The WDFW Shillapoo Wildlife Mitigation project provides quantitative objectives, describes activities and methods used to work toward those objectives, discusses findings in relation to many of the objectives, and describes a number of lessons learned resulting from monitoring and evaluation. The ISRP commends the proponents for their achievements and offers a few comments to assist the ongoing effort. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

The ISRP commends the WDFW Shillapoo Wildlife Mitigation project for developing quantitative objectives that can be monitored and evaluated to document effectiveness of management actions or to initiate adaptive management when actions are failing to achieve an objective. The three habitat-based objectives were clearly defined and described. Each objective includes a succinct rationale and list of strategies and quantitative targets (i.e., acres of habitat) that identify success. Two of the objectives involve specific habitat types to be maintained, protected, or restored and the third involves the ubiquitous problem of controlling noxious weeds and other undesirable plants. Three additional objectives involve improvements in infrastructure, maintenance, access, and law enforcement. These additional objectives are necessary to maintain the quality of wildlife habitat. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

The 2017 Summary Report, past annual reports, and the 2006 Management Plan describe the activities and methods used to work toward the project's objectives. Sound scientific principles are generally followed in that quantitative objectives were developed, rationale for the objectives and methods were provided, and some monitoring and analysis of actions, including lessons learned, were reported. 

Control of noxious weeds is identified in the Summary Report as one of the most important public issues in this wildlife area, and government regulations reportedly require weed control. Several weed control methods are employed including herbicide treatments (Glyphosate, Aminopyralid+Triclopyr, Triclopyr+2-4 D amine), mowing, planting cover crops, and physical removal. Application of herbicides is regulated, especially near wetland and aquatic areas, but the WDFW reports did not describe how the wildlife area is meeting those application requirements. The ISRP suggests that WDFW identify and review scientific documents that examine the chronic use of these herbicides across the expansive landscape of the wildlife refuge to ensure that the wildlife community is not harmed directly or indirectly. California is likely to identify glyphosate as a possible carcinogen (https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition- 65/chemicals/glyphosate). It would be useful to consider the extent to which chronic largescale applications of these herbicides and associated surfactants affect the food web, including invertebrates, fishes, and amphibians. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

The project provides some basic monitoring and evaluation of results, leading to some lessons learned as described in the next section. As stated in past ISRP reviews, monitoring and evaluation are important tools for long-term management of wildlife areas, as the information documents annual activities and effectiveness of the actions. The ISRP appreciates the level of effort evident in the Shillapoo Project, given limited funding available for monitoring and evaluation. A few highlights and comments are presented here. 

A 90% decline in purple loosestrife was documented from 2007 to 2016, indicating control of this invasive weed has been effective. Additional analysis of these data would be worthwhile: the data could be plotted over consecutive years to reveal whether the decline is continuing or has stabilized at a low value, and the data could also be analyzed statistically to determine what other factors besides number of years of treatment might have been important in determining total abundance in each year. 

In 2016, eight managed wetland basins were sampled to determine the relative cover of desirable and undesirable herbaceous wetland plants. Findings from earlier surveys were not presented in the Summary Report. However, annual reports indicate this survey has been conducted since 2008, at least. The ISRP encourages the proponent to examine these data and evaluate trends in herbaceous wetland plants in these areas relative to management actions.

Many trees are planted each year and the Summary Report documented survival of each species and suggested possible reasons why some species had lower survival (e.g., only 57% survival of cottonwood possibly related to relatively large size when planted and stress caused by the dry spring and summer). 

Photos points were used to monitor the effectiveness of treatments to control reed canary grass. Annual reports provided appendices that documented: (1) cumulative tree and shrub plantings in each habitat area, (2) acres of herbicide application by location, target weed species, type of herbicide, percentage of weed controlled, and comments, and (3) effectiveness of weed control techniques. Waterfowl surveys were conducted in most years since 2001. A list of accomplishments is provided in the Summary Report. 

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

Results are presented for targeted habitat characteristics in both quantitative and qualitative forms. Some evidence of progress toward objectives is presented. A summary table showing quantitative objectives and progress toward those objectives would be useful in future reports. Most findings reflect habitat conditions and treatment of those habitats. Little information was presented on wildlife species in the Summary Report, but some data were presented in the PowerPoint presentation. 

Seven lessons learned are linked to results and used to explain the rationale for making changes in activities and methods. The proponents include information on lessons learned so that other land managers in the region can access potentially useful material on situations where something went well or where problems might occur. The ISRP encourages the proponents to compare these findings with those in other areas (including findings reported in the literature) and to describe the similarities and differences in results so that others in the region can learn from the collective effort. Lessons learned from the control of noxious weeds are especially needed throughout the Columbia Basin.

The sponsor response indicates a desire to include more effective monitoring and evaluation in the project. Budgetary constraints make this desire difficult to implement. Continuation of low cost monitoring such as photo points to illustrate progress toward enhancement goals, as well as unanticipated results or unexpected events, is encouraged. Wetland vegetation monitoring of plant cover along transects with the goal relating vegetative changes to wildlife use should be a priority. Effective methods to monitor species of interest such as great blue heron, bald eagles, mourning dove, winter waterfowl, and western pond turtles will require creative strategies to be sustainable. The ISRP applauds the sponsor's willingness to find ways to effectively monitor weed control efforts.

The ISRP is also sympathetic to the WDFW budget situation and appreciates the Wildlife Area's attempts to achieve the goals and objectives of this conservation reserve with a small group of dedicated staff and a few volunteers. With regard to the assertion that the staff is trying to increase their effectiveness monitoring by going beyond HEP ("we do feel that monitoring wildlife response to habitat enhancement measures is important as well and we hope that the ISRP will support our efforts to include this type of monitoring in our future contracts") we can only say "Amen."

The ISRP requests a response from the project sponsors including a more detailed description of what will be monitored or a justification why an important wildlife or habitat component of the project cannot be monitored. We realize that funding for monitoring is limited, but with so many possibilities for the area and its wildlife to be affected by non-native species (e.g., exotic plants, feral cats) it is essential that there be some way of tracking the results of restoration actions. Overall, the ISRP felt this project is strategically located and will benefit a variety of wildlife species. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The technical justification and project significance were well described. This project will help maintain and restore wetland conditions in an area near Lake Vancouver. It will assist in filling gaps between a series of wildlife habitat areas between the City of Vancouver and the Lewis River. The stated emphasis is to create and improve migratory bird habitat, particularly species that occupy riverine lowlands and floodplains, e.g., sandhill cranes. The ISRP previously suggested that the habitat implications for native fishes could be addressed in this project, since the Shillapoo Lake area was undoubtedly an important off-channel rearing site for salmonids and other native species. The sponsors have added some language stating that there should be some benefits to fish habitat along the river, but because of the risk of invasion by non-native species (particularly carp) fish screens will continue to be used to exclude fishes from many of the wetland restoration sites. Other wildlife habitat programs in the area were adequately described, although it does not appear from this proposal that there will be much resource sharing among them. Local universities might be a resource for volunteer monitoring assistance. 2. Project History and Results The proposal did an adequate job of describing the project history and series of actions surrounding the initial and subsequent land acquisitions in the Shillapoo Lake area. Although most of the information was qualitative it does appear that the sponsors have achieved the majority of their habitat restoration goals. Given the duration of the project, however, it would have been helpful to have seen some wildlife data to demonstrate that the newly created habitat was being utilized. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The objectives, strategies, and tasks were clearly described. Most have to do with re-establishing native vegetation, controlling non-native vegetation, and promoting wetland hydrology over the majority of the Shillapoo area, and are a continuation of ongoing efforts. Many of the actions involve elements of both wetland restoration and lowland agriculture as the area is gradually transformed from a diked and drained riverine lake to a natural wetland. There were many items listed in the work elements and for some tasks few details were given. For example, the monitoring section mentions tracking the effects of burning as a management tool, but there did not appear to be any tasks targeting non-native vegetation control or native vegetation establishment that specifically involved controlled burns. 4. M&E Project sponsors state that they will continue to perform periodic HEP evaluations for crediting. The ISRP is pleased to see that they have incorporated permanent reference points, treatment/control comparisons, and focal species wildlife surveys into an effectiveness monitoring plan. However, the M&E plan remains the weak link in this proposal. The project managers state their hands are full with the actual tasks of restoring the property. The ISRP needs more details about what will be monitored and how the findings will be used to guide future management activities. For example, the use of photo reference points was not clear (how will they be used to document change?). This area is flood prone, and some flexibility will be needed to get out after a flood to see what happens to wildlife habitat after the flood event. Standardized monitoring by Washington State is mentioned, but no details are presented. Given Washington’s fiscal situation, it is unlikely that the state is going to fund the M&E needed for this project. Although habitat surveys in general will occur on a five-year rotation (except for reference points, which will be monitored annually), more frequent monitoring may be needed for some things. We also encourage the sponsors not to abandon the possibility of monitoring amphibians and reptiles. There are several sensitive amphibians that could make use of the new habitat, and at least one reptile (western pond turtle). Any permanent water bodies created by the restoration work should be occasionally checked for non-native fishes – particularly carp and other warm-water species – and control actions implemented if they are detected. Project staff appears well qualified to carry out or supervise the monitoring work.

Actions related to the project date back to 1992, including ISRP review in 2002 as part of the provincial review process. The SWA is located in the Vancouver Lowlands, and is intended to provide riparian, wetland, and oak woodland habitat across a former lakebed that was drained and developed as agricultural land. A goal of the WDFW acquisition program is to acquire the entire former lakebed and restore it to its former species diversity and wetland functions for wintering waterfowl, while keeping a portion of it in a semi-agricultural state that supports sandhill crane and geese populations. The proposed project should benefit focal wildlife species. It is not clear that the benefits will persist over the long-term because of the great potential for urban pressure on the site.

The proposal clearly identifies the specific objectives in the Lower Columbia River Subbasin Plan and specific parts of the Fish and Wildlife Program. The proposal identifies other similar work but does not identify collaborative efforts. The ISRP encourages collaborative efforts.

The rationale for this project and significance to regional programs is clear. Specifically, the problem of habitat degradation imposing limiting factors on wildlife species is clearly explained. This appears to be a worthwhile project that will benefit wetland-dependent species in the Vancouver Lowlands. Areas targeted for restoration and specific restoration actions are clearly identified.

The objectives are very clearly defined and relate to specific tasks and related to the subbasin plan. The proposal clearly identifies tasks that are related to the objectives. The measurable benefits to wildlife are stated in terms of amount of habitat restored. It appears that reasonable, pragmatic approaches are proposed. An extensive monitoring and evaluation component includes five types of surveys. Monitoring of habitat and of wildlife response to changes in habitat will be done. Evaluation in terms of amount of habitat restored is clearly explained, but identification in terms of wildlife response is not as clearly specified. Identification of specific, measurable benefit to wildlife is recommended.

Information transfer is mentioned but more specific information should be presented. It is not clear that the information obtained will be readily available in a usable format.

The proposal should clearly identify the effect of the habitat restoration activities and resulting wildlife response on fish. Previous ISRP reviews noted the possibility of the potential for negative impacts on fish; the current proposal makes no mention of negative impacts. Indeed, little is mentioned about interactions with the larger lower Columbia River aquatic ecosystem. The ISRP encourages inclusion of a discussion of the effects of the overall actions on fish and aquatic species in the Lower Columbia River ecosystem as part of project reporting.