1. Objectives and outcomes 

The Summary Report was well written and informative. It was organized and follows the instructions provided to project proponents. This assisted the ISRP in the review of the project. 

The importance of the project is summarized “as mitigation for wildlife losses associated with construction of Anderson Ranch, Black Canyon and Deadwood hydroelectric projects.” The project’s overarching goal of protecting, restoring, and maintaining shrub-steppe, wet meadow, and scrub-shrub wetland habitat is clearly stated. Objectives with varying extents of quantification and timelines were developed to achieve the goal. The project would benefit from more detailed quantitative objectives with timelines for all elements of the project. 

For habitat restoration and enhancement, objectives for (1) implementing weed treatment, (2) increasing deciduous scrub-shrub wetlands, (3) revegetating riparian habitat, and (4) improving sagebrush steppe habitat were established. Among the four habitat objectives, only two are quantitative (i.e., Increase the extent of deciduous scrub-shrub wetland habitat by 10% [15 acres] by next HEP survey [2020] and revegetate a 0.15 mile section of California Creek). 

Specific objectives to improve nesting habitat for bobolink and sandhill cranes were also produced. Additionally, three objectives designed to benefit greater sage grouse were developed and will be initiated in 2017. An objective to conduct surveys and identify habitat utilization of Columbia spotted frog on project lands is ongoing. The Summary Report indicates management actions are being taken to benefit the seven focal wildlife species (e.g., adjusting haying operations to benefit sandhill cranes). However, desired future conditions (DFCs) or outcomes associated with specific focal species are not presented.

Weed management is an especially important, time consuming, and costly component of the project. The project would benefit from a weed management plan that includes quantifiable objectives and timeline for each, description of weed management techniques being used, M&E protocols to assess if objectives are being achieved by means of current weed management techniques, and a decision protocol for modification of weed management techniques if needed. 

Wild fire management and responses to wildfire damages are likely to be a major component of this mitigation project into the future. This was demonstrated by the Brown Gulch Fire which burned about 13,000 acres and 90% of one of the managed parcels that had native plant species. It would be wise to acknowledge the threat of fire within management plans with protocols for addressing budget issues and catastrophic effects on infrastructure. Similarly, there is need to monitor recovery of vegetation following wild fire even if native species seem to respond favorably to the fire without a need for reseeding. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

A variety of management activities have been carried out at the Wilson/101 Ranch that are considered to be reasonable wildlife habitat management actions. However, the activities are not linked to specific quantitative objectives or M&E activities to enable assessment of outcomes into the future. Work has focused on completing baseline weed and focal species surveys. The proponents are also collaborating with Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) biologists to develop conservation plans and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) to locate endangered Columbia spotted frogs. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation

A HEP analysis was conducted at the initiation of the project, and a second one is scheduled to occur in 2020. Although not stated, it appears that the proponents are anticipating that the results of HEP assessments can be used to estimate how project actions have benefited focal wildlife species. The proponents state that objectives focus on seven focal species: mule deer, greater sage grouse, sandhill crane, bobolink, yellow warbler, Columbia spotted frog, and redband trout. It is not clear if these are focal species because they were used in baseline HEP surveys. Regular surveys of vegetation and focal wildlife species would likely provide more accurate and precise assessments. 

Monitoring of invasive weeds and riparian vegetation appears to be comprehensive. The proponents identify monitoring activities for breeding birds and bats, Columbia spotted frogs, water temperatures in a river and two creeks, vegetation using fixed photo points, and riparian planting and bank stabilization projects. The proponents are also collecting monitoring data on such things as weed treatments and plantings by the means of photo points. They are also monitoring water temperatures as a measure of success of riparian restoration. However, details of the sampling designs and methods are generally lacking and not tied to assessment of quantified biological or physical objectives. The project could be strengthened by more frequent assessments of the wildlife species that it is designed to benefit. Breeding bird surveys, for example, are scheduled to occur once every 7 years. Annual point counts of birds would allow the project to track abundance trends in some of its focal species (i.e., bobolinks, sandhill cranes, yellow warblers, and greater sage grouse) and possibly account for causes of variation among years. The Summary Report does not mention how the effects of project actions on the abundance of mule deer and redband trout, two other focal species, will be assessed. 

The Summary Report contained no measures of variability among samples or sample sizes, nor any specific data or evaluation indicating benefits to fish or wildlife. The Summary Report mentioned monitoring methods have been modified based on experience, but no detail was provided. The summary states that management plans were also modified because of drought, fire, or lack of water. The proponents do not indicate if or how monitoring and evaluation led to alteration in their management techniques, monitoring methods, or data evaluation. 

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

There is a section of the Summary Report that addresses adaptive management and lessons learned. Several factors that have altered the timing or ability to carry out management activities were described, but the Summary Report does not describe how management objectives or activities may have been modified based on monitoring data. 

The creation of a formal adaptive management plan would benefit the project. It is evident that active management has occurred on the Wilson/101 Ranch since it was acquired in 2012. However, the lack of a management plan with quantitative objectives, timelines, descriptions of management actions to achieve objectives, and M&E protocols to assess if management actions are leading to achievement of objectives makes it very difficult to determine the benefits of the management actions that are taking place. The management plan completed in 2012 should be revised to include an adaptive management framework. A similar management plan is needed for the Pole Creek property upon its acquisition. 

The Project summary describes the status of each of its objectives. A number of changes to the project’s protocols have occurred. Changes were made to overcome encountered challenges or new conditions. Lessons learned were also described. However, none of this is described within the context of a formal adaptive management protocol. 

The Project proponents have recently created a weed management plan, a Wilson/101 Ranch Management Plan, and in collaboration with the NRCS a Conservation Management Plan. Each of these documents provides an opportunity to initiate a formal adaptive management protocol. Opportunity exists to include quantitative objectives, timelines, description of management actions to achieve objectives, and M&E protocols to assess if management actions are leading to achievement of objectives. 

 

This project is worthwhile; the purchase would link a considerable stretch of riparian area in shrub-steppe habitat. The qualification – the question of future grazing on the lands, and on the Wilson Ranch needs to be addressed. Proper management of grazing (if permitted) is important to the ability to restore the ecosystem. How and when will decisions on this be addressed? If the acquisition goal is fish and wildlife benefits, the land-use plan needs to be consistent with this.

1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships:
These sections are reasonable and appropriate given that no program lands are currently managed. This project attempts to provide out-of-place and out-of-kind mitigation for hydro impacts from dams in the Boise and Payette River drainages. The project proposes to acquire the Wilson Ranch property that includes about 75% of the Owyhee River riparian and floodplain corridor below Wild Horse Dam in Nevada.

The Owyhee River is home to native redband trout, and the riparian corridor is likely an important wildlife habitat, particularly for migrating and breeding birds. Having the opportunity to aggregate these lands into a conservation-directed management scheme would likely yield significant local and regional benefits.

2. Project History and Results
The sponsors are commended for their persistence in pursuing this project in spite of external obstacles. Some mention of the issue of potential pollution from upstream sources is needed in the proposal, as these effects could compromise expected biological benefits from habitat and management improvements (copper may be a problem from mining).

3. Objectives, work elements, and methods
This section is organizationally confusing, skipping from acquisition to management and back again. Until lands are acquired and management planning is complete, how can it be known if, or what fencing or other restoration activities will be needed? This section of the proposal focuses on aspects of acquisition and has yet to define more specific biological and conservation work elements and objectives, much less specific methods. However, all the acquisition pieces are in here somewhere and are presented credibly. The parcel identification and prioritization work element is particularly well thought out and presented.

4. M&E
This section is not well-developed and will require additional details from the sponsor to provide more specific biological objectives (and work elements) in order to specify appropriate M&E metrics and methods. We recognize that it is difficult for the sponsors to plan M&E for future parcels; however, there is concern that HEP may be being confused with biological monitoring. As the project moves forward with acquisitions and management planning, this should be clarified.

Beyond the need to mitigate and the Tribes' approach to identifying parcels, this project is not yet at a point where scientific criteria are key. As acquisition and management planning proceeds, there will be more need for evaluation of scientific merit. The general information presented here suggests that the sponsors will be able to provide all the necessary information and expertise as it is needed.

This project is worthwhile; the purchase would link a considerable stretch of riparian area in shrub-steppe habitat. The qualification – the question of future grazing on the lands, and on the Wilson Ranch needs to be addressed. Proper management of grazing (if permitted) is important to the ability to restore the ecosystem. How and when will decisions on this be addressed? If the acquisition goal is fish and wildlife benefits, the land-use plan needs to be consistent with this. 1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships: These sections are reasonable and appropriate given that no program lands are currently managed. This project attempts to provide out-of-place and out-of-kind mitigation for hydro impacts from dams in the Boise and Payette River drainages. The project proposes to acquire the Wilson Ranch property that includes about 75% of the Owyhee River riparian and floodplain corridor below Wild Horse Dam in Nevada. The Owyhee River is home to native redband trout, and the riparian corridor is likely an important wildlife habitat, particularly for migrating and breeding birds. Having the opportunity to aggregate these lands into a conservation-directed management scheme would likely yield significant local and regional benefits. 2. Project History and Results The sponsors are commended for their persistence in pursuing this project in spite of external obstacles. Some mention of the issue of potential pollution from upstream sources is needed in the proposal, as these effects could compromise expected biological benefits from habitat and management improvements (copper may be a problem from mining). 3. Objectives, work elements, and methods This section is organizationally confusing, skipping from acquisition to management and back again. Until lands are acquired and management planning is complete, how can it be known if, or what fencing or other restoration activities will be needed? This section of the proposal focuses on aspects of acquisition and has yet to define more specific biological and conservation work elements and objectives, much less specific methods. However, all the acquisition pieces are in here somewhere and are presented credibly. The parcel identification and prioritization work element is particularly well thought out and presented. 4. M&E This section is not well-developed and will require additional details from the sponsor to provide more specific biological objectives (and work elements) in order to specify appropriate M&E metrics and methods. We recognize that it is difficult for the sponsors to plan M&E for future parcels; however, there is concern that HEP may be being confused with biological monitoring. As the project moves forward with acquisitions and management planning, this should be clarified. Beyond the need to mitigate and the Tribes' approach to identifying parcels, this project is not yet at a point where scientific criteria are key. As acquisition and management planning proceeds, there will be more need for evaluation of scientific merit. The general information presented here suggests that the sponsors will be able to provide all the necessary information and expertise as it is needed.

This is a cogent and compelling proposal. Where relevant, scientific resources are used well. The maps add clarity regarding benefits to sage grouse and mule deer and associated species. The technical and scientific background is complete, and even includes policy and cultural elements. The proposal is linked closely to the goals of the Program and subbasin plans involved. There may be some threatened and endangered and State agency programs that complement this proposal as well. The proposal identifies that the Tribes have a key leadership role and strong collaborations with many other stakeholders. Objectives are clear, measurable, and realistic. The tribes' approach to locating suitable property was sound and yielded several prospects. Until the tribes reach the management planning phase, most of the described work is administrative and plans for this are appropriate. History to date is primarily administrative and development of collaborative links. Pre-acquisition work was technically and scientifically well grounded.

Focal species include riparian species, sage grouse and mule deer. Potential links to other efforts are not fully explained, but proximity of USFS and Reservation lands implies opportunities. The isolation of these sites and location within watersheds will provide some protection from other, possibly deleterious activities in the basin. Fire management goals will be needed and fire protection and off-road vehicle use are threats that are not addressed. Elimination of livestock grazing (presumed?) may cause some invader and weed plants to become more problematic, but if properly managed these impacts should be minor. The need for monitoring is recognized and a preliminary plan is in place. Plans for storing and sharing data are included. Riparian PFC is not a monitoring tool so cause-effect relationships cannot be detected using this tool. Facilities and equipment are adequate and it appears they have well-trained staff.