2010 Wildlife project review

The sponsor response indicates a desire to include more effective monitoring and evaluation in the project. Budgetary constraints make this desire difficult to implement. Continuation of low cost monitoring such as photo points to illustrate progress toward enhancement goals, as well as unanticipated results or unexpected events, is encouraged. Wetland vegetation monitoring of plant cover along transects with the goal relating vegetative changes to wildlife use should be a priority. Effective methods to monitor species of interest such as great blue heron, bald eagles, mourning dove, winter waterfowl, and western pond turtles will require creative strategies to be sustainable. The ISRP applauds the sponsor's willingness to find ways to effectively monitor weed control efforts. The ISRP is also sympathetic to the WDFW budget situation and appreciates the Wildlife Area's attempts to achieve the goals and objectives of this conservation reserve with a small group of dedicated staff and a few volunteers. With regard to the assertion that the staff is trying to increase their effectiveness monitoring by going beyond HEP ("we do feel that monitoring wildlife response to habitat enhancement measures is important as well and we hope that the ISRP will support our efforts to include this type of monitoring in our future contracts") we can only say "Amen."

The ISRP requests a response from the project sponsors including a more detailed description of what will be monitored or a justification why an important wildlife or habitat component of the project cannot be monitored. We realize that funding for monitoring is limited, but with so many possibilities for the area and its wildlife to be affected by non-native species (e.g., exotic plants, feral cats) it is essential that there be some way of tracking the results of restoration actions. Overall, the ISRP felt this project is strategically located and will benefit a variety of wildlife species. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The technical justification and project significance were well described. This project will help maintain and restore wetland conditions in an area near Lake Vancouver. It will assist in filling gaps between a series of wildlife habitat areas between the City of Vancouver and the Lewis River. The stated emphasis is to create and improve migratory bird habitat, particularly species that occupy riverine lowlands and floodplains, e.g., sandhill cranes. The ISRP previously suggested that the habitat implications for native fishes could be addressed in this project, since the Shillapoo Lake area was undoubtedly an important off-channel rearing site for salmonids and other native species. The sponsors have added some language stating that there should be some benefits to fish habitat along the river, but because of the risk of invasion by non-native species (particularly carp) fish screens will continue to be used to exclude fishes from many of the wetland restoration sites. Other wildlife habitat programs in the area were adequately described, although it does not appear from this proposal that there will be much resource sharing among them. Local universities might be a resource for volunteer monitoring assistance. 2. Project History and Results The proposal did an adequate job of describing the project history and series of actions surrounding the initial and subsequent land acquisitions in the Shillapoo Lake area. Although most of the information was qualitative it does appear that the sponsors have achieved the majority of their habitat restoration goals. Given the duration of the project, however, it would have been helpful to have seen some wildlife data to demonstrate that the newly created habitat was being utilized. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The objectives, strategies, and tasks were clearly described. Most have to do with re-establishing native vegetation, controlling non-native vegetation, and promoting wetland hydrology over the majority of the Shillapoo area, and are a continuation of ongoing efforts. Many of the actions involve elements of both wetland restoration and lowland agriculture as the area is gradually transformed from a diked and drained riverine lake to a natural wetland. There were many items listed in the work elements and for some tasks few details were given. For example, the monitoring section mentions tracking the effects of burning as a management tool, but there did not appear to be any tasks targeting non-native vegetation control or native vegetation establishment that specifically involved controlled burns. 4. M&E Project sponsors state that they will continue to perform periodic HEP evaluations for crediting. The ISRP is pleased to see that they have incorporated permanent reference points, treatment/control comparisons, and focal species wildlife surveys into an effectiveness monitoring plan. However, the M&E plan remains the weak link in this proposal. The project managers state their hands are full with the actual tasks of restoring the property. The ISRP needs more details about what will be monitored and how the findings will be used to guide future management activities. For example, the use of photo reference points was not clear (how will they be used to document change?). This area is flood prone, and some flexibility will be needed to get out after a flood to see what happens to wildlife habitat after the flood event. Standardized monitoring by Washington State is mentioned, but no details are presented. Given Washington’s fiscal situation, it is unlikely that the state is going to fund the M&E needed for this project. Although habitat surveys in general will occur on a five-year rotation (except for reference points, which will be monitored annually), more frequent monitoring may be needed for some things. We also encourage the sponsors not to abandon the possibility of monitoring amphibians and reptiles. There are several sensitive amphibians that could make use of the new habitat, and at least one reptile (western pond turtle). Any permanent water bodies created by the restoration work should be occasionally checked for non-native fishes – particularly carp and other warm-water species – and control actions implemented if they are detected. Project staff appears well qualified to carry out or supervise the monitoring work.