At the request of the Council, the ISRP reviewed the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes' Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan to determine whether it provides scientifically sound criteria and protocol to prioritize habitat acquisitions. The ISRP finds that the confidential document is a good plan for habitat acquisition and restoration of wildlife habitat in mitigation for lost aquatic and riparian habitat due to the Kerr Project No. 5 located on the Flathead River. If similar documents had been submitted in support of past habitat acquisition and restoration proposals (or if similar information had been included in proposals), most of the earlier concerns expressed by the ISRP would have been satisfied. We believe that the document can serve as a useful model to other habitat and restoration proposals with some minor revision of the section on filling data gaps, generating baseline data, and development of long term monitoring and evaluation plans.
The ISRP understands that supporting documentation of this type cannot always identify individual parcels of land that have been targeted for acquisition. The rationale for habitat acquisition, and methods for acquiring acres of habitat (including guidelines, ranking criteria, and acquisition process) are the essential features of the information.
There is a minor concern that can easily be addressed in the document. It does not appear that a monitoring and evaluation (M&E) strategy with an integrated monitoring plan will necessarily be in place before collection of baseline data or filling of data gaps on fisheries habitat, wildlife, vegetation, and wetland and riparian areas. Definition of baseline conditions and collection of baseline data is often a difficult, ugly process in evaluation of habitat acquisition and restoration activities. The ISRP judges that for the overall acquisition and restoration plan to be scientifically sound, an interdisciplinary group for development of a M&E strategy and plan should be appointed and M&E strategies and plans prepared before any new field data are collected or gaps in field data are filled. In our experience, baseline data are best defined by collection of new data as soon as possible (in the first year, if feasible) under a written comprehensive long term M&E plan and before any restoration activities occurs. In this way, baseline data serves as pre-restoration data for evaluation purposes. Historical data, often collected by different individuals and agencies using different methods, are usually of some minor historical interest, but are usually not suitable for effective evaluation of habitat acquisition or restoration efforts.
Review comments specific to Project Proposal #24018, "Secure and Restore Critical Fish and Wildlife Habitats."
If an appropriately modified version of the Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan were included as part of a revised proposal for Project ID: 24018, "Secure and Restore Critical Fish and Wildlife Habitats", then many of the concerns expressed by the ISRP in the previous review would be satisfied. The Habitat Acquisition and Restoration Plan reviewed above is primarily for acquisition and restoration of aquatic and riparian habitat. To support Project #24018, a stronger emphasis on terrestrial habitat necessary for persistence of terrestrial species would be necessary, for example, for persistence of grizzly bear and elk that are highlighted in the proposal. Apparently, habitat condition in the area has been monitored for at least several years as a basis for identifying and implementing locally based watershed restoration projects. Details of these assessments and how they are used to set priority should be described in the modified proposal.
Remaining ISRP concerns from the earlier review
The shoreline erosion proposal has not been adequately described or justified. At minimum, it should describe the need that would be addressed by development of a predictive model, the objectives of the modeling effort, and how the results will contribute to a solution. The modeling proposal itself needs critical review.
Part of the proposal is a new proposition to develop and implement methods and strategies for limiting human-bear conflicts. This seems like a logical step to help prevent (or reduce) bear-human conflicts but is difficult to assess from a technical point-of-view.
Final ISRP Review Comments from Mountain Columbia Provincial Review
ProjectID: 24018 - Secure and Restore Critical Fish and Wildlife Habitats
Sponsor: Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
Subbasin: Flathead
FY02 Request: $4,918,444
3 YR Estimate: $13,996,096
Short Description: Utilize land acquisition and habitat restoration to protect and enhance habitats critical to fish and wildlife. Reduce human-wildlife conflicts on acquired and restored lands to increase their value for wildlife.
CBFWA Recommendation: High Priority
ISRP Recommendation: Do not fund
ISRP Comparison with CBFWA: Disagree - do not fund
ISRP Comments:
Do not fund in its present form. This request is for "base funding" rather than "project funding" oriented to specific topics, the norm for most BPA-funded work. The proposal does not include the elements expected in a technically sound program. It should include clear and specific objectives, detailed methods, and how the progress in attaining specific objectives will be tracked and evaluated. The reporting of results is inadequate; progress in past activities of the project need to be included as a basis for continuing similar work. Adaptive management requires data for regular assessments and decisions regarding the project strategy.
The proposal is directed, in part, by a statement of the USFWS Grizzly Bear Recovery Coordinator that "without the maintenance of large blocks of undeveloped land along the west slope of the Missions, the probability of maintaining a grizzly bear population in the Mission Mountains is very low." The proposal needs to include definition of "large block," the number of such blocks needed, and what degree of connectivity among these blocks is needed to restore the desired viability of grizzly bears in the area. The proposal should go on to show that the size, number, and connectivity of blocks needed for the desired viability are available. If the needs can be identified, met, and maintained, a basis would be available for directing program actions.
Undoubtedly, humans are likely to be expanding their control of the landscape. If the area is also to have large mammals, what is truly "critical" to their persistence must be identified and limited resources directed to purchase, lease, and regulation of those areas. Gaining control of land-use practices is a logical strategy for protecting habitats. It also is logical that available resources be applied where they will most likely facilitate restoration of viability in the target populations. Before any resources are committed to these agreements, population segments that are key to the long-term viability and productivity of the regional population, or populations, need to be identified. Pursuit of agreements for "what is available" is not a systematic approach to the problem. There is a stated intent to formalize criteria as part of the project. This should be included as a work task, and used as a reference against which proposed acquisitions are evaluated.
Acquisitions proposed for elk are directed to increasing the amount of winter range. The proposal states that expansion of the herd without significant conflict with adjacent landowners can only occur with purchase of additional land. The proposal should include the basis for concluding that winter range is limiting the population.
The shoreline erosion proposal has not been adequately described or justified. At minimum, it should include the need to be addressed by development of a predictive model, the objectives of the modeling effort, and how the results will contribute to a solution. The modeling proposal itself needs critical review.
Apparently habitat condition has been monitored for at least several years as a basis for identifying and implementing locally based watershed restoration projects. Details of these assessments and how they are used to set priority should be described in the proposal.
Part of the proposal is a new position to develop and implement methods and strategies for limiting human-bear conflicts. Such a position seems like a logical step to help prevent bear-human conflicts, but is difficult to assess from a technical point-of-view. The FTE required depends on the magnitude of the problem. If each project is tracked after completion, however, why not create documentation of these post-project effects for future planning and evaluation?
There is a policy issue on how this relates to Montana's wildlife program under the Fish and Wildlife Program, some of this is like traditional wildlife property acquisition, but this issue appears to be explained in the CBFWA comment below.
CBFWA Comments: There is an agreement between BPA and MDFWP regarding wildlife credits for the state of Montana. The CSKT is not a signatory to that agreement and believe that most of the credits to date have occurred in areas that are not accessible to tribal members. An adequate M&E plan is presented in the proposal, but a direct link to objectives is not clear.