1. Objectives and outcomes 

Objectives were outlined in general terms (e.g. maintenance activities) or specified by amount (e.g. amount of weed control, etc.). With some minor modifications the proponents can develop quantitative objectives from the goals listed in their Summary Report. A few examples are listed below. Control noxious weeds on XX acres per year to maintain a noxious weed density of XX/acre. Prevent all elk from entering private property. Monitor Silene spaldingii on XX acres per year and compare observed densities with the target density of XX. Plant XX trees and shrubs and ensure that survival is greater than XX%. Implement an experimental pilot grazing program and evaluate whether livestock grazing degrades ecological integrity, which is defined by specific quantitative metrics. And so on. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

The Summary Report provided good documentation on work done, especially the grazing studies that appeared well planned and implemented. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

Few detailed results from monitoring were reported. For instance, a table is shown for Silene spaldingii, a rare flowering plant. However, the table does not mention the units of measurement. The text makes a confusing statement regarding the monitoring of this plant "There was really no evidence seen between one extreme season hot, dry to the next cool, wet season in terms of this species production of individual plants and flower buds. In actuality, production has declined." No statistical analysis was provided to support this conclusion. 

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

Five lessons learned and the management responses to these issues were briefly described in the Summary Report. Most of the lessons learned simply state that problems were encountered, such as eradication of exotic smooth brome is difficult, maintaining annual crops for holding elk in the wildlife area is expensive and time consuming, maintaining 70-year-old fences is challenging, and livestock grazing as a management tool is difficult. 

Little information was provided, so it was challenging to evaluate the effectiveness of the changes in management made to solve the above issues. Additionally, no description of the status of focal wildlife species was provided, and thus it was hard to evaluate the effects the project has had on these species. 

The ISRP asks that the proponents provide evidence of the effectiveness of their weed management actions on “weedy flats,” and on the strategy of keeping big game on Asotin Creek. Relative to keeping big game on the project’s wildlife management area, the proponents could track their annual management efforts on fields and the number of complaints from adjacent private lands.

The ISRP requests a progress report early in 2018 that describes quantitative habitat objectives (at project and management action spatial scales), timelines for the objectives, and the adaptive management plan being used by the project.

The ISRP thanks the Agency for responding to our requests for the grazing plan and the explanation for maintaining the agricultural fields on the property. The ISRP qualifies its recommendation with an explicit expectation that results of monitoring vegetation and wildlife response to grazing will be included in the next review cycle.

The reviewers request: a) A clear justification for maintaining the agricultural fields. b) More details on how they plan to restore habitat. They mention replanting native plants. Please provide some methodological detail about this restoration. For example, what plants seeds will be used? c) A better link among objectives, work elements, and M&E. The objectives need to be more detailed. For example, please describe in greater detail in the M&E section where and when you will sample the vegetation using vegetation sampling points. We would like to see an example of a grazing plan if cattle are going to be managed on the Project. d) That any M&E work completed since 2004 be summarized, including bird surveys, elk counts, deer counts, sheep counts, vegetation response to plantings/restoration, and weed control efforts.

This proposal meets the ISRP review criteria and benefits wildlife. However, the ISRP suggests that the sponsor address the following comments to improve the project. The ISRP does not need to see a response to these comments but suggests them as material that could improve the proposal for implementation and subsequent review.

The proposal could be improved by a fuller treatment of biological objectives, and monitoring and evaluation of these objectives. In the future, the authors could improve their proposal by showing data in tables or figures. Photographs can be powerful tools for showing progress on habitat changes (riparian, upland, crop fields). The ISRP suggests that upland habitats be monitored for vegetation and bird responses; this will likely require survey sites independent of the BBS route used currently. Weed control efforts present an opportunity to monitor and evaluate management activities. The ISRP also suggests that the authors include more background information about big game target populations.

The ISRP has additional reservations about the conversion of the smooth brome fields on the Smoothing Iron Ridge parcel as sharp-tailed grouse habitat management. This conversion will be very expensive. The ISRP believes it may be less costly and more beneficial to manage this parcel as big game wintering habitat. Managing these fields as sharp-tail habitat is risky given that no sharp-tails have been seen in the area for decades, and it is a relatively small field.