The Coeur d’Alene Tribe acknowledges that site-specific management plans need quantifiable biological objectives with explicit timelines. They recognize that data obtained from the UWMEP monitoring program will not be adequate to assess quantifiable biological objectives for specific mitigation parcels and are aware that additional sampling data will be needed to inform adaptive management. The Tribe will use UWMEP data and supplemental sampling data to update site-specific management plans over the next three to five years.

The proponents indicate that they will establish quantifiable biological objectives and an adaptive management framework with the UWMEP project over the next year. The qualification is that the proponents provide this information for ISRP review within one year. This document can be a single product from the three tribes (Kalispel, Kootenai, Coeur d’Alene) implementing the Albeni Falls projects.

Qualifications: 1) Develop an Integrated Pest Management (IPM) plan using current references, then implement and monitor that plan's effectiveness. This should be part of the contract, and the ISRP will examine the results in the next review process. 2.) M&E – Project-wide effectiveness monitoring should begin this year to be able to provide the results of previous O&M activities in the next review cycle.

Please keep in mind that the intent of the review is to be helpful by identifying ways in which the program can be strengthened scientifically. This project was split off from an earlier Albeni Falls Interagency Work Group project which has been monitoring since 2001. Reports were cited in the response with the address of a site to search for the cited document, but not the actual links. Next time direct links to these should be provided. The only annual report located was 2002 in which the Tribe noted monitoring was not funded, although other project participants at that time did report monitoring results or plans. This report also describes additional monitoring in the coming year (2003). No other annual reports were located, nor any management plans authored by the Tribe or Work Group. From this further research by reviewers it does appear that, to date, there has been no monitoring by the Tribe on wildlife lands, and thus there is no issue as to the fate of previously collected data. Implementation of the Unnasch et al. monitoring plan should begin this year such that analyzed results will be available for the next review.

Technically, pest and pesticide refer inclusively to insects and weeds. Integrated Pest Management is a well known weed management strategy, and although monitoring is part of the process, it is not itself a monitoring procedure. The sponsors should develop an integrated weed management plan using current references. The plan should include effectiveness monitoring. The most recent weed management reference cited is 1988. If more recent guidelines are being used, these should be cited.

This might be useful: http://weeds.ippc.orst.edu/pnw/weeds?01W_INTR01.dat.

The proposal and response give no indication of strategies to prevent establishment of new weeds, surveillance, mapping, tracking results, or progress in eliminating existing weeds and preventing new infestations from neighboring lands. Mechanical treatment, use of competing species, bio-controls, and targeted grazing may all be components of an integrated pest management strategy. Spraying weeds is only one component that will hopefully diminish over time. Participation in a CWMA is useful if activities are coordinated across ownerships such that management is implemented on a landscape scale.

Regarding relationships to other projects, why not name other Albeni Falls Interagency Work Group partners when funds are requested to coordinate with these groups? CWMA partners would also be appropriate in this section.

Response is needed on what are the sponsors going to do with their old monitoring data as they transition to UWMEP plan? Also, the sponsors should provide more information on results and adaptive management implications of monitoring to date. 1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships: Much of this is boilerplate also used by other Albeni Falls projects. See comments on 199206105. The only notable difference is that these sponsors did not develop project relationships very substantially. 2. Project History and Results The history is useful. However, results are reported as actions (e.g., planted trees), rather than biological outcomes. For the earlier acquisitions, enhancement HUs are reported. Biological outcomes from effectiveness monitoring would be useful for evaluating project success on earliest acquisitions. The history section also includes some future plans, which are covered in more detail elsewhere and budget justifications that might be better in an appendix. 3. Objectives, work elements, and methods This section is well organized and detailed, basically same as 199206105, except that acreages are changed. Weed control methods are outdated and should be put into an IPM (integrated pest management) context and coordinated with county and neighbors. One detail unique to this proposal merits comment: some of the likely noxious species would be more effectively controlled with fall rather than spring spraying if spraying is necessary. 4. M&E Future monitoring is delegated to the UWMEP project and details provided are consistent with those in 199206105. However, there is little mention of any previous monitoring, for example in project history section. The only reference to any previous monitoring was a statement that tree survival was below the 80% standard. Are there other monitoring results and if yes, they should be included in response. Not a scientific issue, but this project seems heavily staffed compared to similar projects. That may be reasonable, but the justification is not apparent, even with budget justifications included in history section.