The primary goal has been to convert agricultural fields to shrub steppe habitat to support focal species (i.e., threatened Columbia sharp-tailed grouse and mule deer). The project appears to be on track in that 3500 acres of agricultural land have now been converted and the abundance trend for Columbia sharp-tailed grouse is increasing. However, the management plan does not include quantitative objectives with timelines for expected outcomes. 

It is not clear if monitoring exists to track continuing changes in vegetation in the converted agricultural fields. The 2012 update of the management plan provided results to 2010-2011; if possible, these results should be updated through 2016 in the next annual report. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

The 2006 Management Plan states “the primary goal and specific reason for purchasing the property is to establish a viable sharp-tailed grouse population in and adjacent to the SCWA" (Scotch Creek Wildlife Area). The 2017 Summary Report states “the primary biological objective is to increase the Columbia sharp-tailed grouse population through habitat manipulation, maintenance, and protection measures, and by local population recruitment and population augmentation if necessary. A closely related secondary goal is to protect, enhance, and maintain shrub-steppe and riparian habitats for Columbia sharp-tailed grouse and other shrubsteppe obligate species, and forested habitats to increase mule deer use of the project area.” 

These objectives are clear statements of intention and are adequately justified as supporting the recovery of the threatened Columbia sharp-tailed grouse (extensive references are provided). However, because they are not quantitative and lack timelines, they cannot be used to track progress or re-evaluate assumptions as part of adaptive management. On the other hand, the ISRP was pleased to see that the 2012 update to the management plan did provide an explicit set of quantitative performance measures for 2011 for the purpose of evaluation. 

Has an abundance target been identified for Columbia sharp-tailed grouse in the SCWA? A target exists for the entire state of Washington, but what fraction of that target is expected to be achieved by this project? The objective has been to increase breeding abundance from very low levels, but the premise of the habitat mitigation project is that shrub-steppe habitat has been or will become a limiting factor. Has the carrying capacity of current habitat in the SCWA been estimated? It would have been useful to include lek counts in the SCWA and surrounding areas in the Summary Report (instead of just citing the status and trends report for the entire state). 

Similarly, an abundance target for mule deer was not mentioned, perhaps because the species is not listed. Even so, expected outcomes and timelines should be identified to help track progress and re-evaluate assumptions. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

An extensive set of management plans, research reports, and published scientific papers was provided to justify habitat restoration actions in support of the threatened Columbia sharptailed grouse. Much of the research and monitoring was conducted in the SCWA and adjacent wildlife areas (e.g., Swanson Lake and Sagebrush Flat). The cited reports indicate a high level of understanding of the natural history and habitat requirements for Columbia sharp-tailed grouse and provide a good scientific basis for the translocation experiments. 

No information or discussion is provided about how this project might be affected by expected changes in climate. Will the project still be viable if climate changes in this region as predicted? 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

Excellent monitoring and thorough evaluation of benefits for focal species is evident in the scientific reports cited. For example, several theses focus on studying the responses of translocated Columbia sharp-tailed grouse. It is noted that this work was funded by organizations other than BPA, primarily WDFW and USFWS. 

In contrast, it is not clear if monitoring exists to track continuing changes in vegetation in the converted agricultural fields. The 2012 update of the management plan provided results to 2010-2011. If possible, these results should be updated through 2016. For example, are reference pictures (i.e., small scale photos, landscape photos) available for these sites for future comparisons? Also, is there any information to show successful use of the nest platforms installed for great grey owls? Any such information should be included in the next annual report.

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

The project is maintaining various improvements to habitat that benefits focal species. Efforts to bolster Columbia sharp-tailed grouse abundance by translocating birds from other areas between 2009 and 2013 have been discontinued pending evaluation of benefits. So far the program appears to have been successful. 

The Summary Report also includes a useful summary of lessons learned about specific habitat restoration actions and administrative policies. The decisions or recommendations for changes are described clearly, and seem reasonable, but are not well supported by evidence or references to analyses in other documents. No formal adaptive management process is evident. 

Clearly the proponents of this project and others are finding some activities will require more funding or a different approach. More planning is needed to budget long-term maintenance and repair, with appropriate consideration for the impacts of wild fires or other unscheduled events.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents update the management plan to include quantitative objectives with timelines for expected outcomes so that progress can be tracked and assumptions re-evaluated as part of adaptive management.

Swanson Lake sharp-tailed grouse appear to be isolated from other sharp-tailed grouse populations in the state. Consequently, an important goal for the project is to work cooperatively with public and private land owners adjacent to Swanson Lake to better understand and manage connectivity among parcels or between properties. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

According to the proponent's Summary Report, the primary objective of this project is protection and enhancement of existing shrub-steppe and riparian habitats, and restoration of former agricultural fields and degraded areas to native habitat. The focal wildlife species are Columbian sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage grouse, and mule deer. 

The objectives and current status of the project, as presented in the Summary Report, do not readily support a scientific review. According to the report, the main enhancement goal (returning several hundred acres of disturbed sites to native habitat per BPA’s mitigation objectives) was completed by 2006. This project currently involves management of this wildlife area by maintaining vegetation (planting seeds and riparian shrubs) and controlling invasive weeds. Accordingly, the Project annually treats between 100 and 1,000 acres for noxious weeds using an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) approach, and it maintains and repairs infrastructure need to support land management. 

No quantitative objectives were presented. Ideally, the project could have stated quantitative objectives or performance measures related to activities and accomplishments listed in the summary report. These objectives should have been in the proposal to BPA. Here are some example quantitative objectives or performance measures that could have been identified, based on their reported accomplishments. Maintain XX miles of boundary fence, XX gates, and XX signs each year. Inspect and control XX acres of land for noxious weeds each year. Plant XX acres of land (or XX plants of XX species) each year. Increase connectivity of sharp-tailed grouse habitats by XX% by working cooperatively with public and private land owners adjacent to Swanson Lake. Monitor the status and movement of focal wildlife species in relation to target densities that describe a "healthy" population (note: one of the lessons learned mentioned "mitigation goals for focal species"; these should be presented as objectives). Monitor shrubsteppe habitat and compare plant composition and densities relative to desired conditions. 

The reason for developing quantitative objectives, even for basic habitat monitoring, is that it helps proponents identify specific objectives for the project, provides a target for evaluating success or failure, and facilitates adaptive management. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

Given past work on the value of connectivity – e.g., Robb and Schroeder (2010) and Plumley (2014) – and earlier identification of the value of habitat connections among populations, we would encourage the proponents to explore the idea of forming cooperative arrangements between agencies, e.g. Swanson Lake and Crab Creek, and adjacent BLM land holdings to create a network of interconnected sharp-tailed grouse habitats. On a smaller spatial scale, we wonder if land management actions (e.g. restoration of agricultural fields, U.S. Department of Agriculture Conservation Reserve Program contracts) could be prioritized to facilitate linkages among extant leks, lek clusters, or dispersed sharp tailed grouse clusters. The Figure (e.g. Figure 7, Re-establishment of Viable Populations of Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in Washington: Progress Report) used in several presentations during the review shows the locations of radiotagged birds that could be useful when selecting areas for connectivity. The spatial scale of this figure makes it difficult to evaluate locations and land management opportunities. However, if the scale was modified, it could provide important insights into where future work could take place. 

There is a considerable amount of local and recent research outcomes in the literature cited sections of the various submitted reports (e.g. Whitney, Stonehouse, multiple sharp-tailed grouse status updates, connectivity (e.g. http://waconnected.org/), evaluation of shrub steppe cover types). This information could be used to develop objectives for sharp-tailed grouse in project areas (i.e., Colville tribal lands, Swanson Lake, Scotch Creek, Wenas, Okanagan properties) and help guide the recovery of this bird. 

Citations for the referenced reports are: 

Robb, L., and M.A. Schroeder. 2010. Appendix A.1: Habitat connectivity for sharp-tailed grouse (Tympanuchus phasianellus) in the Columbia Plateau Ecoregion. Pages A.1-1 – A.1- 27 in Washington Wildlife Habitat Connectivity Working Group (WHCWG). Washington connected landscapes project: Statewide analysis. Washington Departments of Fish and Wildlife and Transportation, Olympia Washington 

Plumley, S. 2014. Modeling Columbian sharp-tailed grouse lek occupancy to guide site selection for on-going translocations and species population recovery. Master of Environmental Studies. The Evergreen State College, 104 pp. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation of results 

Because lek attendance counts are often a source of population estimation, we suggest that future progress reports and management plans present lek survey results by year for the WDFW properties, adjacent properties, and regions. The ISRP believes presentation of information in this way may be helpful in assessment of land management and population trajectories. 

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

The proponents are urged to develop a formal adaptive management plan. Once quantitative objectives are identified with timelines, an adaptive management cycle can guide future management activities.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents develop quantitative objectives with timelines and an adaptive management plan for this project and include in the project’s 2018 progress reports and management plans.

The ISRP commends the proponents for their efforts to involve the local community and recognizes that the Sunnyside Wildlife Area was originally acquired for recreation rather than habitat mitigation. However, we believe the project could be improved by developing quantitative objectives with timelines, and by conducting more basic monitoring and evaluation to track progress. It is difficult to evaluate the overall benefits of this project based on the mix of objectives and background information provided, in part because monitoring is not clearly focused on tracking the success of management actions. A process for prioritizing tasks is also needed given limitations on staff and funding. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

The objectives for habitat restoration are very general and do not quantitatively describe expected outcomes. Objectives for focal species are not identified. 

The 2017 Summary Report describes the current objectives as: infrastructure maintenance for habitat protection and regulated access for public recreation; and vegetation management to protect quality wildlife habitat by reducing the presence of invasive weeds and adjusting species composition as needed in pre-existing and enhanced sites. These are clear statements of intention, and they seem adequately justified by background information in the 2006 Management Plan. However, because these objectives are not stated quantitatively and lack timelines, they cannot be used to track progress or re-evaluate assumptions as part of adaptive management. 

The 2006 Sunnyside/Snake River Wildlife Area Management Plan does include a more extensive set of performance measures, some of which are expressed quantitatively with timelines. The ISRP understands that the management plan is being revised in 2017, and we urge the proponents to take this opportunity to fully develop quantitative objectives with timelines. For example, objectives could include targets for: acres of habitat to be treated for invasive weeds, the acceptable density of invasive weeds, specifications for water control structures, and number of people visiting the property. For properties with multiple management units, objectives should be identified for each unit. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

Background information in the 2006 Management Plan and associated documents describes generally how habitat restoration actions might support goals in the management plan. However, the justifications and expected outcomes are not described adequately for us to evaluate the scientific merit of the restoration actions undertaken. Moreover, the process for prioritizing restoration actions is not described. 

The Summary Report does not address the scientific principles of the Council's Fish and Wildlife Program. The 2006 Management Plan states that a statewide planning process was followed to ensure consistency in wildlife area management and policy implementation, and that this process included review by a Citizens Advisory Group and a District Team familiar with regional concerns. However, the ISRP understands that the Citizens Advisory Group no longer exists for Sunnyside, although one may be re-established in the near future. 

In particular, it is not clear how the proponents prioritize activities given their concerns about insufficient funding and staff time. For example, why is grain being grown for waterfowl -- does this address a limiting factor? It is difficult to evaluate a funding shortfall without quantitative performance measures and monitoring and evaluation of those measures. 

No information or discussion is provided about how this project might be affected by expected changes in climate. Will the project still be viable if climate changes in this region as predicted?

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

The Summary Report does not provide a systematic review of monitoring and evaluation. Some monitoring and evaluation of results are evident in the bird and elk surveys and scientific reports cited, but that work was funded by organizations other than BPA, primarily WDFW and USFWS. It is not clear why elk are surveyed given that they are not listed as a focal species. The data collected from bird surveys have not been analyzed or published. 

The Summary Report lists various actions such as "Over 480 acres of moist-soil wetlands and 200 acres of semi-permanent wetlands are managed annually. Russian olives are controlled on average of 40 acres annually." However it is not clear what actions are used to manage moistsoil wetlands, how management is monitored and evaluated, or how many more acres of Russian olives need treatment. Similarly 250 acres were planted with native grasses and shrubs after two wild fires in 2014. Did the grasses prevent water and wind erosion of the soils? Did 100% of the planted shrubs survive? Is current shrub density equal to that prior to the wild fire? 

The Summary Report lists monitoring activities but then indicates that no data are available for three of the seven activities. There is no discussion of any monitoring results. Links are provided to several state-wide reports but some of the links did not work. Results should be presented for this particular project. 

There is no discussion of how well weed eradication is working, and whether weed prevalence is increasing or decreasing. Basic monitoring is needed to track accomplishments. 

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

The project appears to be maintaining improvements to habitat as proposed in the original management plan. Even so, it is difficult to evaluate the overall benefits based on the mix of objectives and background information provided. Monitoring is not clearly focused on tracking progress. In short, no adaptive management is evident from the information provided, and it remains unclear whether the work done is having an impact. 

The Summary Report includes a list of lessons learned about three administrative issues. The first issue is a regulation that slows the work effort, the second issue is decreased funding for operations and maintenance after wild fires, and the third issue is insufficient staffing to complete projects. The recommendations for changes seem reasonable but are not well supported by evidence or references to analyses in other documents. A more compelling case for budget and staff shortfalls could be made by quantitatively documenting what needs to be accomplished versus what can be achieved. 

A plan is needed to schedule replacement and refurbishment of equipment. It might be helpful to create a chart to show the expected lifetime of equipment, the risks to infrastructure (e.g., wild fire), and options for mitigating the risks. The response to wild fire damage is an important task that undoubtedly requires considerable effort. To what degree were planned projects postponed in order to respond to wild fire damage? 

Given concerns about limits to funding and staff time, some sort of prioritization scheme is needed to do the most important tasks first, rather than starting many tasks but being unable to finish them. Perhaps volunteers can do some of the work such as weed control, litter control, etc. 

The management plan which is scheduled for an update in 2017 should include quantitative objectives with timelines for expected outcomes and a description of basic monitoring so that progress can be tracked and assumptions re-evaluated as part of a formal adaptive management process.

The WDFW Shillapoo Wildlife Mitigation project provides quantitative objectives, describes activities and methods used to work toward those objectives, discusses findings in relation to many of the objectives, and describes a number of lessons learned resulting from monitoring and evaluation. The ISRP commends the proponents for their achievements and offers a few comments to assist the ongoing effort. 

1. Objectives and outcomes 

The ISRP commends the WDFW Shillapoo Wildlife Mitigation project for developing quantitative objectives that can be monitored and evaluated to document effectiveness of management actions or to initiate adaptive management when actions are failing to achieve an objective. The three habitat-based objectives were clearly defined and described. Each objective includes a succinct rationale and list of strategies and quantitative targets (i.e., acres of habitat) that identify success. Two of the objectives involve specific habitat types to be maintained, protected, or restored and the third involves the ubiquitous problem of controlling noxious weeds and other undesirable plants. Three additional objectives involve improvements in infrastructure, maintenance, access, and law enforcement. These additional objectives are necessary to maintain the quality of wildlife habitat. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

The 2017 Summary Report, past annual reports, and the 2006 Management Plan describe the activities and methods used to work toward the project's objectives. Sound scientific principles are generally followed in that quantitative objectives were developed, rationale for the objectives and methods were provided, and some monitoring and analysis of actions, including lessons learned, were reported. 

Control of noxious weeds is identified in the Summary Report as one of the most important public issues in this wildlife area, and government regulations reportedly require weed control. Several weed control methods are employed including herbicide treatments (Glyphosate, Aminopyralid+Triclopyr, Triclopyr+2-4 D amine), mowing, planting cover crops, and physical removal. Application of herbicides is regulated, especially near wetland and aquatic areas, but the WDFW reports did not describe how the wildlife area is meeting those application requirements. The ISRP suggests that WDFW identify and review scientific documents that examine the chronic use of these herbicides across the expansive landscape of the wildlife refuge to ensure that the wildlife community is not harmed directly or indirectly. California is likely to identify glyphosate as a possible carcinogen (https://oehha.ca.gov/proposition- 65/chemicals/glyphosate). It would be useful to consider the extent to which chronic largescale applications of these herbicides and associated surfactants affect the food web, including invertebrates, fishes, and amphibians. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

The project provides some basic monitoring and evaluation of results, leading to some lessons learned as described in the next section. As stated in past ISRP reviews, monitoring and evaluation are important tools for long-term management of wildlife areas, as the information documents annual activities and effectiveness of the actions. The ISRP appreciates the level of effort evident in the Shillapoo Project, given limited funding available for monitoring and evaluation. A few highlights and comments are presented here. 

A 90% decline in purple loosestrife was documented from 2007 to 2016, indicating control of this invasive weed has been effective. Additional analysis of these data would be worthwhile: the data could be plotted over consecutive years to reveal whether the decline is continuing or has stabilized at a low value, and the data could also be analyzed statistically to determine what other factors besides number of years of treatment might have been important in determining total abundance in each year. 

In 2016, eight managed wetland basins were sampled to determine the relative cover of desirable and undesirable herbaceous wetland plants. Findings from earlier surveys were not presented in the Summary Report. However, annual reports indicate this survey has been conducted since 2008, at least. The ISRP encourages the proponent to examine these data and evaluate trends in herbaceous wetland plants in these areas relative to management actions.

Many trees are planted each year and the Summary Report documented survival of each species and suggested possible reasons why some species had lower survival (e.g., only 57% survival of cottonwood possibly related to relatively large size when planted and stress caused by the dry spring and summer). 

Photos points were used to monitor the effectiveness of treatments to control reed canary grass. Annual reports provided appendices that documented: (1) cumulative tree and shrub plantings in each habitat area, (2) acres of herbicide application by location, target weed species, type of herbicide, percentage of weed controlled, and comments, and (3) effectiveness of weed control techniques. Waterfowl surveys were conducted in most years since 2001. A list of accomplishments is provided in the Summary Report. 

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

Results are presented for targeted habitat characteristics in both quantitative and qualitative forms. Some evidence of progress toward objectives is presented. A summary table showing quantitative objectives and progress toward those objectives would be useful in future reports. Most findings reflect habitat conditions and treatment of those habitats. Little information was presented on wildlife species in the Summary Report, but some data were presented in the PowerPoint presentation. 

Seven lessons learned are linked to results and used to explain the rationale for making changes in activities and methods. The proponents include information on lessons learned so that other land managers in the region can access potentially useful material on situations where something went well or where problems might occur. The ISRP encourages the proponents to compare these findings with those in other areas (including findings reported in the literature) and to describe the similarities and differences in results so that others in the region can learn from the collective effort. Lessons learned from the control of noxious weeds are especially needed throughout the Columbia Basin.

1. Objectives and outcomes 

The primary goals of this project are protection and enhancement of existing shrub-steppe, riparian and wetland habitats, and restoration of former agricultural fields and degraded areas to native habitats. The focal wildlife species are mule deer, sage grouse, western meadowlark, black-capped chickadee, yellow warbler, and mink. The main enhancement goal (returning 1,200 acres of disturbed sites to native habitats per BPA’s mitigation objectives) was completed by 2006. 

The brief Summary Report lists a number of tasks (actions) needed to achieve the two general objectives. Some of these tasks are quantitative and were used to evaluate progress. Other tasks were not quantitative but could be re-worded to be quantitative so that progress could be monitored. A more comprehensive table of tasks, quantitative performance measures, and description of progress was presented in the Wenas Management Plan Update for 2012-2013. This table effectively conveyed proposed and actual progress on these activities. Many of these performance measures involved habitat restoration such as planting seeds, controlling weeds, or maintaining wildlife fences, but none directly involved an evaluation of focal wildlife species. The 2006 Management Plan lists a number of management recommendations that include quantitative metrics, but it is not clear whether or not these quantitative recommendations have been monitored and evaluated. 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

The ISRP commends the WDFW project for conducting the “nested frequency vegetation plot” study, especially with the limited budget. Apparently much, if not all, of the monitoring effort is performed using non-BPA funds. The approach appeared to be appropriate, based on the limited presentation in the review materials. However, hypotheses and methods for this study should be presented in a progress report, even if the long-term study is still incomplete. Furthermore, the experimental design should incorporate an evaluation of whether forbs are spreading from the initial plot. The proponent noted that they purchase seeds from BFI Native Seeds. Other restoration proponents, such as the Nez Perce Tribe, have begun to produce their own native plant seeds, and the proponents of the Wenas project may benefit from their experience. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

The various reports provided a detailed description of actions over the years to maintain habitat quality. Some results were presented from the “nested frequency vegetation plot” study in a separate document and in the PowerPoint presentation. More details of this ongoing study and analysis are needed. The influence of fire on the study design should be assessed and discussed. 

The Summary Report cites references and provides computer links to nine reports involving sage grouse, mule deer, avian-perch deterrents on electric power lines, focal species, and landscape integrity connectivity. These reports involve a limited set of species across a broad area of Washington State, extending well beyond the Wenas Wildlife Area. As such it is difficult to evaluate the status of these species in the Wenas Wildlife Area and the contribution of the wildlife area to the status of the focal species. Future reports should summarize text from these reports that is relevant to the Wenas Wildlife Area. Summaries of vegetation data and lek surveys should also be included in the annual report. 

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

Six lessons learned and management responses are briefly described. Lessons learned involved difficulty in establishing native forbs, aerial application of herbicides and impacts on ESA-listed fishes, fires caused by target shooters, and public outreach regarding target shooting. Corrective actions were taken. 

WDFW highlighted the funding shortfall that presumably impacts implementation of habitat restoration actions in the wildlife area. However, the Summary Report did not clearly articulate the extent to which habitat restoration actions and habitat maintenance were lagging behind in response to funding shortfalls. The effect of funding shortfalls could be demonstrated by presenting quantitative objectives and performance measures, then describing the extent to which actions did not occur in response to limited funding. Fire was identified as a major unpredictable event that required considerable funding (i.e., $1.6 million in 1 year). To what extent did fire limit planned activities? 

Human-caused fire is a major issue affecting habitat and wildlife in the Wenas Area, requiring considerable funds ($1.6 million for suppression and restoration in response to one large fire). In one recent year, six of seven fires were attributed to target shooting on the wildlife area (lightning caused one fire). The WDFW should report whether the fire was caused by bullet ricochet (sparks), tracer ammunition, smoking by the participants, or by some other means in order to develop appropriate management approaches to minimize their future occurrence.

Target shooting is reportedly allowed throughout the wildlife area, rather than in specific areas where damage to habitat may be controlled. In response to recent fires, target shooting is now allowed only from sunrise to 10:00 am during the fire season (about June 1-Sept. 30). This restriction appears to have reduced the risk of fire during the past two years. The WDFW is also working through a public outreach process to address safety and habitat degradation issues associated with target shooting, with the hope of having a plan by the end of 2017. The wildlife area should consider a ban on the use of lead bullets (and shot) because lead is toxic to wildlife (https://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/lead_poisoning/). The ISRP strongly supports the efforts of WDFW managers to limit the time and location of target shooting in the wildlife area given the significant impacts of fire caused by target shooting and safety issues in an area that is designated as a wildlife area. Not only does human-caused fire have a significant impact on wildlife habitat, it also reduces the availability of funds and workforce that are needed for habitat restoration and maintenance. According to the wildlife managers, the policy decision to restrict locations of target shooting in the wildlife area and to ban use of lead bullets (and shot) is made by the Director of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

In the next annual report, the proponent should provide the following information: 1. Quantitative objectives and performance metrics that will be monitored, evaluated, and used to help justify the need for increased funding. 2. Hypotheses, methods, and initial results of the ongoing experimental vegetation study.

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.

1. Objectives and outcomes 

General objectives or overarching goals were presented in the Summary Report. Quantitative objectives with timelines, however, should now be developed and used to guide future work and help formulate the project’s adaptive management plan. The proponents may also wish to establish a depreciation schedule to see if the critical infrastructure needs replacement. This schedule would also allow the proponents to assess and prepare for risks, such as fires. 

The 2017 Summary lists the primary objective as “vegetation management to protect and enhance the existing shrub-steppe and riparian habitats and restore former agricultural fields and degraded areas to native habitat” and the secondary objective as “infrastructure maintenance.” These are clear statements of intention that can be justified as supporting recovery plans for imperiled focal species. However, they lack timelines and are not quantitative, and consequently, cannot be used to evaluate success or track progress. Quantitative objectives and timelines need to be developed for pygmy rabbits, vegetation, Columbia sharp-tailed grouse, greater sage grouse, including genetic diversity of grouse populations. They could be used to justify supporting recovery plans for imperiled focal species. As another example, without quantitative objectives for vegetation management (e.g. enhancement of shrub-steppe, weed control) it is difficult to determine outcomes. Acres under management, road miles treated for weed control, and measuring success of vegetation conversion could act as quantitative objectives. 

The proponents identify that shrub-steppe habitat protection and enhancement are key objectives. ISRP wonders what quantitative objectives guide this work. For instance, are there objectives for species richness, coverage, distribution, and/or species composition? 

2. Scientific principles and methods 

An extensive series of recovery plans, research reports, and published scientific papers is provided to justify habitat restoration actions in support of three imperiled focal species (pygmy rabbit, Columbia sharp tailed grouse and greater sage grouse). The research (and monitoring) is mostly convincing that appropriate scientific principles and methods are being applied. Much of the work was conducted in the Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area (SWFA).

The ISRP suggests photo plots be considered as a technique for monitoring vegetation management outcomes. For this monitoring method to be useful photos should be taken from the same spots at the same time of year. 

3. Monitoring and evaluation 

Monitoring and evaluation of results is evident in the reports cited, but that work was funded by organizations other than BPA, primarily WDFW and USFWS. WDFW is also planning to implement a Citizen Science based monitoring program on the SFWA. Proponents should be aware of the difficulties of using citizen science in remote areas. 

The ISRP was pleased to see links provided for grouse translocation projects included in the Summary Report (e.g. Re-establishment of Viable Populations of Columbian Sharp-tailed Grouse in Washington: 2010 Progress Report [Schroeder et al. 2010] Link). The ISRP suggests lek counts from the project areas and surrounding sites be included in future progress reports instead of just attaching the status and trends report for the entire state. 

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

The proponents reported results of the grouse translocation project (2009-2013), and the ISRP anticipates that the results will inform other projects (e.g. Swanson Lake, Scotch Creek).

Overall, the project is maintaining various improvements to habitat that benefits imperiled focal species. The Summary Report includes a useful summary of lessons learned about specific habitat restoration actions and administrative policies. The decisions or recommendations for changes are described clearly, but they are not well supported by evidence or references to analyses in other documents.  

The ISRP requests that in the next revision of the management plan, the proponents develop quantitative objectives, timelines, and an adaptive management approach for tracking how the project’s focal species are responding to management actions. Grouse and pygmy rabbits are being monitored, but additional monitoring should be directed toward how vegetation (shrubsteppe habitat, water birch) is responding to the project’s activities.

This project supports the recovery of sharp-tailed grouse and mule deer and complements sharp-tail projects at several other locations in the region. The goals and objectives described in the Scotch Creek mitigation project support both the WDFW management strategies and goals for sharp-tailed grouse and the Okanogan Subbasin Plan goals and objectives. Much progress has been made at Scotch Creek on weed control and seeding with about 3200 acres converted back to native shrub-steppe habitat.

This project is linked and coordinated with a number of other similar projects including sharp-tailed grouse and shrub-steppe recovery efforts at Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area, Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area and on the Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) Reservation. This project has collaborated with the CCT in many ways to develop strategies to establish and maintain meta- populations within the Okanogan (Columbia Cascade Province), Crab Creek (Columbia Plateau Province), and Lake Roosevelt (Mountain Columbia Province) subbasins.

The inter-project cooperation and collaboration is commendable. The ISRP asks that because all of the sharp-tailed grouse populations on the various Wildlife Areas are not responding in a similar manner (some increasing, some decreasing), in the future can the habitat data being collected (apparently using the same protocols with Schroeder as the coordinator) be used effectively to better understand observed sharp-tailed grouse population responses to habitat conditions at each Wildlife Area? Perhaps the issues are more complicated than general habitat condition, e.g., wintering habitat issues at some areas vs. nesting conditions at others?

Basically, the ISRP is asking if the other Wildlife Areas are benefiting, or can benefit more, from the knowledge gained at Scotch Creek. It was noted that future data analyses will compare treatment sites with reference sites (hopefully among the Wildlife Areas and not just at local sites on a Management Area). Some Scotch Creek habitat data were presented (1996 vs. 2006) from HEP sites, but there appears to be a desire to collect additional habitat information. The ISRP believes that results from this and other similar projects have great potential to result in adaptive management at a regional scale.

This project supports the recovery of sharp-tailed grouse and mule deer and complements sharp-tail projects at several other locations in the region. The goals and objectives described in the Scotch Creek mitigation project support both the WDFW management strategies and goals for sharp-tailed grouse and the Okanogan Subbasin Plan goals and objectives. Much progress has been made at Scotch Creek on weed control and seeding with about 3200 acres converted back to native shrub-steppe habitat. This project is linked and coordinated with a number of other similar projects including sharp-tailed grouse and shrub-steppe recovery efforts at Sagebrush Flat Wildlife Area, Swanson Lakes Wildlife Area and on the Colville Confederated Tribes (CCT) Reservation. This project has collaborated with the CCT in many ways to develop strategies to establish and maintain meta- populations within the Okanogan (Columbia Cascade Province), Crab Creek (Columbia Plateau Province), and Lake Roosevelt (Mountain Columbia Province) subbasins. The inter-project cooperation and collaboration is commendable. The ISRP asks that because all of the sharp-tailed grouse populations on the various Wildlife Areas are not responding in a similar manner (some increasing, some decreasing), in the future can the habitat data being collected (apparently using the same protocols with Schroeder as the coordinator) be used effectively to better understand observed sharp-tailed grouse population responses to habitat conditions at each Wildlife Area? Perhaps the issues are more complicated than general habitat condition, e.g., wintering habitat issues at some areas vs. nesting conditions at others? Basically, the ISRP is asking if the other Wildlife Areas are benefitting, or can benefit more, from the knowledge gained at Scotch Creek. It was noted that future data analyses will compare treatment sites with reference sites (hopefully among the Wildlife Areas and not just at local sites on a Management Area). Some Scotch Creek habitat data were presented (1996 vs. 2006) from HEP sites, but there appears to be a desire to collect additional habitat information. The ISRP believes that results from this and other similar projects have great potential to result in adaptive management at a regional scale.

The ISRP found the responses adequate. The ISRP would encourage the use of another HEP evaluation within the next five years and/or the agency use vegetation sampling of their own design.

We are very interested in ensuring that the agency understand as much as possible about management and recovery of sharp-tailed grouse on project lands and have several questions about this process. There are grouse populations that are somewhat similar (relict populations, few leks, supplemented with translocated birds) that are responding/performing differently. We wonder if there are empirical data that can be used to understand differences among grouse populations on various projects. A response is requested to address the following questions/recommendations: 1. Can you summarize vegetation differences (and other differences) between Swanson and Scotch Creek that may be used to explain differences in sharp-tail grouse numerical responses? Vegetation data could be micro-site information or landscape scale mapping data. Are there vegetation differences (i.e. structural? pattern?) between Swanson Lake and Scotch Creek? The presentation by the Swanson Lake site manager raised some hypothetical reasons for the difference in sharp-tailed grouse population dynamics. 2. The sponsors should identify how they will evaluate grouse supplementations. 3. Are there objectives for vegetation management on the project? If not, the reviewers request some objectives for structural features of vegetation (height, Robel pole) and vegetation types. The authors should summarize the riparian habitat restoration including acres impacted and some measure of survival of the shrubs planted. 4. Regarding the HEP vegetation data presented in Appendix B, Table 1, how is herbaceous cover defined? Please add a footnote in this table to give readers the definition of herbaceous cover. The differences in herbaceous cover (%) in shrub-steppe in the two survey periods caught our attention. 5. How might this project move forward based on vegetation data? 6. Can you report long-term (10-15 years) data on deer numbers and harvest on or in the Game Management Unit that encompasses the project? 7. Could this project be linked with the UMWEP project, or are the data incompatible?

The sponsors have presented many useful data and analyses. Graphs and mapped data are well presented and clearly show the decline of focal species (pygmy rabbit, sage grouse, etc.) as well as efforts to restore those populations and their habitats. Land-use changes are described in detail. Work elements are linked to objectives, which are reasonable and use standard methods.

The project is on track, with a few exceptions noted below. These issues should be addressed in future annual reports and proposals.

1) The appendices include results and elements of project history.
a) It would be useful to analyze existing data so they may be used in an adaptive management strategy. For example p. 49 "Although the Sagebrush Flat Unit is monitored annually for breeding birds, the data is not yet available. Because the data has been collected over a longer time interval than the breeding bird surveys conducted as part of the shrub steppe restoration study, it should be useful for examining trends." In other instances clarification of statistical methodology would improve the proposal (e.g., p. 49 re western meadowlark "None of the data illustrated significant long-term trends, although the western meadowlark was close (slope of -0.0165, P = 0.0551)." The statement is equivocal.
b) WDFW biologists will monitor the progress of the recovery program and evaluate additional release sites including the Dormaier and Chester Butte Units (p. 11 - what methods?).
c) Generally, wildlife species were not monitored with much intensity, although radio-marked sage grouse and sharptails were released; any relocation of these individuals? If so, please summarize with survival rates for radio-marked birds and size of area used by marked birds.

2) The reduction in Conservation Reserve Program acres is of concern and the proposal would be improved by further explanation of how serious this issue is relative to overall progress of the project. Scientific guidance for restoration/enhancement and M&E comes from WDFW scientists. The sponsors should be complimented for bringing the researchers into their project as the publications resulting from the work are applicable to other WDFW Areas. However, the scientists must be stretched thinly to cover all M&E concerns at this area as well as the others in the state.

3) Could the authors present a citation for the statement in their presentation that 2 million sharp-tailed grouse were harvested in one year (1880's) in the Palouse alone and sent back East?

The sponsors have presented many useful data and analyses. Graphs and mapped data are well presented and clearly show the decline of focal species (pygmy rabbit, sage grouse, etc.) as well as efforts to restore those populations and their habitats. Land-use changes are described in detail. Work elements are linked to objectives, which are reasonable and use standard methods. The project is on track, with a few exceptions noted below. These issues should be addressed in future annual reports and proposals. 1) The appendices include results and elements of project history. a) It would be useful to analyze existing data so they may be used in an adaptive management strategy. For example p. 49 "Although the Sagebrush Flat Unit is monitored annually for breeding birds, the data is not yet available. Because the data has been collected over a longer time interval than the breeding bird surveys conducted as part of the shrub steppe restoration study, it should be useful for examining trends." In other instances clarification of statistical methodology would improve the proposal (e.g., p. 49 re western meadowlark "None of the data illustrated significant long-term trends, although the western meadowlark was close (slope of -0.0165, P = 0.0551)." The statement is equivocal. b) WDFW biologists will monitor the progress of the recovery program and evaluate additional release sites including the Dormaier and Chester Butte Units (p. 11 - what methods?). c) Generally, wildlife species were not monitored with much intensity, although radio-marked sage grouse and sharptails were released; any relocation of these individuals? If so, please summarize with survival rates for radio-marked birds and size of area used by marked birds. 2) The reduction in Conservation Reserve Program acres is of concern and the proposal would be improved by further explanation of how serious this issue is relative to overall progress of the project. Scientific guidance for restoration/enhancement and M&E comes from WDFW scientists. The sponsors should be complimented for bringing the researchers into their project as the publications resulting from the work are applicable to other WDFW Areas. However, the scientists must be stretched thinly to cover all M&E concerns at this area as well as the others in the state. 3) Could the authors present a citation for the statement in their presentation that 2 million sharp-tailed grouse were harvested in one year (1880's) in the Palouse alone and sent back East?

The proponents provided a nice summary of annual activities (restoration, enhancement, weed control, etc.). The choice of subprojects was adequately addressed and noted both scientific and opportunistic drivers, although wildlife management concepts such as connectivity and carrying capacity are also very important. The concern about salmonids seemed to be adequately addressed (both adults and young). Giffen Lake and possible dredging was shelved because of inadequate funds, which still leaves the issue unresolved and possibly getting worse. The ISRP agrees with the manager who rightfully states that the way to monitor wildlife responses is with a team that is specially trained to collect and analyze data. This would be more efficient and produce more accurate results. The response seems to indicate that WDFW "will be" putting together a monitoring team for multiple species on their BPA mitigation projects. It was noted by the sponsor that when a habitat project was monitored for success, he apparently makes a qualitative determination of, e.g., "sparse stand." Hopefully, the activity, specific field observation and response are recorded so that a learning process occurs about what works at each site. The quality of water entering the system was a concern to the ISRP and contacts have been made to evaluate the quality of water entering the system and leaving the system. The responses to the questions are positive and informative.

Schroeder et al. 2008, WDFW - Terrestrial Wildlife and Habitat Assessment on Bonneville Power Administration-Funded Wildlife Areas in Washington: Monitoring and Evaluation Activities, includes some coverage of Sunnyside M&E. Future proposals and annual reports should incorporate this information.

This project is an important program with elements of major riparian and wetland habitats along the Yakima River with potential to benefit numerous focal species in terrestrial, semi-aquatic and aquatic ecosystems. A response is requested on the following: 1. a summary table of how many acres (using current 10,538 acres), have been restored, purchased, treated for weeds, etc… arrayed by time. 2. is a scientific rationale for choosing subprojects - any kind of a habitat network plan or are they chosen on availability/opportunity? 3. are there conflicts between oxbow lake objectives and river reconnection goals for specific fish objectives? 4. original plans to dredge Giffen Lake have not been addressed, it is not clear if the Giffen Lake issue is resolvable by dredging, what will the "renewed attempts" involve? 5. M&E is extremely limited. As stated on p.26-28, several miscellaneous past surveys describe incomplete M&E and need attention, e.g., neotropical birds (only one year of data collected and exists in rough form). Establishment of breeding bird surveys is an important first step as baseline information which is key to gauging success of the habitat work and for linking wildlife population responses to restoration and enhancement. It would be useful to include the "secretive marsh bird" data in the proposal. 6. The statement on p.28 that "Habitat restoration projects are monitored for success, but not formally through the actual vegetative sampling process" needs some clarification as elsewhere in the proposal vegetation sampling is proposed (p.26). 7. The ISRP is concerned about the quality of water being placed on wetlands (it may or may not be a problem). Can this be addressed? 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The sponsors have been consistent in their efforts to restore and enhance and are commended for their efforts to win back habitat values. The project has reached out to partners and co-sponsors to achieve results or resolve problems. The neighboring Yakama Nation projects have similar goals to the Sunnyside work although the Yakama Nation is depending on natural processes over large areas of the landscape for restoration processes whereas the Sunnyside Project relies more on expensive pumps and pipes to reintroduce and maintain hydrological processes. There may be a potential for more interactions between the two projects. They both face onto Yakima River and a common "reach plan" might be worthwhile. 2. Project History and Results The sponsors present a history of the project on a land unit by land unit basis which helps the reviewers understand progress over the years. However, a summary table of how many acres (using current area of 10,538 acres), have been restored, purchased, treated for weeds, etc… arrayed by time would be a very useful addition to the proposal. It would also be useful to learn if there is any scientific rationale for choosing subprojects - is any kind of a habitat network in their sights or are they chosen on availability/opportunism? Are there conflicting objectives between oxbow lake work and goals to reconnect with the river for specific fish objectives? In general, progress towards objectives has been satisfactory, with a few notable exceptions: (1) Giffen Lake project was originally designed to control aquatic vegetation, reduce the amount of pesticide/sediment laden water flowing from agriculture drains, increase waterfowl production, and recover the resident fishery within Giffen Lake. BPA mitigation funds were originally planned to dredge Giffen Lake which has not occurred. It is not clear if the Giffen Lake issue is resolvable by dredging. No details are given on what the "renewed attempts" will involve. Perhaps it might be more ecologically responsible to let the lake fill-in and become terrestrial habitat. Based upon limited field trip observations, the lake now has low fish and wildlife values. (2) Weed and Russian Olive control. The sponsors have a realistic view of invasive vegetation control and note it is a never-ending battle with present technology. Seventeen projects are listed which is a good explanation of accomplishments, but it would be useful to learn how many are specifically related to BPA funding. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods No specific comments. 4. M&E The ISRP in 2007 was concerned about using HEP and HSI for M&E rather than effectiveness monitoring. Although some before and after photos and general observations of various birds and mammals were presented, M&E is extremely limited. As stated on p.26-28, several miscellaneous past surveys describe incomplete M&E and need attention, e.g., neotropical birds (only one year of data collected and exists in rough form). The sponsors note that there are no established breeding bird surveys on and near the wildlife area, and recognize that the establishment of breeding bird surveys is an important first step for obtaining baseline information. This task is a high priority for M&E since baseline data are key to gauging success of the habitat work and for linking wildlife population responses to restoration and enhancement. It would be useful to include the "secretive marsh bird" data in the proposal which was collected over several years by a volunteer. The statement on p.28 that "Habitat restoration projects are monitored for success, but not formally through the actual vegetative sampling process" need some clarification as elsewhere in the proposal vegetation sampling is proposed (p.26). There is recognition that contaminant concentrations of pesticides and herbicides in water in the region often exceed allowable concentrations, but apparently no evaluation has been made of water coming out of the agricultural drain pipe and flowing into their wetland areas. The ISRP is concerned about the quality of water being placed on wetlands (it may or may not be a problem). This project has included construction of ponds and associated wetlands, construction of catch basins and culverts, installation of a lift pump, and installation of a pump to have moist soil management on 114 acres. The ISRP believes it is critical to first analyze the water coming out of the pipe from the agricultural lands for a series of contaminants used on the agricultural lands. Then, as a further evaluation, sample the water after it goes through the ponds and wetlands to determine any improvements in water quality (this could become a classic study). Washington Department of Ecology (perhaps Chad Furl) would be a good contact regarding water quality tests. This could also become a great thesis study at a university, which could perhaps also evaluate movement of various contaminants that bio-concentrate through the food web in the various ponds and marshes. A recent review of monitoring and assessing organic chemical removal in constructed wetlands is available in the journal Chemosphere 74(2009):349-362 and includes sampling designs and techniques. But, the most important phase is to determine what is coming out of the pipe.

The sponsor response indicates a desire to include more effective monitoring and evaluation in the project. Budgetary constraints make this desire difficult to implement. Continuation of low cost monitoring such as photo points to illustrate progress toward enhancement goals, as well as unanticipated results or unexpected events, is encouraged. Wetland vegetation monitoring of plant cover along transects with the goal relating vegetative changes to wildlife use should be a priority. Effective methods to monitor species of interest such as great blue heron, bald eagles, mourning dove, winter waterfowl, and western pond turtles will require creative strategies to be sustainable. The ISRP applauds the sponsor's willingness to find ways to effectively monitor weed control efforts.

The ISRP is also sympathetic to the WDFW budget situation and appreciates the Wildlife Area's attempts to achieve the goals and objectives of this conservation reserve with a small group of dedicated staff and a few volunteers. With regard to the assertion that the staff is trying to increase their effectiveness monitoring by going beyond HEP ("we do feel that monitoring wildlife response to habitat enhancement measures is important as well and we hope that the ISRP will support our efforts to include this type of monitoring in our future contracts") we can only say "Amen."

The ISRP requests a response from the project sponsors including a more detailed description of what will be monitored or a justification why an important wildlife or habitat component of the project cannot be monitored. We realize that funding for monitoring is limited, but with so many possibilities for the area and its wildlife to be affected by non-native species (e.g., exotic plants, feral cats) it is essential that there be some way of tracking the results of restoration actions. Overall, the ISRP felt this project is strategically located and will benefit a variety of wildlife species. 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The technical justification and project significance were well described. This project will help maintain and restore wetland conditions in an area near Lake Vancouver. It will assist in filling gaps between a series of wildlife habitat areas between the City of Vancouver and the Lewis River. The stated emphasis is to create and improve migratory bird habitat, particularly species that occupy riverine lowlands and floodplains, e.g., sandhill cranes. The ISRP previously suggested that the habitat implications for native fishes could be addressed in this project, since the Shillapoo Lake area was undoubtedly an important off-channel rearing site for salmonids and other native species. The sponsors have added some language stating that there should be some benefits to fish habitat along the river, but because of the risk of invasion by non-native species (particularly carp) fish screens will continue to be used to exclude fishes from many of the wetland restoration sites. Other wildlife habitat programs in the area were adequately described, although it does not appear from this proposal that there will be much resource sharing among them. Local universities might be a resource for volunteer monitoring assistance. 2. Project History and Results The proposal did an adequate job of describing the project history and series of actions surrounding the initial and subsequent land acquisitions in the Shillapoo Lake area. Although most of the information was qualitative it does appear that the sponsors have achieved the majority of their habitat restoration goals. Given the duration of the project, however, it would have been helpful to have seen some wildlife data to demonstrate that the newly created habitat was being utilized. 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods The objectives, strategies, and tasks were clearly described. Most have to do with re-establishing native vegetation, controlling non-native vegetation, and promoting wetland hydrology over the majority of the Shillapoo area, and are a continuation of ongoing efforts. Many of the actions involve elements of both wetland restoration and lowland agriculture as the area is gradually transformed from a diked and drained riverine lake to a natural wetland. There were many items listed in the work elements and for some tasks few details were given. For example, the monitoring section mentions tracking the effects of burning as a management tool, but there did not appear to be any tasks targeting non-native vegetation control or native vegetation establishment that specifically involved controlled burns. 4. M&E Project sponsors state that they will continue to perform periodic HEP evaluations for crediting. The ISRP is pleased to see that they have incorporated permanent reference points, treatment/control comparisons, and focal species wildlife surveys into an effectiveness monitoring plan. However, the M&E plan remains the weak link in this proposal. The project managers state their hands are full with the actual tasks of restoring the property. The ISRP needs more details about what will be monitored and how the findings will be used to guide future management activities. For example, the use of photo reference points was not clear (how will they be used to document change?). This area is flood prone, and some flexibility will be needed to get out after a flood to see what happens to wildlife habitat after the flood event. Standardized monitoring by Washington State is mentioned, but no details are presented. Given Washington’s fiscal situation, it is unlikely that the state is going to fund the M&E needed for this project. Although habitat surveys in general will occur on a five-year rotation (except for reference points, which will be monitored annually), more frequent monitoring may be needed for some things. We also encourage the sponsors not to abandon the possibility of monitoring amphibians and reptiles. There are several sensitive amphibians that could make use of the new habitat, and at least one reptile (western pond turtle). Any permanent water bodies created by the restoration work should be occasionally checked for non-native fishes – particularly carp and other warm-water species – and control actions implemented if they are detected. Project staff appears well qualified to carry out or supervise the monitoring work.

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 history with timeline was presented as requested and was quite informative. It indicates that several monitoring projects need to be started. It was useful to learn that some of the native-like grasses may not be self-sustaining in the long-term and that some competition exists between native and native-like species. In most cases weed issues are important, and there is a need to establish native forbs after the weeds are controlled. The rationale for choosing projects was based on those areas in poorest condition, usually related to overgrazing. Choice of projects also included proximity to present sage grouse populations and soil depth which provided a better chance of success. This empirical approach seems reasonable and appears to include the wildlife management concepts of connectivity and perhaps carrying capacity. Some preliminary data (using about 50% of information) was presented from the nested frequency plots, as requested, but the data shows considerable variability which limits the ability to detect changes at this time. The ISRP is hopeful that the nested frequency plots will become very useful in the future. As implied in the Sunnyside comments, WDFW is proposing a more deliberate M&E strategy that will be integrated across all WDFW eastern Washington BPA mitigation projects (refers to Schroeder report), and it seems like a great concept.

This is a thoroughly prepared proposal and meets most scientific criteria with the exception of reporting results. If no data are produced to indicate if the project is meeting goals and objectives (with accruing benefits to wildlife) how can it be evaluated or justified? The sponsors are asked to respond to the following: 1. tabulate the project history along a timeline so that patterns of success and problems can be assessed; 2. metrics are rarely given for Work Elements that have measurable attributes, e.g., Work Elements 1.1 and 1.2; 3. what is the scientific rationale for choosing projects, is any kind of a habitat network planned or are they chosen on availability/opportunity? 4. 125 permanent nested frequency plots established in 2002 to monitor establishment and success of native and native-like seedings - 52 plots were revisited, but no data are presented although there was some general discussion of the findings. Please present this analysis; 5. "Preliminary surveys have been conducted on many of the wildlife areas enabling a brief assessment of data collected to this point. Not all wildlife areas have been surveyed at this stage, primarily because of the time and money required to initiate surveys." How do the proponents plan to prioritize this survey work? 1. Technical Justification, Program Significance and Consistency, and Project Relationships The justification for the Wenas Wildlife Area habitat restoration project is very detailed and builds a strong case for its support using many references and appropriate supporting data. The program is large and clearly significant and enables inclusion of a complete set of landscape and habitat elements for focal species (including major habitats for anadromous fish) with extensive home ranges and migration patterns. The sponsors have good working relationships with numerous other agencies which share common goals for restoration of the habitats of key focal species. Relationships to other projects are described in detail and this project is coordinated with shrub-steppe recovery efforts that are consistent with WDFW’s LT Murray, Oak Creek, Quilomene/Whiskey Dick, Sunnyside, Asotin, Sagebrush Flat, Scotch Creek and Swanson Lakes Wildlife Areas. 2. Project History and Results The project history is described thoroughly in a detailed narrative, but it would be useful to tabulate this information along a time line so that patterns of success and problems can be assessed by reviewers. The sponsors state "When restoration efforts began native species from local watersheds were not commercially available, so cultivars were chosen that had the closest resemblance to the native species." These cultivars are referred to as "Native-like." The proposal would be improved by inclusion of further details on these species. Do the native-like species perform the same ecological functions as native species, and have they caused any problems in the area? 3. Objectives, Work Elements, and Methods Work elements and objectives are commendable and similar to other areas, including reintroducing the sage grouse by 2020, connecting the functional core habitat units by 2015, restoring the natural fire regime (maintain fire breaks), and thinning stands of trees. However, in most instances metrics are not given for Work Elements which could have measurable attributes, e.g., Work Elements 1.1 and 1.2. It would be useful to learn if there is any scientific rationale for choosing projects. Is there any kind of a habitat network in mind or are they chosen on availability/opportunity? 4. M&E The ISRP in 2007 pointed out that HEP and HSI should not be emphasized as management tools. These are for accounting, not effectiveness monitoring. The ISRP wanted to see the number, length, and location of transects used for monitoring and also wanted to see the results of these surveys. This report describes the plots as requested and lists 125 permanent nested frequency plots established in 2002 to monitor establishment and success of native and native-like seedings – 52 plots were revisited, but no data are presented although there was some general discussion of the findings. The ISRP is interested in seeing data, which are important for making proper management decisions. Five exclosures were constructed between 1968 and 2003 to monitor use by big game (especially elk). In 2005, intensive vegetation sampling occurred in all 5 exclosures. One table of percent cover inside and outside the exclosures was presented. No wildlife data were presented, no data on success of weed control activities, or effects of fertilizing on native or native-like vegetation. On page 26-27 the importance of M&E is recognized, but it appears that the collection and use of the data is planned to occur in the future (including integration of wildlife information with habitat information). Schroeder et al. (2008) and Chao 2004 are cited, wherein future comparisons will be made between reference and treatment sites. We wonder if Dr. Schroeder is spread too thin on all of these projects. The sponsor states on p.26 "Preliminary surveys have been conducted on many of the wildlife areas enabling a brief assessment of data collected to this point. Not all wildlife areas have been surveyed at this stage, primarily because of the time and money required to initiate surveys." It would be helpful to learn how the proponents plan to prioritize this survey work. A strategic approach might be encouraged. It seems that data collection schemes for M&E are transitioning.

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 project began in 1991 with major land purchases (now 16,500 acres). Much habitat work has been completed including collecting native plant seeds and commercially growing them to develop a large quantity of locally adapted seed stock for reseeding.

This project has meaningful goals with appropriate monitoring data collected to evaluate the sharp-tailed grouse population change over time. With much management activity on a relatively large study area, the ISRP was pleased to see grouse population increases in recent years. Additionally, the ISRP was impressed with the inclusion of the grouse data in the proposal.

The proposal clearly relates the need for intervention to increase and maintain sharp-tailed grouse populations on SLWA. The proposal adequately describes the relationship between the objectives in the project and the Crab Subbasin Plan. However, because of the continuing decline in sharp-tailed grouse numbers, it is not clear if the facilities and personnel are appropriate to achieve restoration.

The history of the project is effectively documented. Some evaluation of results is included but more indication of possible reasons for the continuing decline of sharp-tailed grouse populations despite intensive intervention efforts is recommended. While results to date are not promising it may be that habitat enhancement activities that are in place, coupled with protection and supplementation, will show signs of success in the near future.

The ambitious monitoring and evaluation component may serve as an example for others if conducted, documented, and distributed effectively. The ISRP was pleased to see plans for monitoring vegetation, planted shrubs, and marking supplemental birds from Idaho and British Columbia. A few additional considerations could improve the monitoring and evaluation component of the proposal. Participants should monitor livestock trespass to ensure the adequacy of smooth wire bottom strand of new fencing. The proposal could include some analysis of genetic composition of individuals on the area as well as samples from birds added annually. These data could serve as baseline information and allow a critical evaluation of the importance of genetics in recovery of these birds.

Measurable objectives in terms of sharp-tailed grouse numbers as well as habitat alterations are clearly stated. The proposal, however, should better present support for the importance of fragmentation of habitats for this population. The sponsors do a good job of clearly indicating the relationship of this project with other projects and identifying cooperative efforts for sharing information on sharp-tailed grouse with other projects.

This is continuing project is tied to protection and restoration of pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, and sharp-tailed grouse. These activities are related to a number of regional programs. However, the priority of this project does not appear urgent.

The proposal includes a good description of project history and tasks accomplished. Some small descriptions of biological benefits achieved are described, but authors should better develop this description, particularly given the amount of time and work that has transpired over the project history.

Data have been collected from all four units of the SFWA. In many instances, these dataset represent more than a decade of work. A consistent ISRP recommendation for a number of years has been the need to relate HEP survey data to actual on-the-ground wildlife responses. It is a disappointment and a serious concern that those results are not yet available for this project. They should receive much higher priority. Given the large, ongoing investment in this project, the ISRP believes it is important to know whether wildlife (particularly ESA-listed species) are responding to the habitat work. The project sponsors seem on track to providing this evaluation, and this type of reporting should be included in annual reports and subsequent proposals.

Technical and scientific background: The rationale for this project is tied to protection and restoration of pygmy rabbits, sage grouse, and sharp-tailed grouse. Similar to previous ISRP reviews of this long-standing project, the proposal provides much detail for monitoring and evaluation indicating awareness of issues missing from many proposals.

Additionally, the ISRP recommends that terrestrial sampling on Fish and Wildlife Program lands follow common sampling methods and some common data collection protocols across the four States involved to enhance monitoring and evaluation of terrestrial systems on subbasin and basin scales. Perhaps the recent PNAMP and CSMEP efforts and the National Resources Inventory sampling procedures and data collection protocols could serve the region.

The proposal included extensive description of budget items, with individual items seemingly having appropriate costs, but the overall project cost still seems high compared to other projects.

Rationale and significance to subbasin plans and regional programs: The proposed work fits in well with wildlife objectives of the subbasins plan, the Fish and Wildlife Program, and ESA mandated concerns on pygmy rabbits, sharp-tail and sage grouse.

Relationships to other projects are well described in the proposal.

Project history: The proposal includes a good description of project history and tasks accomplished. Some small descriptions are provide of biological benefits achieved - more emphasis needs to be placed here, particularly given the amount of time and work that has transpired over the project history.

For example, the following is from page 15 of the proposal under Monitoring: "Baseline HEP work has been conducted on all 4 units of the SFWA, including the Sagebrush Flat, Dormaier, Chester Butte, and Bridgeport units. Although the HEP results have been examined in relation to standard Habitat Suitability Indices for focal species, the habitat data has as yet not been linked directly to the results of wildlife surveys. These surveys include, but are not limited to, aerial surveys of mule deer populations, surveys of greater sage-grouse and sharp-tailed grouse display sites (leks), pellet surveys of deer, grouse, and jackrabbits, breeding surveys of songbirds, searches for songbird nests, winter surveys of birds, trapping surveys of small mammals, and standardized searches for reptiles and amphibians (Schroeder and Almack 2006). Some of these data sets have been collected every year since at least 1994 and some have been stratified by management history and focal habitat."

The response on the monitoring, although generic, did indicate that they had a plan. Sponsors provided information about monitoring and evaluation such as noting that they currently incorporate standard Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs). See general ISRP programmatic comments on HEP; this shouldn't be emphasized as a management tool. In addition, for operation and maintenance projects before and after photographs document the progress and completion of the project. They also provide some general information about monitoring of various mammal and bird species of interest. They should be more specific on the site designs. In the future, ISRP wants to see the number, length, and location of the transects they used for monitoring and the results obtained from these surveys. Also in the future, the ISRP would like more specific information included in proposals or linkages to readily available documents that specify monitoring and evaluation information.

For Giffen Lake, they identify the problems with their first effort but don't describe how they will get around the problems. Thus, Giffen Lake is not scientifically justified at this time.

Not enough information is provided to determine if the restoration work planned for Giffen Lake is likely to be effective. Even with the fuller historical review of Giffen Lake, the ISRP was not able to determine if the sponsors will be able to dredge the lake with the current, proposed project. For instance, the ISRP understands that the springs on the north side of the lake may preclude using heavy equipment there and impact the ability to dredge the lake. The authors did not address how they will plan to proceed with dredging given springs on the north side. Re-reading the initial proposal and the "fix-it" edits, the ISRP understands that there is a pump in the lake (used to move water for moist soil management), but the sponsors do not identify the importance of this pump for dredging. Will the lake be pumped dry to allow dredge equipment access to the lakebed? The ISRP believes sponsors need to prepare a clear, detailed, thoughtful action plan for dredging this lake that includes a time table, equipment necessary, and where the equipment will be stationed at Giffen Lake to dredge. Sponsors should consider the sediment source and evaluate the possibility of managing sediment input first, before dredging -- e.g., a sediment pond at the intake.

Actions related to the project date back to 1992, including ISRP review in 2002 as part of the provincial review process. The SWA is located in the Vancouver Lowlands, and is intended to provide riparian, wetland, and oak woodland habitat across a former lakebed that was drained and developed as agricultural land. A goal of the WDFW acquisition program is to acquire the entire former lakebed and restore it to its former species diversity and wetland functions for wintering waterfowl, while keeping a portion of it in a semi-agricultural state that supports sandhill crane and geese populations. The proposed project should benefit focal wildlife species. It is not clear that the benefits will persist over the long-term because of the great potential for urban pressure on the site.

The proposal clearly identifies the specific objectives in the Lower Columbia River Subbasin Plan and specific parts of the Fish and Wildlife Program. The proposal identifies other similar work but does not identify collaborative efforts. The ISRP encourages collaborative efforts.

The rationale for this project and significance to regional programs is clear. Specifically, the problem of habitat degradation imposing limiting factors on wildlife species is clearly explained. This appears to be a worthwhile project that will benefit wetland-dependent species in the Vancouver Lowlands. Areas targeted for restoration and specific restoration actions are clearly identified.

The objectives are very clearly defined and relate to specific tasks and related to the subbasin plan. The proposal clearly identifies tasks that are related to the objectives. The measurable benefits to wildlife are stated in terms of amount of habitat restored. It appears that reasonable, pragmatic approaches are proposed. An extensive monitoring and evaluation component includes five types of surveys. Monitoring of habitat and of wildlife response to changes in habitat will be done. Evaluation in terms of amount of habitat restored is clearly explained, but identification in terms of wildlife response is not as clearly specified. Identification of specific, measurable benefit to wildlife is recommended.

Information transfer is mentioned but more specific information should be presented. It is not clear that the information obtained will be readily available in a usable format.

The proposal should clearly identify the effect of the habitat restoration activities and resulting wildlife response on fish. Previous ISRP reviews noted the possibility of the potential for negative impacts on fish; the current proposal makes no mention of negative impacts. Indeed, little is mentioned about interactions with the larger lower Columbia River aquatic ecosystem. The ISRP encourages inclusion of a discussion of the effects of the overall actions on fish and aquatic species in the Lower Columbia River ecosystem as part of project reporting.

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.

The sponsors provided an effective, detailed response to concerns raised by the ISRP. The response on the monitoring, although generic, did indicate that they had a plan. This response was quite similar with the response to 200201400, therefore the ISRP evaluation of the response for this project is similar to that presented for 200201400.

Sponsors provided information about monitoring and evaluation such as noting that they currently incorporate standard Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and Habitat Suitability Indices (HSIs). See general ISRP programmatic comments on HEP; this shouldn't be emphasized as a management tool. In addition, for operation and maintenance projects before and after photographs document the progress and completion of the project. They also provide some general information about monitoring of various mammal and bird species of interest. They should be more specific on the site designs. In the future, the ISRP wants to see the number, length, and location of transects used for monitoring and also see results obtained from these surveys. Also in the future, the ISRP would like more specific information included in proposals or linkages to readily available documents that specify monitoring and evaluation information.

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.