2010 Wildlife project review

The sponsor responses thoroughly addressed the concerns expressed by the ISRP. The additional information provided on the monitoring associated with this project addressed the primary issue raised in the initial project review. The waterfowl data are very complete. The project sponsors note the decrease in the number of breeding waterfowl at Wanaket since surveys began in 1994. They suggest that this decrease may be partially explained by the decrease in waterfowl numbers throughout the Columbia Basin. The ISRP suggests that a comparison of the rate of change in waterfowl numbers at Wanaket and throughout the Columbia Basin be included in future reports on waterfowl use of the project site. This comparison will partially account for the effect of regional waterfowl population changes on the utilization observed at Wanaket and enhance the ability to identify project-level responses. The ISRP appreciates the sponsor's positive response to the comment concerning monitoring of shrub-steppe-dependent wildlife populations by adding songbird population monitoring. The sponsors may want to consider some modifications of the shrub-steppe bird monitoring in the future to better focus this effort on the effectiveness of their upland habitat projects. Many of the species observed in the shrub steppe are incidental and not closely associated with this habitat type. The most meaningful measure of the success of the upland habitat restoration measures would be increasing numbers of associated species and nesting by these species: sage sparrows and shrikes for example. Modifying the monitoring protocols to focus on these shrub-steppe associated birds will produce more useful results. The sponsor's plans for initial evaluation of the Interplug Project (Pilot) with a combination of belt transects to evaluate survival of plugs and transects to estimate canopy cover and frequency of herbaceous vegetation are appropriate.

Before providing a final evaluation of the Wanaket Wildlife Area proposal, the ISRP requests that a summary of results from M&E data that have been collected be provided. In the last review cycle, reporting of results was identified as a weakness of the proposal. This deficiency remains in the current proposal. Specific questions and concerns to be addressed are included in the text below. The project proposal is clearly written and justified. The objective of the project is to protect and increase the availability and quality of wetland and shrub-steppe habitat in the Umatilla-Willow Subbasin. Maintaining and enhancing these habitat types is consistent with the objectives of the subbasin plan. The Wanaket Wildlife Area protects about 160 acres of wetland habitat and over 2000 acres of shrub steppe habitat. As the representation of both these habitat types has declined severely from historic levels, the habitat provided by Wanaket is regionally significant. The approaches being used to restore habitat in the project area are generally, technically sound. However, some methods are experimental and should be evaluated thoroughly before widespread implementation (see comments on M&E below). A timeline for completion of habitat enhancements, where appropriate, should be included. The project was initiated in 1993, and significant progress on habitat restoration has been accomplished. The creation of wetland habitats and removal of Russian olive have been among the more prominent activities. Project results have been reported in a series of annual reports, which are cited in the proposal. However, results in terms of biological response to habitat protection and enhancement are generally lacking. For example, there does not appear to be a report that compiles and analyzes the information being collected on water bird use of the project area. This information would be useful in illustrating the response of key wildlife populations to the project. The objectives, work elements, and methods are appropriate for this project. The primary objectives of the project are to maintain the habitat improvements that have been made to date and to implement additional enhancements. The actions required to achieve these goals are clearly explained in the proposal, and their relation to achieving the project objectives is explained. Investigation of innovative techniques to increase efficiency of maintenance and operations of the irrigation system and to reduce dumping of debris by humans is encouraged. Monitoring and evaluation are described, but reporting in the proposal is limited to Habitat Units and tasks completed. The water bird census work appears to be thorough and should provide a good indication of temporal changes in their populations. The proposal would have been improved with brief graphical and numerical summaries of the water bird data, such as number of breeding pairs over time, and other information on wildlife response. The sponsors should consider using the Weed Management Information System that is used elsewhere in the region rather than developing a new system. Plant monitoring appeared to be appropriate for assessing the effectiveness of the vegetation restoration efforts being implemented at the site. However, insufficient detail was provided on the evaluation of the small, circular plant restoration plots to determine the technical merits of this approach. Are various sizes of treated areas being evaluated? Are different combinations of native plants being introduced to the treated sites? A thorough evaluation of the efficacy of this approach would require the application of a set of replicated treatments. However, it was not mentioned in the proposal whether this was the approach being used. Assessment of population response to the restoration of the shrub-steppe habitats in the Wanaket Wildlife Area does not appear to be a component of the current M&E plan. As the restoration of this habitat type is a major management goal for the area, population monitoring of some shrub-steppe wildlife species should be included in the M&E plan. This proposal is clearly organized and well written. With improvements in reporting of monitoring results, this would be a good example for other sponsors to follow.