Swanson Lake sharp-tailed grouse appear to be isolated from other sharp-tailed grouse populations in the state. Consequently, an important goal for the project is to work cooperatively with public and private land owners adjacent to Swanson Lake to better understand and manage connectivity among parcels or between properties. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

According to the proponent's Summary Report, the primary objective of this project is protection and enhancement of existing shrub-steppe and riparian habitats, and restoration of former agricultural fields and degraded areas to native habitat. The focal wildlife species are Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage grouse, and mule deer. 

The objectives and current status of the project, as presented in the Summary Report, do not readily support a scientific review. According to the report, the main enhancement goal (returning several hundred acres of disturbed sites to native habitat per BPA’s mitigation objectives) was completed by 2006. This project currently involves management of this wildlife area by maintaining vegetation (planting seeds and riparian shrubs) and controlling invasive weeds. Accordingly, the Project annually treats between 100 and 1,000 acres for noxious weeds using an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach, and it maintains and repairs infrastructure need to support land management. 

No quantitative objectives were presented. Ideally, the project could have stated quantitative objectives or performance measures related to activities and accomplishments listed in the summary report. These objectives should have been in the proposal to BPA. Here are some example quantitative objectives or performance measures that could have been identified, based on their reported accomplishments. Maintain XX miles of boundary fence, XX gates, and XX signs each year. Inspect and control XX acres of land for noxious weeds each year. Plant XX acres of land (or XX plants of XX species) each year. Increase connectivity of sharp-tailed grouse habitats by XX% by working cooperatively with public and private land owners adjacent to Swanson Lake. Monitor the status and movement of focal wildlife species in relation to target densities that describe a "healthy" population (note: one of the lessons learned mentioned "mitigation goals for focal species"; these should be presented as objectives). Monitor shrubsteppe habitat and compare plant composition and densities relative to desired conditions. 

The reason for developing quantitative objectives, even for basic habitat monitoring, is that it helps proponents identify specific objectives for the project, provides a target for evaluating success or failure, and facilitates adaptive management. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

Given past work on the value of connectivity – e.g., Robb and Schroeder (2010) and Plumley (2014) – and earlier identification of the value of habitat connections among populations, we would encourage the proponents to explore the idea of forming cooperative arrangements between agencies, e.g. Swanson Lake and Crab Creek, and adjacent BLM land holdings to create a network of interconnected sharp-tailed grouse habitats. On a smaller spatial scale, we wonder if land management actions (e.g. restoration of agricultural fields, U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program contracts) could be prioritized to facilitate linkages among extant leks, lek clusters, or dispersed sharp tailed grouse clusters. The Figure (e.g. Figure 7, Re-establishment of Viable Populations of Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in Washington: Progress Report) used in several presentations during the review shows the locations of radiotagged birds that could be useful when selecting areas for connectivity. The spatial scale of this figure makes it difficult to evaluate locations and land management opportunities. However, if the scale was modified, it could provide important insights into where future work could take place. 

There is a considerable amount of local and recent research outcomes in the literature cited sections of the various submitted reports (e.g. Whitney, Stonehouse, multiple sharp-tailed grouse status updates, connectivity (e.g. http://waconnected.org/), evaluation of shrub steppe cover types). This information could be used to develop objectives for sharp-tailed grouse in project areas (i.e., Colville tribal lands, Swanson Lake, Scotch Creek, Wenas, Okanagan properties) and help guide the recovery of this bird. 

Citations for the referenced reports are: 

Robb, L., and M.A. Schroeder. 2010. Appendix A.1: Habitat connectivity for sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Pages A.1-1 – A.1- 27 in Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG). Washington connected landscapes project: Statewide analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Transportation, Olympia Washington 

Plumley, S. 2014. Modeling Columbian sharp-tailed grouse lek occupancy to guide site selection for on-going translocations and species population recovery. Master of Environmental Studies. The Evergreen State College, 104 pp. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation of results 

Because lek attendance counts are often a source of population estimation, we suggest that future progress reports and management plans present lek survey results by year for the WDFW properties, adjacent properties, and regions. The ISRP believes presentation of information in this way may be helpful in assessment of land management and population trajectories. 

4. Results: benefits to fish and wildlife and adaptive management 

The proponents are urged to develop a formal adaptive management plan. Once quantitative objectives are identified with timelines, an adaptive management cycle can guide future management activities.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents develop quantitative objectives with timelines and an adaptive management plan for this project and include in the project’s 2018 progress reports and management plans.

The ISRP found the responses adequate. The ISRP would encourage the use of another HEP evaluation within the next five years and/or the agency use vegetation sampling of their own design.

We are very interested in ensuring that the agency understand as much as possible about management and recovery of sharp-tailed grouse on project lands and have several questions about this process. There are grouse populations that are somewhat similar (relict populations, few leks, supplemented with translocated birds) that are responding/performing differently. We wonder if there are empirical data that can be used to understand differences among grouse populations on various projects. A response is requested to address the following questions/recommendations: 1. Can you summarize vegetation differences (and other differences) between Swanson and Scotch Creek that may be used to explain differences in sharp-tail grouse numerical responses? Vegetation data could be micro-site information or landscape scale mapping data. Are there vegetation differences (i.e. structural? pattern?) between Swanson Lake and Scotch Creek? The presentation by the Swanson Lake site manager raised some hypothetical reasons for the difference in sharp-tailed grouse population dynamics. 2. The sponsors should identify how they will evaluate grouse supplementations. 3. Are there objectives for vegetation management on the project? If not, the reviewers request some objectives for structural features of vegetation (height, Robel pole) and vegetation types. The authors should summarize the riparian habitat restoration including acres impacted and some measure of survival of the shrubs planted. 4. Regarding the HEP vegetation data presented in Appendix B, Table 1, how is herbaceous cover defined? Please add a footnote in this table to give readers the definition of herbaceous cover. The differences in herbaceous cover (%) in shrub-steppe in the two survey periods caught our attention. 5. How might this project move forward based on vegetation data? 6. Can you report long-term (10-15 years) data on deer numbers and harvest on or in the Game Management Unit that encompasses the project? 7. Could this project be linked with the UMWEP project, or are the data incompatible?

The proposal clearly relates the need for intervention to increase and maintain sharp-tailed grouse populations on SLWA. The proposal adequately describes the relationship between the objectives in the project and the Crab Subbasin Plan. However, because of the continuing decline in sharp-tailed grouse numbers, it is not clear if the facilities and personnel are appropriate to achieve restoration.

The history of the project is effectively documented. Some evaluation of results is included but more indication of possible reasons for the continuing decline of sharp-tailed grouse populations despite intensive intervention efforts is recommended. While results to date are not promising it may be that habitat enhancement activities that are in place, coupled with protection and supplementation, will show signs of success in the near future.

The ambitious monitoring and evaluation component may serve as an example for others if conducted, documented, and distributed effectively. The ISRP was pleased to see plans for monitoring vegetation, planted shrubs, and marking supplemental birds from Idaho and British Columbia. A few additional considerations could improve the monitoring and evaluation component of the proposal. Participants should monitor livestock trespass to ensure the adequacy of smooth wire bottom strand of new fencing. The proposal could include some analysis of genetic composition of individuals on the area as well as samples from birds added annually. These data could serve as baseline information and allow a critical evaluation of the importance of genetics in recovery of these birds.

Measurable objectives in terms of sharp-tailed grouse numbers as well as habitat alterations are clearly stated. The proposal, however, should better present support for the importance of fragmentation of habitats for this population. The sponsors do a good job of clearly indicating the relationship of this project with other projects and identifying cooperative efforts for sharing information on sharp-tailed grouse with other projects.