2010 Wildlife project review

The ISRP is concerned that the Agency's reed canary grass treatment described does not meet scientific review criteria. Before proceeding with attempts to treat reed canary grass, the ISRP requests that the Agency conduct a literature review, develop a weed control plan and submit the plan to the ISRP. The plan should not only address reed canary grass control but also plans to avoid potential cross contamination of sites. Part of the weed control plan should include a monitoring plan to evaluate reed canary grass treatment. After several vegetative cycles, the ISRP requests that results be reported and reviewed in the next review cycle.

The proponents have consistently implemented a variety of actions (land acquisition, habitat restoration, and revegetation) to mitigate and restore habitat. They are well organized and have taken a very professional approach over the years. The ISRP thought the agency did a good job of linking with students and the public, and found their differentiating between new and established weeds enlightened. There is much confusion regarding monitoring methodology that needs to be clarified in the response (see below). Project History and Results "On-site/in-kind mitigation opportunities with the Pend Oreille subbasin are allocated with the highest priority for the Project" (p.4). Is this priority based upon a strategic process or is this where opportunities are best in this subbasin? Please explain the strategy for project selection. On p. 17 the proponents state: "During 2006 - 2007, the four members of the Albeni Falls work group met to discuss possible strategies to allocate remaining habitat units. It was recognized that efforts by the work group members seemed to protect small parcels at a rate of two to five per year. Work group members believed that this rate of protection was not keeping up the rate of development. These discussions lead the work group members to consider strategies to settle the mitigation debt to BPA allowing more flexibility for entities to protect or enhance larger tracts of wildlife habitat. Through these discussions it became apparent that the four entities had, up to this point, different mitigation strategies for the Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation Project" The proposal would be improved by an explanation of this statement. What are the mitigation strategies used by the three key partners with IDFG (CDAT, KT, KTOI), and what are different scientific approaches being taken by each? More importantly do the approaches of the three key partners complement those of the sponsor? Regarding off-site and out-of-basin mitigation, more details on this are needed. Some information is given on page 28 but an example would be useful. Important baseline data are being obtained as the Albeni Dam is being decommissioned. For perspective, it would be useful to find out when this is planned. Can you offer explanations of why weed control was successful on some properties and not others. For example, Canada thistle was controlled in the meadows, but no details were given on how (page 21). Common tansy, common St. Johnswort, and spotted knapweed increased on 4 properties, decreased on 3 properties, and stayed the same on 2 properties. This is important information to share. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods Please provide more detail on methods for weed control as in some instances only general statements are given stating that weeds will be controlled by spraying, pulling, mowing, or other means (Objective 3, work element a). On the same page they state methods prescribed by the USFS will be used but give no details about what they are. The USFS document cited in the other Albeni Falls proposals is significantly out of date. The sponsors are optimistic that reed canary grass will decline over time (p. 41). The proposal needs references to the literature that the methods they are using work or other evidence that this in fact will occur in their WMA. Similarly, the sponsors are optimistic that natural succession will occur (p. 47 "In general, natural succession can be expected to increase on WMA scrub-shrub wetland areas over the next several decades. The increase of scrub-shrub wetlands at the expense of pasture will be encouraged....” What methods will be used to "encourage"? In other instances such as Objective 2, work element 2, the methods statement is confusing, "Increase wetland diversity and density. Standardized methods will be used to innovative methods (blasting and heavy equipment scraping) improve wetland diversity and density by restoring micro-topography to areas." Please clarify. It appears the agency is using HAB, which is part of CHAP in collaboration with NHI for crediting. The sponsors are trying to get beyond # of acres as a metric by trying new habitat evaluation methods (e.g. using IBIS and KEF). Will these results be acceptable to BPA in these subbasins? The ISRP requests the agency provide more details on FTEs including position descriptions, location of individuals, and what the individuals will do on the project. M&E The ISRP commends the agency for including tables with % cover for various types of native and invasive vegetation as baseline data. There are a number of apparently contradictory statements about past and future monitoring. The ISRP found, with some digging, that monitoring is being done using the Idaho Plan (Unnasch et al. 2003) and suggests that Idaho Plan details be integrated into, or linked to the M&E section of the proposal. The agency seems to target some plant communities with photo records at permanent monitoring points (Unnash et al. 2003). The authors also state that they can't do population monitoring, but the Idaho Plans calls for some population monitoring. Please clarify this in your response. Page 37 states: "All monitoring data collection is conducted in a manner to detect that a 2.5% annual change over the span of ten years with a statistical power of 80%." The proposal would be improved by further explanation of how this methodology was decided upon and its statistical basis. Further, the proponents plan "Continued development of long-range, intensive biological survey methodologies in combination with guidelines that offer standardized use within the Albeni Falls wildlife management properties. We suggest the agency explore coordinating with the UWMEP project, so the data could be aggregated for all Albeni Falls projects. If the agency is not able to coordinate M&E efforts with UWMEP, an explanation would be helpful. Under the current plan (p.35) M&E is apparently restricted to vegetative monitoring or measurements necessary to estimate HUs for crediting. Is the vegetation sampling completed on all IDFG mitigation properties in 2004 and updated in 2007, and continued every 5 years at each sample point, the HEP sampling or effectiveness monitoring? The presentation suggested that HEP was analogous to effectiveness monitoring and that CHAP management scenarios are fact rather than estimates or hypotheses. This suggests the need to clarify monitoring strategy and results, as distinct from crediting. The ISRP requests a concise summary or tabulation of when and where monitoring is actually going to be conducted as well as quantitative information on trends (e.g., at least graphical analysis) in habitat restoration in the previous funding periods. Perhaps monitoring has not been done frequently enough to establish trends or statistically quantify differences, but if so it would be useful to have an explanation. It would be helpful to provide the methods for monitoring of the restored wetland at Albeni Cove (p.31) as the bottom of this site apparently may not self seal. The ISRP requests some M&E of the use of the GeoTube. The site visit raised many questions on the use of this technique to ameliorate wave action eroding wetlands. We also recommend development of M&E for water level manipulations