The proponents provided extensive, well-thought-out responses to the questions posed by the ISRP including methods for determining desired future conditions (DFC), examples of S.M.A.R.T. objectives, intentions to revise the management plan with clear quantitative objectives and improved M&E, and an estimate of how much additional property needs to be purchased.

The proponents indicate that desired future conditions (DFCs) will be based on vegetative communities within each habitat type contained on their properties. Monitoring will focus on plant species and vegetative cover to track progress toward achieving desired future conditions. Examples of the metrics (types of plants and percent cover values) being developed to characterize DFCs were provided. Progress is being made.

A revised management plan will be completed by the end of 2017. Management strategies to achieve DFCs on different habitat types (e.g., grasslands/sage-steppe and wetlands) are being developed along with quantitative, time-sensitive objectives.

The proponents acknowledge the need to purchase approximately 2,900 acres of additional land to complete their HU loss responsibility. Currently they are seeking properties with riparian habitats similar to their Lavaside and Legacy Spring properties.

This is a substantial improvement from the 2007 proposal. Completion of management plans and selection of implementation methods will provide a stronger base for future program evaluation. Acquisitions and management planning are scientifically justified, but future O&M is not justified until management plans are complete and linked to M&E. The M&E should consist of effectiveness monitoring tools. HEP is suitable for crediting, but not scientifically credible for monitoring. It is important to use population monitoring to validate the results of habitat work. Results from ongoing projects like this one should summarize results to date in the proposals. It would have been informative to have seen the deer radio telemetry results and ruffed grouse point counts summarized. Similarly, there is a need to summarize baseline information. 1. Technical justification, program significance and consistency, and project relationships: The response is adequate, although these sections and abstract include more administrative history than is really needed. Section B includes details of losses, but no scientific approach to mitigation – just acres and HUs. Much of the information that might have been here is in the detailed project history that follows. 2. Project History and Results This section provides significant insight into how the sponsors are envisioning and implementing the project. Results to date are acquisitions and acquisitions in process, with clear priorities guiding those decisions. Results of O&M to date are not detailed. Management plans are being developed, as is a monitoring strategy. 3. Objectives, work elements, and methods The form version of this seems to lack order and there are work elements orphaned from any objective. Objectives need to be put into quantifiable terms and linked to work elements. The narrative clarifies the technical work elements, but not those related to coordination and compliance. These sections need to be better coordinated. Not many methods are cited except for monitoring. 4. M&E General M&E plans are presented, and the overall emphasis on adaptive management seems genuine. Of particular note is formulation of desired future conditions as a point of reference for monitoring and adaptive management. This is too often lacking; nevertheless, more details are needed on the proposed use of adaptive management and how this will fit into M&E. There should be a link to the monitoring protocols referenced, as was requested. It is possible to believe the sponsors consider HEP as a monitoring method; thus, the role of HEP, as distinct from biological monitoring, should be clarified.