports
Completed:67
On time:15
Avg Days Late:13

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
BPA-010893 FY99 land Bonneville Power Administration 10/1998 10/1998 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-010894 FY01 land Bonneville Power Administration 10/2000 10/2000 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4284 15005, 31693, 36591, 41012, 45933, 51212, 59924, 68025, 71455, 74959, 78292, 81252, 84040, 87094 1998-022-00 PINE CREEK RANCH Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs 04/2001 04/2001 Issued 67 171 0 0 9 180 95.00% 0
BPA-005057 FY10 Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Bonneville Power Administration 10/2009 10/2009 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-005419 Wilderness Land Exchange review Bonneville Power Administration 10/2010 10/2010 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006196 Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-006852 Pine Creek Conservation Area - Wilderness Land Exchange Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-008813 FY16 Land Acquisition (expense) Bonneville Power Administration 10/2015 10/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-009452 FY17 Land Acquisition & TBL Realty Service Bonneville Power Administration 10/2016 10/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-012044 FY21 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2020 10/2020 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 67 171 0 0 9 180 95.00% 0


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-NPCC-20210312
Project: 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 10/13/2017
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Recommendation: Sponsor to address ISRP qualifications 1-3 in updated management plan by end of 2018 (per programmatic issue recommendations in this Decision Document Part 1).

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/fish-and-wildlife/project-reviews-and-recommendations/2017-wildlife-project-review]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-ISRP-20201105
Project: 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Review: 2017 Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 11/5/2020
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/28/2017
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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).    

Qualification #1 - Additional information needed in 2018 Annual Report
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.
Documentation Links:
Review: Wildlife Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-NPCC-20091217
Project: 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Approved Date: 5/31/2009
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Accord Project. Programmatic issue # 7
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: Management Plans - Multiple uses of wildlife conservation lands

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-ISRP-20090618
Project: 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Review: Wildlife Category Review
Completed Date: 5/19/2009
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
First Round ISRP Date: 3/26/2009
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
First Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Interim funding pending wildlife o&m review.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 1998-022-00 - Pine Creek Conservation Area
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
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.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 1998-022-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: No Problems Exist
Cost Share Rating: None
Comment: O&M on BPA-funded wildlife mitigation site; assume requested funds consistent with terms of MOA.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 1998-022-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 1998-022-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Rick Hayes Interested Party Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Brad Houslet Interested Party Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Robert Brunoe Supervisor Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Paul Ashley (Inactive) Technical Contact Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Chris Brun Supervisor Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Leona Ike Administrative Contact Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Brian Cochran Supervisor Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Troy Johnson (Inactive) Project Lead Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs
Corrie Veenstra Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Lindsey Arotin Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jody Lando Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
Jesse Wilson Interested Party Bonneville Power Administration