1. Objectives and outcomes 

The primary goals of this project are protection and enhancement of existing shrub-steppe, riparian and wetland habitats, and restoration of former agricultural fields and degraded areas to native habitats. The focal wildlife species are mule deer, sage grouse, western meadowlark, black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler, and mink. The main enhancement goal (returning 1,200 acres of disturbed sites to native habitats per BPA’s mitigation objectives) was completed by 2006. 

The brief Summary Report lists a number of tasks (actions) needed to achieve the two general objectives. Some of these tasks are quantitative and were used to evaluate progress. Other tasks were not quantitative but could be re-worded to be quantitative so that progress could be monitored. A more comprehensive table of tasks, quantitative performance measures, and description of progress was presented in the Wenas Management Plan Update for 2012-2013. This table effectively conveyed proposed and actual progress on these activities. Many of these performance measures involved habitat restoration such as planting seeds, controlling weeds, or maintaining wildlife fences, but none directly involved an evaluation of focal wildlife species. The 2006 Management Plan lists a number of management recommendations that include quantitative metrics, but it is not clear whether or not these quantitative recommendations have been monitored and evaluated. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

The ISRP commends the WDFW project for conducting the “nested frequency vegetation plot” study, especially with the limited budget. Apparently much, if not all, of the monitoring effort is performed using non-BPA funds. The approach appeared to be appropriate, based on the limited presentation in the review materials. However, hypotheses and methods for this study should be presented in a progress report, even if the long-term study is still incomplete. Furthermore, the experimental design should incorporate an evaluation of whether forbs are spreading from the initial plot. The proponent noted that they purchase seeds from BFI Native Seeds. Other restoration proponents, such as the Nez Perce Tribe, have begun to produce their own native plant seeds, and the proponents of the Wenas project may benefit from their experience. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

The various reports provided a detailed description of actions over the years to maintain habitat quality. Some results were presented from the “nested frequency vegetation plot” study in a separate document and in the PowerPoint presentation. More details of this ongoing study and analysis are needed. The influence of fire on the study design should be assessed and discussed. 

The Summary Report cites references and provides computer links to nine reports involving sage grouse, mule deer, avian-perch deterrents on electric power lines, focal species, and landscape integrity connectivity. These reports involve a limited set of species across a broad area of Washington State, extending well beyond the Wenas Wildlife Area. As such it is difficult to evaluate the status of these species in the Wenas Wildlife Area and the contribution of the wildlife area to the status of the focal species. Future reports should summarize text from these reports that is relevant to the Wenas Wildlife Area. Summaries of vegetation data and lek surveys should also be included in the annual report. 

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

Six lessons learned and management responses are briefly described. Lessons learned involved difficulty in establishing native forbs, aerial application of herbicides and impacts on ESA-listed fishes, fires caused by target shooters, and public outreach regarding target shooting. Corrective actions were taken. 

WDFW highlighted the funding shortfall that presumably impacts implementation of habitat restoration actions in the wildlife area. However, the Summary Report did not clearly articulate the extent to which habitat restoration actions and habitat maintenance were lagging behind in response to funding shortfalls. The effect of funding shortfalls could be demonstrated by presenting quantitative objectives and performance measures, then describing the extent to which actions did not occur in response to limited funding. Fire was identified as a major unpredictable event that required considerable funding (i.e., $1.6 million in 1 year). To what extent did fire limit planned activities? 

Human-caused fire is a major issue affecting habitat and wildlife in the Wenas Area, requiring considerable funds ($1.6 million for suppression and restoration in response to one large fire). In one recent year, six of seven fires were attributed to target shooting on the wildlife area (lightning caused one fire). The WDFW should report whether the fire was caused by bullet ricochet (sparks), tracer ammunition, smoking by the participants, or by some other means in order to develop appropriate management approaches to minimize their future occurrence.

Target shooting is reportedly allowed throughout the wildlife area, rather than in specific areas where damage to habitat may be controlled. In response to recent fires, target shooting is now allowed only from sunrise to 10:00 am during the fire season (about June 1-Sept. 30). This restriction appears to have reduced the risk of fire during the past two years. The WDFW is also working through a public outreach process to address safety and habitat degradation issues associated with target shooting, with the hope of having a plan by the end of 2017. The wildlife area should consider a ban on the use of lead bullets (and shot) because lead is toxic to wildlife (https://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/). The ISRP strongly supports the efforts of WDFW managers to limit the time and location of target shooting in the wildlife area given the significant impacts of fire caused by target shooting and safety issues in an area that is designated as a wildlife area. Not only does human-caused fire have a significant impact on wildlife habitat, it also reduces the availability of funds and workforce that are needed for habitat restoration and maintenance. According to the wildlife managers, the policy decision to restrict locations of target shooting in the wildlife area and to ban use of lead bullets (and shot) is made by the Director of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

This is a thoroughly prepared proposal and meets most scientific criteria with the exception of reporting results. If no data are produced to indicate if the project is meeting goals and objectives (with accruing benefits to wildlife) how can it be evaluated or justified? The sponsors are asked to respond to the following: 1. tabulate the project history along a timeline so that patterns of success and problems can be assessed; 2. metrics are rarely given for Work Elements that have measurable attributes, e.g., Work Elements 1.1 and 1.2; 3. what is the scientific rationale for choosing projects, is any kind of a habitat network planned or are they chosen on availability/opportunity? 4. 125 permanent nested frequency plots established in 2002 to monitor establishment and success of native and native-like seedings - 52 plots were revisited, but no data are presented although there was some general discussion of the findings. Please present this analysis; 5. "Preliminary surveys have been conducted on many of the wildlife areas enabling a brief assessment of data collected to this point. Not all wildlife areas have been surveyed at this stage, primarily because of the time and money required to initiate surveys." How do the proponents plan to prioritize this survey work? 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The justification for the Wenas Wildlife Area habitat restoration project is very detailed and builds a strong case for its support using many references and appropriate supporting data. The program is large and clearly significant and enables inclusion of a complete set of landscape and habitat elements for focal species (including major habitats for anadromous fish) with extensive home ranges and migration patterns. The sponsors have good working relationships with numerous other agencies which share common goals for restoration of the habitats of key focal species. Relationships to other projects are described in detail and this project is coordinated with shrub-steppe recovery efforts that are consistent with WDFW’s LT Murray, Oak Creek, Quilomene/Whiskey Dick, Sunnyside, Asotin, Sagebrush Flat, Scotch Creek and Swanson Lakes Wildlife Areas. 2. Project History and Results The project history is described thoroughly in a detailed narrative, but it would be useful to tabulate this information along a time line so that patterns of success and problems can be assessed by reviewers. The sponsors state "When restoration efforts began native species from local watersheds were not commercially available, so cultivars were chosen that had the closest resemblance to the native species." These cultivars are referred to as "Native-like." The proposal would be improved by inclusion of further details on these species. Do the native-like species perform the same ecological functions as native species, and have they caused any problems in the area? 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods Work elements and objectives are commendable and similar to other areas, including reintroducing the sage grouse by 2020, connecting the functional core habitat units by 2015, restoring the natural fire regime (maintain fire breaks), and thinning stands of trees. However, in most instances metrics are not given for Work Elements which could have measurable attributes, e.g., Work Elements 1.1 and 1.2. It would be useful to learn if there is any scientific rationale for choosing projects. Is there any kind of a habitat network in mind or are they chosen on availability/opportunity? 4. M&E The ISRP in 2007 pointed out that HEP and HSI should not be emphasized as management tools. These are for accounting, not effectiveness monitoring. The ISRP wanted to see the number, length, and location of transects used for monitoring and also wanted to see the results of these surveys. This report describes the plots as requested and lists 125 permanent nested frequency plots established in 2002 to monitor establishment and success of native and native-like seedings – 52 plots were revisited, but no data are presented although there was some general discussion of the findings. The ISRP is interested in seeing data, which are important for making proper management decisions. Five exclosures were constructed between 1968 and 2003 to monitor use by big game (especially elk). In 2005, intensive vegetation sampling occurred in all 5 exclosures. One table of percent cover inside and outside the exclosures was presented. No wildlife data were presented, no data on success of weed control activities, or effects of fertilizing on native or native-like vegetation. On page 26-27 the importance of M&E is recognized, but it appears that the collection and use of the data is planned to occur in the future (including integration of wildlife information with habitat information). Schroeder et al. (2008) and Chao 2004 are cited, wherein future comparisons will be made between reference and treatment sites. We wonder if Dr. Schroeder is spread too thin on all of these projects. The sponsor states on p.26 "Preliminary surveys have been conducted on many of the wildlife areas enabling a brief assessment of data collected to this point. Not all wildlife areas have been surveyed at this stage, primarily because of the time and money required to initiate surveys." It would be helpful to learn how the proponents plan to prioritize this survey work. A strategic approach might be encouraged. It seems that data collection schemes for M&E are transitioning.