The proponent (IDFG) stated that mitigation parcels have been incorporated into Idaho’s Wildlife Management Areas (WMAs) and management plans exist for each of the State’s individual WMAs. However, the plans are for each WMA as a whole and not specific to mitigation parcels within a WMA. The proponent stated in their response that no individual parcel plans or objectives, either for mitigation or non-mitigation parcels, will be or have been devised or written. An outline of WMA plans was included in the proponents’ response, but it does not demonstrate an adaptive management framework. It does not appear that the proponents intend to develop quantifiable biological objectives, monitoring protocols to assess progress toward objectives, or an adaptive management framework for WMAs or mitigation parcels within them. Issues that were raised in regard to monitoring and evaluation (M&E) and adaptive management in the 2009 review persist. The ISRP expected some resolution and progress over the last eight years; consequently, a final recommendation that this project does not meet scientific criteria has been made. The ISRP believes that the proponents have a responsibility to demonstrate that mitigation parcels are being managed effectively within an adaptive management framework to benefit wildlife populations. IDFG is developing a statewide monitoring plan for WMAs which should be completed in a year. Will the statewide monitoring plan for WMAs include M&E and adaptive management processes? If not, can the statewide monitoring plan be modified to include them?

The sponsors provided much material in their response, but the ISRP’s concerns were largely unaddressed. To bolster scientific and technical justification, the sponsors provided tables of HUs and a few general comments, but this was inadequate scientific or technical justification for the actions proposed.

What monitoring and evaluation has actually taken place other than HEP? The use of HEP does not substitute for effectiveness monitoring. One of the objectives of the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife program is to monitor and evaluate habitat and species responses to mitigation actions. In the sponsor response there is ample acknowledgement that M&E should be conducted, and plans for monitoring in general are included. However, data and summaries of actual monitoring and evaluation are still lacking.

Attaching management plans and annual reports is useful, but reviewers spent fruitless hours rummaging through these looking for information missing from the proposal. The narrative refers reviewers to the annual reports for monitoring data and analyses, but neither are included in the reports and the reports refer only to Deer Parks. What is the status of monitoring on the other units? The Deer Parks management plan shows what data are supposed to be collected, but the appended monitoring plan is undated and there is no indication it has been used. In lieu of monitoring results, observations or conclusions are offered without any data to support them. The monitoring outlined in the management plan differs from what is in this proposal. Both, however, include HEP as effectiveness monitoring. Once parcels have been acquired and management plans put into place, more specific monitoring and adaptive management should occur than is included in or supported by HEP. Annual reports from 2006-2008 document numerous activities including sharecropping, weed control and facilities upgrades. When did, or will the first round of vegetation monitoring occur? This is what will tell us about the success of these habitat activities. Likewise, year to year comparisons of wildlife data will eventually provide some insight into the success of habitat manipulations.

Neither objectives, nor work elements have been put into quantifiable terms. For example, how many acres do you plan to treat for weeds? How many acres do you plan to plant with native vegetation? Quoting the Fish and Wildlife Program objectives is not sufficient. The individual projects are intended to operationalize the Program, and hence must be more detailed so that it can be seen what contribution to Program goals can be expected from individual projects. Without measures, how would you ever know if you had been successful and were fully mitigated, or if your efforts failed?

Most earlier comments on this proposal are repeated below as most still apply.

These are partially edited from the preliminary review. A simple response to ISRP concerns will not be sufficient. A rewritten proposal is needed. We suggest the sponsor take a look at the Pine Creek Wildlife Proposal as a model. As written, this proposal is very general and does not follow the narrative instructions. There is not enough specific information to evaluate the scientific merit of the project. There is no indication of biological results from the prior 13 years. Management plans for parcels in addition to Deer Parks are important because activities on 8 separate parcels are lumped together. References include nothing more recent than 2003. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships It appears the sponsors did not look at the narrative instructions. The technical and scientific background section lacks technical or scientific information. The project relationships section does address subbasin plans and other programs in general terms, but does not provide any specificity regarding future project activities. 2. Project History and Results Except for a section on acquisition priority formulation, there is nothing more detailed than acres and HUs. What enhancements have been accomplished? Monitoring is mentioned, but are there any results? Has there been any adaptive management based in prior years' activity? This section includes very little of what was requested. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods Objectives are not in a measurable form. For example, how many acres or HUs do they anticipate acquiring in what priority habitats or areas? Are they actively seeking lands and if they are, how? 4. M&E It sounds as if monitoring is all in the future. Has there been monitoring yet? Adaptive management section is also very unclear. When will the data be evaluated and by whom? Has there been any M&E, and if so, what are the results?

This proposal cites more appropriate literature than most wildlife proposals and demonstrates an emphasis on use of science in management. The authors clearly stated the problem. The ISRP wonders whether the proposed acquisitions link to other current or future parcels, perhaps under other ownership, that create a landscape level habitat network. Is there such a thing here, or could there be?

The objectives are generally clear and measurable, but timelines are continuous. Work elements regarding monitoring protocols are especially clear and appear sound. Focal species' links to the landscape are not presented. Persistence of benefits to fish and wildlife is implied, given continuing support. Could some of these sites become more self sustaining, for example, convert irrigated sites to native vegetation?

It is not clear that monitoring data already being collected for prior acquisitions have been evaluated for adaptive management and achievement of Program goals. Information transfer is not mentioned, nor any published outputs. By the next review this proposal should report monitoring results in biological terms and applications for adaptive management based on the results.