2010 Wildlife project review

The sponsors partially responded to ISRP concerns by describing activities that would occur on the properties. The sponsors provide an outline listing the number of acres to be restored for each parcel of land with general statements concerning restoration activities. The response provides a link between work elements and subbasin objectives and a general discussion of the timeline of work. The organization of the proposal and response made it difficult to assess the completeness of the description of activities for each unit. For example, activities associated with work elements for controlled burns and road decommissioning at McCoy Lake are not listed, except in the full Wildlife Management Plan. The Bonneville properties are small acreages within a large management area. It is unclear from the proposal and response how the individual areas fit in the big piece. Because of the large number of small parcels, it remains difficult to integrate the disparate actions and tasks into a comprehensive program. Biological results from previous project activities are not available to show any responses. Monitoring and evaluation by UWMEP will provide information on vegetative, small mammal, bird, and amphibian status that may be related to project activities. This focus should allow a quick response to habitat activities and changes that take place on the project lands. However, the overall scope of biological monitoring is not adequate to evaluate the success of the project or inform adaptive management. It appears that the only data to be collected in the future will be UWMEP with no collection of big game or upland game bird data planned. Also, it is not clear how the results of weed control and road decommissioning will be monitored and evaluated. Qualification 1 – A comprehensive plan is needed in the next review process to address integration across parcels, WMAs, and the subbasin plan. A discussion of how management of these small parcels links into the larger program in a holistic manner is necessary. The Wildlife Mitigation Area Management Plan states that the sponsor will begin development of a WMA land consolidation proposal in 2009 to combine lands within the six WMAs. The ISRP agrees that creating larger contiguous WMAs will improve management efficiency, while providing greater benefits for wildlife. Qualification 2 – The UWMEP may be sufficient for habitat response in general, but it is not obvious that it will cover the numerous parcels adequately. An examination of the extent to which the management actions on the many parcels are adequately monitored is needed. In addition, a plan is needed that identifies how focal species, including big game, will be monitored and how the monitoring results will be related to the project’s management actions.

The explanation of how the major units contribute to enhancing wildlife species within and adjacent to Spokane Tribal lands is useful. The project history is effectively summarized. Because of the extensive nature of responses requested it may be more efficient to revise and resubmit the project proposal to provide the requested information: 1. Give clear statements identifying the scope of restoration on each parcel are requested. 2. More clearly link the work elements to the objectives to the subbasin plans. 3. Provide Time lines for proposed work should be included in a response. 4. Please report biological results or the response of wildlife to previous project activities. 5. Describe how relevant data on big game and upland birds will be collected in the future and how data collected in the past will be used in relation to the new data anticipated. 6. Clarify how monitoring of road decommissioning success and work at McCoy Lake will be accomplished. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The explanation of the major units – Blue Creek, Cottonwood, Fox Creek, McCoy Lake Watershed Wildlife Mitigation Area, Tshinikan Creek, and Wellpinit Mountain/Peaks, and how they contribute to enhancing wildlife species within and adjacent to Spokane Tribal lands is worthwhile. Given the size of some of these units, it is hard to understand how the BPA-funded acquisitions have lead to securing the ecological function of the whole. For example, the Wellpinit Mountain WMA is 29,000 acres, and BPA supported a 1,352 acre acquisition. A response is requested to explain how the addition of 1,352 secured acres enhanced the remainder of the 29,000. The explanation of what needs to be improved on each parcel does not effectively communicate the scope of restoration required. Clear statements identifying the scope of restoration on each parcel are requested. Technical justification for the work that is conducted on wildlife mitigation lands is lacking in the proposal. The unstated assumption is that the activities: "fencing, noxious & invasive plant control; access road management; site clean-up; water development; forest management; and some small scale agricultural activities" will enhance and maintain wildlife habitat so that wildlife species will benefit. Evidence that these activities have benefited species of wildlife and plants of interest is lacking. It is not possible to conclude that the most appropriate work elements are being prioritized and sequenced to meet the overall goals. 2. Project History and Results The project history is effectively summarized. However, results are presented as tasks accomplished such as miles of fence built or removed, acres of weeds treated, and miles of decommissioned roads. To communicate what is needed to the BPA, the Council, and the ISRP, there should be a citation to an assessment and a quantitative description of the problem. For example, “Joe Doe (2007) identified that unauthorized cattle grazing reduced the forage for white-tail deer by 30%; consequently, 8 miles of fencing along ridge JKL is needed to exclude trespassing livestock.” The proposal does not report biological results or the response of wildlife to project activities. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The objectives are clearly identified as objectives in subbasin plans. Work elements are clearly identified but are not linked to objectives. The unstated assumption appears to be that if the work elements are completed the wildlife will respond as desired. Some work elements will take many years to complete (e.g., 15 miles of road to decommission at 1 mile per year). Methods appear to be appropriate for the work elements. However, it is not clear how they are going to be sequenced through time to meet the objectives for any specific parcel. Timelines for proposed work should be included in a response. 4. M&E In an earlier review the ISRP was concerned that the project may cease to collect relevant data on big game and upland birds (target species of management) leaving only point counts as data for evaluation. As a result of UWMEP activities, further details on future accomplishments of this project, in terms of benefit to wildlife, should be available and should be included in future proposals. At this time a response is requested to describe how relevant data on big game and upland birds will be collected in the future and how data collected in the past will be used in relation to the new data anticipated. A response is needed to clarify how monitoring of road decommissioning success and work at McCoy Lake will be accomplished.