The qualification is that project sponsors should complete a progress report summarizing the results of this 10-year effort and describe how (if) their findings have been incorporated into revised management activities in the Desert Wildlife Area.

Because the Desert Wildlife Area wetlands are in part caused by human activity (agricultural surface water returns and elevated groundwater), it is likely that these nutrient-rich wetlands will undergo rapid vegetation succession and be vulnerable to exotic weed and fish invasions. This is likely to result in the need for frequent habitat restoration to maintain conditions suitable for target waterfowl species. This project will require considerable O&M to achieve its goals. Therefore it is important that a reasonable monitoring program be implemented to track the project's success. Currently there appears to be no plan to monitor the effectiveness of many of the restoration actions. We also strongly encourage the sponsors to initiate an appropriate water quality testing program.

1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships
This proposal is for continued funding of O&M operations for seasonal wetlands in the Crab Creek subbasin, and for completion of the construction of two wetland enhancement projects. The technical justification and program significance were explained, but other wetlands creation or enhancement programs in the area were simply listed without explaining how their actions have influenced the O&M actions that are being used at this site. However, the project sponsors did a good job of laying out the problem of wetland succession reducing waterfowl abundance in the Desert Wildlife Area (DWA), threats from the expansion of non-native plant species, and continued harm caused by the spread of carp to some of the DWA wetland sites.

2. Project History and Results
Restoration actions implemented at DWA from 1998 to 2009 are summarized in bullet form. It was somewhat disappointing to read that the response to requests for information on both Project Reports and Adaptive Management Implications was "None to date", as this project has been underway for a decade and some evidence that the restoration is having the desired effect, or is being improved, would be very helpful. Although the project description is somewhat vague on this point, some implementation and effectiveness monitoring has apparently taken place at the TD1 and TD2 sites, but no results are presented.

3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods
The goals, objectives, and methods were reasonably described. Most of the activities, except fish poisoning, will occur during the season when the wetlands are dry. This project has very explicit vegetation and waterfowl targets, and it would be helpful to know how year-to-year variation in weather, surface and groundwater hydrology, and other factors, can affect these targets. Invasive plant and fish species will be heavily managed both physically and chemically. Because the DWA wetland enhancement efforts are focused primarily on waterfowl, potential effects of project actions on other wildlife were not predicted.

4. M&E
M&E activities were described in moderate detail. The ISRP recommends that project sponsors perform a post-treatment fish survey of the site(s) that will be treated in 2009 with rotenone to control carp. Because elimination of carp is one of the three main goals of the project, there should be some monitoring to verify that removal efforts were successful. At the review meeting, the sponsors told the ISRP that they would check the sites for carp removal success.

Because wetlands in the DWA can be strongly influenced by agricultural activities in the surrounding landscape, water quality should be monitored for chemical contaminants. Although it is possible this is already being done through some other agency program (e.g., WDOE), we note that contaminants have been identified as a significant threat to both birds and fish in this area.

The ISRP requests that sponsors complete a report summarizing the results to date. The report should contain a description of the wetland restoration actions undertaken, the results of any monitoring, a summary of how the data are being archived and made available to others, and an explanation of how lessons learned from the project thus far have been used to improve current O&M activities.

The ISRP finds that this project Meets Scientific Criteria (Qualified). The qualification is that project sponsors should complete a progress report summarizing the results of this 10-year effort and describe how (if) their findings have been incorporated into revised management activities in the Desert Wildlife Area (DWA). Because the DWA wetlands are in part caused by human activity (agricultural surface water returns and elevated groundwater), it is likely that these nutrient-rich wetlands will undergo rapid vegetation succession and be vulnerable to exotic weed and fish invasions. This is likely to result in the need for frequent habitat restoration to maintain conditions suitable for target waterfowl species. This project will require considerable O&M to achieve its goals. Therefore it is important that a reasonable monitoring program be implemented to track the project's success. Currently there appears to be no plan to monitor the effectiveness of many of the restoration actions. We also strongly encourage the sponsors to initiate an appropriate water quality testing program. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships This proposal is for continued funding of O&M operations for seasonal wetlands in the Crab Creek subbasin, and for completion of the construction of two wetland enhancement projects. The technical justification and program significance were explained, but other wetlands creation or enhancement programs in the area were simply listed without explaining how their actions have influenced the O&M actions that are being used at this site. However, the project sponsors did a good job of laying out the problem of wetland succession reducing waterfowl abundance in the Desert Wildlife Area (DWA), threats from the expansion of non-native plant species, and continued harm caused by the spread of carp to some of the DWA wetland sites. 2. Project History and Results Restoration actions implemented at DWA from 1998 to 2009 are summarized in bullet form. It was somewhat disappointing to read that the response to requests for information on both Project Reports and Adaptive Management Implications was "None to date", as this project has been underway for a decade and some evidence that the restoration is having the desired effect, or is being improved, would be very helpful. Although the project description is somewhat vague on this point, some implementation and effectiveness monitoring has apparently taken place at the TD1 and TD2 sites, but no results are presented. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The goals, objectives, and methods were reasonably described. Most of the activities, except fish poisoning, will occur during the season when the wetlands are dry. This project has very explicit vegetation and waterfowl targets, and it would be helpful to know how year-to-year variation in weather, surface and groundwater hydrology, and other factors, can affect these targets. Invasive plant and fish species will be heavily managed both physically and chemically. Because the DWA wetland enhancement efforts are focused primarily on waterfowl, potential effects of project actions on other wildlife were not predicted. 4. M&E M&E activities were described in moderate detail. The ISRP recommends that project sponsors perform a post-treatment fish survey of the site(s) that will be treated in 2009 with rotenone to control carp. Because elimination of carp is one of the three main goals of the project, there should be some monitoring to verify that removal efforts were successful. At the review meeting, the sponsors told the ISRP that they would check the sites for carp removal success. Because wetlands in the DWA can be strongly influenced by agricultural activities in the surrounding landscape, water quality should be monitored for chemical contaminants. Although it is possible this is already being done through some other agency program (e.g., WDOE), we note that contaminants have been identified as a significant threat to both birds and fish in this area. The ISRP requests that sponsors complete a report summarizing the results to date. The report should contain a description of the wetland restoration actions undertaken, the results of any monitoring, a summary of how the data are being archived and made available to others, and an explanation of how lessons learned from the project thus far have been used to improve current O&M activities.

The project focuses on completion of six wetland enhancement construction projects designed to increase the area of submerged aquatic vegetation and area of open water in project wetlands. The proposed project is designed to benefit waterfowl, but results will not persist over the long-term without continued monitoring and remedial action. It is likely that the nature of the methods used (excavation, burning, mowing) will have an effect on non-focal species that could be adverse. The response did address the issue of possible adverse effects of the restoration activities on non-focal species and the timing of excavation and burning. The project is not linked to a subbasin plan because the Crab subbasin was not complete at the time of proposal writing.

The proposal has a strong section on objectives and associated monitoring and evaluation plans. Methods for restoration are described but more justification that the best scientific techniques will be used is necessary. There is little evidence that results have been obtained. It appears that there has been much planning and few accomplishments for this ongoing project, perhaps because of the short history for the project. In the response the sponsors addressed the issue of little on-the-ground restoration to date due to the time needed for project planning and securing environmental compliance.

Not all key personnel are identified so it is unclear if the proposed work elements can be accomplished. Some additional general information concerning project personnel was provided in the response, but it is not clear how much effort will be allocated to the project.

The proposal refers to other similar restoration projects but no collaborative efforts are identified with other work funded in the Fish and Wildlife Program. Plans for information transfer beyond WDFW sites should be provided to demonstrate a wider distribution of successes and lessons learned to benefit others involved in similar activities.

Not enough information was provided in the proposal or response to justify that the proposed restoration methods are scientifically based or adequate to benefit target species.