2010 Wildlife project review

The project history with timeline was presented as requested and was quite informative. It indicates that several monitoring projects need to be started. It was useful to learn that some of the native-like grasses may not be self-sustaining in the long-term and that some competition exists between native and native-like species. In most cases weed issues are important, and there is a need to establish native forbs after the weeds are controlled. The rationale for choosing projects was based on those areas in poorest condition, usually related to overgrazing. Choice of projects also included proximity to present sage grouse populations and soil depth which provided a better chance of success. This empirical approach seems reasonable and appears to include the wildlife management concepts of connectivity and perhaps carrying capacity. Some preliminary data (using about 50% of information) was presented from the nested frequency plots, as requested, but the data shows considerable variability which limits the ability to detect changes at this time. The ISRP is hopeful that the nested frequency plots will become very useful in the future. As implied in the Sunnyside comments, WDFW is proposing a more deliberate M&E strategy that will be integrated across all WDFW eastern Washington BPA mitigation projects (refers to Schroeder report), and it seems like a great concept.

This is a thoroughly prepared proposal and meets most scientific criteria with the exception of reporting results. If no data are produced to indicate if the project is meeting goals and objectives (with accruing benefits to wildlife) how can it be evaluated or justified? The sponsors are asked to respond to the following: 1. tabulate the project history along a timeline so that patterns of success and problems can be assessed; 2. metrics are rarely given for Work Elements that have measurable attributes, e.g., Work Elements 1.1 and 1.2; 3. what is the scientific rationale for choosing projects, is any kind of a habitat network planned or are they chosen on availability/opportunity? 4. 125 permanent nested frequency plots established in 2002 to monitor establishment and success of native and native-like seedings - 52 plots were revisited, but no data are presented although there was some general discussion of the findings. Please present this analysis; 5. "Preliminary surveys have been conducted on many of the wildlife areas enabling a brief assessment of data collected to this point. Not all wildlife areas have been surveyed at this stage, primarily because of the time and money required to initiate surveys." How do the proponents plan to prioritize this survey work? 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The justification for the Wenas Wildlife Area habitat restoration project is very detailed and builds a strong case for its support using many references and appropriate supporting data. The program is large and clearly significant and enables inclusion of a complete set of landscape and habitat elements for focal species (including major habitats for anadromous fish) with extensive home ranges and migration patterns. The sponsors have good working relationships with numerous other agencies which share common goals for restoration of the habitats of key focal species. Relationships to other projects are described in detail and this project is coordinated with shrub-steppe recovery efforts that are consistent with WDFW’s LT Murray, Oak Creek, Quilomene/Whiskey Dick, Sunnyside, Asotin, Sagebrush Flat, Scotch Creek and Swanson Lakes Wildlife Areas. 2. Project History and Results The project history is described thoroughly in a detailed narrative, but it would be useful to tabulate this information along a time line so that patterns of success and problems can be assessed by reviewers. The sponsors state "When restoration efforts began native species from local watersheds were not commercially available, so cultivars were chosen that had the closest resemblance to the native species." These cultivars are referred to as "Native-like." The proposal would be improved by inclusion of further details on these species. Do the native-like species perform the same ecological functions as native species, and have they caused any problems in the area? 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods Work elements and objectives are commendable and similar to other areas, including reintroducing the sage grouse by 2020, connecting the functional core habitat units by 2015, restoring the natural fire regime (maintain fire breaks), and thinning stands of trees. However, in most instances metrics are not given for Work Elements which could have measurable attributes, e.g., Work Elements 1.1 and 1.2. It would be useful to learn if there is any scientific rationale for choosing projects. Is there any kind of a habitat network in mind or are they chosen on availability/opportunity? 4. M&E The ISRP in 2007 pointed out that HEP and HSI should not be emphasized as management tools. These are for accounting, not effectiveness monitoring. The ISRP wanted to see the number, length, and location of transects used for monitoring and also wanted to see the results of these surveys. This report describes the plots as requested and lists 125 permanent nested frequency plots established in 2002 to monitor establishment and success of native and native-like seedings – 52 plots were revisited, but no data are presented although there was some general discussion of the findings. The ISRP is interested in seeing data, which are important for making proper management decisions. Five exclosures were constructed between 1968 and 2003 to monitor use by big game (especially elk). In 2005, intensive vegetation sampling occurred in all 5 exclosures. One table of percent cover inside and outside the exclosures was presented. No wildlife data were presented, no data on success of weed control activities, or effects of fertilizing on native or native-like vegetation. On page 26-27 the importance of M&E is recognized, but it appears that the collection and use of the data is planned to occur in the future (including integration of wildlife information with habitat information). Schroeder et al. (2008) and Chao 2004 are cited, wherein future comparisons will be made between reference and treatment sites. We wonder if Dr. Schroeder is spread too thin on all of these projects. The sponsor states on p.26 "Preliminary surveys have been conducted on many of the wildlife areas enabling a brief assessment of data collected to this point. Not all wildlife areas have been surveyed at this stage, primarily because of the time and money required to initiate surveys." It would be helpful to learn how the proponents plan to prioritize this survey work. A strategic approach might be encouraged. It seems that data collection schemes for M&E are transitioning.