It is clear that a good deal of work and effort is occurring. Management is challenging given the relatively large number of isolated parcels for management. However, given that the project started in 1992, there is little information provided on actual results or outcomes for habitat or for wildlife trends associated with protection and management activities. Additional information is needed in order to evaluate this project. 

Effectiveness of weed treatments has been hampered by environmental conditions including wildfire and wet roads in the spring. It seems that these conditions could very well occur in the future. Staff turnover is listed as another cause for weed treatment limitations. Hopefully, plans to add new field crews with a weed control focus will increase the likelihood of successful weed treatments.

Some public outreach efforts are being made. These efforts should be evaluated and if found successful they should be expanded. Public support could be beneficial in controlling impacts of livestock, weed seed spread, and fence maintenance. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

Objectives and outcomes are not clearly stated in quantitative terms. Quantitative objectives would help prioritize activities and allow all parties to track progress and outcomes. Some quantitative goals are given for desired results such as miles of fence to be constructed and acres of weeds to be controlled. Results indicate that the type of fencing used in the past is no longer desirable, so a new type will be tried in the future. There is little evidence that weed control efforts to date have been effective, so new methods are being tried. There is some quantitative evidence provided on 1- and 2-year survival rates for native vegetation plantings, but it is not clear what this means for long-term success. 

In the case of land acquisition the project may have reached its objective as no new properties have been added since 2010. The proponents developed a debris removal plan in 2015 for their properties which includes the removal of old farming equipment, fences, etc. In Appendix 3, it is indicated that 20.8 miles of old fencing should be removed, but no schedule for when this and other debris will be removed is indicated. Similarly, Appendix 5 lists the number of native plant species transplanted by the proponents for the years 2009 and 2013. No annual goal for such work is presented. Most of the project’s objectives are activities that will be ongoing so no time lines were established for when they might be completed. 

The importance of the work is generally discussed. How the project’s actions might benefit wildlife was not quantitatively expressed. In general the project’s activities support the biological and physical habitat objectives of the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

There is little information in the Summary Report to determine the extent to which sound scientific principles are utilized. Annual reports indicate that the project does use such principles in planning and management. It is noted that there are management plans for each of the 18 management areas, but a discussion of their contents, direction, and management priorities is needed. 

The actions taken by the proponents for property acquisition, fencing, weed control, native vegetation planting, debris removal, public outreach, and management plan update objectives were described. Activities implemented and methods used are summarized and evaluated for success in a qualitative manner in most cases. An assessment of the effectiveness of these efforts toward achieving overall objectives is not provided. 

In several instances, the project could potentially be more efficient in how it determines its best practices. Results of past efforts to control invasive weeds and to re-establish native plants by seeding or planting of nursery stock would have benefited from using standard agricultural statistical designs. The Summary Report, for example, describes how two methods used to control invasive weeds were evaluated. Each method was tried on a single three-acre site. The two sites were not adjacent to one another. A random block design or on-farm trial approach would have allowed the proponents to more effectively evaluate weed treatments. Such designs could be carried out in different habitat types. Results from these types of experiments would help the proponents identify effective treatment options. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

Although past ISRP reviews have noted the lack of monitoring, analysis and reporting of results, there is little discussion of these activities in the Summary Report. Some results are presented on survival of native vegetation after one and two years. Expanding this effort over more years in more locations would be desirable. 

Monitoring and evaluation of project actions is being done by another project, the Upper Columbia United Tribes (UCUT) Wildlife Monitoring and Evaluation Project (UWMEP). The UWMEP uses the same protocols to maintain data compatibility across the region. The monitoring plan is designed to compare conditions at reference sites with those present on mitigation areas. This approach was implemented in 2012 on the project’s eastside lands and in 2015 on its west-side properties. Photo points installed by UWMEP are scheduled for revisiting in 2017 and 2020, but evaluation of weed treatments may only be effective on the most degraded sites. 

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

There is little information provided on actual benefits to wildlife. However, the project is performing actions designed to support, protect, and enhance wildlife species. Benefits to big game are anticipated based on fencing to exclude competition from cattle and weed control to improve grazing, browse, and cover for wildlife. It would be valuable to quantify trends in big game and sharp-tail grouse abundance in response to ownership and management activities. 

The project continues to change as a result of lessons learned from actions taken. The project does not have a formal adaptive management strategy. Instead, changes appear to be made based on field observations. The proponents state that all management plans are being updated to address changes in adaptive management that need to occur. The updates of management plans provide a good opportunity to develop a formal adaptive management approach with quantitative objectives and timelines for each management area. 

Eradication of invasive weeds has been a long-standing challenge for the project. Based on past efforts, the proponents now believe that multi-year treatments, utilizing an array of methods, will be required to suppress invasive plant species. We urge the proponents to confer with others about efficient ways to simultaneously evaluate and compare multiple eradication methods on their properties. It is likely that other Tribal groups, state agencies, county governments, and federal agencies are also attempting to eradicate noxious weeds from their lands. Discussions with these entities may lead to some additional procedures that could be tried or lead to some combined quantitative studies that would provide benefits to all the parties.

This winter range project has been active for many years with acquisitions listed by year, HU cost and acres. Management has included the installation and maintenance of fencing, removal of trespass livestock, and weed management. Weed management acreages have increased dramatically in recent years with expenses estimated at $500,000 in 2009. In the past, the ISRP noted that future funding of the active management part of the budget should be contingent upon a meaningful analysis of data, i.e., a summary is needed of weed/native vegetation response data to management activities with graphs, tables, etc…. Further, the sponsors were requested to show how results are incorporated into future management with interpretative dialogue. It is noteworthy that the management area has been divided into 160 acre grids to prioritize weed treatment on 10 grids per year. However, photopoints and hopefully other data were collected in past years. Are the weed control projects successful, and what weed management approaches work best in the area? Data is needed to answer this question, and hopefully such data is available from over the years. It is noted that M&E will be provided by UCUT UWMEP in 2009, but that in 2010 M&E will be reinitiated by the project. The ISRP is not sure what this means. It is doubtful that UWMEP can evaluate of the weed control program on the short term basis, a successful adaptive management plan is urgently needed for this large and expensive program. We are also interested in population data on sharp-tailed grouse in the area because the species was only briefly mentioned.