for the Northwest Power & Conservation Council
851 SW 6th Avenue, Suite 1100
Portland, Oregon 97204
Wildlife Category Review
Preliminary Review of 2009 Proposals
ISRP 2009-7
March 26, 2009
Reviewers
ISRP Members
J. Richard Alldredge, Ph.D., Professor of Statistics at Washington State University.
Robert Bilby, Ph.D., Ecologist at Weyerhaeuser Company.
Peter A. Bisson, Ph.D., Senior Scientist at the Olympia (Washington) Forestry Sciences Laboratory of the U.S. Forest Service
John Epifanio, Ph.D., Director and Associate Professional Scientist for the Center for Aquatic Ecology at the Illinois Natural History Survey, an expert in conservation genetics and molecular ecology.
Linda Hardesty, Ph.D., Associate Professor of range management at Washington State University, an expert in the biological diversity of eastern Washington.
Charles Henny, Ph.D., Emeritus Research Scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Corvallis, Oregon, an expert in wildlife and environmental toxicology.
Colin Levings, Ph.D., Emeritus Research Scientist and Past Section Head Marine Environment and Habitat Science Division, Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Canada
Eric J. Loudenslager, Ph.D., Hatchery Manager and Adjunct Professor of Fisheries Biology, Humboldt State University, California, an expert in genetics and fish culture. (ISRP Chair)
Katherine Myers, Ph.D., Principal Investigator of the High Seas Salmon Research Program at the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington.
Thomas P. Poe, M.S., Consulting Fisheries Scientist, an expert in behavioral ecology of fishes, formerly with the U.S. Geological Survey.
Bruce Ward, Fisheries Scientist, Ministry Of Environment, Aquatic Ecosystem Science Section, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada.
Scientific Peer Review Group Members
R. Scott Lutz, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Wildlife Ecology, University of Wisconsin
Richard Williams, Ph.D., Associate Research Professor, Aquaculture Research Institute, University of Idaho, an expert in population and evolutionary genetics, ecology (former ISRP and ISAB chair).
Staff
Erik Merrill, J.D., ISRP and ISAB Coordinator, Northwest Power and Conservation Council.
ISRP Preliminary Review of 2009 Wildlife Proposals
Contents
Table of Proposals with ISRP Preliminary Recommendations iii
Introduction 1
The ISRP Review Process 1
ISRP Recommendations and Comments on each Wildlife Proposal 6
Systemwide 6
200307200 - Habitat and Biodiversity Information System for Columbia River Basin 6
200600600 - Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) 6
Blue Mountain 8
199608000 - NE Oregon Wildlife Project (Npt) Precious Lands 8
Columbia Cascade 12
199404400 - Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area (SFWA) 12
199609401 - Scotch Creek Wildlife Area 13
Columbia Gorge 14
200102700 - Western Pond Turtle Recovery - Columbia River Gorge - Washington 14
Columbia Plateau 17
199009200 - Wanaket Wildlife Area 17
199106100 - Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation Project (Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area) 19
199506001 - Iskuulpa Watershed Project 20
199802200 - Pine Creek Conservation Area: Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Management on 33,557-acres to benefit grassland, shrub-steppe, riparian, and aquatic species. 22
200002600 - Rainwater Wildlife Area Operations and Maintenance 23
200201400 - Sunnyside Wildlife Mitigation 25
200600300 - Desert Wildlife Area O&M (Wetland Enhancement) 28
200600400 - Wenas Wildlife Area O&M 30
Intermountain 32
200800700 - The UCUT Wildlife M&E Program (UWMEP) 32
199204800 - Colville Confederated Tribes Wildlife Mitigation Project 33
199206100 - Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation 33
199206102 - Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation - Kalispel Tribe 34
199206103 - Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation - IDFG 35
199206105 - Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation - Kootenai Tribe O, M and E 37
199206106 - Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation - Coeur d'Alene Tribe 38
199800300 - Spokane Tribe Wildlife Mitigation Operations & Maintenance 39
Lower Columbia 42
199107800 - Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation Project 42
199205900 - Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands - 44
199206800 - Willamette Basin Mitigation 45
200001600 - Tualatin River NWR Additions 49
200301200 - Shillapoo Wildlife Area 50
Middle Snake 52
199505701 - S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation 52
199505703 - Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation 53
200000900 - Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Project 54
200002700 - Malheur River Wildlife Mitigation Project 55
Mountain Columbia 57
200201100 - Kootenai Floodplain Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation, and Rehabilitation. 57
Upper Snake 59
199505700 - S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation 59
199505702 - Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation 60
iv
Table of Proposals with ISRP Preliminary Recommendations
Project # / Title / Sponsor / Meets Scientific Review Criteria? /199009200 / Wanaket Wildlife Area / CTUIR / Response requested
199106100 / Swanson Lake Wildlife Mitigation Project (Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area) / WDFW / Response requested
199107800 / Burlington Bottoms Wildlife Mitigation Project / ODFW / Yes
199204800 / Colville Confederated Tribes Wildlife Mitigation Project / CCT / Response requested
199205900 / Amazon Basin/Eugene Wetlands / Nature Conservancy / Yes
199206100 / Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation / Albeni Falls Interagency Work Group / Response requested
199206102 / Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation - Kalispel Tribe / Albeni Falls Interagency Work Group / Response requested
199206103 / Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation - IDFG / IDFG / Response requested
199206105 / Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation - Kootenai Tribe O, M and E / Kootenai Tribe of Idaho / Yes
199206106 / Albeni Falls Wildlife Mitigation - Coeur d'Alene Tribe / Albeni Falls Interagency Work Group / Response requested
199206800 / Willamette Basin Mitigation / ODFW / Response requested
199404400 / Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area (SFWA) / WDFW / Yes
199505700 / S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation / IDFG / Response requested
199505701 / S Idaho Wildlife Mitigation / IDFG / Response requested
199505702 / Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation / Shoshone-Bannock Tribes / Yes (Qualified)
199505703 / Southern Idaho Wildlife Mitigation / Shoshone Paiute Tribes / Yes (Qualified)
199506001 / Iskuulpa Watershed Project / CTUIR / Response requested
199608000 / NE Oregon Wildlife Project (NPT) Precious Lands / Nez Perce Tribe / Yes
199609401 / Scotch Creek Wildlife Area / WDFW / Yes
199800300 / Spokane Tribe Wildlife Mitigation Operations & Maintenance / Spokane Tribe / Response requested
199802200 / Pine Creek Conservation Area: Wildlife Habitat and Watershed Management on 33,557-acres to benefit grassland, shrub-steppe, riparian, and aquatic species. / CTWSR / Yes
200000900 / Logan Valley Wildlife Mitigation Project / Burns Paiute Tribe / Yes
200001600 / Tualatin River NWR Additions / Tualatin River NWR / Response requested
200002100 / Securing Wildlife Mitigation Sites - Oregon Ladd Marsh Wildlife Area Additions / ODFW / Yes
200002600 / Rainwater Wildlife Area Operations and Maintenance / CTUIR / Yes
200002700 / Malheur River Wildlife Mitigation Project / Burns Paiute Tribe / Response requested
200102700 / Western Pond Turtle Recovery - Columbia River Gorge - Washington / WDFW / Response requested
200201100 / Kootenai Floodplain Operational Loss Assessment, Protection, Mitigation, and Rehabilitation. / Kootenai Tribe of Idaho / Yes
200201400 / Sunnyside Wildlife Mitigation / WDFW / Response requested
200301200 / Shillapoo Wildlife Area / WDFW / Response requested
200307200 / Habitat and Biodiversity Information System For Columbia River Basin / Northwest Habitat Institute / Yes
200600300 / Desert Wildlife Area O&M (Wetland Enhancement) / WDFW / Yes (Qualified)
200600400 / Wenas Wildlife Area O&M / WDFW / Response requested
200600500 / Asotin Creek Wildlife Area O&M (Schlee Acquisitions) / WDFW / Response requested
200600600 / Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) / CBFWA / Response requested
200800700 / The UCUT Wildlife M&E Program (UWMEP) / UCUT / Response requested
iv
ISRP Preliminary Review of 2009 Wildlife Proposals
Introduction
This report provides the Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) and Peer Review Groups’ preliminary comments and recommendations on 36 proposals submitted for the 2009 Wildlife Category Review to implement the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Twelve proposals met scientific review criteria, and three proposals met our criteria with some qualifications. Our recommendations on those should be considered final. However, the ISRP requests responses on 21 proposals. Project sponsors are provided an opportunity to respond to ISRP concerns by April 21, 2009 before the ISRP submits its final report to the Council on May 19, 2009.
The Wildlife Category Review is the first review in the Northwest Power and Conservation Council and Bonneville Power Administration’s most recent approach to project review. This approach was informed by past review processes, that have taken many forms including program-wide solicitations, rolling provincial reviews, and targeted solicitations. Based on the experience with these past review processes, the Council and BPA, with input from the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) and ISRP, developed a review structure to most effectively review projects for Program implementation beginning in Fiscal Year 2010. This review structure includes a category review (i.e., strategy and topic) for existing projects that are similar in nature and intent, followed by a geographic review (by subbasin and province) that may result in targeted solicitations.
Category reviews will consider programmatic issues unique to the category as well as project–specific issues. The category review process recognizes differences in project types, specifically those with long-term commitments vs. shorter-term implementation. Category reviews will focus on existing projects that are largely previous commitments. The Wildlife Category Review process recognizes that many of these wildlife projects have long-term commitments for operations and maintenance to maintain habitat units mitigating for inundation losses. The scientific and administrative review for the wildlife category projects should enable the Council and BPA to make long-term funding and review path decisions on many of these projects.
The ISRP has reviewed almost all of these projects before, and for the most part, they met our scientific review criteria. However, many of our past comments raised specific issues with individual projects. Consequently, an important function of our current review is to evaluate how well they responded to our scientific concerns. In addition, because these are existing projects, a primary review function is to evaluate project results and whether the proposed future actions are responsive to those results.
The category review is also designed to address issues that apply across projects and inform future direction of the program. The ISRP has identified numerous programmatic issues -- some old, some new -- that will be discussed in our final review.
Programmatic issues include:
· HEP and CHAP - the interaction between wildlife crediting and monitoring;
· Prospects for a regional RM&E approach, for example, the UCUT’s plan;
· Weed control - regional plans and best management practices;
· Treatment of livestock grazing and management;
· Results reporting mechanisms - inconsistencies between reporting in the proposal and annual reports and opportunites to strengthen each.
Finally, the ISRP is very supportive of this new review approach. It incorporates some of the best features of past reviews such as site visits, presentations, and response loops. It also adds some positive new features such as the ability to review projects topically (e.g., wildlife, RM&E, etc.) and a recognition of program commitments.
The ISRP Review Process
Review Criteria
ISRP reviews are based on criteria provided in the 1996 amendment to the Northwest Power Act. The amended Act directs the ISRP to review projects for consistency with the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program and whether they:
1. are based on sound science principles;
2. benefit fish and wildlife;
3. have clearly defined objectives and outcomes; and
4. contain provisions for monitoring and evaluation of results.
Pursuant to the 1996 amendment, the Council must fully consider ISRP recommendations when making its recommendations regarding funding, and provide an explanation in writing where its recommendations diverge from those of the ISRP.
Review Steps
In general, ISRP reports provide written recommendations and comments on each proposal that is amenable to scientific review. These reports reflect the ISRP’s consensus. To develop preliminary recommendations on 2009 wildlife proposals, the ISRP used a multi-step review process:
1. Site visits. In September, October, and early November 2008, the ISRP, Council staff, and some BPA staff visited most of the Program’s wildlife projects. It is preferred that site visits occur after project proposals are submitted and are conducted in conjunction with project presentations and ISRP evaluation meetings. This adds context and saves time and costs. However, the wildlife site visits needed to be held before many of the project areas became inaccessible due to winter weather. These visits proved invaluable to our reviews and also demonstrated the project managers’ dedication to stewardship of their properties.
2. ISRP Individual Reviews. Three reviewers were assigned to independently review each proposal and provide written evaluations. Individual review comments and records of discussions are confidential and not available outside the ISRP review teams. The ISRP assigned review teams based on expertise, whether members reviewed the project in the past, and whether members attended the site visit for the project. At least one scientist with substantial expertise in wildlife was assigned to each proposal review team.
3. Project presentations. On March 3 and 4, 2009, the project sponsors presented their proposals to the ISRP, Council staff, BPA staff, and other wildlife managers. Time was reserved for questions. These discussions greatly aided the ISRP in clarifying specific concerns and better understanding the projects in general. A major goal of the wildlife categorical review is to share information across projects. Based on feedback after the meeting, the presentations served this purpose of raising wildlife managers’ understanding of other managers’ strategies and challenges.
4. ISRP group evaluation meeting. Individual comments were compiled, and following the presentations, review teams met to discuss individual reviews, develop a consensus recommendation for each proposal, and ensure consistency across reviews.
5. Preliminary report completion. After the evaluation meeting, individual and meeting comments were synthesized into a consensus statement on each proposal, which was verified by each of the three reviewers. The full group of ISRP and PRG reviewers evaluated and edited these draft consensus statements to produce this preliminary report.
Next Review Steps
· April 21 - Project sponsor responses due to the ISRP
· May 19 - ISRP Final Report
· June 9 - ISRP presentation to Council and Council staff recommendation to Council
· July 15 - Council decision
For the 21 projects that the ISRP requested a response, the project sponsors should:
· develop a point by point response to the ISRP’s concerns, unless otherwise requested in the review