This project has been successful in establishing and achieving project-wide habitat objectives using a variety of active restoration and management activities. It appears that once these initial project habitat objectives were accomplished, however, some key program elements were discontinued. The key elements included establishing objectives to describe desired outcomes of ongoing management activities, a core monitoring program to evaluate their effectiveness and creating a more formal approach to adaptive management (incorporate active learning to document lessons learned and potentially adjust future management approaches). By restoring these important project elements, the project will be in a better position to continue to provide a range of benefits to fish, wildlife, and the users of the area.

1. Objectives and outcomes

The 2008 Management Plan provided major project goals and specific objectives for the amount and general character of major habitat types. A more thorough explanation of the basis for the desired distribution pattern and relative abundance of Habitat Units on the property would have improved the initial plan and objectives. It is noted in the Draft 2017 Management Plan that by 2011, monitoring had determined that restoration and management had been successful at meeting original habitat and stream restoration objectives and that the Project would transition into one limited to ongoing operations and maintenance.

The current project conducts a variety of activities that are discussed in the Summary Report and Project Management Plans (2008 and 2017 Draft). These include additional land acquisition, continued terrestrial habitat restoration, treatments to control or eradicate nonnative fish and plants, management and upgrading of infrastructure, continued restoration of the Conley tract, and providing a “variety of wildlife oriented recreational and educational activities to the public.” Also, the Summary Report indicates that mechanical treatment is being used to open vegetative cover and “set succession back to provide habitat for a variety of life stages of wildlife” on selected wetlands. The ecological basis for management approaches designed to reverse successional change in vegetation should be described. Current methods are expensive and will need to be applied into the future. Possible alternatives should be evaluated.

Although there are some general goal statements for many of the project’s activities, there are no objectives to describe anticipated end products and desired outcomes. Desired habitat outcomes, for a variety of management activities, need to be described and framed as objectives to allow future evaluation of effectiveness. Time frames for expected accomplishments are also needed. The incorporation of quantifiable objectives having explicit timelines will allow the project to assess its actions and develop management alternatives if needed.

2. Scientific principles and methods

The Summary Report described general activities and methods for the project. It did not identify scientific principles on which the restoration practices were based. The objectives for the Ladd Creek restoration were stated but not related to geomorphic processes or principles that would indicate that a 50:50 pool riffle ratio or C6c channel type are appropriate.

3. Monitoring and evaluation

The Project had an active habitat monitoring program through FY 2011, but monitoring activities were discontinued in 2012 due to a reported lack of funding. The Summary Report notes, that initially, a variety of fish and wildlife monitoring activities took place in the project area to assess response to the original habitat restoration objectives. This work appears to have generally documented achievement of mitigation objectives for major habitat types across the project.

From 2003 through 2011, data indicate that numbers of bird species increased (though no statistical analysis was provided). Photo points were used from 2002 to 2012, as a qualitative indication of habitat change at selected points, but quantitative assessment of the changes was not reported. Numbers of waterfowl observed increased through 2005. It was reported that numbers observed then decreased since 2005, though data were not provided in the Summary Report to support this statement. The proponent suggested the decline was a result of interference of emergent vegetation on visual observations and reported that 1500 to 2000 birds are banded each year. Currently, it is unclear if numbers of waterfowl are declining, remaining constant, or increasing. Temperature monitoring (2002-2006) indicated that restoration had not improved water temperatures. There is no mention of monitoring to document current stream temperatures. Fish monitoring (2003 and 2004), and photo point monitoring (2002-2012) also occurred.

It is noted that monitoring currently is conducted for all habitat types to identify invasive and noxious weeds. There is no information provided summarizing the results of this work. There is no information on any additional monitoring activities or evaluation of results for the project.

Although the 2009 ISRP review found that monitoring was "very complete” for both habitat and biological responses to management and restoration, it was noted in the 2002 review that, “This project should not receive long-term funding without a management plan that includes clear objectives and M&E.” Changes need to occur to reinstate a base monitoring program. Scientifically sound monitoring and evaluation would strengthen future planning and management. However, given the limited budget and past reductions in funding, the project will need to develop a strategic plan for securing resources for evaluation and monitoring. Several options appear to be worth consideration. The project could work with regional agencies to make the property available as part of larger regional studies. It could work with local universities (i.e., Eastern Oregon University) to encourage the use of their site by graduate students or field classes. It could also partner with citizen science programs in the region, such as Ducks Unlimited or Trout Unlimited. The managers know their sites very well and could consider using their education and outreach efforts to create ongoing partnerships to provide evaluations of the status and trends for meeting critical objectives, effectiveness of their management actions, and identification of possible future challenges.

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

It is apparent that there is a good deal of hard work and sound management occurring in the Ladd Marsh project. Past monitoring and evaluation has shown that original terrestrial and aquatic restoration objectives were accomplished by around 2010. It is also noted that current management is primarily focused on operation of the area and maintenance of those initial target conditions. The original habitat objectives have not been re-evaluated for more than a decade. The ISRP would like to see such a re-evaluation of initial objectives incorporated into the current revision of the Management Plan which is currently in draft form. The proponents continue to work with cooperators to restore wetland habitat in a playa on the Conley Lake tract. It appears that this wetland still has not been restored. Future actions to accomplish this objective would be strengthened by a more thorough assessment of the factors preventing restoration from occurring. Additionally, a discussion of potential alternatives to the current, labor intensive program to maintain early seral stages of wetland succession should be considered. Current approaches require continuous investment to maintain desired conditions. Less intensive management interventions should be evaluated for possible use in future management plan revisions. A less time consuming and expensive alternative to the current approach might be identified and tested on selected areas.

Current ongoing activities, described for the project, include an active education and outreach program, continued restoration activities planned for the near future on the Conley Lake tract, management of invasive plant species, infrastructure maintenance and replacement, and development of a revised management plan which is currently in draft form. The draft Management Plan, describes various challenges but lacks additional information on potential alternatives and timeframes for different management approaches or desired future condition. These should be addressed. Desired conditions should be framed as quantitative objective statements with a time frame for their accomplishment. Problem assessment, using quantitative objective statements, and identification of potential future alternative management approaches based on effectiveness of observed outcomes (i.e., adaptive management) would also serve to strengthen the management plan.

From materials provided, it appears that the project is continuing in a “maintenance” mode. Annual reports for the last three years use almost identical narratives describing work and accomplishments from year to year. Establishment of meaningful project objectives and a base monitoring program will encourage adaptive management and active learning. This will provide for increased efficiency and effectiveness in continuing a high level of resource and user benefits for the project. Proponents are encouraged to make time, in a busy schedule, to invest in these measures.

The ISRP requests that the proponents provide the following additional information in the 2018 annual report for the project or in the final Habitat Management Plan which is currently in draft form. 1. Quantitative objectives, with an expected time frame for achieving outcomes for major project activities planned for the next 5 years. 2. Description of monitoring actions that will be used to track progress on objectives. 3. Description of an adaptive management process linked to the quantifiable objectives and timelines.

The sponsors should be complimented for the partnership and outreach aspects of the project and their use of a multidisciplinary approach. With a few exceptions the project is on track and meeting objectives. M&E data collected in the past are shown. Additional monitoring effort will be required in the coming years for fish, notably if water from Conley Lake will be used to recharge the aquifer.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
The justification for the project is described well in the proposal. The significance of the additions to the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area is demonstrated by the close alignment with subbasin priorities and is amply substantiated by the presentation of some monitoring data. This project is obviously well coordinated with the Ladd Marsh program but also compliments many other BPA-funded efforts in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The sponsors have engaged a wide variety of additional organizations ranging from other ODFW biologists to a nearby city (La Grande) to local school groups, and the relationships among the groups are working well.

2. Project History and Results
The proposal provides not only a chronology of activities since project inception in 1998 but also provides an indication of biological response to project implementation by summarizing some of the monitoring data that has been collected. Improvements in habitat condition and the response of wildlife populations to these changes clearly illustrate the effectiveness of the restoration measures that have been implemented at the project site. Activities detailed include purchases, easements, dikes, stream channel construction, fish ladder, planting shrubs and native grasses, weed control, and water management. Results have generally been positive - some invasive species such as reed canary grass have out-competed native vegetation in some areas but the sponsors are confident their management methods will reverse this trend.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The objectives, work elements, and methods are appropriate for the project. The activities to be supported by this proposal are largely maintenance of habitat improvements that have been implemented over the last decade. The methods have been successful to date, as indicated by monitoring data. The manner in which this section was organized required a considerable amount of repetition of work elements and methods. Some streamlining of the text would have made review of the proposal a bit easier. Objectives include: install nest structures; control water levels and vegetation; install perimeter fencing; compile and analyze data already collected; and conduct vegetation and wildlife surveys.

4. M&E
The M&E program for this project is very complete. Both habitat condition as well as population responses to the restoration actions are being monitored. Despite the authors’ claim that resources are insufficient to implement a comprehensive monitoring strategy, they are conducting a very thorough assessment of project effectiveness. In addition, it is quite evident from the discussions in this proposal that the monitoring results are being used to inform management decisions.

The photo points are producing good qualitative data but should be combined with vegetation measurements wherever possible.

Additional monitoring effort will be required in the coming years for fish, notably if water from Conley Lake will be used to recharge the aquifer. Monitoring of this work will be ODFW’s responsibility. The proposal indicates that the current fish trap has not been operated since 2004 due to some design problems. However, the trap worked well enough to establish the presence of Chinook fry and an adult bull trout in the project area. The fact that these key fish species did use the new channel of Ladd Creek is important information. The water temperature monitoring data is important, although the data might be related to thermal tolerances of fish and turtles for more effective interpretation. Some information on seasonal patterns of use and the survival and growth of the fish at this site would also have been very useful. Improvements to the fish trap, as suggested in this proposal, would help improve the understanding of fish response to the project. In view of the fact that a proposal has been submitted to restore habitat on six miles of Ladd
Creek upstream from the project location, a more intensive monitoring effort for fish at the project site and upstream becomes even more important. Much of this type of monitoring is outside the primary focus of the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area Additions Project. The sponsors should work with those proposing or conducting fish habitat restoration work in the subbasin to ensure that sufficient monitoring resources are directed towards the fish habitat restoration efforts on Ladd Creek.

The sponsors should be complimented for the partnership and outreach aspects of the project and their use of a multidisciplinary approach. With a few exceptions the project is on track and meeting objectives. M&E data collected in the past are shown. Additional monitoring effort will be required in the coming years for fish, notably if water from Conley Lake will be used to recharge the aquifer. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The justification for the project is described well in the proposal. The significance of the additions to the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area is demonstrated by the close alignment with subbasin priorities and is amply substantiated by the presentation of some monitoring data. This project is obviously well coordinated with the Ladd Marsh program but also compliments many other BPA-funded efforts in the Grande Ronde Subbasin. The sponsors have engaged a wide variety of additional organizations ranging from other ODFW biologists to a nearby city (La Grande) to local school groups, and the relationships among the groups are working well. 2. Project History and Results The proposal provides not only a chronology of activities since project inception in 1998 but also provides an indication of biological response to project implementation by summarizing some of the monitoring data that has been collected. Improvements in habitat condition and the response of wildlife populations to these changes clearly illustrate the effectiveness of the restoration measures that have been implemented at the project site. Activities detailed include purchases, easements, dikes, stream channel construction, fish ladder, planting shrubs and native grasses, weed control, and water management. Results have generally been positive - some invasive species such as reed canary grass have out-competed native vegetation in some areas but the sponsors are confident their management methods will reverse this trend. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The objectives, work elements, and methods are appropriate for the project. The activities to be supported by this proposal are largely maintenance of habitat improvements that have been implemented over the last decade. The methods have been successful to date, as indicated by monitoring data. The manner in which this section was organized required a considerable amount of repetition of work elements and methods. Some streamlining of the text would have made review of the proposal a bit easier. Objectives include: install nest structures; control water levels and vegetation; install perimeter fencing; compile and analyze data already collected; and conduct vegetation and wildlife surveys. 4. M&E The M&E program for this project is very complete. Both habitat condition as well as population responses to the restoration actions are being monitored. Despite the authors’ claim that resources are insufficient to implement a comprehensive monitoring strategy, they are conducting a very thorough assessment of project effectiveness. In addition, it is quite evident from the discussions in this proposal that the monitoring results are being used to inform management decisions. The photo points are producing good qualitative data but should be combined with vegetation measurements wherever possible. Additional monitoring effort will be required in the coming years for fish, notably if water from Conley Lake will be used to recharge the aquifer. Monitoring of this work will be ODFW’s responsibility. The proposal indicates that the current fish trap has not been operated since 2004 due to some design problems. However, the trap worked well enough to establish the presence of Chinook fry and an adult bull trout in the project area. The fact that these key fish species did use the new channel of Ladd Creek is important information. The water temperature monitoring data is important, although the data might be related to thermal tolerances of fish and turtles for more effective interpretation. Some information on seasonal patterns of use and the survival and growth of the fish at this site would also have been very useful. Improvements to the fish trap, as suggested in this proposal, would help improve the understanding of fish response to the project. In view of the fact that a proposal has been submitted to restore habitat on six miles of Ladd Creek upstream from the project location, a more intensive monitoring effort for fish at the project site and upstream becomes even more important. Much of this type of monitoring is outside the primary focus of the Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area Additions Project. The sponsors should work with those proposing or conducting fish habitat restoration work in the subbasin to ensure that sufficient monitoring resources are directed towards the fish habitat restoration efforts on Ladd Creek.

The response made clear that the project has sources of relevant monitoring data, and it provided some descriptive detail that evidences project progress. Although the response states that monitoring must be limited to largely descriptive/qualitative studies, the activities that are described appear to include many quantitative data, and descriptive/qualitative data can be perfectly adequate to evaluate some biological objectives (e.g., use of photopoints). Photopoints are useful in evaluation, and some census data are shown. This project has shown improvement in monitoring and evaluation over the years, and future proposals should continue to provide improved description of the evaluation of the project's progress, using relevant monitoring information

The ISRP emphasizes that the proponents need to analyze the information they have gathered and are continuing to gather, not create an expensive monitoring program. With this project, there is no necessary conflict between the ISRP and NPCC guidance on project level M&E. There is no need to spend more than 5% of the project budget to produce relevant analyzed monitoring data that index project progress. Projects are required, under review criteria, to provide adequate monitoring and evaluation, and it appears that what this project has been doing could readily address that requirement. There is no apparent need for expanded experimental monitoring; there simply is a need to analyze and think about the information that is available. Further analysis and reporting of relevant data would likely not take as much as two weeks, especially if some analyses are already included in Annual Reports, as the response indicates. In future reports, the results of some data analysis should be shown and their interpretation described to indicate what the project proponents understand the data to tell them about the progress and success of their project; the ISRP should not be referred to annual M&E reports to see what those data show.